|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-14-15 | | scholes: Anyone who thinks that best way to beat Carlsen, is playing tactical complex games, should study Carlsen -Nakamura games. Nakamura, one of the strongest tactical players in the world has often tried to throw kitchen sink at Carlsen. But everytime Carlsen has defended well, and trying to play tactics has often resulted into weak positions which Carlsen exploits to win. But still i think playing aggressive is best way to defeat Carlsen. As, Anand has demonstrated in past two world championships, you cannot beat this guy trying to play solid chess. |
|
| Dec-14-15 | | Fiona Macleod: I think Carlsen is world champion because those who play him do not know how to beat him and those who know how to beat him cannot get past those who stand between them and Carlsen (and that includes me). |
|
Dec-14-15
 | | AylerKupp: <keypusher> Yes, maybe that's the sort of thing that <fisayo123> had in mind. I just wished that he had said that and provided a link to some article supporting his belief. It's fine to have an opinion, and everyone should be encouraged to share their opinions, but I don't think it's honest to present one's opinions as though they were facts. But, of course, that's just my opinion. And, of course. that's a comparison between just two players. It would have been fascinating to see how these 10 GMs ranked the top 10 players in those same categories. But you need to nip this constructive poster stuff in the bud before it becomes a bad habit. :-) |
|
| Dec-14-15 | | Aiuta: <<chancho>> that picure tells us alot. |
|
Dec-14-15
 | | keypusher: I am sure there will be some good videos posted about this game. As has already been pointed out, 30....Rxg4 was strong. The main Stockfish line runs 30....Rxg4 31.hxg4 (31.exf7 Qe1+ loses as per abuzic's post) 31....Qh2+ 32.Kf2 Nf4 33.Rg3 Nxe6 34.Rf3 Kg7. But those last two moves are awfully hard for a human to see, especially a human in time trouble. So why did MC risk 30.fxe6? He probably saw that 30.Nxe5 Qe1+ 31.Rf1 (31.Kh2 dxe5 32.Nd6 Ng3!! is deadly) Rxg2+ 32.Kxg2 Qg3+ 33.Kh1 Qxh3+ is an immediate draw. So, needing a full point to tie for first, not seeing a clear path for Black after 30.fxe6, and being a true chess skeptic, he demanded that Black show him a winning line, as drukenknight used to say. |
|
| Dec-14-15 | | Eyal: One interesting comment made by Grischuk himself after the game was that he rejected 31...Qe1+ (which should lead to a draw by perpetual after 32.Rf1 Rxg2+ 33.Kxg2 Qg3+ 34.Kh1 Qxh3+) because of 32.Kh2(?) Nf4(!) 33.Ng4, missing 33...Ne2! and mate; in the brief discussion they had after the game, it turned out that Carlsen also missed 33…Ne2 in this line. |
|
| Dec-14-15 | | BOSTER: <Eyal>.
After 31...Qe1+ 32.Kh2 Nf4
33.Ng6+ Rxg6 34. Qc8+ Kh7 35.Qd7+ Rg7 36.Qxg7 Kxg7 37. Rxf4 Qxd2 black'll win ,but noy so fast. |
|
Dec-14-15
 | | thegoodanarchist: <tamar: keypusher, the category Non Chess Impact on Opponents seems dubious to me, especially after they rated Magnus higher on Mental Resilience, which overlaps. Girl today said that Magnus had incredible luck, > Funny how World Champions are always considered to be lucky. |
|
Dec-14-15
 | | perfidious: <Eyal>'s last post points up how very easy it is for even the greats to overlook a denouement which they would almost certainly find fairly quickly in situations less fraught with tension than the climax of a critical game into which they have poured all their energy. In Lasker's day, the good doctor would have been accused of necromancy after balancing on a knife edge and coming away winner as Carlsen did here. |
|
| Dec-14-15 | | mrbasso: Funny how World Champions are always defended by weak chess players.
Giri is an expert and if he says Magnus had incredible luck then it's probably true and I'm sure he also admits to have had incredible luck in own games. |
|
Dec-15-15
 | | Gypsy: <Audentes Fortuna Adiuvat> |
|
| Dec-15-15 | | Absentee: <mrbasso: Funny how World Champions are always defended by weak chess players. Giri is an expert and if he says Magnus had incredible luck then it's probably true and I'm sure he also admits to have had incredible luck in own games.> It could be true if there were such a thing as luck in chess. |
|
Dec-15-15
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Does luck exist in chess? Well, maybe. A famous tall tale exists in connection with the game R Quesada Sr vs Prins, 1952, but this fable of absurd good fortune at someone else's expense was just that, a fable. However, we cannot win a chess game without mistakes by our opponent, so are we not lucky when they blunder? I do consider myself quite fortunate to have won some of the games I did. |
|
| Dec-15-15 | | Absentee: <An Englishman: However, we cannot win a chess game without mistakes by our opponent, so are we not lucky when they blunder? I do consider myself quite fortunate to have won some of the games I did.> Luck implies some random, impalpable factor. Your opponents have full knowledge of the position and choose the moves they make. There is nothing random about it. What you're talking about is skill (or lack thereof). |
|
| Dec-15-15 | | Fiona Macleod: 1. your opponent didn't see a saving/winning move because he was distracted by someone/a random event which happened near your table; 2. your opponent just had a quarrel with his/her spouse and couldn't concentrate; 3. your opponent's cellphone rang during the game;
4. you just won a lottery the day before the game so you were in high spirits and played magnificently; 5. your opponent was hit by a bus going to the playing hall and was defaulted; 6. He managed to come but had a high fever;
7. You studied an opening the day before and that was the very same opening your opponent chose to play; 8, Your opponent, during his turn, absentmindedly touched the wrong piece during the game and the arbiter happened to pass by when it occurred . |
|
Dec-15-15
| | keypusher: < perfidious: <Eyal>'s last post points up how very easy it is for even the greats to overlook a denouement which they would almost certainly find fairly quickly in situations less fraught with tension than the climax of a critical game into which they have poured all their energy.
