|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-16-17 | | ChessHigherCat: I didn't say he was "the" greatest tactician ever, but he's certainly one of them, and I reserve the right to my subjective opinion without a lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Nobody would dispute the claim if I had said "Tal". The real problem is that Caruana is alive and professional chessplayers are the most envious people imaginable who shudder when anybody praises a living rival. |
|
Jun-17-17
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Quite the picturesque position after 28.Rf8! Nice to see the Poisoned Pawn at the highest levels again. |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | Imran Iskandar: Fab has won four times over Naka in the last two years to bring their head to head score from 6-1 to 6-5 to Nakamura. |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | Everett: To each their own with their opinions. Yes of course everyone's terrific tactically. I simply wouldn't put Caruana in the top 5. I think he's done a terrific amount of work. And he had to, because he is not naturally as quick as his peers with tactics in faster time controls (this is well known), and went through a rough spot facing the Sicilian a bit back. He does remind one of Alekhine with the heavy pieces. That's about it. |
|
Jun-17-17
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi ChessHigher Cat,
" Nobody would dispute the claim if I had said "Tal". This site reminds me of a quote by George Bernard Shaw: "Put an Irishman on the spit and you can always get another Irishman to turn him.” Try posting that Tal was the greatest ever tactician and someone here will argue with you. Over at Chess.Com this top 5 of greatest tacticians was put forward. 1. Alekhine
2. Morphy
3. Smyslov
4 Bronstein
5. Capablanca
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/ge... I think we should both go over there and sort them out! |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | ChessHigherCat: Hi Sally Simpson and Everett,
Does "one of the greatest" mean "the greatest" in Irish? If so, after how many whiskeys? I didn't even say in the top 5, and that sort of quantitative obsession (contrary to you guys, obviously) strikes me as absurd. If I say "Oistrakh is one of the greatest violinists who ever lived", does that mean the "top 5" and who the hell cares to be frank? You also have to take into account that Caruana has years ahead of him so you can't compare him with the full careers of historic players. On top of that, he doesn't play NNs who "let him spread his wings" as he put it. Finally, in the context of my argument, which always falls by the wayside in such idle polemics, I meant it was obvious that such a fantastic tactician as C was obviously going to crush his opponent in that position, even if his opponent is a 2800 player, which says it all about rankings. |
|
Jun-17-17
| | Sally Simpson: Oistrakh was naff, the greatest violinist was Yehudi Menuhin. ;) |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | Everett: Yeah, you didn't say top 5, you said the best currently, which in my eyes makes even less sense. So, my response is quite natural. You say one guy is the BEST, I say there are at least 5 guys better, currently. Nothing wrong with this thinking. That's fine. All well and good. Just don't see it, and wanted to see if you had some specific metrics or somesuch. No worries. |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <Everett: Yeah, you didn't say top 5, you said the best currently> Sorry, I didn't mean whiskey, I meant LSD tabs. Where the hell did I say "best currently"? Feel free to cut and paste the relevant passage. |
|
Jun-17-17
 | | tamar: Caruana said afterward that to play the Poison Pawn, you had to study every possible move, no matter how unlikely, and that is how he knew the position had a miracle save with ...Rf8 |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | ChessHigherCat: < tamar: Caruana said afterward that to play the Poison Pawn, you had to study every possible move, no matter how unlikely, and that is how he knew the position had a miracle save with ...Rf8> Rf8 was pretty amazing. It looks like the rook is lost but he had that super-slick hiding place waiting for him. You could trick your opponent into wasting a lot of time and moves trying to trap the rook if you have that move prepared. |
|
Jun-17-17
| | tamar: What distinguishes Caruana from the other top players is his thoroughness. He had been nearly 100% certain that Black would choose 17...Rh7 or 17...Rg8, but found time to study 17...Nc6, the move Nakamura chose. So he studied that possibility not only up to where he won a piece, but past that to
22...Rxh2 23 Rxe7 Rh1+ 24 Bf1 Rf8 
click for larger view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE7... |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | zanzibar: <tamar> maybe I didn't pay close enough attention - but listen from here... <NS - starts, FC comments how amazed he is at Nak's calculational powers "He deserves a draw"> https://youtu.be/oE7z-O_pwfc?t=347
<FC- "The thing is that you know about the possibility, but you don't know how difficult it is."...
