|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-20-05 | | jhoro: Kramnik offered to exchange the queeens at move 22. The game still looked even at that point (e.g. 22. ♘e2 ♕xd2 23. ♖xd2 ♗b6) |
|
| Dec-20-05 | | KingG: <jhoro> If the queens are exchanged, Black is definitely worse because of his weak pawns on the Queen-side. |
|
Dec-20-05
 | | WannaBe: why white played 20. Be2 and wait for 20...Bc5 then play 21. Bxa6?? |
|
| Dec-20-05 | | PARACONT1: Only goes to show that while he may not be as effective as before playing the super-GMs, the world champ Kramnik nevertheless remains lethal against minor to strong GMs. |
|
Dec-20-05
 | | Eric Schiller: Wrong ECO code (it is clearly a Slav) but a wonderful demonstration of exploiting a weakness (Black's pawn at c6). |
|
| Dec-20-05 | | jhoro: <KingG> (sorry for the late response, I was away) I agree that it looks that way, but I tried playing various engines in machine vs machine mode from that position (after 23...Bb6) and white never won. I think Kramnik would've had better chances, but a draw was also likely since they were even in material and not far from the end game. |
|
| Dec-20-05 | | patzer2: Kramnik's 38. d5! earns the full point with a double attack, threatening 38...Rcd7 39. d6  with a winning pawn fork or 38...exd5 39. Rcxd5! with a discovered attack. |
|
| Dec-20-05 | | JohnBoy: After the exchange on move 21, white's strategy was to shore up the d pawn and go after the weak c pawn. Kramnik did this with great technique. I'm with <Schiller> - great display of viruosity. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | PARACONT1: poor kramnik. no matter how good he plays his critics will say he was lucky, it was weak opposition, his opponent played well but slipped, his opponent could've drawn if there was more time, etc. when Kramnik loses it's because he's hopeless, easy meat, completely outplayed, crushed, time isn't a factor because his opponent also was given the same time to use from the start, etc.
Some losers just won't know when to surrender and give the poor champ his dues (in an open, not backhanded manner) |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | PARACONT1: <csmath> you're missing the whole point, and i AM assuming you're intelligent to see it. The POINT is the critics always look for ways to downgrade Kramnik's wins. If his opponent missed a better line they'd use it to say 'the game might have been saved if...' or in your case: <Volkov decided to play passively in time trouble and he lost> followed by some plagiarised analysis - which to keener minds means 'he wouldn't have lost if he played aggresively'. See? The POINT is also that when Kramnik loses, how often do the critics take the trouble you have to point out a line he could have played? No, they just say "Blunder. Not surprising' or 'Expected.' or 'OMG. What an idiot.' See?
<I didn't say Kramnik played poorly.> LOL. OMG. What... |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | csmath: This is a good game for Kramnik but Volkov made it easier than it should have been. The choice of black opening moves is a suspect, I would assume that Kramnik simply surprised Volkov because this queen on b6 was certainly not a very good move. While he had a time Volkov was defending himself very well. Note excellent move 15. ... Na6, I think practically the only move in the position. By the move 22, Volkov has completed defence of the cheerless opening and is doing very well indeed. But now instead of playing active game he decided to defend by manouvreing even though it is obvious that he has to generate some action on the b-file due to his broken pawns. He is poorly defending his weaknesses (pawns) instead of using his strength (open b-file). One has to note that Volkov had only minutes left here after poorly managing his time in the opening. So all in all, black was outplayed in the opening, wasted time, got his chance for countergame but then in the time trouble flushed everything down the drain. Volkov should have played
22. ... Qb5
23. Qc2 ... Bb4
instead of retreating.