In Lasker's day, the good doctor would have been accused of necromancy after balancing on a knife edge and coming away winner as Carlsen did here.> Come to think of it, interesting parallels between this game and Lasker vs Maroczy, 1924. |
|
Dec-15-15
 | | chancho: Carlsen gets compared to Anatoly Karpov, and there is something to that comparison. But to me, Magnus Carlsen is the Emanuel Lasker of the 21st century. |
|
| Dec-15-15 | | john barleycorn: <chancho> for me there is also a lot of Schlechter visible in Carlsens way of play. |
|
| Dec-15-15 | | Ulhumbrus: After 21 f4 Black has the bishop pair and central pawn superiority. His king is however somewhat exposed to attack, and his a pawn is isolated, and Carlsen has an enormous lead in development. Carlsen's overall advantage is however minimal or even questionable even if he can make count his lead in development. He has to find a way to attack before Grischuk can gain the advantage. Instead of 22...a5, 22..Qc6 makes a counter-attack upon White's e pawn 25...Bxa6 brings White's queen into the attack on the queen side. Instead of this 25...Bd7 keeps White's queen out. After 26 Qxa6 Black's a5 pawn and d6 pawn are both attacked 28 Nb5 goes after Grischuk's d6 pawn. Grischuk can defend the pawn temporarily by 28...Be5 but unfortunately for him his bishop can be attacked - and so the d6 pawn undermined- by 29 Ng4 If 31 Nxe5 enables Black to draw by 31...Qe1+ an alternative is 31 Nxd6 undermining the bishop on e5 With 32 Qxe6 Black's centre is overrun and Black's king is exposed to attack so Griscuk has no enough time to make a draw by ...Qe1+ |
|
Dec-16-15
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: Very thought-provoking observations, <Absentee>. Let's take a look at your last sentence: "What you're talking about is skill (or lack thereof)." When you defeat a higher-rated player (which I suspect you do often), obviously at some point in the game your opponent played with less skill than normal. Might it not count as your good fortune that the opponent picked that point in the game to play with less skill? The first time I defeated an Elo-2300 player, he failed to spot the moment when I had left a Knight en prise. How often does a 2300 player do that? Honestly, that felt like good luck to me at the time. I do agree that there is no bad luck, only bad moves. |
|
| Dec-17-15 | | builttospill: I side with <An Englishman>. Is chess a game of skill? Absolutely. Those skills include time management, pattern recognition, strategic understanding, tactical calculation, technique, opening knowledge, top-down and bottom-up thinking, and consideration of opponent's skill sets. The combination of all of these and other skills, however, can only make you more or less likely to win, however. You put yourself in position to get lucky. The reason for that is that we have imperfect knowledge of every chess position. Because of time constraints, we cannot calculate everything. When we exercise time management skills, we might have made a smart decision that still makes us lose due to not having calculated everything. Bottom line is, as long as you can't calculate everything, there is luck involved. Another aspect of luck in chess comes from situational factors. Did you oversleep and your clock run down before you got to the board? Did you not sleep at all, making it hard to concentrate? Did something happen in your personal life? Is it too cold in the room? Every variable you add can produce different outcomes. Environmental variables that can lead to different outcomes are known as channel factors in Social Psychology. I love rationalism and the thinking it produces, but we are not rational creatures. |
|
| Dec-21-15 | | talwnbe4: 30. fxe6 ? is a mistake but 30.. Rxg4 isn't obvious. Stockfish finds the winning line in a few seconds but here I have 2 engines Fritz and Rybka that didn't consider it winning (or the best move) after 5 minutes analysis on a fast computer core 2 2.4 Ghz. Rxg4 does seem awfully good and it's curious that Grischuk's 29.. Qh4! sets up this possibility. |
|
Dec-21-15
 | | diceman: <john barleycorn:
for me there is also a lot of Schlechter visible in Carlsens way> Yes, "Carl" Schlechter & "Carl"sen. :) |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | yurikvelo: Carlsen was winning twice and losing once
27.Qxa5! (27.Rf3? + 28.Nb5? = draw)
30.Nxe5! or 30.Nxd6! draw, but he played losing 30.fxe6?? Grischuk didn't find this mistake and didn't play winning 30. ... Rxg4! but played draw 30. ... fxe6? 32. ... Qe1+??? decided outcome of this game
multiPV: http://pastebin.com/Gb9c2RsX |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | yurikvelo: <2 engines Fritz and Rybka that didn't consider it winning>
Runs on clear Hash:
Komodo-9.3-multiPV-3
-1.02 @ D=12, 2.2 MN
-1.24 @ D=19, 53 MN
Komodo-9.3-singlePV
-0.48 @ D=15, 2.6 MN
-1.26 @ D=19, 16.7 MN
SF7-multiPV-3
-0.87 @ D=10/16, 0.44 MN
-1.02 @ D=13/24, 1.27 MN
SF7-singlePV
-0,51 @ D=11/19, 0.44 MN
-1,14 @ D=14/27, 1.11 MN
Rybka4-multiPV-3
=0.00 @ D=5, 14k
-0.54 @ D=14, 4.63MN
Rybka4-singlePV
+0.39 @ D=6, 25k
=0.00 @ D=7, 53k
-0.62 @ D=16, 20MN
-1.18 @ D=17, 75MN
Even Rybka4 find Rxg4 as best move in less than 1 sec.
To reach -1 eval it takes second for modern engine, but for Rybka it takes 2:58 min (at hardware capable of 11 MN/sec Stockfish) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
icon.