|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-07-09 | | twoinchgroup: MindBoggle writes in reply:
<Pogonina writes:
<"Unbelievable mistakes for their level. That's what is expected from A-class or lower players, not super GMs. Inexplicably weak play by Wang Yue, and Carlsen's performance has been far from outstanding.">This, in my opinion, is not only rude, as some have pointed out, but it's also a good example of bad reasoning. What's more, it's a well known mistake in reasoning that beginners often make. A beginner who just lost to a stronger player will say: "I played inexplicably weakly, making such and such mistakes that I normally never make." I always answer:
"No. You played exactly as you always do. But unlike always, you played someone who took advantage of your mistakes, and so they didn't pass unnoticed like they always do." This case is no different. Wang and Topalov play exactly like they always do - they just met somebody who knows how to exploit weaknesses they didn't even knew they had. Carlsen is a stronger player. That's how he manages to make everybody else in this field look weak. - and Pogonina is too strong to not know that. Pointing out theoretical imperfections is fine, but concluding that the players are playing weakly is just stupid, frankly. They're not. And if she played them, she'd find out soon enough.> Nothing more need be added...truth has been spoken and that is enough. Thank you MindBoggle. |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | SimonWebbsTiger: This discussion reminds me of Kasparov. In an interview he spoke of how his wins needed a critical eye as they too contained mistakes. That interview is on youtube. Garry talking sense again and showing why he was so great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KK... |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | SimonWebbsTiger: something else worth noting on GM games and their mistakes are the comments made by Tal in his famous book of the 1960 match versus Botvinnik. See his introduction to game 12 where he finishes by saying a tense, full blooded struggle, free of mistakes, is only to be found on interplanetary tournaments! |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | tanuri: Yeah yadda yada, she;s not a robot yeah yeah..
I am just saying, you cant say stuff like "These kids don't know the meaning of chess" and go unnoticed. She spoke without reason and with heart, because, yes, chess is a sport also, and lot of people talk without reason. |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | DeepFriedLiver: all my friends say...
that of course it's...
gonna get better...
gonna get better...
better better better better...
better better better! |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | Xeroxx: I think that ILikeFruits and I Like Fish most certainly are Nigel Shorts joke accounts. |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | Matt Tsjakk: Wow. Weird stoner poem. Really made me laugh. Fantastic stuff. Stopped at the right place too. |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | donehung: Is it just me or is Carlsen playing like a man possessed. Poor Wang seems to be cannon fodder for Magnus. |
|
| Oct-09-09 | | notyetagm: 32.Rcb1? Both players were not in bad time trouble. [Here many spectators wanted to see the dramatic shot 32.Rxc6!! , partially without knowing exactly why. Here's why: 32...Rxd4 (32...Rxc6 33.Nxc6 Rxd3 34.Nxa5 also produced two extra white pawns; 32...Bxd4 33.Ra6+ ) 33.Rxd4 (33.Rxc7? works after 33...Rxd3 34.Rc8+ Bb8 35.Rbxb8+ Ka7 36.Ra8+ but Black simply plays 33....Rxb4.) 33...Rxc6 34.Rxh4  and White has two extra pawns.] |
|
| Oct-09-09 | | Eyal: <WannaBe: Following 17. b4, black have never won with this opening/line!!
Quite surprised that Wang chose to go down this path...> This just goes to show that opening statistics can be misleading - especially where there's a very small sample of games, like here. Wang Yue actually came out very well of the opening, and would have had excellent winning chances had he found 23...Ne7! Until move 20 they were following Ngoc Truongson Nguyen vs B Predojevic, 2008, where Wang Yue deviated by playing 20...h5! instead of exchanging pawns on g3 before that. Apparently it's better to leave the pawn on f4, since it prevents White from playing e3 as Nguyen did, limiting the scope of Black's bishop and thus the pressure on White's K-side. Carlsen's 21.Rab1 was criticized
(instead of 21.a5, which however seems to allow Black at least a draw by perpetual after 21...h4 22.g4 Bxf2+ 23.Kxf2 f3) - but perhaps the fault already lies at 20.Nb3, and White should play instead Nf3 to help defend the K-side. |
|
| Oct-09-09 | | Bondsamir: Is white so dumb to lose this game?. Yue should go back to school. |
|
| Oct-09-09 | | abscissa: This game is so flawed. Fritz says black is much better at move 20, and has so many feasible continuations. I can't believe Carlsen got away with this. |
|
