|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-26-06 | | brankat: <Paul123> <After move 34. Kramnik went right for the draw> If there had been another 5 minutes on Kramnik's clock, the score would now be 3:0. Btw, the above post of Yours was #123 :-) Congratulations! |
|
| Sep-26-06 | | CapablancaFan: Just got in. Lol. I see Topa did what he should have done in game 1 and take the draw! 2.5-Kramnik 0.5-Topalov. Topalov still has a long way to go. |
|
Sep-26-06
 | | jessicafischerqueen: ok I'm insane, giving multiple thanks to brankat for telling me where Game three is actually being discussed |
|
Sep-26-06
 | | nasmichael: This game felt like a battle, and if it ended peacefully, then so be it. The players would each have a psychological benefit from a win. The draw lets the tension be raised. It was a nice game. |
|
| Sep-26-06 | | cocodrillo: Libar: Hoje, Vlad esteve muito perto de vencer. Faria + 3, e ficaria muito difícil para o arrojado Topa. Portanto, "tablas", hoje, foi um grande resultado para o búlgaro e para os amantes do bom xadrez. Está + 2 para Vlad, mas Topa pode diminuir em 1 amanhã. Se hoje Topa tivesse terminado com - 3, recuperar-se neste embate tão curto seria quase impossível. Tomorrow, however, o embate entre esses dois gigantes começa a pegar fogo. Quem viver verá! No entanto, meu caro, mesmo acostumado a ver reações fantásticas de topa, me parece que Kramnik é um adversário muito sólido e habituado com matches para permitir isso. |
|
| Sep-26-06 | | dx9293: Kramnik clearly could have gone for the jugular here, but considering the lead and his time situation, I can't blame him for playing as he did and just killing the game. Now he needs to kill Game 4 and play Game 5 in a similar fashion to Game 3. Vesko dominated in Game 2, and must play similar to that effort and just try to convert this time. Kramnik in 2006 is clearly not the "perfect" Kramnik of 2000--Topalov just needs to play his game and hope it eventually yields results. As a Kramnik fan, I'm not sleeping peacefully yet. (I'm a Kramnik fan, but I like Topalov a lot--he seems like a very nice and gracious guy. I must admit he would represent the World Championship very well. Thank goodness that insulting sourpuss Kasparov has retired! Certainly the chess world has only improved since he has left it.) |
|
| Sep-26-06 | | Hesam7: After: 32. exd5:
click for larger view Spike 1.2 gives the following:
32... Qxa2 33. Qd3 Qa1 34. d6 h4 35. gxh4 Qc1 36. Rb1 Qf4 37. c5 Qg4+ 38. Kf1 e4 39. Qg3 Qf5 40. Qg5 Qh3+ 41. Kg1 Re8 42. Qg3 Qf5 43. Qg5 Qh3 (eval: +1.43 @ depth 20) |
|
| Sep-26-06 | | cyruslaihy: what would happen after 15...Qxg5, how can white regain the piece? |
|
Sep-26-06
 | | keypusher: 16. Nxe6, forking queen and bishop and threatening Qxd7+ |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | percyblakeney: I'm not totally convinced yet that Kramnik ever had such a trivial win here that 5 minutes more on the clock would have been enough. The Chessbase report indicates that they haven't yet found the win, and refer to coming editions of Chessbase Magazine... 32. exd5 does seem like the best option, but there's no reason for Kramnik to risk anything being 2-0 up when there is a safe draw with another line. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | sandyobrien: reminds me of the first game |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | acaling1000: Mabuhay Pilipinas! Kumusta ta! This players are not as strong as Bobby, at least in the nerves department. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | sucaba: On 34. ♕c3, Black can attack White's e-♙ with 34. _ ♕e2 too, and de-block the ♙a4. For example after 35. ♕xe5 a3 36. d6 a2 37. ♖b3 ♖d8 38. ♖a3 ♖xd6 39. ♖xa2 ♕xa2 40. ♕xd6, White has to struggle for a draw. I had hesitated to play 32. exd5 because of 32. _ e4. If then 33. ♕d4, ♕f3+ 34. ♔g1 h4 with counterplay. Or 33. ♕e2 ♖e8 34. ♕e3 ♕xa2 35. ♕f4 ♖f8 36. ♕xe4 ♕d2, where the ♙a4 is dangerous, and a ♖b7-a7 can be answered with a6-a5. |
|
Sep-27-06
| | jessicafischerqueen: jessicafischerqueen: jessicafischerqueen: jessicafischerqueen: Game 4: Looking for two explanations: What is Top's compensation for allowing 15. ...bishop takes pawn on h2? And what is Kramnik's compensation for giving up his pawn on the move 21... c5? For move 21, I can see that by giving up the c pawn, Kramnik forces Top to trade his king bishop for a knight- is that all the compensation? And for the life of me (I am only a 1400+ player myself) I don't see any compensation for Top giving up his H pawn. Please explain anyone? |
|
Sep-27-06
