|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-18-07 | | whiteshark: <acirce> Pure coincidence again ? :D |
|
| Nov-18-07 | | KamikazeAttack: <Inf: i could be one moron. And i am very proud to be. > Say no more.
|
|
| Nov-18-07 | | KamikazeAttack: When Kramnik plays black, he usually reaches full equality with amazing ease by about move 25, 90% of the time. Question is, why do his opponents accept his offer of a draw rather than stubbornly play on ... like Mame supposedly did in this game?
I will tell u why.
Because of his accurate play style & endgame prowess, many don’t wanna be drawn into the deep waters from an equal position. U notice his competitors are not complaining about his draws as black because they are the ones accepting his offers. They don’t have to accept, u know:) In Elista, Topalov was worse off in many played out games as White in the drawn end games. Not accepting to split the point would give Kramnik many wins as black. |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | dabearsrock1010: is the endgame after 39... Qg7 lost for black? |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | notyetagm: <KamikazeAttack: ... Not accepting to split the point would give Kramnik many wins as black.> Why would Kramnik then offer draws if he could outplay his opponents from equal positions as Black? That seems like laziness. |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | notyetagm: <thedarkisrising: <notyetagm:I am just amazed at how well Kramnik is playing chess in this tournament.> Does this mean the end of your days as a Kramnik-basher?> Problems with Kramnik:
1) Has never won a qualifier for a World Championship match 2) Ducked a rematch with Kasparov, who dominated tournament chess from '99 to '02 3) Has gone back on his word that Mexico City was for "THE" World Championship |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | suenteus po 147: <acirce> I said what?! |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | chessmoron: <Has never won a qualifier for a World Championship match> Anand and Kamsky are the only one who has completely the Interzonal-Candidate Match-WC Match format. Saying Kramnik never won a qualifier for a WC match is wrong because he qualified twice for the 2nd stage of World Championship match qualification. <Ducked a rematch with Kasparov> So you are saying it's not right to use you contract advantages. |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | KamikazeAttack: <notyetagm: <KamikazeAttack: ... Not accepting to split the point would give Kramnik many wins as black.>
Why would Kramnik then offer draws if he could outplay his opponents from equal positions as Black? That seems like laziness.
>
I think it is called being judicious. |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | ahmadov: The players' current rating is not correct on the score sheet here... I think <CG> should correct them... |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | arnaud1959: I already wrote that I don't like Kramnik so much but he is definitely very impressive. This game is incredible. Even in a fully tactical position he finds strategical ideas (a slightly safer king, opponents bishop almost passive...), a game worthy of Botvinnik. Anand has to find something new against him: 1.d4? or Bishop's opening?? or a revolution in Petroff maybe. One word for Shak: He lost this game but he showed that he could be a very dangerous challanger in the future. He reminds me of Kasparov who first couldn't beat Karpov but finally got more experience and made Karpov collapse even emotionally. |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | acirce: <suenteus po 147> Heh. Robert Fontaine said that in one of his videos for Europe-Echecs. |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | suenteus po 147: <acirce> Curse my higher-rated and supremely more talented doppleganger! I guess I will have to learn to live in his shadow :) |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | Topista: Congrats to all Kramnikites.
That includes me.Though it might sound strange.
I can't figure out how can he be defeated in a match . |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | Inf: <Softpaw><He simply CHOOSES these days to play more conservatively, as part of a well-honed super-GM level strategy. That's the way he expresses HIS fighting-spirit.>Ok. before you go and make another dumb post, please go ahead and search what "fight", "fighting" means. If to you <fight> means <conservative play> i will not waste my time with you. <KamikazeAttack><Question is, why do his opponents accept his offer of a draw rather than stubbornly play on ... >The question or point was why Kramnik plays for a draw or "not to lose as black" or "conservative" or "equality" as black. I know he is superb at endgames, his accurate play, but thats not the question. <If> Kramnik would play as black the way he plays as white (ALWAYS pushing or trying to win, having the initiative), he will be a really complete champion. Please dont get me wrong, im not bashing him, his games as white are really impressive, oustanding to watch, and worth of study, but as black you can learn how to be a wall against white. Ask yourself one question: when you play a game of tennis, ping-pong, chess or whatever, do you play not to lose? or do you play to reach equality? or do you play to win? |
|
| Nov-19-07 | | KamikazeAttack: <Ask yourself one question: when you play a game of tennis, ping-pong, chess or whatever, do you play not to lose? or do you play to reach equality? or do you play to win? > U play to win just like Kramnik.
This is exactly why Kramnik has won in:
Turin Olympiad - Gold Medal (TPR 2847 - overall best perfomance) 2006 Dormund 2006
WCC Match, Elista 2006
Amber 2007
Dortmund 2007
Tal 2007
|
|
| Nov-23-07 | | Discerning King: On 30. would somebody explain to me, why is Rxb2 not played by Kramnik?...does that white Knight hold the pawns on c and mostly d pawn as a Blockader? |
|
| Nov-23-07 | | luzhin: After 30.Rxb2 Rxb2 31.Nxb2 Qb1+ followed by Qxb2. Yes,the White knight is the best minor piece in such positions and should not be exchanged for the Black bishop --as the later course of the game demonstrates. |
|
Sep-03-08
 | | GrahamClayton: <dabearsrock1010>is the endgame after 39... Qg7 lost for black? After 40.♕c7 White wins the c-pawn. As Black's main counterplay was c5/c4, I think this is a winning advantage. |
|
Sep-03-08
| | GrahamClayton: Oops! I meant 40.♕c8 and White wins the c-pawn.
|
|
| Oct-17-08 | | ppeti84: It's more like a game by Mihail Tal on the Kramnik-memorial... |
|
| Mar-28-10 | | sezori: Wonder why Mamedyarov played 28. Rb6??, he practically loses the bishop for free after... 29. Rxb2!. Can't take due to 29...Rxb2 30. Qxd4!! picking up the rook and bishop. If 30...Qe5?? Then 31. Nd7 forking king and queen probably with immediate resignation...Guess that "fresh eyes" theory was correct, probably wouldn't find this if I were in the tension of the game. However, depending on the time control I probably WOULD have found this simple 3-4 move idea... Someone correct my human calculation with a brutal computer analysis as to why Rxb2 wouldn't work... ^_^ I don't mind criticism... |
|
Mar-28-10
 | | tamar: <sezori> I thought I had the answer when I found 29 Rxb2 Qe1+ 30 Kh2 Rxb2 31 Qxd4+ Qe5+ 32 Qxe5 Kxe5 but then comes 33 Nd3+ 
click for larger viewand even after 33...Kd4 34 Nxb2 c5 35 f4 White looks winning. Perhaps someone with access to a computer could check this, as it is hard to believe Kramnik would overlook this. |
|
| Jul-31-12 | | Nerwal: On 28... ♖b6 29. ♖xb2, simply 29... ♖xb2 30. ♕xd4+ ♔f7 = (31. ♕xb2 ♕xc5). Apart from this line, 29... ♕e1+ 30. ♔h2 ♕e5+ 31. g3 ♕h5+ 32. ♔g2 ♖xb2 33. ♕xd4+ ♔f7 34. ♘e4 looks quite dangerous for black despite being the exchange up. |
|
| Mar-18-15 | | Conrad93: Isn't 24. Qxd6 cxd6 25. Ne6+ Kf6 26. Nxd4 a losing variation? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
