|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-31-13 | | jussu: The row of short draws between Keres, Petrosian and Geller in Curacao would have been the worst possible option for them, had they been worried about Fischer. Playing it out between the big three would have simply given one or two of them more points, leaving Fischer even further away from the position that was evidently way out of his playing class at that moment. |
|
| Mar-31-13 | | Petrosianic: They weren't. They were worried about each other. Everybody thought Fischer was too young and inexperienced to make a serious run that early. They were right. |
|
| Mar-31-13 | | Petrosianic: They weren't. They were worried about each other. Everybody thought Fischer was too young and inexperienced to make a serious run that early. They were right. As you say, if they were worried about Fischer, the thing to would have been for two of them to throw points to the third, which didn't happen. Fischer's claim was that it was Korchnoi who threw points to all three of them, but even Fischer himself didn't believe that by the 1970's. |
|
Mar-31-13
 | | keypusher: Anyway, judging from today's game against Radjabov, Carlsen will not blame others for his own shortcomings. What an amazing performance! |
|
| Mar-31-13 | | JustAnotherPatzer: <Petrosianic: The fact that you think the 2013 Candidates Tournament is about Bobby Fischer demonstrates just how irrational this viewpoint really is> What an absurd misrepresentation of my postings! The irony is that YOU're making it about Fischer, not me. As to your belief <Petrosianic> that the points i raised have been refuted, no, not at all, not to my satisfaction they haven't, nor to the satisfaction of many others, some of whom, i'm sure, are far more qualified to evaluate the matter than either of us. But that's as maybe, whether they colluded to shut Fischer out or not, a secondary, offhanded, concern i used to facilitate my central argument; or whether they colluded solely to conserve their energy for their games against non-Soviet finalists, does not change the fact, b/c fact it is, that they DID collude! As to <jussu's> point, he too, albeit less so, is distracted by the tangent i introduced to illustrate my central point that collusion between certain current finalists (Russians and a former Soviet) is by no stretch an outlandish proposition. After all, as i say, the Soviets-cum-Russians have form and you can't wish this ugly little fact away. But much more relevant ofcourse are the events of the last few days - what happened 50 yrs ago merely serves as a backdrop thereto, a telling point of departure. This page demonstrates that i'm not alone in being at a loss to explain Kramnik's team mate Grischuk's shockingly inept performance (above). I'm equally unalone in being appalled by Ivanchuk's string of inexplicably self-indulgent losses, if 'self-indulgent' they were - that's the point ofcourse - all too conveniently ceasing in his bizarrely aberrant time mismanagement from the moment he sits across the board from tournament leader Carlsen. I'm not saying, necessarily, that Ivanchuk threw his games, but that he might as well have, b/c for all practical purposes he did. Cui bono? Kramnik bono, the leading Russian, who'd give his eye-teeth to have another crack at the man who vanquished him. The powerful Russian Federation too ofcourse, or more precisely the many bureaucrats who comprise it and for whom it'd be every bit as much a dream come true for them as it would for Kramnik were he to snatch back the crown for them from fellow emergent BRICS nation India. You don't need a fertile imagination to, clairaudiently, hear the - hypothetical - conversation(s) between players and long-serving apparatchiks. Even the most dullwitted could pen an adequate script that i'm sure wouldn't be too far off the mark, allegedly. Do i have sufficient evidence to charge the Russians and Kramnik's former Soviet team-mate Ivanchuk w/ colluding to attempt to freeze out long-established World Number One Carlsen (who was, arguably, frozen out of even entering the previous Candidates cycle)? No, ofcourse not! But to attempt to cast such speculation as ridiculous or "irrational" when there's demonstratively sufficient grounds to atleast suspect it, is itself both ridiculous and irrational. |
|
| Mar-31-13 | | jussu: In short, you don't have any sane reason to suspect any foul play in the current Candidates tourney, but you choose to accuse them anyway, simply because you can. I see that you have even figured out what Ivanchuk's role was. Kramnik payed him to win against Carlsen, didn't he? |
|
