|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-03-13 | | csmath: My impression is that Garry Kasparov had a tremendeous "bad impact" on a couple of elite players, in particular on Gelfand, Anand, Adams, and Short. The first two only recovered recently (after Kasparov's retirement) from that beating, the last two never recovered completely. Basically they did not have any chance of becoming WC while he was around. |
|
| Oct-03-13 | | Pulo y Gata: I posted this in the event page last night:
>Pulo y Gata: I left after Nakamura's 24.f5, but I was toying with both 24... Ne5 and the immediate 24...Rxc3 in my head but couldn't make them work. After giving up on both 24...Bb3 occured to me and It seems that Black's attack is quite strong. Has anyone checked this?> 24.Bb3 is aesthetically pleasing for me (uncommon pile up on the weakness at c2) and I'm not sure White has a defence. |
|
| Oct-03-13 | | holland oats: Holy smokes! Is this the same guy who's main weapon against 1.e4 was the Russian game in his title run circa the 2007 WC tournament? This game shows a transformation to fun-loving trigger-happy attacks with black a la Kramnik after he lost the title. Get it Gelfy! |
|
| Oct-03-13 | | dumbgai: Classical games: Boris Gelfand beat Hikaru Nakamura 6 to 2, with 5 draws. |
|
| Oct-03-13 | | Pulo y Gata: This is the position I was looking at last night (after 24...f5): 24...Bb3 (see diagram below)
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-03-13 | | ChessYouGood: Gelfand had a deeper understanding of the crucial positions at the press conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjrO...). I actually found Nakamura's comments in response to Gelfand's record against him (at about 8:40 of the clip) both arrogant and somewhat ignorant: he said that the game was lost because of two poor moves he made, and that the result had "nothing to do" with his opponent. What rubbish - it's clear that this game was decided by Gelfand playing brilliantly and sparklingly, forcing Nakamura to find very difficult moves to even draw leading to Nakamura ultimately and inevitably crumbling. Gelfand is much easier to like I have to say. |
|
| Oct-03-13 | | patzer2: <SirRuthless: ...The big mistake was Qf2 instead of Qe3 which performs the same function but adds protection to Nc3 and prevents the doubling of rooks from being so powerful on the c-file.> I agree! Instead of 20. Qf2?!, 20. Qe3!
appears to give White a comfortable advantage.
Fritz 12 gives 20. Qe3! b5 21. f4 Nc4 22. Bxc4 Bxd4 23. Rxd4 Rxc4 24. Rxc4 Bxc4 25. Rd1 b4 26. axb4 Qxb4 27. f5 Kh7 28. g3 Qa5 29. b3 Qa3+ 30. Kd2 Bb5 31. Nd5 Qa5+ 32. Qc3 Qxc3+ 33. Kxc3 Kg7 34. Nxe7 (+1.48 @ 22 depth). P.S. Nakamura indicated almost as much in the interview after the game. When one of the interviewers asked whether the problem was with his opening play, Nakamura indicated there was nothing wrong with his opening. He just made a couple of weak moves in the follow-up that got him in trouble. |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | SirRuthless: <Chessyougood> clearly you did not follow the game closely with an engine. Naka simply fell into prep and gelfand tried to throw the game away. If Nakamura found Kc1 he would have held the draw. Qf2 opened the door, Qg2, Bx were critical blunders. You can read into whatver you want about how nakamura feels but objectively he was correct. He made a few blunders and lost. Clearly he didn't understand what was going on or he would not have blundered. The arrogant thing was rejecting the offered repetition draw when he only needed a half point from the game. That was the arrogance. He was his normal new york self in the presser and was very polite. What was he supposed to say? "I am afraid of Gelfand . He is a genius and I do not compare. I dread playing him with white?" If he said that half of the viewers would have laughed and called him a sissy, half would say he was being facetious. The guy cant win for losing. |
|
Oct-04-13
 | | AylerKupp: <csmath> You're right, depending on how you define "very often". Gelfand has been in the top 10 four times in the last 13 years (4 times more often that I have been :-) ); in 2013 (#7 at the moment), 2009 (#6), 2005 (#9), and 2000 (#10). His lowest ranking prior to 1988 was #17 in 2004. He was in the top 10 for 7 years straight, from 1990 (when he achieved his highest ranking, #3) through 1996. So the 1990's were indeed his "golden period". |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | ChessYouGood: "sir ruthless" - if your entire perspective on this game is due to following "it closely with an engine", I doubt your perspective has much, or any, value. Of course, watching it live on chess bomb, where you can't avoid houdini's, often misleading, analysis, I did notice Gelfand not only outplaying Nakamura, but the pesky engine too - most notably 20. ...Rc6 was not even in Houdini's top 4 moves, but was clearly the best move. Your statement that "Naka simply fell into prep and gelfand tried to throw the game away" is absolute garbage and actually laughable, especially when your only touchstone is your "engine's" evaluation numbers. In your obviously subjective and obviously ill-informed view: "objectively [Nakamura] was correct"! Total rubbish. Gelfand blew Nakamura off the board in this game; Nakamura outclassed and outplayed; that's all. |
