|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 704 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-23-15
 | | OhioChessFan: I fail to see the relevance of another team game on another site to this game. |
|
| Mar-27-15 | | 2knights: In my opinion the whole 5.c3 line is obsolete. 5...d5, as played in M Vachier-Lagrave vs A Giri, 2014, appears a complete refutation. Black has achieved optimal development and is at least equal. White cannot win a pawn with 6.Nxe5 due to Black's piece activity. Interesting that Gustafsson does not look at any alternatives to 12.Qb3. |
|
| Apr-06-15 | | cormier: Rank Name Title Country Rating Games B-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2863 0 1990
2 Caruana, Fabiano g ITA 2802 0 1992
3 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2798 0 1987
4 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2798 0 1975
5 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2794 0 1983
6 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2791 0 1969
7 Giri, Anish g NED 2790 0 1994
8 So, Wesley g USA 2788 0 1993
9 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2783 0 1975
10 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2770 0 1982
11 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2762 2 1990
12 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2757 0 1990
13 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2754 10 1985
14 Ding, Liren g CHN 2751 8 1992
15 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2747 0 1968
16 Adams, Michael g ENG 2746 2 1971
17 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2745 0 1987
18 Navara, David g CZE 2744 29 1985
19 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2744 2 1983
20 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2738 2 1987
21 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2738 0 1987
22 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2736 13 1987
23 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2734 2 1976
24 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2733 21 1983
25 Harikrishna, P. g IND 2731 5 1986
26 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2731 0 1969
27 Li, Chao b g CHN 2730 20 1989
28 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2729 0 1983
29 Wang, Yue g CHN 2726 0 1987
30 Yu, Yangyi g CHN 2724 0 1994
31 Andreikin, Dmitry g RUS 2723 0 1990
32 Naiditsch, Arkadij g GER 2720 3 1985 |
|
| Apr-06-15 | | Tiggler: <cormier> Which of the thirty one players above Naiditch in your list would you most like for the next Chess Challenge? My first three choices: Kramnik, Adams, Ivanchuk. |
|
| Apr-07-15 | | cormier: Carlo, So, Svidler ... |
|
| Apr-07-15 | | Tiggler: I did not chose Carlsen or So because in either case the game forum would turn into a circus. And because both of them have bigger fish to fry then us. |
|
| Apr-07-15 | | morfishine: <Tiggler> If you want real "fish to fry", why don't you try to line up a game vs some other team also armed with multiple engines? It really proves nothing when the WT overwhelms a Grandmaster, any Grandmaster, who's armed with 1 or 2 engines, operated by himself, when the WT has 200+ engines working. Whats the point? To prove a foregone conclusion once again? Not much of a challenge in my view |
|
| Apr-07-15 | | Tiggler: <morfishine> Entitled to your opinion. But what's the point of one set of nobodies challenging another? |
|
| Apr-08-15 | | DPLeo: <morfishine: ... It really proves nothing when the WT overwhelms a Grandmaster, any Grandmaster, who's armed with 1 or 2 engines, operated by himself, when the WT has 200+ engines working. ...> I'm not sure we are really overwhelming any of our GM opponents. I think their schedule has more to do with our great results. I was able to get a draw in a post-mortem game against a World Team who had just defeated a GM. DeFirmian vs The World, 2002 Even though I have much less resources than the World Team, I have much more time than a busy GM. I'd be willing to test my theory against this team, which is fresh off of 3 victories in a row. Enjoy! |
|
Apr-08-15
 | | AylerKupp: <<morfishine> <Tiggler> If you want real "fish to fry", why don't you try to line up a game vs some other team also armed with multiple engines?> <chessgames.com> has hosted several Team games where one team of "nobodies" plays against another team of "nobodies", with both sides using computers. See Chessgames Challenge: Team White vs Team Black, 2012, Chessgames Challenge: Team White vs Team Black, 2011, Chessgames Challenge: Team White vs Team Black, 2008, and Chessgames Challenge: Team White vs Team Black, 2006. All ended in draws which I suppose is indicative of something. As far as the point of one set of nobodies challenging another, there is really no point, other than enjoyment of the game by the participants. And, at our level, isn't enjoyment the reason that we play chess? |
|
Apr-08-15
| | AylerKupp: <DPLeo> I think that you're definitely correct in saying that our success against GMs has more to do with their schedule and lack of time/motivation to devote to our Challenge games than anything else. This game's 24...c6 probably shows that, GM Naiditsch likely did not devote much time and effort in calculating the consequences of this move as he should have. No offense to you but a few weeks ago (The World (kibitz #770), The World (kibitz #774)) I suggested that perhaps we should try to find a strong GM with sufficient time on their hands, access to multiple engines, and the motivation to devote to the game. A certain Garry Kasparov came to mind; retired from chess, with many financial resources (to afford multiple computers, engines, and the staff to run them), and with a political career seemingly not going anywhere at the moment. Perhaps he could use a break from his activities. And with his high opinion of himself perhaps he would be sufficiently motivated to be the first to defeat the <chessgames.com> World team. So what do you think? If this team were to win a game against a motivated Kasparov using multiple chess engines would that prove anything? |
