|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-15-10 | | dr.carreras: WOW!! the kid is unstoppable |
|
Mar-15-10
 | | benveniste: It's not clear to me that Black has a winning advantage after 26. ♘d7 |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | GreenFacedPatzer: One of you people with deep board sight or an engine: Where was this likely to go after move 25? I can see a nest of terrible black threats starting with the discovered check, but there's too much going on for me to unravel. |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | jhoro: Far from clear, but very hard to defend for white, with the exposed king. For example this continuation has many tough choices for black
<26.Nd7 Nh3+ 27.Kg2 Qc6+ 28.Bd5 Qxd7 29.Rxd4 e6>
click for larger view
I guess Svidler felt lost |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | jhoro: ... and maybe didn't even "see" 26.Nd7. This hypothetical "best play" engine line leads to R vs B+N endgame that is lost for white <1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Nb3 a6 10.f4 b5 11.Bf3 Bb7 12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 Nd7 14.e6 fxe6 15.Bg4 Rxf1+ 16.Qxf1 Nce5 17.Bxe6+ Kh8 18.Rd1 Qc7 19.Qf4 Rf8 20.Qg3 Nf6 21.Nc5 Nh5 22.Qe1 Bxg2 23.Kxg2 Nf3 24.Qh1 Nf4+ 25.Kf2 Nd4 26.Nd7 Nh3+ 27.Kg2 Qc6+ 28.Bd5 Qxd7 29.Rxd4 e6 30.Kxh3 Bxd4 31.Bc6 Qd6 32.Bh6 Bg7 33.Be3 b4 34.Na4 Bd4 35.Qd1 Qxc6 36.Qxd4+ Kg8 37.Qe5 Rf3+ 38.Kh4 Kf7 39.Bf4 h6 40.Qc7+ Qxc7 41.Bxc7 Rf2 42.Kg3 Rxc2 43.Ba5 h5 44.h4 e5 45.b3 Kf6 46.Bxb4 Rxa2 47.Nc3 Rb2 48.Ne4+ Kf5 49.Nc5 g5 50.hxg5 Kxg5 51.Ba5 Rb1 52.Bd2+ Kf5 53.Be3 Rb2 54.Kh3 Rc2 55.Na4 Ke4 56.Bg1 Kf3 57.Nc5 Rc1 58.Kh2 e4 59.Nxa6 e3 60.Bxe3
Kxe3> |
|
Mar-15-10
 | | Tabanus: 26.Nd7 Nh3+ 27.Kg2 Qc6+ 28.Bd5 Qxd7 29.Rxd4 e6
click for larger viewRybka 2.3.2a 21-ply
1. (-1.14): 30.Kxh3 Bxd4 31.Bc6 Qa7 32.Bxd4+ Qxd4 33.Qe4 Qd6 34.Qg2 Rf5 35.Be4 Rh5+ 36.Kg4 b4 2. (-1.14): 30.Kg3 Be5+ 31.Kxh3 Bxd4 32.Bc6 Qa7 33.Bxd4+ Qxd4 34.Qe4 Qd6 35.Qg2 Rf5 36.Be4 Rh5+ |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | luzhin: I think it's clear Svidler did't appreciate the defensive merits of 26.Nd7, or he would have played on. Anyway, the dynamic piece play was fiendishly difficult for both players to assess blindfold: for example, Carlsen could have won cleanly with 24...Nh4+ followed by 25...Qe5. |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | jhoro: Playing 22...Bxg2 in a blindfold game was impressive. I guess his talked about intuition had something to do with it. |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | jhoro: regarding resigning in a drawn position, we've seen worse Carlsen vs Topalov, 2007 |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | Bozantium: The problem with saying that Svidler resigned in a drawn position, while a valid argument, is that the continuation for holding such a position, blindfold game or otherwise, is so complex that it would have exploded in his face almost assuredly...even after 26. Nd7. |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | Blaise99a: What Madness ! Try looking at the 20. Rd7 (instead of Qg3) line in your head, to see if you can see what Carlsen and Svidler both missed. Quotation from the Amber site sum-up: "on move 20, when Svidler suddenly had second thoughts about the intended 20.Rxd7 because of 20…Qc6 21.Rxb7 Rxf4 22.Bd5 and now 22…Qf6 wins for Black. However, both players had missed 22.Rb6 with an edge for White. On move, 22 Svidler refrained from 22.Qh3 because he didn’t like 22…Nf4, but after the move he played, 22.Qe1, he was unpleasantly surprised by 22…Bxg2." |
|
Mar-15-10
 | | tamar: And Magnus' take from his Arctic Securities Blog:
<THe blindfold game today started in an amusing way. Since we usually change colors every day I had somehow assumed that I would be white in blindfold game, without checking the pairings properly. As a result, I was really surprised when 1.e4 appeared on the screen, as I had intended to play 1.d4 myself. I then sat there for a couple of minutes, as I had not yet prepared anything with black. An interesting position arose in which both sides had chances. After he missed a key blow, 22...Bxg2, the position certainly turned in my favour. I subsequently missed a couple of good continuations, but what I did was enough to make him resign after 25 moves, in a position we both thought was dead lost for white. However, as we both realised later, his resignation was clearly premature. In the final position white could have fought on with 26. Nd7, a move both of us missed. Still, black would have been clearly better, but there was still everything to fight for.> |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | Blaise99a: The office site, I quoted above gives, in the 20 Rd7....line, 22. Rb6 "with an edge for white." which leaves out the amazing (and only move) 22. Rb6 Nf3! 23. gf Qf3 24. Bf4 Qf4 25 Nd5- which I have no idea how to begin to evaluate. (silicon is hovering around 0.00 but ? Q+ pawn v. Rook, two Nights? crazy.) |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | Blaise99a: More reflections on the 20 Rd7 line.....after 22. Rb6 Nf3 ending with 25 Nd5 (25. Ra6 Be5) black then plays 25....Qd5 and white is in a very dangerous spot. Series of Only Moves for white 26. Kf1 (26 Ra6 Qd1 27 kg2 Qe2 28 kg1 Be5 !) Qh2 27 Ra6 h5...and I still don't know how to evaluate this, but black might have the edge here. |