In fact even exchanging queens after
24. Kb1 ... c5
25. dxc5 ... Rc8
26. a4 (if not this than it is tactical game in time trouble for both) 26. ... Qxc5
27. Qxc5 ... Bxc5
28. Rd7 ... Be3
29. b3 ... a5
30. Rhd1 ... Bb6
31. Kb2 ... e5
32. f5 ... Nf4
33. Ng1 ... f6
34. Bh2 ... Rc6
there is no win on the horizon.
|
|
| Dec-21-05 | | PinkPanther: <Queens Gambit>
BLUNDERING??????? From move 10 on black was competely outplayed in this game, move for move. I ran this game through Fritz, and for about the latter 2/3's of the game Kramnik's play is nearly flawless. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | csmath: <From move 10 on black was competely outplayed in this game, move for move.> Black was outplayed from the move one meaning he entered inferior opening. He defended himself quite well to about move 22 where he lost the thread in time trouble and allowed to be smothered. Kramnik played exactly the type of game he likes to play but this player is not in his class anyway. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | PinkPanther: Well, honestly, in the opening I thought Kramnik didn't really play like Kramnik...I mean, the moves by white seemed to me to be too crude. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | csmath: True. I think most of black problems are the consequence of 8. ... h5? since later on this pawn became a lightning rod. If black played 8. ... h6 the game would have been not so beneficial to white at all. I think Kramnik intended to play as aggressive as he could (he needed a win and Volkov is the opportunity) therefore this pawn rush. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | ChessMan94: Volkov's rating is 2614. No surprise Kramnik managed to win this game. The true test is with the 2700+ crowd. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | jhoro: <ChessMan94> nowadays we expect any 26-hundrish player to be able to at least draw against Kramnik. loss is unacceptable ;)) |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | alicefujimori: hmm...First of all, I think analysis is fine. The point of analyzing a game is to point out where the mistakes were and what could of been done instead of the mistake. Otherwise what's the point of analysing a game?? So I don't see any problems with comments like <Volkov decided to play passively in time trouble and he lost> and gave some analysis as to what he could of done. The only problem I could see is someone here doesn't like the fact that these kind of analysis didn't appear in games where Kramnik had lost. Well, annotations are always subjective. If someone really felt like defending Kramnik's cause in those games where he lost then they should be the ones who provide analysis to proof that Kramnik wasn't an idiot (or whatever terms Kramnik bashers like to use against Kramnik). About the game. I think Kramnik played a decent game. He had to face a line that he probably never saw before, but nevertheless played calmly to develop a nice advantage against Black's weird setup. However, to be fair, we expect a world champion class player (in his peak years) to perform like this, right? Anyhow, congratulations for winning and keep it up. Show us some nice chess, Kramnik. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | Queens Gambit: Lets see if Kramnik can beat Svidler or Morozevich. |
|
Dec-21-05
 | | chancho: Let's see if <Queensgambit> can stop bashing Kramnik for one whole week. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | csmath: Lets see if chancho can catch acirce in 2006. :-) |
|
Dec-21-05
| | chancho: That will never happen. |
|
| Dec-22-05 | | ex0duz: patzer2: Kramnik's 38. d5! earns the full point with a double attack, threatening 38...Rcd7 39. d6 with a winning pawn fork If he moves his rook to d7, its not really a pawn fork anymore is it? or am i reading your notation wrong.. whats the winning line after 38. d5 Rcd7? i cant even see him winning a pawn, just getting an advanced passer on the D file, surely better than being down the exchange? |
|
| Dec-22-05 | | patzer2: <exoduz: ...whats the winning line after 38. d5 Rcd7?> White wins after <38. d5 Rcd7> with 39. d6! Nc8 40. Rc1 Qa6 41. Qc4 Qb6 42. Bd4 Qb7 43. Rxa5 . You're right about the threat of the pawn fork with 39. d6 no longer being available after 39...Rcd7. However, the resulting weakness in Black's queenside pawn structure leads to a win for White after 38...Rcd7 39. d6! anyway. |
|
| Apr-25-07 | | Hot Logic: A clear advantage and winning the game are normally different things but not with Kramnik! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