|
Oct-04-13
| | AylerKupp: <patzer2> I caution you against reaching any definite conclusions after running an engine, any engine, to a search depth of only 22 ply, particularly with such a long line. For instance, in the Fritz 12 line you give, 20...b5 seems somewhat slow. I think that perhaps Gelfand's (and others') 20...Rc6 with the idea of bringing the other rook to the c-file as quickly as possible, might be better. And after 22.Bxc4, 22...Bxd4 allowing 23.Rxd4 Rxc3 24.Rxc4 Bxc4 blocking the c-file looks questionable. And I think that Fritz's [+1.48] evaluation after 34.Nxe7 is due to the horizon effect (that's as far as Fritz could calculate at low ply) since after 34...Re8 35.Nd5 (what else? It's the knight's only viable square) 35...Rxe4 the evaluation of White's position hardly warrants almost a one and a half pawn advantage. Then again, I might be missing something.
click for larger viewHaving said all that I do agree that 20.Qe3 was probably a better move than 20.Qf2. |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | SirRuthless: <Chess> at least I admit to looking at computer evaluations to help try and grasp some shadow of what is happening in these games. Many around these part provide computer lines with their own analysis but pretend that they found these lines themselves. I do no such thing. I will mention that the early grip that gelfand had was slipping and nakamura missed Kc1 which the houdini says was holding at depth 28. |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | ChessYouGood: Great point again "sir ruthless" - I actually just noticed some sage analysis on youtube that makes some similar points to yours, and just as insightfully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyV2... |
|
Oct-04-13
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB48...
Cheers, K |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | notyetagm: <csmath: <<<My impression is that Garry Kasparov had a tremendeous "bad impact" on a couple of elite players, in particular on Gelfand, Anand, Adams, and Short.>>> The first two only recovered recently (after Kasparov's retirement) from that beating, the last two never recovered completely.> Kasparov vs Gelfand was a 13-0(!!!) Kasparov whitewash: <+13 =8 -0>.
----
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | Marmot PFL: My recollection of the interview was that there nothing wrong with 20 Qf2. 22 Qg3 was the first of white's few mistakes, and that 22 f5 was  or maybe unclear. It does not take many mistakes to lose such a sharp position. |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | Marmot PFL: Chess base for example only criticizes 2 white moves - 22 & 33. <22.f5 seems to be best, with a very unclear position: c4 23.xc4 xc4 24.d5 24.xg7 xg7 25.f6+ g8! is given as a draw by Houdini, for example: 26.f4 exf6 27.d5 xa3 28.e7+ f8 29.xc6 xc6 30.bxa3 xa3+ 31.d2 b4 24...xb2! 25.xe7+ h7 26.xc6 xa3 27.d2 xc6 28.f6 a5+ 29.e3 xd1+ 30.xd1 f8> |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | dumbgai: <Gelfand is much easier to like I have to say.> Replace "Gelfand" with just about any chess player and that statement is still true, relative to Nakamura. |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | Jambow: Ok the answer to the question is Boris Gelfand now or in the past a <"Beast"> with the Najdorf? The answer is clearly no. Notice not having a <"bad record"> and being some sort of monster are all together different things. I already demonstrated that he is below 50% win vs. losses considered. Ipso facto then he will be closer but still below if draws are included. Now let's consider Kasparov under the same criteria using decided games, every format included. 42 wins vs. 15 losses or 74%, eeeech that is much more looking like a scary monster to me. Then if Sasquatch wasn't scary enough Fischer had 43 wins vs. 8 losses or an utterly frightening 84% grim reaper like record, Soiled myself just thinking about it. He also has much fewer draws but I'm to lazy to do the math and apples compared to apples keeps it simple. Bottom line is Boris is a great player, but if you want to play the Najdorf look to Fischer or Kasparov. |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | Jambow: <<Gelfand is much easier to like I have to say.>
