|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-24-05 | | InfinityCircuit: <patzer2> Your computer must either be faster than mine or you must have started the analysis sooner. Now my 2 hours of computation will be worthless! Oh well, I don't really mind. |
|
| Feb-24-05 | | InfinityCircuit: Another possible choice, instead of 45...Rxc5, is ...Rb7+ 46.Kc3 Ke5. The inbetween check seems to be quite helpful by placing the rook where it can attack the passers from behind, while at the same time supporting his own pawns. Fritz gives this line as =, but on the other hand for a long sit it gives the winning 55.Bd7+ as equal, when it is in fact opposite. |
|
| Feb-24-05 | | InfinityCircuit: Amusingly enough, Fritz8 felt it important to mention that 38...Rxh2 39.Rxh2 Nxh2 40.Rh4  was a blunder. Sometimes it has very interesting views on what simple variations it should and should not show.By the way patzer2 when using Fritz8 for evaluation do you do Blunder Check, Full Analysis, or just turn on the analysis and go through the variations yourself? |
|
| Feb-24-05 | | patzer2: <InfinityCircuit> I highlight and Ctl-C the "view text" annotation to the game in Chessgames.com and edit/paste the game to Fritz, and then look at the game using engine/infinite analysis. I force Fritz to look at a lot of variations that interest me, and often stop it from exploring what I consider dead end options. I don't really like the total Fritz analysis with Blunder check, because I learn more by exploring the lines in my own "interactive mode," often stopping to try out moves (even trying to "beat Fritz" in difficult won positions or trying to guess what Fritz will finally select). Actually trying to understand the variations and getting the computer to improve in lines that are difficult for computers is interesting and challenging. |
|
| Feb-24-05 | | csmath: <<Topalov apparently misses two more chances to hold at moves 44 and 45:
Instead of <44...Rc7?!>, perhaps Black should consider 44...Rg7! 45.bxa5 Rg2 46.a6 Rxe2+ 47.Kb3 Nd5 48.a7 Nc7 49.Ra6+ Nxa6 50.a8Q Nxc5+ 51.Kc3 Nd3 52.Qh8+ Ke6 53.Qc8+ Ke5 54.Qc7+ Kf6 55.Qd6+ Kg5 56.Qg3+ Kh6 57.Qh3+ Kg6 58.Qg3+ Kh6 59.Qh4+ Kg6 60.Qg3+ Kh5 61.Qh3+ Kg5 62.Qg3+ Kh5 63.Qh3+ Kg5 64.Qg3+ =, with a draw by threefold repetition.>> 44. Rg7 is not easy to spot, and it might be hard for GM to calculate all the complications but 45. ... Rxc5 was definitely a bad idea. Anand, to his credit, played well after that and, unlike Kasparov, did not allow the full point to slip away. This whole game is not terribly important for Naydorf as opening but it is instructive of Anand's strength in endings which he demonstrated many times. Very strong indeed. |
|
| Feb-24-05 | | mdz: Black had a draw in his pocket as late as move 50...Kg5 and white can't force rook exchange and will have to give up B for 2 pawns. Can anyone show a win for white? |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | csmath: That looks rather bad as it would cut off king from the side where there is a white passer (a-file). Looks totally lost to me. I'd gladly give a bishop for two pawns once king is cut off there is an easy win. |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | watchchess79: Can anyone tell me if a draw is there for 49> .. Kg5? |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | acirce: <mdz> Simple: 51.a4 f3 52.Bxf3 exf3 53.Rxf3 wins! The black king is cut off too many lines away from the a-pawn. Tablebases confirm. (Compare the same position as after 53.Rxf3 but with the rook on e3 and the black king on f5 -- this makes ..Re5 possible since the pawn endgame doesn't lose, and White has to allow the black king closer to the pawn.) |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | euripides: I was surprised by 31...Ra8. Were there better chances with 31 ...Rad8 e.g. 31 Rxa5 Nf4 ? |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | SimonBrazil: Topalov was making a bid to beat Kramnik and Anand with black in a month's time and there were chances for both sides during this tremendously imbalanced game. The opening was sharp, both kings were in play, and both sides got large packs of passed pawns. Topalov's loose play in the ending gave Anand good winning chances, but soon it looked like s sure draw. If Anand has any weakness perceptible to man or machine it is a tendency to play too quickly when he has an advantage. The combination of speed and advantage is usually devastating, but sometimes he lets the fish off the hook. GM Yasser Seirawan, commentating on the game in Playchess.com, was surprised by a few of Vishy's strong moves at first and then was more surprised by a few weak ones! This time Topalov jumped right back on the hook with 45...Rxc5? and was lost. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | SimonBrazil: Here 45...Ke5 46.a6 Ra7 47.c6 Nd5 48.Bc4 Nb6 liquidates into an easily drawn rook endgame, but Topalov played the careless 45...Rxc5? Now he has a serious problem with Anand's a-pawn: 46.a6 Nd5 47.a7 Nc7 48.a8Q Nxa8 49.Rxa8 White is a piece up for a pawn, but he must stop the two black passers. 49...f4 50.Rf8+ Ke5 51.Bg4 f3 52.Rf5+ Kd4 53.Rxc5 Kxc5 54.Kc3 Kb5 55.Kd2 f2. |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | Ezzy: 56 Be2+! was nice. Any other move, and white can not get his king across to his queenside pawn. 56 Be2+! creates a nice blockade on the e pawn and whites king moves merrily across to his a pawn. |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | InfinityCircuit: <patzer2> Thanks a lot for your information. I often cycle through the three, since Fritz as mentioned rarely gives me exactly the lines I'm interested in. |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | InfinityCircuit: <SimonBrazil> Nice analysis, but it was copied directly from Chessbase. I recommend that in the future to link to the site in both posts or explain in the second to prevent any confusion. |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | csmath: <<If Anand has any weakness perceptible to man or machine it is a tendency to play too quickly when he has an advantage. The combination of speed and advantage is usually devastating, but sometimes he lets the fish off the hook. GM Yasser Seirawan, commentating on the game in Playchess.com, was surprised by a few of Vishy's strong moves at first and then was more surprised by a few weak ones! This time Topalov jumped right back on the hook with 45...Rxc5? and was lost.>> Yup, Rxc5 sealed it.