|
Apr-08-15
 | | mistermac: Bring him on, and pay him well! |
|
| Apr-08-15 | | Tiggler: <AylerKupp> Yes I am well aware of those games, but for me I find it hard to get excited about being a member of Team White or Team Black. The CG.com World Team has some character and team loyalties, however. Not to mention a reputation. |
|
Apr-08-15
| | AylerKupp: <Tiggler> I figured that you were familiar with those games, and I was surprised that <morfishine> either wasn't or, like you, found it hard to get excited about being a member of either Team White or Team Black and so they had slipped his mind. :-) At any rate, my comment was intended to remind <morfishine> that there was no need for you or anyone else to try to line up a game vs. some other team also armed with multiple engines; <chessgames.com> has already done that several times. Whether that constitutes real "fish to fry" I'll leave to the two of you to settle. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | Tiggler: <AylerKupp> Maybe a pickup game would interest me more. I'd definitely not say no if picked by, let's say, <DaringSpeculator> or <AylerKupp>. The random assignments seem just ... random. I'd play for <RandomVisitor>'s team, though. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | DPLeo: <AylerKupp>, no offense taken. My offer was more to show that an untitled motivated opponent with time to dedicate to the game could hold his own against the team. Emphasizing my point that we did not overwhelm our GM opponents. I like your Kasparov idea but, as you indicated, how motivated and how much time our next opponent has is more important than who it is. Of course it would be nice to have motivated, plenty of time, and 2800+. But that's not a combination that usually goes together. :) |
|
| Apr-24-15 | | nite: Susan Polgar's new team at the Institute for Chess Excellence at Webster University would make a good team vs team challenge for us. |
|
Apr-24-15
 | | HeMateMe: why don't you contact the ten best teams in the most recent college championships and see if one of them will play? |
|
Apr-24-15
| | HeMateMe: why don't you contact the ten best teams in the most recent college championships and see if one of them will play? |
|
| May-11-15 | | cro777: Correspondence play and engines. What techniques can be used against the opponents who are simply relaying the best move suggested by engines? Mark Weeks' series on chess engines in correspondence chess: http://chessforallages.blogspot.com... |
|
| May-13-15 | | 1d410: Let's play Peter Leko! |
|
May-13-15
| | HeMateMe: I think you guys should see if Boris Becker is available. |
|
| May-13-15 | | john barleycorn: <1d410: Let's play Peter Leko!> I support that. |
|
| May-20-15 | | cormier: M Vachier-Lagrave vs Karjakin, 2015 |
|
| May-20-15 | | cro777: The discussion about 12.a3 continued at the FIDE Grand Prix in Khanty-Mansiysk. Maxime Vachier Lagrave: "12.a3 maybe not the best choice for today as it is very complicated." Vachier Lagrave, M. (2754) vs. Karjakin, Sergey (2753) Grand Prix 2015, Khanty-Mansiysk, Round 6, 20 May 2015 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. c3 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nbd2 Ne7 8. d4 ed4 9. cd4 Bb6 10. Re1 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5
click for larger viewThe main move here is 12.Qb3 with the continuation 12...d5 13.e5 Nd7. This line had already occurred in the games of Vashier Lagrave, Karjakin and Naiditsch. For this tournament, Vachier Lagrave prepared <12.a3>, the same move (suggested by Rybka and <RandomVisitor>) The World, after a lot of discussion, adopted against Naiditsch (final vote tally: 12.a3 115 votes, 12.Qb3 102 votes, 12.Ba4 14 votes etc) <imag>:"My opinion is that 12.Ba4 is the only move which maintains equality ... It is undeniable that we are in a very "tied" position. We cannot develop our DSB because Nd2 is in the way, but we cannot move the d2 knight because of the threat Bxf3 Qxf3 and we lose the pawn with Bxd4. All moves suggested by engines (Qb3, a4, a3 and the like) are simply engine's attempt to ignore the problem, push it over engine's horizon. None of these move help us to untangle, the problem will be still there." <kwid>: "I would like to share an idea of how we could improve on our development: 12. a3. Our problem is the DCB and the Q-rook plus d4 defense requirement. With a2-a3 we have b2-b4 against the treat of Ba5 with pin on d2-e1. but a3 will put the ball in his court to show what he is up to." <RandomVisitor>: "The purpose of 12.a3 is to continue a long maneuvering process that is best explained by looking at the analysis of variations.
I think that we have succeeded ... in giving our opponent a position that is extremely difficult to figure out how to go on." The game Vachier Lagrave- Karjakin continued:
12. a3 a6 13. Bf1 Re8 14. e5 Nfd5 <The World's analysis was centered on 14...dxe5> 15. Nc4 Ba7 16. g4 Bg6 17. Bg5 de5 18. de5 h6 19. Bh4 b5 20. Na5 Qc8
click for larger view21. Rc1? Vachier Lagrave blundered, as he said himself, with this move. "Up till here it's probably all still in my computer... After 21...c5 I suddenly realized I didn't know what to do." In reply to 12.a3, Naiditsch surprised The World by playing 12...Bg6. <RandomVisitor>: "I think that if anyone seriously suggested that 12...Bg6 was worth more than 3 seconds of effort, that they would have been met with sarcasm, or worse.> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 704 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
