|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-05-09 | | Nezhmetdinov: Very much enjoyed the <Lt. Col. Majid> vs <notyetagm handbags> in the comments there, particularly Majid's point about notyetagm <gallivanting from forum to forum espousing the greatness of Topalov as the 2nd coming of Mr. Jesus H Christ.> Harsh but true...
Oh, and this is a FANTASTIC game. |
|
Jul-29-10
 | | scormus: Tremendous play by Adams, determined aggression to beat one of the best, ... shall we say, chess grapplers? <notyetagm> Thanks for the info(rmant). I was thinking it must have been a strong contender for any best game prize. Nice to see, again, Nd5 doing the business against the Sicilian. And in this game more of a positional sac than the slam-bang combos you often see. |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | newzild: Even a misplaced apostrophe cannot detract from the pleasure of Adams' attack. |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | thegoodanarchist: Ever single GOTD reinforces in my mind the importance of piece activity. I always recall the words of my coach, GM Kaidanov: "Piece activity is VERY important." |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | kevin86: breakaway! The h-pawn will soon queen or will cost black dearly. |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | Everett: <thegoodanarchist> My first chess books focused on Reti's and Seirawan's games, both outstanding players, but it wasn't until I played through and studied Bronstein's games in "Sorcerer's Apprentice" that I understood the same thing about piece activity. Though I enjoy both player's games, Seirawan's and Bronstein's games are worlds apart. I feel like when people discuss the difference between "positional" and "tactical" players, what they may be seeing is the difference between "limiting opponent activity" vs. "maximizing one's own activity." Adams, Karpov, Petrosian, etc. are often "limiters" while Kasparov, Topalov, Bronstein, etc. are "maximizers." Of course one goes hand-in-hand with the other... |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | Arbiter58: <Lt. Col. Majid: Adams has always owned Topalov. Will 2007 be different? We shall see> just checked the database. 41 games. 12 wins by adams, 9 by topalov, 20 draws. adams has a positive record, yes, but its far from owning. |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | weary willy: <owned>. Isn't that one of the most offensive, aggressive, repugnant phrases in the modern lexicon?! They are two people playing a game for flick's sake. One might be better than the other. No possession involved. No intention to suggest that the recent user invented the usage and that many others are not also using it. Just wish we didn't. <rant over> |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | Once: <Everett> Very well said! I think this underlines <thegoodanarchist>'s point about the importance of piece activity. Either make your pieces more active than your opponent's (tactical) or make his pieces less active than yours (strategic). A little simplistic perhaps, but an interesting way of looking at them game. Perhaps this means that we should talk about relative piece activity? For me, one other thing differentiates tactical and positional players - their attitude to risk. Positional players tend to be very risk averse, where tactical players don't mind taking on a few risks if it means that they get an unbalanced position where they can outplay their opponent. |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | rapidcitychess: Wow. This game hurts my head. |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | DiskFunkTionaL: A plus score against V. Topalov, wonderful. Thanks for the stats Arbiter58. |
|
| Jul-30-10 | | topi: Somebody knows were does Topalov get his ELO rating from? he never plays the big ones. you have to play in the big ones to earn > 2800 |
|
| Jul-30-10 | | twinlark: <topi>
Here's a complete list for the last few years: http://ratings.fide.com/hist.phtml?... |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | percyblakeney: <Somebody knows were does Topalov get his ELO rating from? he never plays the big ones.> He won Linares two months before the title match against Anand, and in his previous tournament (Nanjing, with a player average of 2764) he would have won clearly if not for Carlsen's being there and scoring the highest Elo performance ever in a top event. In the event before that he scored 2800+ in Sofia. So it's not as if Topalov's results have been bad. |
|
| Oct-24-10 | | sevenseaman: Good, perceptive chess, the kind it takes to beat top players. There's just a hint of complacence from Topalov, that ought to count as weakness on occasion. |
|
| Sep-23-11 | | xanadu: The comments of Everet and Once are interested, but perhaps are expressed in terms which are not not clear to me. Possibly the concepts can be expressed in simplest terms. For instance, in this game, Adams got a full development of all his pieces much more in advance than Topalov. Adams connected his rooks and put both Bishops in excellent sites while Topalov had no development of his queen bishop and rooks were not connected. To make things whorst, Topalov moved around the queen Knight go and back and then deteroriate his castle without solving all the other problems at the queen side. In this way not only the activity of Adams pieces was superior: he got space advantage in the sides and center, and many possibilities for pawn advances in several variations (all very dangerous for Black). The capability of Black for defense was very limited because of loosing development and then capability for react at the center. Even if Adams were chosen a less agressive tactic, the advantage of White was clear by around moves 17-20. Then tactic was a consequence of positional advantage originated in a relative fast development compared to his opponent. |
|
Nov-29-11
 | | Penguincw: Passed pawns must be pushed. |
|
| Nov-19-12 | | Cemoblanca: 'Tricky Mickey' @ his best!
40.Qf4! was the quiet killer move, because after that there is no counterplay for Black & on the other side, 1 of the pawns will across the finishing line soon! Great game! :) |
|
| Apr-19-13 | | Conrad93: Adams played better than Rybka 4. |
|
| Apr-20-13 | | Conrad93: 25. Nf6? actually draws the game after 25...e5!
White has no way to push the advantage. |
|
| Apr-20-13 | | Conrad93: Micheal Adams's 25th move is superior to anything recommended by a machine. |
|
| Feb-02-16 | | pumping707: Very tactical game...I think I need to look @ the game again |
|
Nov-03-22
 | | kingscrusher: Adams describes this game as a blend of tactics vs strategy and an interesting stylistic match-up: https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/n... Around 30 minute mark |
|
| Nov-02-24 | | Mygyatrizzler: How is white going to win over here? |
|
| Dec-08-24 | | FM David H. Levin: <<Mygyatrizzler>: How is white going to win over here?> I haven't read all of the kibitzing to see whether your question was addressed, but in the final position, 
click for larger viewa direct threat is 43. h6 followed by 44. Bg7 (Interfering with Black's control of the h7-square.) and 45. h7 (Giving up the bishop in order to promote.). Blockading by 42...Rh7 would likely result in this rook's being trapped. Trying instead for counterplay by 42...Rc2 (Intending 43...Bb7 with an attack at g2.) would be too slow. For example, 42...Rc2 43. h6 Bb7 44. Qg4 (Happy to give up Q+P for R+B in order to then advance the h-pawn.) 44...Ra6 45. h7 Ra1+ 46. Kh2 Raa2 47. h8=Q+. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 25.h3