|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-08-21 | | technical draw: Forget about Nepo deciding to discontinue the match. Three reasons. One: No paycheck. The loser should receive 800,000 Euros. But if he retires he probably won't get any money. Second: He probably will never be considered for world championship matches again. This may be a little hard to enforce but sponsors get nervous if one of the players is a known quitter. Three: Nepo is a professional. He knows there are more tournaments and matches in his future and a lot of those tournaments are invitationals. Winners don't quit and quitters don't win. So to Nepo I say: Borron y cuenta nueva and good luck in your next tournament. |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | mrbasso: << scutigera: Carlsen stepped out of the CG.com database with 5. Bc5. Does anyone know if this position has come up elsewhere by transposition? Stockfish gives it a +0.12, and since it gives the initial array a +0.36, Carlsen's move looks like a solid addition to theory, in addition to being a line Carlsen would know much better than Nepo did. >> 5...Bc5 was played several times and the
game
Moujan, Pablo (2253) - Rodriguez Perez, Rene (2208) went like this one with a small transposition until 11...0-0 when it continued with 12.Bxe7 instead of 12.d4. But these are all Patzers who bareley know how to move the pieces. They have no right to claim an opening novelty! Only 2600+ are entitled to do that... |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | ajile: Bummer, the wheels are coming off for Nepo. |
|
Dec-08-21
 | | keypusher: < 1 harrylime:
It's clear the engines keep flaggin up Carlsens' mistakes...A Fischer would punish him. Fischer was a chess engine.> Chess engines never blunder bishops.
Probably the worst blunder in Fischer-Spassky, not in terms of consequences but in terms of �I can�t believe he didn�t see that� was Spassky playing �Nd7 allowing Nd5 here: 
click for larger viewFischer vs Spassky, 1972 About as myopic as c4-c5 today. But of course it didn�t lose a whole piece. The errors in Games 1 and 13 in 1972 weren�t nearly as obvious. |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | fabelhaft: Short excerpts from the game, where Carlsen according to some intended to move his knight but then changed his mind after 32 seconds: https://twitter.com/chesscom/status... |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | Toribio3: No Match. Nepo is not a robust challenger! Let us wait for Alireza for the next candidates tournament. Alireza will be the next world champion. |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | chessic eric: <MissScarlett: Can Leko step in for Nepo for the rest of the match?> This is EXACTLY what I said when I heard Leko must be part of the effort... |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | VerySeriousExpert: The first mistake in the game was 3...d4. |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | mrbasso: I remember when Aronian was the ELO favourite with a 2830 rating 2014. He finished on the 6 place of 8. So I don't wait for Alireza. |
|
Dec-08-21
 | | harrylime: <<keypusher: < 1 harrylime:
It's clear the engines keep flaggin up Carlsens' mistakes...
A Fischer would punish him. Fischer was a chess engine.>Chess engines never blunder bishops.
Probably the worst blunder in Fischer-Spassky, not in terms of consequences but in terms of �I can�t believe he didn�t see that� was Spassky playing �Nd7 allowing Nd5 here: click for larger view
Fischer vs Spassky, 1972
About as myopic as c4-c5 today. But of course it didn�t lose a whole piece. The errors in Games 1 and 13 in 1972 weren�t nearly as obvious.> > Bobby obviously made mistakes.
The book by Eli Agur on him devotes a whole chapter to his blunders lol lol Don't get too sucked in to some of my posts on here ! x |
|
| Dec-08-21 | | Albertan: This game is annotated by GM Wesley So (elo 2772)at the following link: https://en.chessbase.com/post/world... Another painful loss for Nepo:
https://new.uschess.org/news/anothe... |
|
Dec-08-21
| | harrylime: Nepo v Magnus
lol lol lol lol |
|
| Dec-09-21 | | SChesshevsky: Think this a fascinating opening. Really not sure what to make of it. It's like almost a reversed Benoni or almost some sort of reversed Sicilian Dragon or ...c5 KID or almost a Catalan. Then white ends up with almost hanging pawns. In the Candidates, Nepo got a good Catalan v. Alekseenko with c4 and g3. But here, though I don't get the feeling Carlsen fully equalizes in the opening, think the idea ...d4 and ...Nc6 is really effective at hindering white as to coming up with clear plan with punch. Then ...a5...a4...a3. Wow. Has to be confusing at a minimum. Maybe a good example of the mastery Magnus has in knowing what a position really offers and doesn't offer him and his opponent. |
|
Dec-09-21
 | | perfidious: <mrbasso....But these are all Patzers who bareley [sic] know how to move the pieces....> Yeah, 2200 players are nothing in this world of ours and scarcely deserve to exist. (rolls eyes) |
|
| Dec-09-21 | | technical draw: <keypusher> <Chess engines never blunder bishops.> You know I don't really think it was a blunder. Of course Fischer saw that his bishop could be trapped but I think his mistake was thinking he would get 3 pawns for the Bishop or that with two kingside pawns gone he may have had a chance for a successful attack. I would consider it a blunder if Fischer did not realize his bishop would be trapped. (Like I am wont to do). |
|
Dec-09-21
| | keypusher: < technical draw: <keypusher> <Chess engines never blunder bishops.>
You know I don't really think it was a blunder.> Yes, there are about 20 pages of people making that very same error on the game page in question. There's even a small, obstinate, heretical sect that demands the move be given an exclamation point. If you take yourself from a dead draw to a near-loss via a completely gratuitous bishop sacrifice, you've blundered. I don't think anyone would deny it if St. Bobby wasn't involved. |
|
| Dec-09-21 | | technical draw: Thanks <keypusher>. I'll have to visit the game page. This has all the markings of a conspiracy theory. |
|
| Dec-09-21 | | technical draw: <keypusher> You're right. There is a lot of analysis on that infamous move but only Fisher knows for sure if he blundered in the traditional sense (like not seeing that the bishop could be trapped) or he blundered thinking he would get a winning position after the "sacrifice". For those interested here is the game we are alluding to: Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 |
|
Dec-09-21
 | | moronovich: It was not easy for Spassky to beat Fischer after -Bxh2(?)/?.But it was for Magnus to beat Nepo after 27.c5??. |
|
Dec-09-21
| | keypusher: <moronovich: It was not easy for Spassky to beat Fischer after -Bxh2(?)/?.But it was for Magnus to beat Nepo after 27.c5??.> Like insects and asteroids, blunders vary greatly in size. |
|
| Dec-10-21 | | SChesshevsky: <technical draw: ...I don't really think it was a blunder...> Think more of a miscalc much later down the line. My May 2019 post on game page explains possible idea and missed move. |
|
| Dec-10-21 | | technical draw: <SChesshevsky> <he (Fischer) saw definite drawing chances but also with a long shot winning possibility.> I agree. Fischer would not make a seemingly losing move unless there was some future benefit. Was Fischer asked about this? I'm too lazy to look it up so I'll take a guess and say Fischer replied that he thought he had at least drawing chances. Anyway that move will be talked about every time a GM makes a blunder. |
|
Dec-10-21
| | moronovich: <Like insects and asteroids, blunders vary greatly in size.> Lol ! So true. |
|
| Jan-13-22 | | dunkenchess: Another loss |
|
| Jun-27-22 | | Ulhumbrus: Nepomniachtchi took black's b7 pawn with his king's bishop and got his bishop trapped after the reply ...c6. This seems useful to know about. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
