chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Fabiano Caruana vs Ivan Saric
Tata Steel Masters (2015), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 2, Jan-11
Spanish Game: Closed Variations. Zaitsev System (C92)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games 4 more Caruana/I Saric games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can display posts in reverse order, by registering a free account then visiting your preferences page and checking the option "Display newest kibitzes on top."

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Dom....During my university days, there was a (Christian) professor of philosophy who argued that *all* philosophical problems had been solved by Thomas Aquinas about 750 years ago. Philosophy since Aquinas (Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Nietzsche ... all those guys) was just a catalogue of error: all of them, in fact (he said), had been refuted in advance by Aquinas...>

Lovely.

By the way, what do you think of Locke?

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <perf> As I wrote in a satirical college magazine: "Locke up your daughters."

I'm afraid my deeply callow reading of Locke hasn't really advanced since those days. Though I was amused by the scenes between Locke and Newton in Neal Stephenson's superb Baroque Trilogy.

Jan-12-15  ajile: <Domdaniel: <ajile> Ironic indeed. Though I think 'error' is a sort of technical term in Xtian philosophy. During my university days, there was a (Christian) professor of philosophy who argued that *all* philosophical problems had been solved by Thomas Aquinas about 750 years ago.>

There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. It's the same difference as between a philosopher and a mystic. The philosopher argues about spiritual reality using just his intellect. The mystic experiences spiritual reality directly in meditation. The mystic by definition can't ever prove to the philosopher the existence of spiritual realities since these realities are beyond physical measurement.

It's like an astronaut trying to explain weightlessness. He can write or speak in explicit detail what it is but he can never give the actual experience to another.

The sceptics would have you believe that such emotions as love are merely the firing of nerve synapses in the brain but the mystic understands that the brain doesn't produce emotions or consciousness it simply channels it.

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <ajile> Indeed, yes. Though the non-mystic philosopher might also point out that, whatever 'spiritual' may mean, it isn't really a form of knowledge.

And no, I don't think the weightlessness analogy is valid. This is simply obscurantism: an appeal to a type of experience which most people have not had, and may thus be assumed to be ignorant of. But these non-astronaut non-weightless folk aren't really missing out on some ineffable essence of weightlessness.

And why do you say that emotions such as love are "merely" the firing of synapses? I'd rather say that they are produced by the firing of synapses, and aren't synapses amazing? "Merely" has nothing to do with it.

Jan-12-15  Rookiepawn: <The mystic by definition can't ever prove to the philosopher the existence of spiritual realities since these realities are beyond physical measurement.>

True. Therefore the mystic usually resources to marketing.

Spiritual realities beyond physical measurement are wonderful as long as you don't try to sell them. Too bad it is almost impossible to find one of those mystics not trying to sell you a book, making concrete money out of the intangible.

Jan-12-15  Rookiepawn: <And why do you say that emotions such as love are "merely" the firing of synapses? I'd rather say that they are produced by the firing of synapses, and aren't synapses amazing? "Merely" has nothing to do with it.>

This is very true. It seems that some people turns to mysticism just because they cannot find reality as it is fascinating enough.

Thus every wonderful process of the matter becomes a "mere" phenomenon, not incredible enough. You need to pile up UFOs, gods, fairies, dwarfs, invisible friends and that sticky shapless mass of new age potpourri of religions on top of everything.

To me "mere" science is far more interesting than all the "spiritual worlds" men have created as bad sci fi. But as long as you don't try to <sell> inexisting worlds it's OK by me. My advice would be not to buy them, but that is your money.

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <Rookiepawn> Well said. 'Mere' science is pretty damn amazing.

<ajile> -- <There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. > Is there, really? What about mathematics? I know a cast-iron proof that says the square root of 2 cannot be a rational fraction -- which seems to be both an experiential and an intellectual conclusion. What's the supposed difference between the two?

Jan-13-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <whiteshark> Thanks for the links - very informative. I wondered why Black didn't try 31 ... d4 & 32 ... Bxg2 but missed the 33. Qg4 fork.

Both commentators mentioned the bravery of 35. g4 consolidating the Pawn despite White's airy Kingside.

Jan-13-15  Rookiepawn: Totally off-topic:


click for larger view

I have no idea about general principles, even less about concrete tactical issues (I'm a patzer, that's it), but I find 31...d4 much sexier. I feel beyond this point Black never gets to get anything from the central pawns.

32. Qg4 dxe3
33. Qxg5 exf2+
34. Kxf2 ...

Is this worth a look?

Jan-13-15  Rookiepawn: <tpstar> thanks for noticing, will check <whiteshark> links...
Jan-13-15  ajile: <Domdaniel: <Rookiepawn> Well said. 'Mere' science is pretty damn amazing.

<ajile> -- <There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. > Is there, really? What about mathematics? I know a cast-iron proof that says the square root of 2 cannot be a rational fraction -- which seems to be both an experiential and an intellectual conclusion. What's the supposed difference between the two?>

Here is another analogy. Try to explain what "horny" is to an 8 year old. You KNOW what it is because as an adult we experience the result of hormones in the body that an 8 year old doesn't possess. The 8 year old will say "horny" isn't real since he can't experience it or perceive it.

Similarly if you haven't experienced deep meditation you don't know what your existence is without thoughts. It's actually kind of comical really to think you need to stop the mind completely to experience this. And please understand that this isn't a denial of the intellect at all. The intellect isn't discarded, it's added to a new and more advanced level of knowing.

Jan-13-15  ajile: <Rookiepawn: <The mystic by definition can't ever prove to the philosopher the existence of spiritual realities since these realities are beyond physical measurement.>

True. Therefore the mystic usually resources to marketing.

