|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-19-21 | | Atking: Yes Fortress is possible if N goes to g7 and K waits on g6, yes R is stronger than N but here f6 firmly stops white g pawn and N near his K R can't be a decisive factor. |
|
Apr-19-21
 | | perfidious: To think people play into this as a matter of course.... Your humble poster did--one time only, as a 1600 player! |
|
Apr-19-21
 | | 0ZeR0: My initial impression of this game watching live was that Caruana pretty much played a perfect game. Despite this the ending was indeed drawn but MVL went wrong trying for a specific setup. This might end up being the most important game for the standings when all is said and done. |
|
| Apr-19-21 | | belgradegambit: These endings are incredibly tricky despite so few pieces. Compare this to K+R+P vs K+N in the famous Lasker vs Ed. Lasker, 1924 draw. |
|
| Apr-19-21 | | DouglasGomes: I think in these kind of situations White would prefer to keep more pieces on the board. The positions arising after the trade of queens are most likely going to be ignored by analysts and people will focus on the opening and the KRPvKNP ending. Caruana deserves to recognized not just by "opening prep", Anish Giri also has "opening prep", but Caruana has a lot of unacknowledged creativity and inventiveness. |
|
Apr-19-21
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: An early candidate for the Brawl of the Year Award. So completely baffling that not only can I not say that I had any idea what was happening, I can not say that I had no idea what was happening. Or something like that. Maybe. |
|
Apr-19-21
| | 0ZeR0: <DouglasGomes> <Caruana deserves to recognized not just by "opening prep", Anish Giri also has "opening prep", but Caruana has a lot of unacknowledged creativity and inventiveness.> Absolutely. In fact, I would go so far to say Carlsen and Caruana are the only two players who could have played this game. It truly is remarkable. |
|
| Apr-19-21 | | siamesedream: GM Daniel King's analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d7... |
|
Apr-19-21
| | perfidious: This game is an object example of the need, even at the highest levels, of understanding endgame theory before one has got there, with no more midnight oil to be burnt. |
|
Apr-19-21
 | | HeMateMe: I kinda thought Max would blow it. He's sort of the Aronian of French chess, a GM who has peaked and will never be involved in world championship matters. |
|
| Apr-19-21 | | Brown: < perfidious: This game is an object example of the need, even at the highest levels, of understanding endgame theory before one has got there, with no more midnight oil to be burnt.> Theory and feel, absolutely.
It’s a major reason why the champ still reigns |
|
| Apr-19-21 | | Atking: MVL is usually a very good endgame player. His defeat seems to me more a psychological one. Under a terrific opening preparation he survived mostly by chess talent but then probably thinking the most difficult has been passed, he faulty relaxed himself a bit then missed the plan 2 times. According to GM King and his very entertaining analysis missing 26...Ra7 - a strange defensing move that MVL at his full power is able to find at the board - and more dramatically the fortress schema I suggested yesterday. Probably thinking other schemas should be possible. A great game from Caruana. Without doubt 2 great fighters. |
|
| Apr-19-21 | | Mudphudder: I think it's time MVL switch up his pet Najdorf repertoire. Over the last 12 months or so his opponents have been putting a beatdown his opening of his. Time to pick a new reply to e4 if you ask me. |
|
| Apr-20-21 | | Olavi: The famous predecessor on this level is Larsen vs Tal, 1965
Tal misjudged the ending - if we can take his word for it. |
|
| Apr-20-21 | | Ulhumbrus: The commentators ( Carlsen, Howell, Sachdev) indicated that 18 Bc4!! was an innovation, an innovation to which Vachier-Lagrave will have to prepare an answer the next time. In the endgame Carlsen indicated ( amongst other things) that after 55 Rd3 Vachier Lagrave needed his knight on g7 by 55...Ng7! so that the knight could cooperate with the f6 pawn - or complement the work done by the f6 pawn- so as to to control the wall of squares h5-g5-f5-e5-f6-f7 and to keep White's king out. The commentators indicated that the move 55...Nh6? was a serious mistake because after that the white king could then penetrate either via d5 or via h5 not only by force but also by making use of zugzwang. Howell said that Carlsen had given his listeners a masterclass in the technique required to handle the white side of this position. |
|