|
| Mar-15-10 | | Bozantium: To Blaise: It is definitely crazy. It seems, on the surface, Black should come out of this ok because he has all of the checks while picking off pawns. But on another level, it is such a fine line to walk, especially after 25. Nd5 Bd4+ 26.Nxd4 Qxd4+ 27. Kf1 Qxb2. |
|
| Mar-17-10 | | znsprdx: <luzhin: I think it's clear Svidler did't appreciate the defensive merits of 26.Nd7, or he would have played on. Anyway, the dynamic piece play was fiendishly difficult for both players to assess blindfold....>
Absolutely amazing in fact...BUT
..< for example: Carlsen could have won cleanly with 24...Nh4+ followed by 25...Qe5.> perhaps you might elaborate - I do not see your point ... thank-you... |
|
Mar-17-10
| | alexrawlings: How would black continue after 25 Kxf3? |
|
| Mar-18-10 | | znsprdx: <alexrawlings: How would black continue after... > 25 Kx[N]f3? Easiest just equalize the piece count beginning with ...Nx[B]e6 dis check e.g. 26.Ke2 Nx[N]c5 27.Bx[N]c5 Qx[B]c5 and White's exposed King (due to hidden ...Bh6 threat) gives no counter-play as Black already up a pawn will grab at least another pawn e.g.28. Qg1 (to hold f2) qc4+ 29.Ke1 Bx[N]c3+ 30. bx[B]c3 Qxc3+ ps...we threw the baby out with the bath-water when modern algebraic notation dropped the one one feature of Descriptive notation that was most significant: the indication of piece captures- which makes it far easier to follow a game from the score itself or a given position while incidentally improving one's visualization skills (obviously most useful for blindfold) |
|
| Sep-15-10 | | morphy2010: 22...Bxg2 what a sac and a hard one to see for us lesser m ortals |
|
| Dec-13-10 | | jmboutiere: Carlsen equalise in 10 moves, neutralise the white initiative in other 1o; after that starts Magnus the Magician. |
|
| Dec-13-10 | | jmboutiere: Rybka 3 "saw" 22...Bg2 - 3.45 after 3 minutes |
|
| Oct-22-14 | | tranquilsimplicity: It has been suggested by Kasparov that Carlsen plays more in a Karpovian style, that is, a tendency towards the ultra-positional "serpentine squeezing" of opponents. But after the tactical Bxg2!, and several other Carlsen games fraught with tactics, I am left with serious doubts. That is by no means disrespect for the great ex-champion; however I feel differently. In my view, Carlsen is similar to Emanuel Lasker; totally comfortable in all aspects of play. A truly universal and complete Chess Champion.# |
|
| Oct-22-14 | | fisayo123: <tranquilsimplicity> I disagree. I think Carlsen is a very positional player, perhaps less so than Karpov was, particularly in his younger years. Most of Carlsen's wins I've analyzed are frought with positional play and he actively seeks to avoid tactical skermishes. He is the most positional WC I've studied with the exception of Petrosian, who was over-kill. Perhaps the one time he didn't was when he was working with Kasparov and as a result, generally deployed sharper opening choices. He is still slightly susceptible in sharp battles and not as convincing in his play. That's not to say he's hopeless in tactical slugfests, he's a bit like Petrosian, a deceptively strong tactician. Not one of the best, there a quite a few better, but good enough to be at his current level. I don't consider him to be a universal player at all. As for the aforementioned Bxg2!, it's a nice shot, considering it was blind-fold, but Carlsen errs in his next move. Nf4? is a blunder at it allows 23. Kf2, a surprisingly safe spot for the king. The problem is Svidler overestimates the severity of the attack and resigns when he had 24.Nd7! , attacking the rook and wading off black's assault. |
|
| Oct-23-14 | | tranquilsimplicity: <fisayo123> You have very convincingly put forth strong arguments, that I am tempted to agree with you, and thus banish my "serious doubts". Indeed, most of Carlsen's wins are now incredibly positional; but this may be due to the fact that it has become increasingly difficult for Super GMs to beat each other through tactics; Kasparov managed to achieve this feat by 'crushing' his peers through combinatorial play. Anyhow, you have convinced me and won the argument.# |
|
| Apr-01-15 | | Zephyr10: "he's a bit like Petrosian, a deceptively strong tactician. Not one of the best, there a quite a few better, but good enough to be at his current level." -- fisayo
I've never heard such horse manure in my life! Good enough to be at his current level??! That level is world champion and by far highest rated player in history! Anyways, Petrosian was as strong a tactician as anyone ever, as is Magnus. You can call it positional if you wish, but players don't get to be positional until they see every tactical trick in the book. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 22...Bxg2