| Mar-31-13 | | Petrosianic: <JustAnotherPatzer>: <As to your belief <Petrosianic> that the points i raised have been refuted, no, not at all, not to my satisfaction they haven't, nor to the satisfaction of many others, some of whom, i'm sure, are far more qualified to evaluate the matter than either of us.> Yes, they have (been answered to your satisfaction). Anyone who knows as much about the issue as you do is well aware of the refutations to every point you raised. Goodness knows they've been posted often enough. By ignoring them, you're in effect conceding them. Try to rebut the rebuttals, and then we'll have something to talk about. <What an absurd misrepresentation of my postings! The irony is that YOU're making it about Fischer, not me.> LOL. |
|
| Mar-31-13 | | Petrosianic: <JustAnotherPatzer> <Do i have sufficient evidence to charge the Russians and Kramnik's former Soviet team-mate Ivanchuk w/ colluding to attempt to freeze out long-established World Number One Carlsen (who was, arguably, frozen out of even entering the previous Candidates cycle)? No, ofcourse not! But to attempt to cast such speculation as ridiculous or "irrational" when there's demonstratively sufficient grounds to atleast suspect it, is itself both ridiculous and irrational.> I'm glad to hear you say that, because I'm making similar charges about Radjabov throwing the game to Carlsen today. Everyone knows Rad doesn't like Kramnik for costing him the match against Topalov a few years back, so that and Rad's awful endgame play is all we need to toss the accusation around (while conceding that it falls short of 100% proof). We're on the same side on this one. I don't care about Kramnik, in fact I (stupidly) wrote him off at halftime as not belonging in the tournament because he clearly wasn't even trying to win. But I've been wanting to get you fanboys in this kind of position for years now. What a shame that Carlsen will always be under this cloud of suspicion even if he wins the title. But, as you say, it's far from irrational. |
|
Mar-31-13
 | | perfidious: This has become a massive circle jerk, complete with comedic relief provided by <JustAnotherPatzer>. The facts have been marshalled, clearly proving <Patzer> wrong, yet he persists in his misguided view. Guess if the sun is shining and it is 80 F outside, but <Patzer> tells us it is 30 and there's an ice storm, then it's wintry out there. Period. End of story. |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | JustAnotherPatzer: <jussu> I have <no sane reason> to suspect collusion? What, when 'Ruski' has form lol? When one chuk 'chuks' away a draw that a 1500 bulleteer could fairly be accused of 'chuk-ing'? Another chuk, under severe time pressure dillys and dallies, dithers and dawdles in positions that have but one, sub Monday puzzle, solution, and then, on a whim, opts to manage his time responsibly against the 'outsider'? I'm perfectly sane, you're just blinkered. <Petrosianic> i'm not here to discuss whether young Fischer was a serious prospect to win the '62 Candidates, i'm simply establishing that Soviet collusion occurred over a sustained period to promote the world title winning chances of a Soviet player over the 'decadent' westerners, one of whom was the young, extraordinarily gifted Fischer and that if it occurred then, why is it 'insane' or 'irrational', so hysterically out-of-bounds to suspect it might happen today when it's still the case that nowhere is chess more of a cultural fixture than in Russia where the top players are feted like superstars and enjoy tremendous prestige? <perfidious> As if you're an honest broker? I've marshalled my facts allright, so if all you have by way of response is a crude ad hom you can xxxx right off. |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | jussu: Grischuk explained in the press conference why he assessed the pawn ending to be drawn; he was short on time and naturally resorted to what he thought was forced draw. If you have never encountered a drawn pawn ending with a protected passer then I can only suggest that you should play some chess. |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | JustAnotherPatzer: How ELSE would he explain it? "I gave him every chance earlier on, swapping off my good N for his bad B ...[etc] .. " While it may not look straightforward to you now <jussu> when you become a 1600 i assure you you won't make the same rudimentary error, time pressure or no. |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | Petrosianic: Don't feel too bad. JustAnotherPatzer agrees that the Radjabov-Carlsen game was suspicious too. |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | jussu: <1600> Oh, that explains it! |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | JustAnotherPatzer: Now, atlast, i can come clean. You see i was hoping that my legitimate concerns might, against the odds, filter back to the relevant parties keeping them on their toes, putting them back on the straight and narrow, prophylaxis ahead of the Ivanchuk-Kramnik game. It seems to have worked a treat xD Can y'all imagine the uproar from the crazy conspiratards had Ivanchuk lost on time again, as it appeared he might? You'd never have heard the last of it ... believe me. Now rejoice!
