|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-10-08
 | | alexmagnus: <Just ask Smeets and Stellwagen who will be playing in it next year....> They are invited just because they are Dutch. I can't remember any (young and not yet top rated) player invited directly to the A group. |
 |
| Sep-11-08 | | PinkPanther: <alexmagnus>
I know, but the point I am making is that these tournaments are willing to invite undeserving players....there just has to be some reason. |
|
| Sep-13-08 | | ronaldducalang: Bilbao Baggins hehehe |
|
| Sep-20-08 | | Black Pawn: Absolutely sparkling pawn sacrifices by Carlsen here. 15.d5!! was brilliant. White gets an unforgettable attack on the black queenside. 27.Rxb4! gets rid of the bishop defender of c5, and the 32.Ra8 decides the game. Very well done! |
|
| Dec-12-08 | | Everett: Was there not a restriction on the maximum number of players from the USSR during the 50s and 60s? This could explain why Fischer got a shot in the Candidates in '59 and '62 while not being in the top 8. |
|
| Dec-12-08 | | Riverbeast: <This could explain why Fischer got a shot in the Candidates in '59 and '62 while not being in the top 8.> Fischer qualified for the candidates due to his high placing in the interzonals...Including winning the Stockholm Interzonal by a large margin. He did not get his spots in the candidates tournaments due to any technicalities |
|
| Dec-12-08 | | Everett: How were the Interzonals "zoned" <Riverbeast>? Thanks for your help! |
|
Dec-12-08
 | | Eyal: <How were the Interzonals "zoned"?> Let's take for example Fischer's 1st Interzonal - Portoroz 1958, which included 21 players (http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/586...): 4 players from the Soviet zone, qualifying through the 1958 USSR Championship, which counted as a zonal tournament - Tal, Petrosian, Bronstein, Averbakh (http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing...) 9 players from the European zone, through 3 zonal tournaments - Olafsson, Szabo, Larsen (Wageningen Zonal 1957, http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing...), Pachman, Benko, Gligoric (Dublin Zonal 1957,
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing...),
Matanovic, Neikirkh, Filip (Sofia Zonal 1957, http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing...) 2 players from the USA zone, through the 1957 USA Championship - Fischer and Sherwin (http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing...). Since Reshevsky was 2nd and Sherwin 3rd, I guess Reshevsky declined to participate from some reason and Sherwin took his place. 3 players from the South American zone, through the 1957 Rio de Janeiro Zonal - Panno, Sanguineti, Rossetto (http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing...) 1 player from the Canadian zone - Fuster.
1 player from the Central American zone, through the 1957 Caracas Zonal - De Greiff. 1 player from the Asian zone, through the 1957 Baguio City zonal - Cardoso. The top six at the Interzonal (Tal, Gligoric, Petrosian, Benko, Olafsson and Fischer) qualified to the 1959 Candidates tournament, where they were joined by Smyslov and Keres who were seeded from the previous cycle, as the top two at the 1956 Candidates tournament. |
|
Dec-13-08
| | Eyal: Btw, that rule which limited the number of players from the same country who could qualify through the Interzonal to 3 had an especially dramatic effect in Amsterdam 1964, where Fischer didn't play at all. The final standings were: 1-4 Smyslov, Larsen, Spassky, Tal 17
5 Stein 16.5
6 Bronstein 16
7 Ivkov 15
8-9 Reshevsky, Portisch 14.5
I.e., 5 out of the top 6 who were supposed to qualify for the candidates stage were Soviet players. However, Stein and Bronstein were left out, their place being taken by Ivkov and Portisch (who won a playoff mini-match against Reshevsky). |
|
| Dec-30-08 | | kamalakanta: < Eyal: Btw, that rule which limited the number of players from the same country who could qualify through the Interzonal to 3 had an especially dramatic effect in Amsterdam 1964, where Fischer didn't play at all. The final standings were: 1-4 Smyslov, Larsen, Spassky, Tal 17