| Apr-20-21 | | Brown: < Mudphudder: I think it's time MVL switch up his pet Najdorf repertoire. Over the last 12 months or so his opponents have been putting a beatdown his opening of his. Time to pick a new reply to e4 if you ask me.> Maybe. I was surprised he kept using the Najdorf in the past year of online tourneys. Would have been a good time to mix things up, experiment, etc. Even Kasparov switched it up vs Anand in ‘95 (with the Dragon) |
|
| Apr-20-21 | | Brown: < In the endgame Carlsen indicated ( amongst other things) that after 55 Rd3 Vachier Lagrave needed his knight on g7 by 55...Ng7! so that the knight could cooperate with the f6 pawn - or complement the work done by the f6 pawn- so as to to control the wall of squares h5-g5-f5-e5-f6-f7 and to keep White's king out.> Great example of the schematic thinking needed for some positions. |
|
| Apr-21-21 | | erniecohen: <Ulhumbrus: The commentators ( Carlsen, Howell, Sachdev) indicated that 18 Bc4!! was an innovation, an innovation to which Vachier-Lagrave will have to prepare an answer the next time.> Stockfish reckons 18.♗c4? a blunder, so I don't think we're going to see this again. |
|
Apr-21-21
| | perfidious: Bit surprising really to see <uluseless> playing the appeal to authority card, inasmuch as he is given to repeatedly patronising comments in well known openings and lecturing all and sundry as though they were 1200-level players. |
|
Apr-21-21
 | | jessicafischerqueen:
<perfidious> Just so. For better or worse, there is only one reliable authority to appeal to, and it's been so for some time now: a chess engine. Luckily they are all powerful and usually free, so there's no excuse in not checking lines before posting "information" about them. Absolutely it's better first to work out your own ideas in your head, or the ideas of other players including Grandmasters, but before you post in here- check your lines. Then if there are mistakes, you will be able to report them as part of your analysis. |
|
Apr-21-21
| | perfidious: <jess>, used to have Fritz 5.32, but would far rather work things out for myself--do not even have a board to hand these days, so look at positions and visualise in a plodding sort of way. The ravages of age, don't you know. |
|
Apr-21-21
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<perfidious>
Working things out for yourself is the only way to improve or maintain in chess. The only way. Luckily, you have a "chess brain record" of some considerable note, so you're probably doing it rite. Not so me! I also try to work it out in my head first, then on a practice board - but then I really do have to check with my 300 year old Shredder III. Otherwise there is an excellent chance I'd be "learning" it wrong. |
|
Apr-21-21
 | | Clement Fraud: I reckon that if White could lose his obsession with the Bishop pair, he could achieve a fine and lasting advantage in this line (avoiding the Poisoned Pawn variations altogether): 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2! h6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.O-O-O! In this position, I fail to see how White cannot be better: his dominance of the semi open Queen file, coupled with his lead in piece development (with Bf1-c4 to come), more than compensates for the trade of his dark squared Bishop. |
|
| Jul-24-21 | | Albanius: After Fabi's TN 18 Bc4! Qxc4 19 Bd6!, it seems that
19..Bxd4!, the move that looked obvious to me, holds equality.
Stockfish here says 20 Rxd4 Qb3 is equal (0.00 - 37 ply) |
|
| Nov-10-21 | | nummerzwei: For some time, I have wanted to do a post on this endgame. Let me start with a digression: Suba - Chiburdanidze, Dortmund 1983 (after 104.Ke2) 
click for larger viewAnother endgame with N+f against R+g, which is clearly relevant to the positions that arise in the present game after 50.Rxa6. Here, Chiburdanidze blundered with 104...Ke4?? and lost: 105.g3! Nf3 (105..fxg3 106.Rg4+) 106.Rg4 Nd4+ 107.Kf2 Ne6 108.gxf4 Nd4?! (108...Nxf4 109.Kg3) 109.f5+! 1:0 According to my table-based notes, the easiest way to draw was to play 104...Ng6 and wait for White to 'activate' his king: 105.Kd3 Nh4 106.Kd4 Ng6 107.Kc5 Nh4 108.Kd6 
click for larger viewNow the sacrifice 108...Nxg2! 109.Rxg2 f3= gives Black sufficient counterplay as White's king is far away. Black also holds on against other winning attempts such as 105.Kf1 or 105.Ra8. Black benefits from having her forces close to the attacker's pawn, facilitating active counterplay. Vachier-Lagrave could have aimed for a similar setup with 51...Kg5!?, e.g. 52.Kf3 Ne5+ 53.Ke2 f5 54.Kf2 f4 55.Ra5 Kf5=. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 22.Ndxe6
icon.