Anand is a different player than many top GMs. The reason is that Anand is genius, similar to Kasparov. I mean his insights are "unnaturally" good. If you compare GMs to machines, Anand is the closest to one. If you follow computer analyses during the game you would notice that. He plays computer moves very often. That indicates to me that his calculations are in a flash, very fast. He does not play fast because he is impatient, he plays fast because he is superintelligent. He would probably make an excellent scientist but he is "wasting" his talent on chess. ;-)) |
|
| Feb-25-05 | | euripides: After move 53, if you move all the pieces and pawns up one rank towards Black's back rank, I think the position may be drawn. The win in the game depends on a zugzwang (pointed out by <acirce>) where white has the bishop on d5 and the black king is on a3, with the pawns still on e4 and f3 held by the white king.. Here ...Kb2 loses to a4, and otherwise Black's king must lose contact with the a pawn allowing Bxe4. But a rank ahead a3-a5 is not legal, so Black would be able to keep in contact by playing the king between b3 and a4. I have once composed a study on a similar theme in a Rv3P ending where moving the position back from Black's point of view helped Black. |
|
| Feb-26-05 | | Flyboy216: <He does not play fast because he is impatient, he plays fast because he is superintelligent. He would probably make an excellent scientist but he is "wasting" his talent on chess.> ... Except that many studies have shown that chess-playing ability is not strongly correlated with either mathematical or general intelligence. |
|
| Feb-26-05 | | DutchDunce: <Except that many studies have shown that chess-playing ability is not strongly correlated with either mathematical or general intelligence.> I must have been in that study. I've always been good at math, but to this day I struggle to play good chess. Maybe I'm too mathematical? |
|
| Feb-27-05 | | siu02jm: <Except that many studies have shown that chess-playing ability is not strongly correlated with either mathematical or general intelligence.> WHAT A DENOUNCATION OF RATIONAL THINKING!!!
the chess problem can be solved, at least computationally given enough time. someone is yet to come with better algorithm...
there indeed exist a PERFECT move in every position.. chess appeals to me only because it prompts one to think rationally, mathematically if you may. it has capacity to induce rational thinking one of a kind similar to math problems especially number theory. so yes, i strongly feel that rational thinking can sometime bare fruit in solving the complex chess positions.
current computer algorithms are mere searching for the best move, but a clever trick may exist that can be used to pin point the best move, i think, just like its true for the nim game. |
|
| Mar-01-05 | | Flyboy216: <siu02jm> Thanks for your valuable input, but you have missed the point entirely. |
|
| Mar-01-05 | | Open Defence: Well some of the "best" moves a la Tal are the result of imagination and romanticism, not rational thinking hehehe, rational thinking is probably to draw after 25 moves |
|
| Mar-01-05 | | RisingChamp: There is not always a perfect move,often many moves lead to the same result,and hence technically they are equally good,or are u saying they are all perfect? |
|
| Oct-08-05 | | alexandrovm: Anand played harder and with lots of imagination when the championship title was not at stake. What the hell happend to him today??? |
|
| Aug-02-13 | | MarkFinan: Using Stockfish its dead even 0.00 at a 26ply depth after Blacks 44th move!
45.Rxc5 (As opposed to say Nd5 or even Rb7+) is the losing move then.. Providing White continues with correct play. I know these "Super Super GM's" are only human but you'd think with only 4 pieces and 3 pawns apiece left on the board, id have thought Black, after being more or less dead even all the way through, would have been able to see say...18ply deep and realised it was a draw.
After Move 44, with correct play, this should have been drawn.. Easy for me to say with an engine though i guess.
Chess players intrigue me more than anything else :) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