NS - "(Referring to Nak, amazed to see White with move and piece up, but Black has drawing chances) ... the guy's a genius." FC - "... I prepared this... I mentioned Nc6 as an interesting option, and basically my notes say that nobody will ever go for this. ... but then he went for this ... but Ng8 was a very unwelcome surprise"> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE7... . |
|
| Jun-17-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <Tamar> That was an interesting video, with Nigel Short, no less. Having watched it didn't change my mind about Caruana being one of the greatest tacticians, rather I think there are some common misunderstandings about what a great tactician is. It's not necessarily the person who calculates most quickly like a computer but rather the player who best uses: 1) his knowledge of the game to come out on top in tactical skirmishes (nobody said a tactician had to be an ignoramus mainly driven by off-the-cuff inspirations), 2) his knowledge of the other player (C was constantly talking about his analysis of how far Nak had seen ahead), 3) his imagination (whether in preparations or during the game). There are certainly other factors, too, like not losing your head when all about you are losing theirs, but I think the ones I mentioned are more important than most closely mimicking Stockfish, which strikes me as a rather degrading objective for humans. |
|
Jun-17-17
| | tamar: <zanzibar, CHC> thanks for the comments.
Caruana is very modest in the video. He realizes that the engines show 7 ways to draw after 8 Qd3, but in a way,knowing that and still studying the variations with such curiosity is a remarkable talent. Nakamura perhaps did not study 8 Qd3 as thoroughly, and Caruana openly wondered during the interview whether he had seen some of the variations only in passing and was struggling to recall them, since it seemed impossible for a human to go so far down an engine path without study. |
|
Jun-17-17
| | Sally Simpson: Hi C.H.C.
" but I think the ones I mentioned are more important than most closely mimicking Stockfish, which strikes me as a rather degrading objective for humans." Agree 100% with that and the whole post.
---
It does appear there was some opening shadow boxing going on. Here
click for larger viewin Caruana vs Nakamura, 2016 Nakamura played 7...h6 and walked into a minefield. This time he opted for 7...Qb6 a position he has never had as Black and Caruana has never had as White. Here
click for larger viewNakamura as White a few months ago in Nakamura vs I Nepomniachtchi, 2017 played 8.h3 and won. Nakamura may have picked up an improvement from after game analysis for Black and was perhaps wondering did White have an improvement on his own play as White v Nepo. But Caruana slip out 8.Qd3 and had Nakamura hoping around the minefield again till he trod on one. |
|
Jun-17-17
 | | keypusher: <Sally Simpson: Hi C.H.C.
" but I think the ones I mentioned are more important than most closely mimicking Stockfish, which strikes me as a rather degrading objective for humans." Agree 100% with that and the whole post. > I suppose a lot of people think improving at chess is a waste of time, but it's strange to see that attitude endorsed on the website. |
|
| Jun-18-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <keypusher: <Sally Simpson: Hi C.H.C. " but I think the ones I mentioned are more important than most closely mimicking Stockfish, which strikes me as a rather degrading objective for humans." Agree 100% with that and the whole post. > <I suppose a lot of people think improving at chess is a waste of time, but it's strange to see that attitude endorsed on the website.> This doesn't imply improving?:
<It's not necessarily the person who calculates most quickly like a computer but rather the player who best uses:1) his knowledge of the game to come out on top in tactical skirmishes (nobody said a tactician had to be an ignoramus mainly driven by off-the-cuff inspirations), 2) his knowledge of the other player (C was constantly talking about his analysis of how far Nak had seen ahead)> |
|
Jun-18-17
| | tamar: <zanzibar> I think he is saying Naka deserved a draw and maybe even more... if he had calculated everything on his own and not chosen 22...Ng8 <FC - "... I prepared this... I mentioned Nc6 as an interesting option, and basically my notes say that nobody will ever go for this. ... but then he went for this ... but Ng8 was a very unwelcome surprise"> I think he is saying "but Ng8 was a very welcome surprise." Welcome to Fabio because it loses badly, and welcome also because it told him that Nakamura neither knew the variation, nor was producing a tour de force of over the board calculation that would be of genius level. |