Replace "Gelfand" with just about any chess player and that statement is still true, relative to Nakamura.> BTW Nakamura is likable to me, he is polite and honest. Boris can be grumpy but I'm not obsessed with such silliness. I think many of Nakamura's haters are much less polite or likable than he is. He seems to get mistreated and disrespected in press conferences, like he was after the Ivanchuk game. Really can't imaging Sergey Tiviakov informing other players over 100pts higher than he is they need to study his lessons? Truly Nakamura was a gentlemen for not saying ok we will play a ten game public match and you can give me lessons OTB. Sergey sounded like what Nimzowitsch might have said in such a situation. Ivanchuk was the one who should have been criticized he was rude and just as wrong as I saw it. Anyway I don't suppose there will ever be an objective evaluation and people are free to love hate or be indifferent about who ever they choose. I just hear a lot of broken glass. |
|
| Oct-04-13 | | Jambow: Anand scores about 66% with the Najdorf and Topalov is about tied with Gelfand. Gelfand does well across the board but no monster in any particular area except for upping his game in his forties. |
|
| Oct-05-13 | | dumbgai: <Jambow> Perhaps you are not familiar with Nakamura's antics on ICC. I personally witnessed him saying the F-word to Wang Yue after losing a blitz game, and use racial slurs against other Chinese GMs. He has also intentionally disconnected in losing positions against various GMs, including Mamedyarov, Ramirez, and Akobian. Not all of these episodes are from his teenage years either, for example see this: http://www.snakkomsjakk.com/index.p.... And then there are the moments of disrespect at OTB tournaments. |
|
| Oct-05-13 | | fisayo123: This is a massacre. |
|
| Oct-05-13 | | Jambow: @ <dumbgai> Ok first off I would agree hearing only the one players side of things that Nakamura was not being a great sport and impatient, yet his accuser even by his account is far over reacting. Another comment below his forum post a person noted Nakamura's hateful critic himself didn't have exemplary conduct on ICC. Which makes my original point perfectly doesn't it. Often time the accuser is being hypocritical and behaves worse themselves. Anyway Nakamura has to answer for his actions. Now my point is there has been pretty gross exaggerations about his comments post game. I remember his win over Anand in London with the KID, when he made the statement that he wasn't objectively losing against a human. Clearly he was saying in complex unclear positions against humans you objectively have real chances of winning because humans aren't computers. If you isolate just one portion it sounds different than in context as a whole. This is my point you have to be trying to misconstrue what is meant and that is what often happens. When I spoke to him face to face he was polite and unassuming, not brash or arrogant. Last I watched his post game interview with Gelfand and they both replayed the game several different directions, and in one of them black was even lost. Nakamura was polite simply explaining his ideas, nothing like Ivanchuk had been after their game. He said he made a couple of bad moves and lost, in context and actuality he is correct the game was essentially decided at that point. He also likened this to his win over Caruana in which Caruana did the same. Is that rude or an honest assessment? You guys want a few seconds of a video clip to be the bases to draw conclusions, but if watched on the whole it is much ado about nothing. Before my words are taken out of context I thought Boris played exceptionally well, and he had better understanding than Nakamura did. I credit Boris for playing well. He has upped his game as many are on the decline, kudos to him. As I already demonstrated he is no Najdorf monster but a great all around player. Some will take that as I'm against Boris. So ok hate if you will, and I'm critical of Nakamura at times too, he is human and not always a good one. If I had to choose the best sportsman it would be Anand, the guy is modest, honest and pleasant like few others except perhaps Aronian. Carlsen, Nakamura, Kasparov and Fischer not always so much at times but they didn't murder people either. |
|
Oct-05-13
 | | FSR: You have to give Naka credit for not wimping out with 9.Bc1 (which in retrospect would have been an exclam move). |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
