|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-10-13 | | csmath: By the way 14. ...h5 move is junk. Kamsky was lucky that Magnus played pointless 21st and 22nd move here which he noted himself. That was a waste of tempi that allowed black to equalize. I do not think opening was good for black at all. The reason why Kamsky played 14. ...h5 was precisely for the reason that he himself was not happy with the position and wanted to make some sort of countergame rather than passively waiting. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | kappertjes: <It is better to analyze games with chess engines who are not in awe of any player. They simply analyze objectively.> Actually I thought King made a good point. The h5 move doesn't DO much and ties down black just a little to its defense and preventing the e5 break . That Houndini/Rybka/Critter seem to find a way forward that does not lose does not mean it is a good move. On this site as elsewhere you just get people stating things like: "Nf6 was the principal mistake" and ""28...Nf6 looks horrible." some even say "and [name engine] agrees with me". Of course in reality it goes something like this: "Oh look, [engine] says Nf6 wasn't good, which I'll now claim to be obvious and then suggest its main line" Sometimes it is even worse and people claim <Kamsky decentralized his knight without any threat contrary to general chess principles.>. Why don't you play Kamsky and see how far your 'general chess principles' get you in modern chess. King had a nice example showing what Kamsky may have been considering when he chose Nf6 over g4 under time pressure, which I find way more useful than some dude with an engine saying Kamsky was 'fine according to houdini'. Furthermore, MC's play in this game was worthy of praise, especially from 29.Qd1 onwards it was simply perfect. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | csmath: <Actually I thought King made a good point. The h5 move doesn't DO much and ties down black just a little to its defense and preventing the e5 break . > I disagree arguably. :-)
I think h5 does give black a countergame which is always preferable than to wait to get strangled. But the basic problem with this move that it is committal and while black gets activity he needs to play with inhuman precision since further on he plays h4 and g5 completely opening his king. Chess engines have no problem playing it that way but humans do.
The side with open king usually makes more errors in a practical game. Thus from partical point of view h5 was junk but from engine's "point of view" it was okay. Another thing is that black had this pawn storm but he opened c-file for white thus he started to hesitate with the pawn storm. Once you start the pawn storm there is no way back. Kamsky gave Magnus just enough time to get to 30. f3 after which the game was "over" for Kamsky. Magnus had excellent opening, wasted time with 21st and 22nd move giveng black a chance and Kamsky wasted that chance. He did not get second chance after 30 moves. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | haydn20: The more I look at it, the deeper and better 30. f3 gets. I mentioned it early on, and still agree with those who say that Kamsky played boldly if not wisely, and that that is better than getting squeezed by the Magnus constrictor. |
|
Sep-10-13
 | | tamar: Carlsen's ability to find high class harmonizing moves in the heat of battle is what separates him. I didn't understand 29 Qd1 at the time, but it prepares 30 f3 against almost any Black reply. It has the added benefit of looking innocuous, like the previous time-wasting 21 Rc2 22 Rcc2-c1, so Kamsky may have been emboldened. If Black presses forward the pawn at h4 falls. If Black holds pat with 29...Qd6 30 f3 Rd8, play shifts to the Queenside and White has the only open file. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | kappertjes: < csmath: <Actually I thought King made a good point. The h5 move doesn't DO much and ties down black just a little to its defense and preventing the e5 break . > I disagree arguably. :-)
I think h5 does give black a countergame which is always preferable than to wait to get strangled.> It is not h5 alone that gives the countergame though and for the first moves it mainly restricts black, especially after Qe2 eyes the pawn and ties down the knight. So it really doesn't do much until g5, f5 etcc.... . Furthermore h5 shouts out what is going to happen. Perhaps it could have been prepared? That probably sounds easier than it is since you can't count on MC playing Rc1-c2-c1-c2 all game. Still I completely agree that cxd was Kamsky's main positional mistake and perhaps more costly than the Nf6 move everyone said sucked. Kamsky mentioned it in passing in the live-feed as *IIRC* part of the positional advantages the Carlsen got that he maybe underestimated. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | patzer2: While missing 26...Rxd5 = was no doubt a strategic error, 26...cxd5?! is a positional mistake (i.e. opening up the c-file for a Queen side counter attack, while at the same time trying to attack the White King side) that's not so easy to exploit. Carlsen still had to find a win in a highly complicated position, and his technique in doing so was impressive. In particular, 41. Qh8!! and the follow-up afterwards (e.g. 44. Qd8!) is an impressive display of tactical calculation, which my computer (i.e. after 40...Rg6) confirms as clearly decisive only after running 17 to 20 ply deep. Perhaps Black might have held on with fighting counter chances after the computer suggestion 28...g4, with Black having dynamic equality after 28... g4 29. Qf4 (29. hxg4 fxg4 30. Qf4 Rf8 31. Rc8 Rxf4 32. Rxd8+ Rf8 33.
