|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-29-03 | | MONSAINT: @#$% u |
|
| Oct-29-03 | | JSYantiss: Dude, that was totally not the right thing to say here....I hope you don't eat with that mouth. |
|
Oct-29-03
 | | Open Defence: Sheesh an unecessary comment for an interesting game... I like how black took his king to h7 Steinitz would have liked this I think |
|
| Oct-29-03 | | TandooriChicken: This is probably the most famous (only?) high level game in the Cochrane Gambit in recent years, perhaps ever. For some interesting discussion of this opening, go to TWIC and look for John Watson's review of Chris Baker's book "A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire for White." The book itself also has some interesting analysis as the Cochrane is Baker's recommended response to the Petroff. I bet Kramnik was startled! Topalov had real guts trying this against a defensive player of Big Vlad's caliber. |
|
Oct-29-03
| | Open Defence: Yeah it must have come as a surprise, there must be so many gambits out there waiting for their second shot at the spot light |
|
| Oct-29-03 | | Drstrangelove: Is it for sure a draw though? I see many lines that look very interesting. |
|
| Oct-29-03 | | crafty: 32. ♖xc5 ♘d2+ 33. ♔h2 ♘f1+ 34. ♔h1 ♘e3+ 35. ♔h2 = (eval 0.00; depth 15 ply; 250M nodes) |
|
Nov-01-03
| | Open Defence: This is the way I saw it: if black plays 32..Ng3+ then wont he win the rook after 33Kf2 Ne4+ ? so white must play 33Kh2 and I don't see anything better than perpetual check with Nf1+ |
|
| Dec-08-03 | | Drstrangelove: I'm suprised people don't try this line more often. Topalov did very well against none other then Kramnik. |
|
| Mar-05-04 | | bunti: Lets see if Topalov has another surprise tomorrow for kramnik and busts out a gambit line tomorrow like he did in this game at linares. i suppose it would be better than a 19 move draw. |
|
| Mar-05-04 | | perplex: 32...Ng3+ 33 Kh2. |
|
| Mar-05-04 | | MoonlitKnight: I'm hoping that Topa will crush Drawnik with the white pieces today. Faint hope, though. |
|
| May-26-04 | | acirce: I had no idea this game existed. The Cochrane on this level? Incredible. |
|
| Jun-19-04 | | acirce: John Watson comments a bit on this game: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwa... <Since the last few reviews, I have received a number of interesting and critical responses. First and foremost, my ill-considered remark that the Cochrane Gambit is 'simply unsound' and capable of refutation aroused the ire of a subculture of Cochrane-Heads (of whose existence I was previously unaware; would that I could return to those innocent days!). These loyalists sent me glowing reports on the Cochrane and in two cases, truckloads of games. At the very least, these games proved to me that, when neither side has the slightest idea how to play the resulting positions, the Cochrane is probably more dangerous for Black than White! As a result, I spent more time than I'd like to admit investigating 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7. Remarkably, as if to humiliate me further, no less than world-class player Veselin Topalov just played 4.Nxf7 against Kramnik in Linares, and drew the game, which would seem to render my 'unsound' comments to the scrap heap. However, there are a few points to make about that game: (a) Topalov played this after a loss as White to Kasparov, in which the latter's superior theoretical preparation (extending past move 20 in a main line) must have depressed Topalov. So a crazy experimental response may have been just the therapy he needed in the next round; (b) More importantly, after 4...Kxf7, Topalov played not 5.d4 (the only move considered in most sources), nor even 5.Bc4, Cochrane's original idea (discredited by 5...d5!), but 5.Nc3!?, a move probably designed to avoid the known drawbacks of the other two moves. Now Kramnik responded with 5...c5 6.Bc4+ Be6 7.Bxe6+ Kxe6 8.d4 Kf7 9.dxc5 Nc6, a completely safe method which appears to me to be at least equal. We'll have to see what the players' notes say. The only theoretical comment I can find on 5.Nc3 gives it a '?!' and suggests 5...Qe8! 6.Bc4+ Be6, when Black is clearly better (Osnos and Kalinchenko in NIC Yearbook 19). I'm sure that Topalov would have played 6.d4! instead, with the idea 6...Nxe4? 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qd5+. However, Black can play 5...Qe8 6.d4 d5 7.e5 Bb4, transposing to a normal Cochrane (if there is any such thing), and the move 5...Qe7!? also deserves strong consideration, intending 6.d4 c5.> |
|
| Aug-20-04 | | Whitehat1963: Example of how the ludicrous-looking opening of the day may actually have a bit of life in it when played skillfully by great players. I'm certain it always comes as a surprise in a tournament like Linares! |
|
| Aug-20-04 | | acirce: A pleasant surprise, though. Kramnik had no problem to equalize. |
|