 | | boz: I don't have a complete answer for jessicafischerqueen (I'm sure many authorities will be offering their views in the days to come) but I have the impression she wants to talk about it right now, so I will tell her what I think. In return for his h pawn Topalov gains time. He gains the time he needs to position his knight on the excellent c4 square with tempo on the retreating dark squared bishop. Was this worth a pawn? Only further experimentation with the position will answer that question. By returning the sacrificed material Kramnik is conceding that maybe it was. Black sacrifices on c5 in order to free his game. White has a dangerous initiative possibly threatening to play Rc5 followed by Na5 with pressure (probably Topalov had better manoeuvres in mind). Even if this can be stopped black does not want his light squared bishop shut in behind the c pawn. Look at how useful that bishop eventually became in the game. |
|
Sep-27-06
| | jessicafischerqueen: Thanks TONS to Boz- I just set up the positions for both moves I asked about on my wooden chess board here at home, and your explanations for both of my questions not only make sense to me- I bet you are correct too. The mobility of the light squared bishop is indeed crucial, as the game proved-- |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | Hesam7: It looks like Kramnik did missed several winning continuations in this game. I hope he wont regret it after the match is over. Her is the first one:
click for larger view <<17.Bxe7?!> More accurate is 17.Ne4! The bishop is still untouchable: 17...Bg5? 18.Nd6 Kf8 (if 18...Ke7, then 19.Nc8 Qc8 20.Qa3! Qc5 21.Qc5 Nc5 22.b4) 19.Nc8 Qc8 20.Nf3, simultaneously attacking g5 and d7. 17...0-0? Also drops a pawn 18.Ne6 fe 19.Be7 Qe7 20.Qd7. After the game Kramnik expressed his regret that he did not see anything forcing after 17...Ne5, but there was a non-standard tactical blow: 18.Be7 Qe7 19.Nf5! Nd3 (if 19...ef, then 20.Nd6 and White takes the с8-rook, attacking the Black’s queen. On 20...Kd7 21.Qd5! is strong, in addition attacking the a5-knight) 20.Ned6! Kd7 21.Ne7, and White wins material. 17...Nc4 could solve the problem: 18.b3 Nce5, and if White retreats his queen, Black castles. However, the same non-standard idea brings White a big advantage: 19.Be7 Qe7 20.Nf5! ef 21.Nd6, for instance, 21...Kd8 22.Nb7 Kc7 23.Qa6. Well, how to defend then? It is difficult (if possible at all) to give a definite answer…> -- GM Inarkiev |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | ghaiethe: Wonderful answer for Vladimir:
After 35..f5!! =
36.Qxa6!! yes V.Kramnik felt the dangerous approximative position because if 36.d6?! fxe4 37.Qd5+ Kh8 38.Qxe5+ Kh7!
39.Rb2+ Rf7 40.Rxf7+ Qxf7 
Double passed pawn-a and a similar Kasparov-Karpov end game in 1984 Nice very nice Mister Vladimir Kramnik
|
|
| Sep-29-06 | | you vs yourself: Peter Svidler's brilliant analysis:
http://www.chesspro.ru/match/events/
Like many others, he too thinks white missed at least 2 chances in this game to make it 3-0. |
|
| Sep-30-06 | | sucaba: Thanks for the link, <you vs yourself>. About 32. exd5, Swidler says:
<(...) a) as GM Korotylev correctly points out, after 32...e4 33.♕e2 ♖e8 34.♖c7! (34.♕e3 ♕xa2 35.♕f4 ♖f8 36.♕xe4 ♕d2 is good for White, but he does not really need to complicate matters so much) 34...♕d3 35.♕e3 White is almost winning; b) 32...♕xa2 (...)>. |
|
| Feb-09-09 | | notyetagm: <Hesam7: It looks like Kramnik did missed several winning continuations in this game. I hope he wont regret it after the match is over. > Monokroussos: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/fil... |
|
| Feb-09-09 | | notyetagm: <Hesam7: It looks like Kramnik did missed several winning continuations in this game. I hope he wont regret it after the match is over. Her is the first one: click for larger view
17.Bxe7?!
<More accurate is 17.Ne4! The bishop is still untouchable: 17...Bg5? 18.Nd6 Kf8 (if 18...Ke7, then 19.Nc8 Qc8 20.Qa3! Qc5 21.Qc5 Nc5 22.b4) 19.Nc8 Qc8 20.Nf3, simultaneously attacking g5 and d7.>> (VAR)
17 ♘c3-e4!
click for larger view(VAR)
20 ♘d4-f3 <discovered attack: d7,g5>
click for larger viewI like this variation because it shows the power of a <DISCOVERED ATTACK>. |
|
| Feb-09-09 | | notyetagm: The variation that I illustrated above really shows the power of <UNMASKING A BATTERY>. (VAR)
20 ♘d4-f3 <discovered attack: d7,g5>
click for larger viewWith 20 ♘d4-f3 <UNMASKING THE BATTERY> of White d3-queen,d1-rook, suddenly Black finds his d7-knight attacked not once but *twice* while at the same time his <UNDEFENDED> Black g5-bishop is attacked by the masking piece (White d4-knight now on f3). Black loses a piece, leaving White a whole exchange ahead. |
|
| Feb-09-09 | | notyetagm: http://www.chesspro.ru/match/events/ |
|
| Apr-18-09 | | WhiteRook48: 36 Qxa6!! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