| Oct-09-09 | | vsark: This game was very exciting! |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | Atking: <(instead of 21.a5, which however seems to allow Black at least a draw by perpetual after 21...h4 22.g4 Bxf2+ 23.Kxf2 f3)> Eyal have you an analysis of this line? Doesn't look obvious to me. I can see that 24.exf3 h3 or 24.Bxf3 Qxh2+ 25.Kf1 Nde5 should not escape to at least a perpetual but what about a challenging 24.Nbd4 fxBg2 25.a6 e.g 25...c5 26.Nf3 Qc7 27.axb looks very double edge. 27...Qxb7 28.Ra5 or 27...Nde5 28.NxNe5 NxNe5 (...QxNe5? 29.Qa2 Kc7 30.Qa7) 29.Qe4 Nxg4+!? 30.QxNg4 g1=Q 31.RxQ Qxh2+ 32.Rg2 Qe5 33.Ra8+ Kxb7 34.Qf3+ Kb6 35.Ne3 with pieces like Queen and Rook white N seems stronger than the passed pawns. |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | Sbetsho: <abscissa> That is true in many many games that Carlsen has managed to win. |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | Atking: Therefore I don't understand what's wrong with simple move like 21...fxg3
(On 21.a5) |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | Atking: <Sbetsho: <abscissa> That is true in many many games that Carlsen has managed to win.> Carlsen didn't win more games he could have lost in this tournament than Topalov. In fact this is the only one in which he was in a "clear" difficulty. It's easy to go wrong in this one too. If you looks in details, Carlsen's games are incredibly complex. But of course with Fritz at hand... |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | Eyal: <Atking> You're right, it isn't necessarily draw by perpetual - the line that you give can lead to a very double-edged game (27.axb7 Qxb7 looks bad "simply" because of 28.Nd6 - maybe relatively best for Black is 27...Qb6 28.Kxg2 Rhe8). 21...fxg3 might be better - in this case, the line my computer recommends as best for both sides is the rather forcing 22.hxg3 h4 23.Nxc5 Nxc5 24.f4 (of course not 24.Qxc5?? Rd1+!) 24...b3! 25.fxe5 bxc2 26.Rxc2 Nb3 with slight advantage to Black (?). In any case, if White cannot get anything better than this after 20...h5 - and he doesn't seem to have anything objectively better than 21.a5 - then, like I said, some significant mistake by White seems to have beem made prior to that - perhaps on move 20. |
|
| Oct-29-09 | | Atking: <Like I said, some significant mistake by White seems to have beem made prior to that - perhaps on move 20.> I saw you suggested Nf3 instead of Nb3. Yes interesting. I still have some difficulty to understand fully the gambit line with 17.b4. Black somewhat consolidate on dark square in this game (Ba7). Why not a simple move as 16.a5? e.g 16...a6 17.b4! (A more classical way to gambit that pawn) 17...h5 (17...Bxb4 18.Rfb1 BxNc3 19.QxB Ka8 20.Ra3 eventually 20...Qe5 21.Bxc6!) 18.Ne4 Qe5 19.b5!!? is the idea I would try here. Of course axb is definitively weakening, but QxNf5 20.bxc Nc5 (20...Rc8 21.cxNd7!) 21.Qb2 looks god for White (To much pressure on queen side) Else cxb 20.Rfc1 Nc5 21.Ng5 Rd7 22.Ra3 b4 23.Rb3 Idee fixe the diagonal 23...f6 24.Rxb4 fxNg5 25.Nd4 Qg7 26.Nb3 This position has something of a King gambit. A Piece down but nothing clear. <Eyal> Could you test this line with a computer. A bit too much for my brain. May be that is another way to play the opening. |
|
| Oct-29-09 | | Eyal: <Atking> The line that you give is interesting and White does seem to have enough compensation for the piece, but Black can probably improve in several points - most importantly with [16.a5 a6 17.b4 h5 18.Ne4] <18...Nde5> where his pieces are better placed (if White doesn't really have to defend the knight on f5, then Qe5 might be a waste of time). But the 16.a5 idea might be worth exploring in any case - maybe we'll see it yet... (this is a relatively new line - all the games in the database that reached the position after 15...Kb8 are from 2008-9). |
|
| Oct-29-09 | | Atking: Thanks <Eyal> for that try. I'm still not sure that my line up favors White but yes <18...Nde5> is useful and balanced which both protects and initiates threats on king side. Maybe 19.Rfc1 fxg 20.hxg h4 (20....Qc8 seems a bit too slow 21.Nc5 h4 22.b5 axb 23.a6 BxNc5 24.QxB QxNf5 25.axb Nf3+ 26.BxNf3 Rd1+ 27.RxRd1 QxQc5 28.Rd7 even if 28...Qa7 29.RxQ KxR white has Rc7 ~Rc8orxc6) 21.b5 h3 and here I don't know. 22.Bh1 h2+ 23.Kf1 looks more dangerous for White than Black 22.Bf1 is too passive and not connected with the previous moves. Thus the crazy 22.bxa hxB 23.Rcb1 Qc8 24.Rxb7+ QxRb7 25.axQ Rh1+ 26.Kxg2 RxRa1 or 22.Bf3. Anyway this is very interesting. Maybe - as you noted - we should have to wait the next months for an or many answers. |
|
| Nov-04-09 | | magikk: According to me, after 0-0 blacks are bad! |
|
| Nov-12-09 | | abscissa: It's not easy to go wrong in this game or in any other games. Not for a 2750 strength player. |
|
| May-06-10 | | jsteward: Yue resigned because?????????????? |
|
| May-07-10 | | Poulsen: <jstward><Yue resigned because??????????????> He is missing two pieces - for two isolated pawns, that has no chance of promotion. The only chance for a draw - apart from a Carlsen-blunder - would be exchanging rooks - and hope that Carlsen would not be able to win a two-knights endgame - such as this one: V Vepkhvishvili vs Sikovsky, 1992 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