| Aug-20-04 | | Jack Rabbit: Here's a variation on what <Crafty> and <OpenDefense> have above: 32. Rxe5 Ng3+ 33. Kh2 Ne2 (threat -- Qg8#) 34. Bc2 Rd8 (threat -- Rd1) 35. Qb3. Is this any worse? The other line is a forced draw and I don't see a win for anybody in this one, either, but it's a little more interesting. |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | RisingChamp: <Acirce> We seem to frequently disagree about openings.I must ask u how you are sure that Kramnik had "no problem" to equalize.I dont deny that he did but I cannot believe he actually felt pleasant when confronted by such an aggresive opening.While it is certainly not a great winning attempt it cant be that bad.Whites material deficit is not so awful- two pawns for a knight and blacks king position constitutes definite compensation.Lastly the fact that Kramnik equalized easily doesnt prove much- He equalizes easily against just about everything-if i am not mistaken Kramnik was in the middle of an 80 game unbeaten streak at that point! |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | acirce: <I must ask u how you are sure that Kramnik had "no problem" to equalize.> Because he had a safe, at least equal position by move 8 or so. <I dont deny that he did but I cannot believe he actually felt pleasant when confronted by such an aggresive opening.> Why not? Can you elaborate on that? Is it something with Kramnik's personality? The Cochrane is known to be dubious - you just have to know what you're doing as Black and then it's your dream to meet 4.Nxf7. Maybe it works against a player who absolutely hates any kind of complications whatsoever but Kramnik is certainly flexible enough. Or it could work on club level - this I didn't deny. <While it is certainly not a great winning attempt it cant be that bad.Whites material deficit is not so awful- two pawns for a knight and blacks king position constitutes definite compensation.> Yes, but not more than that, and it's not clear if it's even enough for equality. The main line as presented by Janjgava in "The Petroff" leads, for the record, to a  position. <Lastly the fact that Kramnik equalized easily doesnt prove much- He equalizes easily against just about everything> Lol. I like Kramnik but he is not a superman who can perform miracles. Against a mainline Ruy for example you just CAN'T equalize that quickly and simply. Not even Kramnik :-) That he still doesn't lose that often is a different matter. |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | RisingChamp: Well u seem to be confused on several levels.I would like to make a couple of distinctions which ur missing. A)You cant equalize in a Ruy that quickly-granted but "easy" refers to level of difficulty not just spped in terms of no of moves and its much tougher to find the equalizing moves in the unfamiliar Cochrane.B)You are confusing safe and equal-Just because a position is equal doesnt mean it is so safe-ny mistake could absolutely ruin your position.C)Thirdly u seemed to be possesed of the erronous notion that a game of chess is over once black has "equalised" this is far from the truth.Can you really claim that you can clearly see the position from move 8 to be a forced draw?!! |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | RisingChamp: P.S Who has evaluated the position u mentioned as slightly better for balck- a grandmaster? A computer? Your own evaluation- When u give an evaluation it is customary to mention the source. |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | acirce: You don't know what you are talking about and you're putting words in my mouth. For example, I have never said such a stupid and absurd thing as that "a game of chess is over once black has equalized". How did you interpret that out of my "Kramnik had no problem to equalize"? I can't take you seriously when you're "debating" on that level. Drop me a note when you are ready to discuss seriously. |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | RisingChamp: Well granted u never said that.I never said u said it.I said u seemed posessed of the notion.But actually ur right it isnt implied in anything u said.U have my apologies.But I would still like to know whose evaluation that is. |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | acirce: No problem! :-) It is Janjgava's own evaluation as far as I can see, and it is after the moves 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5+ 7.Nc3 Qxc5 8.Be3 Qc7. It also says it <..leaves White with some problems in demonstrating enough compensation for the piece>. As I said it's just for the record. It may be that the assessment is wrong and/or that White has improvements. But I really do not think that Black has any serious opening problems whatsoever if he knows the theory which you are supposed to do on this level. Then it's still open of course. White can win, Black can win, it can be a draw. |
|
| Sep-01-04 | | clocked: <RisingChamp> not to speak for <acirce>, but you are unfair in points A) and B) as well. "safe, at least equal position" and "equalize that quickly and simply"
each list two seperate concepts which are not being equated. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
