|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Oct-25-09
 |
| hedgeh0g: <Could you tell me what the purpose of 12.Qh5 is?> It pressures the damaged Black kingside and attacks a lot of loose pawns. Maybe there's some deeper meaning to it, but it looks like a good positional move to me. Plus, I think it's theory. |
 |
| Oct-25-09 |
| Funicular: Yeah, just take a look at white's position by move 12, minor pieces canīt go anywhere, Q-side pawns canīt do nothing good, the natural way is to attack on the K-side, which is highly weakened by double f pawn. And if you donīt mind the theory, thereīs something quite more graphical, just flip the board and see for yourself how nasty Qh5 feels when you're black |
|
Oct-25-09
|
| hedgeh0g: Oh, and it's worth noting it prevents Bxd5. |
|
Oct-25-09
 |
| RandomVisitor: After 12...Rg8:
click for larger view<[+0.10] d=24 13.g3> Rg5 14.Qd1 Bxd5 15.exd5 Ne7 16.Be2 Rg6 17.c3 Qb6 18.Nc2 Qb7 19.Bf3 e4 20.Bh5 |
|
| Oct-25-09 |
| WhiteRook48: this game is not at all like Kramnik's alleged later boring games |
|
Oct-25-09
 |
| Richard Taylor: Kramnik is clearly a great player but he is playing at the top level and to stay there is very very difficult. Critcism of these
player is mostly very unfair.
Kramnik 's style is perhaps more subtle than say Anand's, but he hasn't been "in form" - I belive he is ill. I wouldn't attempt to play like Kramnik (even if I was any where near his rating which I am hugely not!). But the point is I admire such players in their ability to play difficult "positional" games - (all games of course are "positional" but I mean the more or less quieter more convoluted games. (And Kramnik rightly played the Berlin v Kasparov, Kasparov himself had to "solid up to beat Petrosian (in fact he said he had to learn how to play like him). But I have also seen him attack
and play very complex, or sharp, positions, very well. As I would say he is probably out of form. He will either decline like Short etc or come back. But good on him for his achievements which are not inconsiderable. How many of us are be over 2000 (or 1800 - most on her are probably not even 1800, and that is no shame, as I repeat, chess is a massively difficult game) let alone IMs or GMs? Let alone playing at the level of Kramnik, Ivanchuk etc I admire Kramnik and Topalov whether they win the World Champs or not. Tarrasch never on the Word Champs but he played some wonderful games of chess, as did Rubinstein, Keres and Krochnoi and many others we could name. People who do so forget that chess is difficult game - immensely so. |
|
Oct-25-09
 |
| SugarDom: The pun would have been more effective if the game lasted just, say, 24 moves.... |
|
| Oct-25-09 |
| tivrfoa: <Richard Taylor> Well said! |
|
Oct-26-09
|
| RandomVisitor: After 11...Be6:
click for larger view<[+0.28] d=25 12.0-0> Bg7 13.Qh5 f4 14.Nb1 0-0 15.a4 b4 16.Nd2 a5 17.g3 |
|
Oct-26-09
|
| Richard Taylor: <tivrfoa: <Richard Taylor> Well said!> Thank you. I am not a strong player but I appreciate these many players of various gifts and different styles. Kramnik persuaded Shirov to play the Sveshnikov by the way... |
|
Oct-26-09
 |
| kevin86: did I miss something? Black can gain a bishop after the queen exchange and has two bishops for the rook. Wasn't resigning in error? |
|
| Oct-26-09 |
| gmalino: <kevin86>, yeah, your missing ....31. Qc4#. |
|
Oct-26-09
|
| hedgeh0g: <Richard Taylor> To some extent, I agree with you. However, I feel there is something inherently wrong in being paid to play a game where, as Black, you consistently play the most boring lines possible to ensure quick draws. Obviously, Kramnik is a strong player and some of his games clearly indicate his ability to wade through tactical complications and it's a shame he doesn't seem to have more of a "winning spirit". While some people are quick to jump to his defense in the face of criticism, I feel that some of this criticism is justified for the aforementioned reason. |
|
Oct-26-09
|
| Richard Taylor: He isn't paid to play in any particular style. That isn't an FIDE rule. (They have enough stupid rules as it is). The object of chess is to win...or draw...or lose! But one tries to win - however that is achieved! It is "boring" to lose...but not to win!