|
| Jun-18-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <Sally Simpson> Thanks, I didn't know the history behind that game. <But Caruana slip out 8.Qd3 and had Nakamura hoping around the minefield again till he trod on one."> Excellent metaphor. That's how I used to feel when I used to blitz with IMs in the park: Now what trap am I going to fall into? Sometimes friends would tell me: You can learn all about it by reading this chess book (and that one, and that one), but Keypusher's right (coincidentally it seems, since he obviously didn't read what I wrote) that I have never had (or found) the time for an infinite amount of book preparation. Unfortunately, I have to work for a living and my job leads me to study other infinitely time-consuming fields (like foreign languages and literature). In chess, I admit I have a dilettante attitude, in the etymological sense of delighting in it without mastering the craft, just as I enjoy great musicians without devoting myself to endless hours of practice. |
|
Jun-18-17
| | Sally Simpson: Hi ChessHigherCat,
It was just my take on what was possibly going on in the opening. Here.
click for larger viewmy 8.h3 should of course be 8.a3 and yes people have played Qxb2 here and resigned after 8...Qxb2 9.Na4. (If Caruana had lost that one he would have been lambasted for setting opening traps and showing no respect.) "I have to work for a living and my job leads me to study other infinitely time-consuming fields (like foreign languages and literature)." The bright side is you can buy and read foreign chess books without waiting for them to get translated....and hiked up in price. Not too sure what K.P. means, maybe he picked up on the mention of Stockfish and ' closely mimicking Stockfish' thinking you cannot improve unless you use a computer. Yes a computer can help but it makes me wonder how everyone (including me) improved before chess computers were invented. The pre-computer age produced some brilliant chess players (me not included.) |
|
| Jun-18-17 | | Saniyat24: Never seen a position like it happened in this game after White's 28th move. A remarkable game, at the highest level...!! |
|
| Jun-18-17 | | WorstPlayerEver: <The pre-computer age produced some brilliant chess players (me not included).> Consider us lucky; without the masters of the past engines wouldn't be so strong as they are now. |
|
Jun-18-17
| | Sally Simpson: Hi W.P.E.
The old great masters kept chess in the public eye and popular, add in all the editors of chess magazines, the newspaper column writers. The 1,000's of unknown organisers and unpaid controllers who help run tournaments and of course the unpaid posts of all those who kept chess clubs running. (in my experience it has always been down to one or two dedicated individuals in every club.) Without all those the creating and building of a chess machine for the general public may not have been a viable financial idea and the progress they have made today may never happened. And whilst here, do not forget the person who introduced you to chess and the great debt you owe them (yes I know sometimes we curse ever knowing the game...but we love it really.) |
|
| Jun-18-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <Sally Simpson: Hi W.P.E.
<The 1,000's of unknown organisers and unpaid controllers who help run tournaments and of course the unpaid posts of all those who kept chess clubs running.Without all those the creating and building of a chess machine for the general public may not have been a viable financial idea and the progress they have made today may never happened.> Going back to your earlier post (sorry for the delay but i just staggered off a 7-hour flight), I actually managed to trap somebody once with that poison pawn variation Na4, but really strong players usually have an antidote to the poison in the more sophisticated variations. About financing, I'm glad you mentioned it because I'm curious how they managed to attract all these superstars to this tournament. I remember hearing that Norway had the world's highest per capital income (and lots of fish, if not of the chess-playing variety, unless you count sharks like MC). Did they offer huge prizes and all expenses paid trips for everyone? The only player I really missed there was Ivanchuk, and Shirov. They are some great tacticians (hear-ye, hear-ye, i did not say that they are both the greatest tactician who ever lived :-) Shirov was never anywhere near 2800 but would he really get shellacked by these guys? He always struck me as invincible. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