5 Stein 16.5
6 Bronstein 16
7 Ivkov 15
8-9 Reshevsky, Portisch 14.5
I.e., 5 out of the top 6 who were supposed to qualify for the candidates stage were Soviet players. However, Stein and Bronstein were left out, their place being taken by Ivkov and Portisch (who won a playoff mini-match against Reshevsky).> That rule was put in place by FIDE at the instigation of Botvinnik, who was afraid of the opposition he faced from his own country. This way, he could make easier his preparation. I'm sorry, but for this I consider him to ba a coward. Kamalakanta |
|
Jan-13-09
 | | egilarne: And the rule limiting the players from the Soviet Zonal to the Portoroz 1958 Interzonal to only four, despite the Soviet dominance of strong players in the World at that time, made it relativly easier for Fischer to qualify. But I did not say it was easy :) - it was a great achievement! Much can be said about Sonas, but when he finds that the Soviet Championship in Riga in 1958 was stronger than the Interzonal in 1958, I suppose he is right: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Summ... |
|
Feb-11-09
 | | notyetagm: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/pos... <<<<This Week's ChessBase Show: Carlsen-Aronian, Bilbao 2008>>>Linares (no longer Morelia/Linares) starts next week, and Magnus Carlsen is among the participants. Even though he is already one of the world's absolute elite, currently #4 on the FIDE rating list and #3 on the Live Top List, he is just 18 years of age. (Be very afraid, chess world!) 2008 was a banner year for the young Norwegian, and we'll take a look at one of his many great games from that time period. He finished tied for second in the season-ending Bilbao Masters, and among his three victories was a power win over Levon Aronian. In a theoretically significant Semi-Slav (that's a redundancy nowadays) Carlsen introduced a dynamic, even shocking pawn sacrifice for the initiative. Aronian defended well for quite a while, but not long enough! It is very difficult to hold up against a prolonged initiative, and Carlsen did well by never allowing his opponent to come in reach of a stable position. Ultimately, Aronian cracked. Carlsen had a neat tactic prepared, and Aronian's first slip was fatal. Yet it's the game as a whole that is impressive: a fine opening concept, a lively middlegame involving play all over the board, and a nice tactic to bring home the point. This is how contemporary chess is played, and Carlsen is one of its leaders. We'll look at this game tomorrow night - Wednesday night - on ChessBase's Playchess.com server, and I hope I'll see you there. The show is free for Playchess members; just log on at 9 p.m. ET (that's Thursday morning at 3 a.m. CET for my European viewers), go to the Broadcast room, look up Carlsen-Aronian in the Games list, double-click, sit back and enjoy! Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on Tuesday February 10, 2009 at 11:45pm > |
|
| Feb-11-09 | | ajile: Aronian's mistake was playing 15..Nxd5.
Either 15..Qxd5 or 15..exd5 was at least = for Black.
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 3 32-bit : 21 ply 1. = (-0.18): 15...Qxd5 16.Ne5 Bb4 17.Qa4 0-0 18.Rad1 Qc5 19.Rc1 Qb6 20.Nxc6 Rac8 21.Nxb4 Qxb4 22.Qa1 Qg4 23.f3 Rxc1 2. = (-0.14): 15...exd5 16.Nd4 Bb4 17.Rc1 c5 18.Nf5 Kf8 19.Qf3 Rg8 20.Be5 Ne8 21.Qh3 c4 22.Bc2 Rh8 23.Rfd1 f6 24.Nd4 Qe7 |
|
Feb-12-09
| | notyetagm: <ajile: Aronian's mistake was playing 15..Nxd5. Either 15..Qxd5 or 15..exd5 was at least = for Black.> How did you get the FEN to display the Black vantage point in your kibitz ???? |
|
| Feb-12-09 | | ajile: <<notyetagm: <ajile: Aronian's mistake was playing 15..Nxd5.
Either 15..Qxd5 or 15..exd5 was at least = for Black.> How did you get the FEN to display the Black vantage point in your kibitz ????> >heh heh
Check out my cool FEN Reverser Page
http://www.zbestvalue.com/ChessFENR...