Rxf8+ Kxf8 34. Rc8+ Kf7 $11) 29... gxh3 30. f3! Ng3 (position below). 
click for larger viewFrom here Fritz 12 indicates White can maintain equality with either 32. Kh2 = or 32. Bxg3 =. P.S.: Of course with the difficulty Fritz had in finding 41. Qh8!!, I'm not so sure about 28...g4 =. Would be interesting to know what Carlsen had planned after 28...g4. |
|
| Sep-10-13 | | patzer2: <tamar: Carlsen's ability to find high class harmonizing moves in the heat of battle is what separates him.> Yes indeed! That's a succinct and accurate statement of the chess skill and ability that separates Carlsen from his peers (i.e. most, if not all, other Super GMs). |
|
| Sep-11-13 | | lost in space: Nice end position. Mate in three. And the black Qa2 is out of play - that much out of play that you simply can remove it from the board without changing anything. |
|
| Sep-11-13 | | kappertjes: <patzer2: While missing 26...Rxd5 = was no doubt a strategic error, 26...cxd5?! is a positional mistake (i.e. opening up the c-file for a Queen side counter attack, while at the same time trying to attack the White King side) that's not so easy to exploit. Carlsen still had to find a win in a highly complicated position, and his technique in doing so was impressive.> True, and this is why I like the Carlsen's immediate capture cxd5 as response to g5. It necessitates the (at least to my eyes) ugly Rxd5 or alternatively exacts a hefty price on black for starting+supporting a pawn storm. And this is only so clearly visible/comprehensable, as you point out, because Carlsen actually uses this in this game. |
|
| Sep-11-13 | | RookFile: Kamsky played a good game. It reminds me of Lasker. I guess he made a mistake, and the world's strongest player was able to find a win. |
|
| Sep-11-13 | | John Abraham: Amateurish opening, very blunt and straightforward. Once again Carlsen avoids a theoretical battle and barely manages to reach a decent middle game position, only to be gifted by Kamsky's hyper sexualized moves directed at the enemy king (possibly a Freudian sign of misguided aggression at his own father Rustam Kamsky) and self-destructs. After a series of inconsequential moves where it seems all Kamsky is doing is playing footsie with his young opponent, in the end position his queen is completely out of the picture, mirroring his own personal life where Kamsky never liked his mother but harbored intense feelings for his father both in terms of disgust and strange affection in the way that the Stockholm Syndrome works. As poetic justice, Kamsky's father is about to be mated in 3 |
|
| Sep-13-13 | | eyalbd: Carlsen game here reminds me vintage Petrosian...
Develop slowly to a solid position, do nothing for a while, lure the opponent to carelessly attack and weaken the position, then at the right moment strike back at the enemy king. |
|
| Sep-13-13 | | kappertjes: <John Abraham: Amateurish opening, very blunt and straightforward. Once again Carlsen avoids a theoretical battle and barely manages to reach a decent middle game position, only to be gifted by Kamsky's hyper sexualized moves directed at the enemy king (possibly a Freudian sign of misguided aggression at his own father Rustam Kamsky) and self-destructs. After a series of inconsequential moves where it seems all Kamsky is doing is playing footsie with his young opponent, in the end position his queen is completely out of the picture, mirroring his own personal life where Kamsky never liked his mother but harbored intense feelings for his father both in terms of disgust and strange affection in the way that the Stockholm Syndrome works. As poetic justice, Kamsky's father is about to be mated in 3> Had any problems with your parents while growing up John? |
|
Sep-13-13
 | | perfidious: 'Pears to me that <John> has read his Reuben Fine with great avidity. We should count our blessings to have such immense wisdom in our midst. |
|
| Sep-13-13 | | Ulhumbrus: Considering that Carlsen replies to 32...hxg2 not with 33 Rxg2 but with 33 Rc7+ this suggests 32...Rxg2+ instead of 32...hxg2 |
|
Sep-14-13
 | | radtop: Did the opening indicate Kamsky was playing for a draw? |
|
| Sep-17-13 | | marcokim: Onigorom said "BUT: Any time of the day, I prefer black's active play over Carlsen's dull waiting strategy (Rc1-c2-c1) that some people like to call "positional play". "Active Play" is only useful if your position improves. Carlsen may have been juggling several main ideas and black's Qd8 meant he had to keep his defensive options open (hence Rc1). Plans are not written in stone so a "dull" waiting move maybe a change of plan towards a new initiative. The old plan (to open the c-file) is resumed after Carlsen saw blacks Kingside storm as sterile, and the Queen haplessly immobile on d8. Its rather insulting commentators nit-pick master games because they want a brilliancy - yet they are not honest enough to admit they don't understand the position. |
|
| Sep-17-13 | | SoUnwiseTheKnight B4: Kamsky's 29..g4 looks good a move earlier. I don't understand 28..Nf6, he gives Magnus time to mobilize f2p which activates two pieces to the kingside (Rg2,Bh4). |
|
| Sep-17-13 | | RookFile: A comment I would make is that in the opening, Kambsky gave the dark squares away "forever". That might be ok if he could keep the position closed. Once it opened up, he was in trouble. |
|
| Sep-18-13 | | LIFE Master AJ: 30.f3!! is the kind of move only a guy with really large ... <AHEM!> ... OK, only a guy with strong nerves and a really large brain would play this move! |
|
| Sep-18-13 | | LIFE Master AJ: But Carlsen is a genius, no denying that. (I had previously thought that Kasparov's records would stand for over 100 years.) |
|
| Sep-18-13 | | JoergWalter: Let us not forget that Kamsky was a title contender/finalist in 1995 at the age of 20.
and he has beaten Anand in a match held in India. With his handicap Rustam on his side |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | ChessYouGood: Ini Kamoze has video annotated this game here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAd2... |
|
| Oct-03-13 | | The Rocket: Rather absurd play from Kamsky, in a fairly equal game, for quite some time. He was keen on losing here. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