And a draw is a great result - often meaning that both players have played well... To get this in perspective - most chess games end in draws, especially at IM or GM level. Now to win is hard - so Kramnik adopted a certain style, which is his. As did Petrosian. In fact it would be foolish for him to change if it means he loses needlessly. Topalov is happier in complex positions. Carlsen is not always very interesting either BTW. He is a bit like Capablanca - one almost feels he is (or was) already losing interest in chess...my guess is that Kasparov had to really push him for his lastet victories. This is no criticism, everyone has a different way of looking at chess (and life in fact). Kramnik has done well. No one would be interested in player who lost so many games trying to be interesting that he never won any tournaments, and his or her rating stayed low. We might not like it - but chess is about winning - no matter how. Actually in the Anand-Kasparov WC match Anand missed (or avoided is the right word I think) many opportunities to make Tal-like attacks which could well have rolled Kasparov...but he obviously felt that "discretion was the better part of valour" ... but no one can blame him versus Kasparov (well you could call him a coward if you liked): but he was up against the World Champion of Preparation. |
|
| Oct-26-09 |
| ycbaywtb: this is the kind of fun game i dream of playing |
|
Oct-26-09
|
| hedgeh0g: <Richard Taylor> I know he isn't paid to play in any particular style, but remember that funding is a direct/indirect result of spectator interest. If you always play the Petrov as Black, you're not really providing the spectators with much of a show. I think tournaments which invite very strong players who aren't in the top 10/20 are often more entertaining than those that do. I just feel it's a bit of a shame when a lot of bland play is rewarded with invitations to the next big event, when players like Short, Nisipeanu, Van Wely, etc. would provide more entertaining games. |
|
Oct-27-09
|
| Richard Taylor: This is all crap - Kramnik's style is just different - nothing boring about his style and what is wrong with the Petrof - it is fascinating opening. God help help us if Chess becomes a game for spectators - let chess players be free to decide their own styles and their own moves. Even if they get no money. Chess is for chess not for money. What a mean attitude to try to trammel a player because you or someone else holds the cash or the purse strings...No! To hell with this crap! |
|
Oct-27-09
|
| hedgeh0g: <Richard Taylor> How am I "trying to trammel" Kramnik? I'm just stating an honest opinion: giving credit where credit is due (many of Kramnik's games are quite superb), but also noting that aspects of Kramnik's recent play warrant criticism (willingness to settle for quick draws via employment of the Petrov). Yes, his style is different and I totally respect quiet, positional play. However, there is a difference between playing positionally and playing the Petrov for quick draws. Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone in stating this), I prefer more exciting games where both players are fighting for a win. You obviously see the beauty in 15-move Petrovs, which is fine, but please be aware that not everybody shares your opinion. <Chess is for chess not for money.> To you and me, yes. For <professional> players, obviously enjoyment of the game is crucial, but the very definition of <professional> implies money is involved as well. I'm sorry if your view on the matter is so one-dimensional that you blow a fuse whenever anyone offers a differing viewpoint, but that's life. |
|
Oct-28-09
|
| Richard Taylor: Come on Warthog! You are someone I know!
No?
Anyway - I don't enjoy 15 move Petrov draws (how many of those are there? I have seen a brilliant 25 move win by Anand against Ivanchuk..admittedly it was all preparation but...) but I know I once lost a game in 6 moves to a Petrov! Anyway - I disagree. I don't want the Russian FIDE Mafia inferring with how I play chess. But I didn't mean to be too rude (to you) - I meant to be rude but I am not angry with you - just your ideas! But, as you say: "C'est la vie" |
|
Oct-28-09
|
| hedgeh0g: "Warthog"? Haha, am I supposed to be offended?
<I know I once lost a game in 6 moves to a Petrov!>
<I don't want the Russian FIDE Mafia inferring with how I play chess.> This isn't about you. This is about professional chess. I've said my bit. You obviously disagree, so I'm not going to repeat myself. |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| Yerbamate: i'm bad player but 27 Rxd4 maybe can force draw somehow? i see many variations , what fritz12 say about this moment of game? Anyone? |
|
Oct-28-09
|
| hedgeh0g: <Yerbamate> I think White would get smashed after 27...Ra1+, picking up the rook on e1 and another piece to follow, since the rook on d4 and knight on e3 are both under attack. |
|
| Nov-02-09 |
| AnotherNN: Not that it matters very much but at 26, Black could have played Ra1+, then 27. KxR Qa5+ 28.Kb1 Qa2+ 29.Kc1 Qa1+ 30.Kd2 QxP+ 31.Bc2 QxB++. Who knows; there's the likelihood White would have resigned at Ra1+...! |
|
Nov-02-09
 |
| Phony Benoni: <AnotherNN> Not quite, I'm afraid. After 31...QxB+ White has 32.NxQ, freeing up a flight square for his king on e3. |
|
Nov-11-09
 |
| David2009: Brilliant game, brilliant pun. 18 ...Bh6! is indeed astonishing (<acirce>, <notyetagm>, <percyblakeney>).
18 ...axb5! also wins in a pedestrian manner: 19 Bxb5+ Nxb5 20 Rxd8+ Rxd8 and Black will win
on material and/or by direct attack: 
click for larger view
E.g. 20 f6 Bd6. Perhaps the White plan of O-O-O etc is suspect. <Nov-19-04 percyblakeney: 18. ... Bh6 is indeed a nice move. If 19. Qxh6, mate follows after 19. ... Rxc2+ and either 20. Bxc2 Ne2# or 20. Nxc2 Nb3#.> |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
icon.