If you ever lose the link it's posted on my Profile page also. :o)
Oh and 15..Nxd5 isn't as bad as I thought originally. 15..Nxd5 16.Ne5
click for larger view
Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit : 21 ply
1. = (0.00): 16...Qc7 17.Nc4 f6 18.Qg4 Kf7 19.Rfd1 Bb4 20.e4 Nc3 21.Rdc1 Rhd8 22.Bf1 Nb5 23.Ne5+ fxe5 24.Bxb5 Bd6 25.Bc4 Bc8 26.Rd1 g6 27.Qh4 2. = (0.12): 16...h5 17.Qa4 Nb6 18.Qc2 Bb4 19.Rfd1 Qc7 20.Bg6 0-0 21.Bh7+ Kh8 22.Bd3 Qe7 23.Nxc6 Bxc6 24.Qxc6 Nd5 25.Rdc1 Rad8 26.Be2 |
|
Feb-13-09
| | notyetagm: Monokroussos annotates: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/fil... |
|
| Mar-18-09 | | WhiteRook48: 30 Bxd6 was the ultimate winner |
|
| Jul-23-09 | | returnoftheking: This looks painful!
Also looks like very good opening prep. If this pawn sac was thought up behind the board it would be really gutsy! |
|
| Jul-15-10 | | aazqua: 15 d5 is absolutely baffling. It allows black to correct his pawns and would seem to leave him two pawns up if a little behind in development. Very unclear why Aronian doesn't just play ed5 and get on with castling instead of hopping about with his knight. |
|
| Sep-27-10 | | fpinget: White D5 is really the key of this game, and the start of the difficulties for Black. Nxd5 appears as the only option as taking with the e pawn will expose the f5 square and taking with the c is simply a positional blunder. |
|
Jul-07-11
 | | HeMateMe: So far Aronian leads this debate 7-6, with 15 draws. Despite Aronian's collapse at the Candidates matches, this should still be a great rivalry for many years to come. |
|
Oct-19-12
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKXs... |
|
| Dec-06-12 | | vinidivici: <White D5 is really the key of this game, and the start of the difficulties for Black. Nxd5 appears as the only option as taking with the e pawn will expose the f5 square and taking with the c is simply a positional blunder.> Can you elaborate more specific than blunt explanations like that? Why the 15...Nxd5 is the only option?
Why taking it with e-pawn is a mistake just like u said? |
|
Dec-06-12
 | | perfidious: < fpinget: White D5 is really the key of this game, and the start of the difficulties for Black....> This assessment is not so clear; as <ajile> has noted above, 16....Nxd5 and the risky-looking 16....Qxd5 seem playable for Black, though Carlsen would get a lot of compensation. The test of White's conception appears to lie in 16....exd5 17.Qa4 Bb4 18.Ne5 0-0, when one of the sacrificed pawns is returned. The position after 19.Nxc6 Bxc6 20.Qxc6 is interesting: 
click for larger viewBlack might try 20....Qd6, which returns the second pawn, to force off queens, but I'm not sure that he has anything in the ending after 21.Qxd6 Bxd6 22.Rfd1, followed by Bxf6 and Rxd5. The direct 22.Bxf6 and 23.Ra4 may also be possible. My preference is the natural and combative 20....Rc8. After 21.Qa4, 21....Ne4, playing to blot out the dangerous dark-squared bishop looks reasonable. This position seems unclear to me. <....taking with the c is simply a positional blunder> This is a tactical, not positional mistake, as Black gets tied up in knots after 15....cxd5 16.Bb5+ Nd7 17.Ne5 Bc8 18.Rc1, threatening Rxc8 and Bxd7+, as White's advantage in development is converted into a material edge and his attack will lose none of its vigour. |
|
| Dec-06-12 | | vinidivici: Sometimes people just get their opinions without any evident. Its ok to be wrong at least they tried to give the lines instead saying "This move is a mistake" without giving any suggestion and leaving people wondering. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 27.Rxb4