"Hurrah for Dixie!"
** flings hat into crowd** |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | JustAnotherPatzer: April Foo-oo-ool!!!
The Russians collude to freeze out a non-Soviet young genius? Are you MAD? That's <irrational>! Nea, it's <insane>! How could y'all even consider entertaining such a crackpot batshxx crazy conspiracy theory as THAT? ROL! |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | Petrosianic: <JustAnotherPatzer> "I lost this argument so badly, I hope you'll believe I was just kidding all along." (crosses fingers, kisses horseshoe, and picks four leaf clovers)." |
|
| Apr-06-13 | | lost in space: 
click for larger view30. Bxd4???
A patzer move. So terribly bad that no one can expect it from a player rated higher than 500 ELO points. The right way to play this position is to sac Pb3: For example 30. Ke3 Nxb3 31. e6! Ke7
(31...fxe6? 32. Bg7! and it is white who wins this game) 32. exf7 Kxf7 33. Be5 c6 34. f4 Nd4 35. Kd3 Ne6 36. f5 
click for larger viewwith only slight black advantage |
|
| Apr-06-13 | | Eyal: <30. Ke3 Nxb3 31. e6! Ke7 (31...fxe6? 32. Bg7! and it is white who wins this game) 32. exf7 Kxf7 33. Be5 c6 34. f4 Nd4 35. Kd3 Ne6 36. f5
with only slight black advantage>
Why not 34.Bc7 with advantage to White? I think that in one of the later press conferences, Grischuk mentioned that he even analyzed it to a win, and that Black's only way to <hold the draw> after 30.Ke3! is by 30...Ne6. |
|
| Apr-07-13 | | lost in space: Thanks <Eyal>, will check it. Haven't seen 34. Bc7 but it really looks good. Will post the result of my findings. Is it known why Grishuk played the obviously losing move 30. Bxd4 when there was this much better 30. Ke3 - nearly winning or even winning (and even seen and analyzed from Grishuk during the game)? |
|
| Apr-07-13 | | lost in space: 30. Ke3 Nxb3 31. e6! Ke7 32. exf7 Kxf7 33. Be5 c6 34. Bc7!
click for larger viewOnly way to continue here for Blacks seems the following line: 34...b5 (seems, all other moves lose directly) 35. axb5 cxb5 36. cxb5 Ke6 37. b6 Kd7 
click for larger viewwith only slight advantage White; Will check this position further on if there is a white win. |
|
| Apr-07-13 | | lost in space: Yes, and when now it comes to 38. f4! a4! 39. f5 a3 40. Be5 Kc6 41. Kd3 the white advantage is getting more and more obvious!
click for larger viewFor example: 41...Na5 42. Kc2 Nc4 43. Bg7 a2 44. Kb3 Nd6 45. Kxa2 Nf7 Still not easy to win, but it is very obvious that only white has chances. 
click for larger view |
|
| Apr-11-13 | | JustAnotherPatzer: Mein Gott! <lost in space> only confirms my original thinking when i followed the game live, that before Grishy's inexplicable blunder only he had possible winning chances w/ black's K side pawns fixed on dark squares. |
|
| Apr-11-13 | | Eyal: <30.Ke3 Nxb3 31.e6!> <e6> is such a thematic move for White in Berlin Wall games, if he can execute it at an appropriate moment; it played a major role in both of the classical games that Kramnik lost in his career in this line (Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2001;
Karjakin vs Kramnik, 2011). The bit with Grischuk that I mentioned earlier appears a round later, when he talks to Trent after his game with Carlsen finished (http://new.livestream.com/WorldChes..., "Round 11 - Part 3" at about 10:00). He says that after 30.Ke3 White is close to winning - 30...Ne6 loses (I'm not sure how) and 30...Nxb3 31.e6 Ke7 can hold but just barely, with 6-7 only moves that Black has to find. |
|
| Jun-01-13 | | wordfunph: "Everyone says I am a great specialist in this Berlin [Ruy Lopez] endgame but in fact this is my first classical victory in this line!" - Vladimir Kramnik |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
