|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-11-09 | | euripides: <Something was clearly amiss with Tal in this tournament.> Jon Speelman says that Tal suffered a bereavement between his 1979 interzonal triumph and his subsequent failure in the candidates' matches against Polugaevsky (in the series that led up to Karpov-Korchnoi 1981). I'm not sure of the exact dates. |
|
| Jun-11-09 | | Granny O Doul: Yes, Tal lost his brother not long before his '80 match with Polu. |
|
Nov-05-11
 | | HeMateMe: Odd statistic, in the database Tal v. Karpov is 19 draws and one win (classical chess), this being the only decisive game. Looks drawish without much material on the board, but Karpov eliminates the black pawn cover and commits regicide. |
|
| Feb-06-15 | | carpovius: wow! very good conspiracy theories produced by totololo. congrats!! plz, keep digging!!! the way to a psychiatric clinic... i hope2see+ kibitz about chess itself:) |
|
Feb-06-15
 | | profK: I would also suggest that 19 draws of of 20 games defies probability. Perhaps Tal was one of Karpov's heroes. |
|
Jun-07-15
 | | alexmagnus: <Did Tal ever take so many short draws in another tournament?> To my knowledge he played quite many short draws in his very last tournament, due to poor health. But he won his last game. |
|
Jul-09-18
 | | Phony Benoni: Curses! Foiled Again! |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | offramp: This is the Reynolds Variation. "Reynolds Wrap" is a type of organic cling-film made from solidified vitreous humour and used to protect food. |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | Granny O Doul: CHC--I assume you meant 13. Ne5, though you say 13. Nd5 in one place, and 13. Ne4 in another. Beyond that, I'm not computer savvy so I don't know, but it seems like too tiny a difference in eval to worry about. I seem to recall from Gligoric's annotations that 14. Re1 was the TN. Maybe after a few drinks Tal said the game was prearranged, but once he was drunk, he admitted it was legit. |
|
Jul-09-18
 | | ChessHigherCat: <Granny O Doul: CHC--I assume you meant 13. Ne5" Right, sorry, a picture speaks a thousand words: 
click for larger view13. Ne5
I won't claim to have included a mistake in notation because that's the only way anybody ever answers, but it's true! Anyway, if SF rates that as more favorable than castling, why does it recommend castling? |
|
Jul-09-18
| | ChessHigherCat: Corrected version of original post:
ChessHigherCat: Can any computer-savvy kibbitzer please explain this to me:
I thought 13. Ne5 looked interesting so I asked SF and it says: 1) +0.12 (20 ply) 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.Nxd3 b4 15.Ne2 Qxe4 16.O-O Then I asked for its recommendation for move 13 and it says to castle, even though the advantage is smaller: 1) +0.08 (28 ply) 13.O-O Bb7 14.Re1 Be7
This raises a number of questions, such as:
Huh?
Wa dat?
Wudda ^%$@?
I would greatly appreciate any light you may shed on any of the foregoing queries. |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | offramp: <ChessHigherCat: ...
1) +0.12 (20 ply) 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.Nxd3 b4 15.Ne2 Qxe4 16.O-OThen I asked for its recommendation for move 13 and it says to castle, even though the advantage is smaller: 1) +0.08 (28 ply) 13.O-O Bb7 14.Re1 Be7 ...> Surely it is the difference in the number of ply.
