|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-28-15 | | peristilo: Sometimes Carlsen's style (like Karpov's)looks like Aikido. They win almost by doing nothing. They only need their opponent's own agression. |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | rodrigoporto: if the Rook was on a1 after move 25, Mame would have won. |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | 1971: Carlsen develops/centralizes his pieces relentlessly. From move 12-21 he puts each piece on its best square. |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | Mehem: <rodrigoporto: if the Rook was on a1 after move 25, Mame would have won.> Highly questionable. 25... Bc6 26.Nxd6 Rxd6 and Black is still much better. |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | bondll: <rodrigoporto> <if the rook was on a1 after move 25, Mame would have won.> If Mame were a better player he would have won.
If the dog hadn't stopped take a p&@s, he'd have caught the rabbit. If... |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | ColdSong: Of course high level chess is like aikido.Because it's so horribly easy to make bad moves. |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | patzer2: Though it's probably not White's style, 11. Nxd4 = as in Ivanchuk vs Carlsen, 2015 might have been more prudent here. |
|
Dec-28-15
 | | perfidious: Mamedyarov's ambition was laudable, but landed him in hot water, though it should be mentioned that by playing the solid 11.Nxd4, White has little hope of long-term advantage, with the certain prospect of facing a strong GM as Black tomorrow in the event of a draw--a fairly likely prospect had he played safely, rather than steering towards the shoals. |
|
Dec-28-15
 | | chancho: 6.Bxf6... The Devil Mamed me do it. |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | whiteshark: The co-adapted Mame complex |
|
Dec-28-15
 | | tpstar: Fischer and Kasparov had this same effect, where their dominance and gravitas and veneer led to their opponents playing way below their strength. Andrew Soltis said of Fischer, "You know you're going to lose. Even when I was ahead I knew I was going to lose." Walter Shipman said of Fischer, "It began to feel as though you were playing against chess itself." White got an IQP out of the opening but no real play for it. Then he inexplicably went into self-destruct mode with 24. Bxf5?! as Black had everything covered. |
|
| Dec-28-15 | | notyetagm: Mamedyarov vs Carlsen, 2015 ----
<POWERPLAY CHESS> -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mR... |
|
Dec-29-15
 | | Sally Simpson: Shakhriyar has played Magnus often enough to know that here.
click for larger viewAgainst Carlsen this is a loss. Black is a few moves away from obtaining an overwhelming position and there is nothing to stop that from happening. So White decided it's now or never.
He either missed 25...Rc6 or saw it and hoped (yes we are at the hoping stage) that Carlsen missed it. Those that saw the game live how long after Rc6 did it take White to resign. Better the end without horror than a horror without end as we hackers say. And sometimes they work. But not too often at this level. We must not complain. This was how Shakhriyar chose to go down. Guns blazing. (well one gun blazing. When I do it it's usually aimed at my foot.) |
|
| Dec-29-15 | | ChessYouGood: Tpstar said, for some reason, <Andrew Soltis said of Fischer, "You know you're going to lose. Even when I was ahead I knew I was going to lose." Walter Shipman said of Fischer, "It began to feel as though you were playing against chess itself."> Why always all these mindless comparisons with the comparatively weak Fischer on chessgames? - The two guys making the statements you quoted were weak players, describing a guy who was at the top for just one world championship cycle. Carlsen has the highest ELO rating on record, has actually remained, in spite of his age, at the top for far longer than Fischer did, and is playing here, and demolishing, a supra 2700 player - not some New York chess club regulars. Carlsen has also won his world championship matches in much more convincing fashion than the 1972 match and did not lose a few candidates tournaments before getting a shot at the title (like Fischer did). The only sensible comparisons to Carlsen are Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Karpov and Kasparov, all of whom, unlike Fischer, created serious eras of domination over quality opponents. |
|
| Dec-29-15 | | Sularus: I hope this loss has no long term effect on Shak. |
|
| Dec-29-15 | | Mr. Bojangles: <
Why always all these mindless comparisons with the comparatively weak Fischer on chessgames? - The two guys making the statements you quoted were weak players, describing a guy who was at the top for just one world championship cycle. Carlsen has the highest ELO rating on record, has actually remained, in spite of his age, at the top for far longer than Fischer did, and is playing here, and demolishing, a supra 2700 player - not some New York chess club regulars. Carlsen has also won his world championship matches in much more convincing fashion than the 1972 match and did not lose a few candidates tournaments before getting a shot at the title (like Fischer did). The only sensible comparisons to Carlsen are Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Karpov and Kasparov, all of whom, unlike Fischer, created serious eras of domination over quality opponents.>👍👍 |
