< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Sep-13-13|| ||parisattack: <Pulo y Gata ...On Kamsky's opening choice, he had played the exchange variation and even the delayed exchange many times in the past and it didn't mean he's looking to draw his game.>|
Yes, I think it is a mistake to think the Exchange Lopez(es) are just for when white is after a draw. True, they require a delicate touch to get anything out of it. But there is plenty of literature on the Exchange variations (10 books or more) suggesting they are at least the makings of a good fight.
5. 0-0 was considered quite harmless when Fischer sprung it on Gligoric and Portisch. Perhaps it is again today - but perhaps that will change once more as theory continues to evolve.
|Sep-13-13|| ||csmath: <Kamsky also possesses a very high level understanding of positions>|
Of course, I am guessing that here his choice of "simplifications" were because he was simply tired of the game. In the end he simply just abandoned the fight.
It could also be that Magnus is simply too good that this did not work out. But according to reports it seems that Kamsky was not intending to play Exchange RL before the game, it just happened at the spur of the moment.
This is another thing about Kamsky, lately he seems to be less prepared and make decisions impromptu. He might be truly playing for fun but I can testify that it is not any fun in losing like this.
|Sep-13-13|| ||ptrckmackay: I believe that Carlsen has been taking advantage of the fact that today's elite GM are prodigy kids with extraordinary memory who at a very early age learn to play chess and most importantly learn hundreds of opening theory lines which is more than enough to push them to the 2700 elite club without really having an extraordinary chess understanding and calculation skills like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekin, Nimzovich, Botvinik, Tal, Fisher, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand. Therefore, all that Carlsen needs to do to win tournament after tournament is come out of the opening with an even position and there use his better understanding of the middle game and endgame to win games. His opponents get lost on the middle game and end up with slightly lost games. This was exactly the same approach of Capablanca but for him was easier because opening theory was limited at that time and access to it was difficult and expensive, so the prodigy kids with great minds could not learn thousands of opening lines from a data base like it happens today.|
|Sep-13-13|| ||Pulo y Gata: In competitive chess, strictly speaking, no one really plays for fun. It's a good copy though when you say that after you win a nice game, like, "I really was just playing for fun." Kamsky didn't say he was playing for fun. I take his statement to mean he'd rely on his chess understanding and just play the actual position he gets. That may mean he's not preparing as he should, but that's his call. |
But I agree, it's painful losing like this.
|Sep-14-13|| ||lost in space: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
Seems, that 14...Ng4 is not common (I guess it is not new). I our database there is no game with 14...Ng4, all went on with 14...Bc5. This move is also good enough at least for a draw - as you can see from the games given in the link
|Sep-14-13|| ||Sokrates: It would be interesting if someone would make a book on this variant of the Ruy Lopez/Spanish. Lasker and Fischer had some brilliant victories playing this, the most famous (as we know) being Lasker's victory over Capa in 1914. Perhaps Kamsky had this in his mind, when capturing on c6. He certainly looked broken in the interview. Is it the hard truth that this great player is simply overmatched in the company of Carlsen, Nakamura and Aronian?|
|Sep-14-13|| ||Pulo y Gata: Overmatched? That's simplistic. Kamsky is capable of great results as the names you cited.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||actinia: okay. this game was bad. any 2100 bullet player on any site would play f3 instead of nd2. kamsky should play a few thousand bullet games to gain a chess sensibility, then come back and try against the big boys. I was a Kamsky fan from the late 80s to mid 90s. he produced great games, such as the white game against Kramnik where he gave up the f2 pawn with check in a candidates game, only to reroute the dark square bishop to a3, threatening Bd6 Kamsky vs Kramnik, 1994. that was his peak. I am not now a Kamsky fan, because he has not done the requisite work, including 1 0, 2 0, 3 0 games on any major site, such as icc, playchess, chess.com|
until then he will not gain the intuition that all of today's stronger players are ingrained with.
Again. I started playing chess online around 1995, when it was only text-based, with *p representing a black pawn. Kamsky cannot escape this inexperience and evolution. I will not be a fan until Kamsky masters the basics, such as 1 0, 2 0, 3 0 on any major site. then he can gain intuition, and then he can call himself a master again
TL;DR: ANY 210O BULLET PLAYER WOULD PLAY F3 INSTEAD OF ND2
|Sep-14-13|| ||JoergWalter: <Pulo y Gata: Overmatched? That's simplistic.> overmatched and undersexed.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||actinia: *edit* the bullet player would make the move without even thinking about it. the arm, hand, and index finger would make the move before the brain could process it, in less than the one second that it takes a typical strong bullet player to make a move
|Sep-14-13|| ||JoergWalter: <actinia> http://www.chess.com/members/view/F...|
that is the one
|Sep-14-13|| ||Pulo y Gata: <actinia> We are honored and humbled by your presence here.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||perfidious: It is odds-on that <DarkNolan> is dismayed by the disapproval of <actinia>, and consequent withholding of his affection.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||Domdaniel: <Marmot> Thanks - I hadn't seen that Beliavsky game with 14...Ng4. But the move seems pretty strong -- it's interesting that a large majority of players have opted for the less dynamic 14...Bc5 in that position. I wonder whether Carlsen saw 14...Ng4 over the board, or had seen the idea in prep.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||Domdaniel: <ptrckmackay> -- < His opponents get lost on the middle game and end up with slightly lost games.>
I know what you mean, I think ... but what is a "slightly lost" game? Lost is lost. The concept seems a little bit like being slightly pregnant or slightly dead.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||micartouse: <actinia: Again. I started playing chess online around 1995, when it was only text-based, with *p representing a black pawn. Kamsky cannot escape this inexperience and evolution. I will not be a fan until Kamsky masters the basics, such as 1 0, 2 0, 3 0 on any major site. then he can gain intuition, and then he can call himself a master again>|
No doubt he would have loved to acquire this crucial skill, but I hear he was busy at the time playing matches with Kramnik and Karpov. Maybe you can help bring him up to speed?
|Sep-14-13|| ||parisattack: <Sokrates: It would be interesting if someone would make a book on this variant of the Ruy Lopez/Spanish. Lasker and Fischer had some brilliant victories playing this, the most famous (as we know) being Lasker's victory over Capa in 1914.>|
There are several books in English on the Exchange Lopez variations. One of the more recent: 'The Spanish Exchange: A Fischer Favorite' by Kindermann.
|Sep-14-13|| ||ptrckmackay: @Domdaniel
I wanted to write with a slightly worst endgame.
|Sep-14-13|| ||devere: 17.Nd2 is a strange looking move!|
|Sep-14-13|| ||actinia: <micartouse>
actually Kamsky retired from chess when online chess acquired things like graphical user interfaces. he only returned to chess a few years ago
|Sep-17-13|| ||Sokrates: Many thanks <parisattack:> I should have done more research - sorry! :-]|
|Nov-30-13|| ||actinia: <JoergWalter> I am honored that you think I have such distinction. A US master! Such an honor. I am merely a talented amateur.|
|Nov-30-13|| ||actinia: why f3? because it must be played anyway. the knight is better placed on c4 than d2... it can hop to e3, if it is forced to|
|Nov-30-13|| ||actinia: I am not a US master.|
|Dec-02-18|| ||RookFile: <kamsky should play a few thousand bullet games to gain a chess sensibility>|
Hard to even know where to begin to respond to such a statement. Of course this statement is not true on any angle you want to look at it.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·