For 13.Ne5 SF had a look up to 20 ply and gauged it as +0.12. THEN it had a look right along to 28 ply. Its evaluation changed - at that horizon 13.Ne5 no longer looked as good as 13.0-0, and it revised its whole opinion of White's position slightly downward. |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | Autoreparaturwerkbau: It is interesting how huge the difference between correct <26...Red8> (eval. +0,58) and actually played <26...Rcd8> (eval. +2,29) is in terms of evaluation and how small it seems as in "it's irrelevant which rook i put on d8, isnt it?". Far from irrelevant, it turns out. |
|
Jul-09-18
| | ChessHigherCat: <offramp> Many thanks to the associated members of the Bearded Leprechaun
Think Tank, a non-non-prophet organization. |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | Howard: Yes, 14.Re1 was a TN according to Gligoric's Game of the Month column. |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | offramp: <Howard: Yes, 14.Re1 was a TN according to Gligoric's Game of the Month column> It was also his Lock of the Week. Remind me to look that up. |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | Howard: How do you mean "Lock of the Week" ? |
|
Jul-09-18
| | ChessHigherCat: <offramp> a TN = 1/5 of a lock at room temperature |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | offramp: From what I remember Gligo used to give tips on upcoming games based on rating, past performance, age and (I could never figure this out) wind resistance. A week before this game he predicted a resounding 1-0 to Karpov. It was his Lock of the Week. |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | cormier: Analysis by Houdini 4: d 24 dpa
<1. + / = (0.50): 26...g5> 27.Nd3 Nd5 28.a5+ Ka7 29.a6 Bc6 30.Ne5 Ne3 31.Rd3 Nc4 32.Bc5+ Ka8 33.Nxc6 Rxc6 34.Rd5 f6 35.Bd4 Ne3 36.Rc5 Rd6 37.Bxe3 Rxe3 38.a7 Re8 39.Rxb5 Rd7 40.Rb6 f5 41.Rb5 Rf8 42.Raa5 g4 43.Rxf5 Rxf5 44.Rxf5 gxf3 45.Rxf3 Kxa7 46.Rf6 Kb7 47.Kf2 Rd2+ 2. + / = (0.61): 26...Red8 27.axb5 g5 28.Be5 Rxd1+ 29.Rxd1 gxf4 30.Bxf6 Kxb5 31.h4 Rc5 32.Bg5 Bc8 33.Bxf4 Be6 34.Rb1+ Kc6 35.Kf2 Rc2+ 36.Kg3 Re2 37.Rb8 Bf5 38.Rg8 Bg6 39.Bg5 h5 40.Rc8+ Kd6 41.Bf6 Bh7 |
|
| Jul-09-18 | | cunctatorg: Mikhail Tal was in super-form from, say, 1976 until the strongest Montreal Tournament (back in 1979) but his play suffered a very serious decline soon after that; as an example he had been defeated by Lev Polugaevski, during their Candidates' match at 1980 by 3-0... You can also see that his performance during this Bugojno tournament was quite mediocre. A kibitzer wrote something about his brother's death (?), someone else could speculate something about his fragile health or even a combination of these causes bu the bottom line is that obviously Tal's play suffered a heaviest decline that year. Mikhail Tal was a greatest player and his play had been enriched and improved during his life but Anatoly Karpov's only real rival was Victor Korchnoi at the seventies and Garry Kasparov at the eighties and nineties... |
|
| Jul-10-18 | | Howard: Regarding Tal's lackluster 1980 results (after being ranked #2 at the beginning of the year!) were also
attributable to his mother's death that year--not just that of his brother. In fact, he wasn't even in the world's top-15 at the beginning of 1981. Karpov, incidentally, also had a subpar 1980---for a WC, at least. |
|
| Nov-08-19 | | cunctatorg: What is the meaning of the acronym TN?
Chessical acronyms aside, there aren't today such greatest and fascinating players as Kasparov, Karpov, Tal and Korchnoi, not to mention RJF... |
|
Nov-08-19
 | | beatgiant: <cunctatorg>
TN = "theoretical novelty" i.e. the first time a certain move appeared in a certain position in master play.As for "greatest and fascinating" characters, there is certainly no shortage of very strong players with colorful human foibles today, but maybe we don't have the perspective yet to be able to mythologize them. |
|
| Oct-23-20 | | fisayo123: Apparently Tal was going through a rough time in this event. Its rare to see him routed with such ease as Karpov makes pretty much all the best moves. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