|
| Dec-29-15 | | Kasparov Fan: In Fischer's hands, a slight theoretical advantage is as good as being a queen ahead.---Isaac Kashdan |
|
| Dec-29-15 | | Ulhumbrus: 5 ...h6 disturbs the king side pawns without necessity. 6 Bxf6 parts with the bishop pair, never a concession to make lightly. However White has won more than once after making this concession, even at the world championship level. This suggests the question: Can Black make his bishop pair count, and if so, how? One answer which is suggested by this game is that if one can't foresee how Black will make the bishop pair count, one won't see how White loses after making the concession either. However this is hardly a final answer and this game gives us a few indications of an answer. In this game White accepts an isolated d pawn by 12 exd4 where 11 Nxd4 gains an advantage in development. White has already before this exchanged his queen's bishop which can defend his d4 pawn for Black's king's knight which has not done so. This suggests that the choice of exd4 does not sit well with the choice of Bxf6. Or to put it another way, exd4 is inconsistent with Bxf6. Now consider the following question. Why does White's attack on the white squared diagonal b1-h7 not succeed? The first answer is that Black can obstruct it by the move ...f5. However this suggests a second question: Why is Black able to play the move ...f5? Normally one expects this to weaken the e6 pawn. So why is Black able to play ...f5 here? One answer is that White's d4 pawn is weak and so Black's weakness on e6 matters less. White's d4 pawn has been made weaker by the fact that White has exchanged his queen's bishop which can defend his d4 pawn for Black's king's knight which has not attacked it We can now trace the sequence of developments as follows: 1. By playing Bxf6 White not only concedes the bishop pair but exchanges his queen's bishop which can defend an isolated d4 pawn for Black's king's knight which does not attack the d4 pawn 2. White then accepts an isolated d4 pawn by the choice of Nxd4, and this in a position where Black's king's bishop can attack the d4 pawn from b6. 3. Because White's d4 pawn is so vulnerable to attack Black's backward e6 pawn matters less in the event that Black plays ...f5. Black's attack on White's isolated d4 pawn is in fact stronger than White's attack on the backward e6 pawn is strong. 4. This makes it easier for Black to play ...f5.
5. Black can therefore obstruct White's white square attack along the diagonal a2-h7 by ...f5. To summarise - at the risk of repetition - we can say that because White has done two perhaps inconsistent things - conceded the bishop pair and also accepted an isolated d4 pawn - White's d4 pawn has become weaker and it has then become easier for Black to obstruct White's king side attack by ..f5 despite making his e6 pawn backward |
|
| Dec-30-15 | | Bobsterman3000: Does Shak even bothering trying against 2750+ players? He'd rather just make his living garnering wins against the lowest tiers of GM's. |
|
| Dec-30-15 | | denopac: <Carlsen has also won his world championship matches in much more convincing fashion than the 1972 match> Fischer 1972 +7 -2 =11
Carlsen 2013 +3 -0 =7
Carlsen 2014 +3 -1 =7
Seems very similar to me. How is Carlsen "much more convincing"? |
|
| Dec-30-15 | | TheFocus: <denopac> <Carlsen has also won his world championship matches in much more convincing fashion than the 1972 match> <Fischer 1972 +7 -2 =11
Carlsen 2013 +3 -0 =7
Carlsen 2014 +3 -1 =7
Seems very similar to me. How is Carlsen "much more convincing"?> It's quite obvious that a +3 or a +2 result in a ten game match is the exact same thing as a +5 victory in a match of 21 games. |
|
| Jan-03-16 | | Kasparov Fan: One of the golden rules of playing IQP positions is that when dynamic chances reduce in your position, you should exchange the isolani, if your pieces are not placed passively then the position should be equal.
Which brings me to my question Could Mamedyarov secured a draw by giving away the isolated pawn by 17.d5
after which a continuation could have been 17..exd5 18.Bxd5 Qxe4
19.Nxe4 Bf5 20.Ng3 Bh7 21.Bxc6 Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 bxc6
click for larger view the resulting position is equal. |
|
| Jan-04-16 | | TheoNov: <Kasparov Fan; Could Mamedyarov secured a draw by giving away the isolated pawn by 17.d5> Shak must have been hoping for an outcome more like in
<Mamedyarov vs Kharlov, 2006> |
|
Apr-29-22
| | perfidious: <ChessYouGood....The two guys making the statements you quoted were weak players, describing a guy who was at the top for just one world championship cycle....> We should all be such 'weak players' as Soltis and Shipman were. |
|
Jun-09-25
 | | MarcusBierce: Carlsen in full Karpov-mode here, defending against the IQP, playing his bishop to the back rank, doubling on the D-file. Mamedyarov seemed to be too ambitious with 19.Qg4, when it was at that moment the last time to liquidate his isolani with 19.d5 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
icon.