Spiritual realities beyond physical measurement are wonderful as long as you don't try to sell them. Too bad it is almost impossible to find one of those mystics not trying to sell you a book, making concrete money out of the intangible.>

I'm using the term "mystic" for the very rare type of enlightened being that has no attachments to money or fame. This doesn't mean a person of this type doesn't have and use material tools in their lives. They just aren't attached to them. For your definition I would use a term such as fraud guru perhaps. I agree the vast majority are fakes whether they realize it or not.

The problem is there are so many frauds that a lay person might suppose they are ALL frauds which isn't the case. The second problem is the real mystic doesn't broadcast their insights because they aren't attached to fame, money or power.

Lastly as far as the brain this is a key point in the discussion. There are 2 basic First Premises that are foundations that logic can proceed from.

1. The brain Produces consciousness.
2. The brain Channels consciousness.

And when I say channel please don't automatically roll your eyes. I mean channel like a TV channels programs. The TV doesn't produce the programs and similarly IMO the brain doesn't produce your consciousness. It may appear that way since if the brain is damaged behaviour is also distorted.

Jan-13-15  Pulo y Gata: And the winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mystic?

Sorry, can't resist.

Jan-13-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Pulo y Gata> Don't let the ghost of the good Dr Tartakower hear you say that....you'll be sued for plagiarism!
Jan-13-15  Pulo y Gata: But, <perf>, I was doffing my hat to him as I daff 'round here!
Jan-13-15  Rookiepawn: <ajile> Interesting explanation. Please, be aware I have nothing against it, I just don't get it and ask for enlightment: If those mystics are so perfect as to be unnoticeable... How do you notice them? You even name them in plural, so it seems either you are one, or know more than one.

Perfection is null, it needs nothing, it gives nothing, therefore it needs no transfer. Being a personal experience, a unique kind of perfection suits a unique being, so transfer is even more useless.

A perfect human being does not have to be a guru, it may well be anybody. It may even be that dumb guy laughing with a beer and a hoagie. He may enjoy the enlightment I lack, who knows?

Perfection? That's a damn word for an ignorant like me. Define it, picture your perfect guru.

<The wise student hears of the Tao and practises it diligently.

The average student hears of the Tao and gives it thought now and again.

The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.

If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.>

I am very attached to smoke, music, laugh, among other worldly chains. Good luck with all those mystics who attained perfection and then suddendly felt the need to tell you.

Jan-13-15  ajile: You obviously like the word "perfection" but I never used that word once. Perfection implies an end and IMO evolution is ongoing probably even for mystics. The idea that the human intellect is the pinnacle and the top is not only ridiculous but arrogant in the extreme. And the problem with arrogant is that it really doesn't want to change or admit it isn't the best.
Jan-14-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Rookiepawn> Ship me a dollop of that there perfekshun, will ya??
Jan-18-15  Rookiepawn: <perfidious> Yeah, well... It's not the <perfect> Perfection, you know. It's more or less a version made by <Mose Shrute>. Don't use it for anything you want perfect. Or good. Or decent.

<ajile The idea that the human intellect is the pinnacle and the top is not only ridiculous but arrogant in the extreme>. Could not agree more, trust me. It's just prejudice and old-fashioned dogmas which keep managers relying more on human programmers than chimpanzees, or even fishes (fishes cannot type, true, but this is just our lack of ergonomic integration efforts).

But in the end I agree with you: only the human being is <actively> idiotic. As some guy said:

<We wouldn't take ideas so seriously only if we considered for a moment the fact that they came from mammals.>

And by the way: many thanks for not answering my question about how do you know those unknown ones. It's such a known stuff even I should already know.

Jan-18-15  Rookiepawn: <ajile Perfection implies an end and IMO evolution is ongoing probably even for mystics>

I will give you that this is an interesting idea. Can perfection be a dynamic concept? A path rather than a state? Good. But still you have to fill the blank: evolution towards what?

Not even in chess can we still know what a "perfect", or "ever improving" game is; much less in life. Too many criteria, too slippery.

For instance: I evoluted to the point of being perfectly me right now. You cannot beat me at that, mind you. Not much of an achievement, you'd say, and I would agree. But again, which is then the "golden criterion"?

Maybe the secret of human perfect evolution path is <Mose Shrute> after all. Who knows?

Jun-16-15  Mr. V: So why not 32... e4?
Sep-26-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Dom....And I broadly agree with <perfidious>, that <Ulhumbrus>'s obsession with dated maxims and somewhat dubious general principles is self-defeating, though I *might* not phrase it quite so baldly....>

Most often I am given to rather more tact, but there are occasions where I reach the end of my tether and let fly.

<....Then again, <perf> knows whereof he speaks....>

You are more certain of that than I. (laughs)

<....And I'm sure he could score 30-0 in a simultaneous against a whole tribe of Ulhumbri.>

Maybe.

Sep-26-20  optimal play: <perfidious: ... Most often I am given to rather more tact ...>

No you're not.

Sep-26-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Perfy: You are more certain of that than I. (laughs)>

False modesty is worse than bald arrogance.

Sep-26-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: So good of <bumptious pustule of kudzu> to weigh in, a propos of nothing, thus sullying another corner of existence to no purpose.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Nice game. Caruana concedes the two Bishops
from Instant Repertoire-10 by FLAWLESSWIN64
Spanish: Zaitsev: 12. d5
from W e4 Compiled by pekda by fredthebear
Spanish: Zaitsev: 12. d5
from W e4 by pekda
Mis favoritos.
by hanwubai

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC