|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-03-09 | | karik: The official site report (Review of Oct.2nd):
... "Radjabov (black) changed his move at step 10 which was not approved by Carlsen. At step 15 and 16, the black side made a steep move, which was blew by the white side with a series of tactics. Black lost a piece because of the omission in step 22, and Radjabov threw in the sponge." As far as I know you are not allowed to change your move, so no wonder Carlsen disapproved it. Does anyone know what move Rad did try instead of Qb6? I also don't know if steep moves are allowed. And finally, throwing sponges is unprecedented. I wonder if anyone was hurt. |
|
| Oct-03-09 | | Jim Bartle: That's a pretty entertaining translation. |
|
| Oct-03-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Games like this make you appreciate Karpov in his prime playing a super solid line of the Caro Kann and reliably putting a half point up on the board with black. |
|
Oct-03-09
 | | IMlday: "changed his move" translates "innovated"
as 10..Nd5 is approved theory from Grischuk-Kasparov 2002; "steep" translates "precipitous" as in diving off a steep cliff; "throwing in the sponge" means signalling the end of a boxing match by one's trainer throwing the towel into the ring.
(Just guessing;) |
|
| Oct-03-09 | | enqwert: Kramnik has 7-1 score against Carlsen, with Carlsen's current form it would be great to see them clash, Maybe Carlsen's positional style suits well to Kramnik, what do you think? |
|
| Oct-03-09 | | twoinchgroup: <Twoinchgroup: do you even know the rules of chess? Any your analogy between a photographer and a painter seems rather off point.>
Notagm,
Of course I know the rules. Where are you going with that question?
If my "analogy...seems rather off point." how so? Is it that you understand my point and you think you have a better analogy to illustrate it? Let's have yours then. If you don't understand my point then you have no means to judge the analogy as "off point". I rather liked the analogy that I came up with on the fly. |
|
| Oct-03-09 | | twoinchgroup: <Huh? Nobody here could find 3.Bb5? What are you talking about?> Softpaw,
Sorry, guess many of us (including you) would have responded 3.Bb5...whatever. I notice you didn't mention the other moves I highlighted...maybe your not as good as you think you are. If you insist that you would have played such a move (including the others?), then I am sorry if I damaged your ego by including you with the rest of us mortals. <Ray Keene wrote: <...radjabov came out of the opening fine but then overrreached...>How is that not true?>
Softpaw,
It is true...never said it wasn't. Carlsen forced Radj into a position such that to overreach would be almost unavoidable (see N-DeFirmian's analysis on ICC GOTD for instance). I never disputed that obvious fact. That was not, however, Ray Keene's point. It was his main point/conclusion that I quoted above. Reading comprehension is a valuable skill Softpaw...try to develop it...you'll find it useful in the future. |
|
| Oct-03-09 | | PinnedPiece: <twoinchgroup: So lets be more discrete in the use of computers to analyze these positions lest we miss the simple beauty of a particular masters stroke. Likewise, lets be sure we don't equate the regurgitation of Rybka analysis with our own intelligence/insight.> Nicely stated. A bit harsh interpretation of Keene, however. . |
|
| Oct-03-09 | | zatara: <twoinchgroup>
I think this is a "REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE" thing (or maybe with the cause to get the attention but anyway..).You can't really believe that psychology comes with unimportance in chess do you? I just wanted to add that maybe keene is right that the specific victory caused by the "momentum" BUT let's not forget how carlsen got this momentum.It's pretty clear that kasparov played a huge role in this.. |
|
| Oct-04-09 | | faroiden: zatara:
BUT let's not forget how carlsen got this momentum.It's pretty clear that kasparov played a huge role in this..
..And his mother..! |
|
| Oct-04-09 | | twoinchgroup: <I think this is a "REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE" thing (or maybe with the cause to get the attention but anyway..).You can't really believe that psychology comes with unimportance in chess do you?> Zatara,
Interesting that you would think that I am just trying to get attention here ( I get enough attention at work as VP of Sales and Marketing). Psychology does play a huge part in chess (see "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" for a perfect illustration ). I would be a fool to think otherwise. Rather, RayKeene was inferring that somehow preparation by Carlsen played no part (see comments on page 16).
In the end, whatever the case may be, I think WE tend to get to wrapped up in sideline issues and musings in attempts to clinically breakdown wins that are better left alone without our finger prints all over them.
Seriously, can we not just appreciate this OTB masterpiece for what it is? Can we not simply give it it's due by placing it on the mantle of immortal games for future enjoyment and reference?
For example: Do you not get a creepy feeling that Tal has in some small way been diminished over the years by this continual attempt to slide his "sacrifical masterpieces" under the microscope of a chess analysis engine? Now, why stop there? Lets start to question the blend of nature vs. nurture, genes verses jeans(hard work)and etc in all of Tal's wins and losses. That would have to be some great fun. Let's petition for a revision of Tal's immortal book and rewrite it from that perspective...that would be a spell-binding read wouldn't it? Good God, all I am saying is to let it be. Don't you agree that we have to many "Analysts" breaking too much down and sucking the enjoyment out of almost every sport. |
|
| Oct-04-09 | | twoinchgroup: <It's pretty clear that kasparov played a huge role in this.> Zatara,
I agree 100% and I think it is wonderful! Carlsen might be the future "Tiger Woods" of chess with Jack Nicklaus( Kasparov ) on his team...go young Carlsen! I truly hope that Carlsen does for chess what Tiger has done for golf. I really do. |
|
| Oct-04-09 | | Eisenheim: I find this position entertaining after move 20. The floating knights on the board have an odd appearance. Who is this Kasparov that coaches? seems pretty darn good? How much does he charge per hour? Any relation to The Talented Mr. Weinstein? <twoinchgroup> I agree conceptually that individuals should analyze independent of computers and I don't use one, but I disagree with your idea that those that use them should use them discreetly. If someone is spewing Rybka, I want to hear it is coming from Rybka versus real sweat and apportion the value accordingly or lack thereof. |
|
Oct-04-09
 | | tamar: <Eyal: ...note how the series of strong moves played by Carlsen in the crucial phase of the game - 17.Nb3, 19.Bg5, 22.Rfc1 - are all natural developing moves, mobilizing all of White's forces into play.> I agree. Will this be Carlsen's trademark? There was Bb5 against Topalov at what appeared a bleak point, but which changed the assessment, and seemed to daze Topalov for the rest of that game. So how do you beat the guy? These long delayed build-ups with White and his judgment when to strike are becoming Carlsen's secret weapon against super gms |
|
| Oct-04-09 | | twoinchgroup: <I agree conceptually that individuals should analyze independent of computers and I don't use one, but I disagree with your idea that those that use them should use them discreetly. If someone is spewing Rybka, I want to hear it is coming from Rybka versus real sweat and apportion the value accordingly or lack thereof.> Eisenheim,
If you don't mind I will co opt your way of thinking in this regard...good point. |
|
| Oct-04-09 | | birthtimes: This momentum Magnus has in this event is because of his superb opening preparation as White...do the research...he has sprung something new in the opening on each opponent when he has been White...he is getting his opponents in time trouble because of his opening moves which they have not seen before... "This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not. This is like this, because that is like that." |
|
| Oct-04-09 | | birthtimes: Hey twoinch,
I'm glad you like my stuff...
Look at it some more, and continue to be amazed...
: ) |
|
| Oct-05-09 | | twoinchgroup: <This momentum Magnus has in this event is because of his superb opening preparation as White...do the research...> birthtimes,
I agree 100%...I have done the research...What you have said is EXACTLY what I alluded to in my original premise/argument with raykeene. Again, here we have another example of someone commenting without having first understood what they are commenting on. Reading comprehension is a valuable skill (much like chess) and can be improved over time. It would be my recommendation to you birthtimes that you improve your reading comprehension instead of your ability to amaze yourself with your own musings. <Hey twoinch,
I'm glad you like my stuff...
Look at it some more, and continue to be amazed...
: )>
I am sorry but your Kibitzing comes off like a person who likes to hear themselves talk. :) |
|
| Oct-06-09 | | Ulhumbrus: 10 Be4 pins the Nc6 on the long diagonal, but it also obstructs the e file and so exposes the e5 pawn to attack. Instead of 16...Nb4, 16...Ng6 attacks the e5 pawn. |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | ravadi: How about 23... Bxf2+? followed by Qxb5. |
|
Oct-08-09
 | | chancho: <ravadi> 23...Bxf2+ 24.Qxf2 Qxb5 25.Ra7 0-0 26.Be7 appears to be unpleasant. |
|
| Oct-09-09 | | David2009: Crafty prefers 22 ...Be7 to 22 ...Bc5. Link (White to play at move 19):
http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-t... |
|
| Apr-01-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: Magnus Carlsen Best Games |
|
| Jan-01-13 | | Garech: <karik>: <The official site report (Review of Oct.2nd):
... "Radjabov (black) changed his move at step 10 which was not approved by Carlsen. At step 15 and 16, the black side made a steep move, which was blew by the white side with a series of tactics. Black lost a piece because of the omission in step 22, and Radjabov threw in the sponge." As far as I know you are not allowed to change your move, so no wonder Carlsen disapproved it. Does anyone know what move Rad did try instead of Qb6? I also don't know if steep moves are allowed. And finally, throwing sponges is unprecedented. I wonder if anyone was hurt.> Lol!!
-Garech |
|
| Jan-01-13 | | Blunderdome: I assume "changed his move" just means he deviated from a line played earlier, either a theoretical line or a line played between the two of them. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
