|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-12-09 | | percyblakeney: <40...Bd5??>
I think Kamsky had a few seconds left by then, and he had already been lost for a long time. +0 -8 =4 for Kamsky in total against Aronian and Radjabov, not exactly his favourite opponents. |
|
Aug-12-09
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <Philidor: 40...Bd5??> As pointed out by <percyblakeney>, this was probably an oversight in time pressure. More difficult for me to understand is the idea behind 1. ... g6 followed by trading the f8-Bishop for a Knight five moves later. |
|
| Aug-12-09 | | Marmot PFL: Since Kamsky plays the Slav and Caro-Kann anyway, he might as well answer 1 c4 with c6 and transpose to one or the other. That or 1..Nf6 with a possible Grunfeld (though white can avoid that). |
|
| Aug-12-09 | | tibone: would it have been too dangerous to play 5...Nxe4? |
|
| Aug-12-09 | | tibone: maybe kamsky should have gone for a berlin-like endgame that arises pretty much forced after 4...exd4 5.e5 (5.Nxd4 Nxe4)5...Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qe7 7.Bxb4 (7.Bd3 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d6 9.0-0 dxe5 10.Nxe5 0-0)7...Qxb4+ 8.Qd2 Qxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 Nh5 10.Nxd4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 dxc6 |
|
Aug-12-09
 | | tamar: <tibone: would it have been too dangerous to play 5...Nxe4?> Tony Miles used to answer doubtful suggestions with "Well, it's legal." I could only find two instances in this database, both wins by White, who gets a good initiative. Here is the most drastic: Miles vs G Wall, 1999 |
|
| Aug-12-09 | | tibone: no, i mean´t 5...Nxe4 after Nc3 |
|
Aug-12-09
| | tamar: <tibone: no, i mean´t 5...Nxe4 after Nc3> Very likely it is playable. After 6 Qc2 Nxc3 7 bxc3 Be7 8 dxe5 material is even again. |
|
| Aug-12-09 | | MaxxLange: Kamsky resigned because of 41...Bxf3 42 Rf8+ Ke6 43 Rf6+ Kd7 44 Rxg6, right? |
|
| Aug-12-09 | | Buttinsky: 43 Rxf |
|
| Aug-13-09 | | ajile: 1..g6 and then 4..Bb4+?
Incomprehensible. |
|
| Aug-13-09 | | roughstuff: what would have happened if 7...Nxe4 instead of 0-0?. is it a trap? |
|
| Aug-13-09 | | tibone: <tamar: <tibone: no, i mean´t 5...Nxe4 after Nc3>
Very likely it is playable. After 6 Qc2 Nxc3 7 bxc3 Be7 8 dxe5 material is even again.>
it´s clear that black is not better but after Nc3 this seems to be the logical move since after 5...exd4 6.a3! white gets the black-squared bishop |
|
Aug-15-09
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: The Adorjan Defense (1.c4,g6; 2.e4,e5) is a bit of an odd duck in that Black usually does play ...Bb4+. The defense is built around either very quick development and opening lines as fast as possible, or playing ...Bb4xc3+ and shattering White's pawns. If the database is up-to-date, the big innovation is 5.Nc3. Interesting, is it not, that even today we can still get out of the book of the 5th move? Aronian's plan is very interesting; he seeks to make a virtue of leaving his King in the center and opening the h-file for his Rh1. I look forward to seeing what the silicon monsters have to say about the 5.Nc3 innovation. |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | Ulhumbrus: One justification for 4....d6 is that White's e4 pawn is attacked as well as Black's e5 pawn eg 4....d6 5 dxe5 Nxe4 |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | tibone: <Ulhumbrus: One justification for 4....d6 is that White's e4 pawn is attacked as well as Black's e5 pawn> furthermore it´s preparing the development of black´s light-squared bishop! which in the game kamsky managed too late because after d6 ng5 he was already almost losing. okay , but after 4..d6 5.dxe5 Nxe4 6.Qd4! black is lost as fritz just told me. in contrast to <1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 d6 4.dxe5 Nxe4 5.Qd5 Nc5> 6...Nc5 is not working here because after 7.exd6 the rook is hanging |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | tibone: maybe 3..d6 instead of 3..Nf6 would harmonize better with ..g6 see Mihail Marin´s comments on this game: http://www.chessbase.com/cbm/cbm131... |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | Ulhumbrus: <tibone: <Ulhumbrus: One justification for 4....d6 is that White's e4 pawn is attacked as well as Black's e5 pawn> furthermore it´s preparing the development of black´s light-squared bishop! which in the game kamsky managed too late because after d6 ng5 he was already almost losing.
okay , but after 4..d6 5.dxe5 Nxe4 6.Qd4! black is lost as fritz just told me.
>
What does Fritz say happens after 4...d6 5 dxe5 Nxe4 6 Qd4 f5? One interesting alternative is 4...d5 eg 5 Nxe5 Nxe4 or 5 cxd5 Nxe4 6 dxe5 Bb4+ 7 Nbd2 Qxd5 or 5 exd5 e4 |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | euripides: According to Chessbase as in <tibone>'s reference 9....Ne4 is more or less the losing move. One of the changes I notice in chess since the 1960s and early 1970s is the increased importance of lines where White leaves his king in the middle and launches a flank attack (the sort of Gruenfeld found in Kasparov-Svidler 1999 comes to mind). It's tempting to suggest that Kamsky is less attuned to this sort of thing than the younger players because of his time away from the game, but perhaps it had really happened before the 1990s. |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | tibone: <Ulhumbrus: What does Fritz say happens after 4...d6 5 dxe5 Nxe4 6 Qd4 f5?> 6 Qd4 f5 7.exd6
-7...Nf6 8.Qe5+ Kf7 9.dxc7
-7...Rg8 8.Qe5+ Kf7 9.dxc7
-7...Qf6 8.Qxf6 Nxf6 9.dxc7
And with 4...d5 Black simply loses a pawn after 5.dxe5 Nxe4 6.Qxd5 |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | tibone: I think the critical test for 5.Nc3 was 5..Nxe4 6.Qc2 d5! |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | tibone: <euripides: One of the changes I notice in chess since the 1960s and early 1970s is the increased importance of lines where White leaves his king in the middle and launches a flank attack>
maybe the importance increased, but there are games with this concept from "the old times" too.
E.g.:
Steinitz vs Lasker, 1894 or Marshall vs Burn, 1900 |
|
| Aug-20-09 | | euripides: <tibone> thanks for those nice examples. I have the feeling that if one goes through Capablanca's great games one would find very few similar ones, though there is one lovely example in the match against Alekhine -perhaps the 'neoclassical' period of the 1920s was particularly dedicated to orderly games where both sides castle, but it may be an illusion. |
|
| Aug-24-09 | | ajile: <An Englishman: Good Evening: The Adorjan Defense (1.c4,g6; 2.e4,e5) is a bit of an odd duck in that Black usually does play ...Bb4+. The defense is built around either very quick development and opening lines as fast as possible, or playing ...Bb4xc3+ and shattering White's pawns.> Playing g6 and then leaving dark squared holes all over his kingside after Bb4 is simply illogical chess. Unless of course there is definate immediate compensation. I don't see the compensation and I don't understand why a positional player of Kamsky's caliber would play like this. |
|
| Sep-01-09 | | kingsindian2006: Can't blame kamsky for trying new openings against tough opponents. But getting into a wide open fight with a creative player is not a wise choice. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
