|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-21-16 | | gokusano: 29. Qh4+ Qg5 30.e5+ Ke5 is a blunder. |
|
| Jan-21-16 | | 5hrsolver: <Sambo>
Black rook is on c8 not d8.
29.Qh4+ Qg5 30.e5+ Ke5 31.Qd4# |
|
Jan-21-16
 | | tamar: The piece sacrifice, the pins, the makeshift piece shelter around White's King, all reminded me of the game 10 of the Lasker Schlechter championship match. Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 |
|
Jan-21-16
 | | HeMateMe: <"Time trouble is not an excuse." Alekhine> that's easy for him to say--the man who could play 50 games of blindfold chess simultaneously. However, I think I could have beaten him at Backgammon... |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | King Radio: <tamar> that's a good observation. That is one of my favorite games, and the comparison hadn't occurred to me. |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | thegoodanarchist: One of the hallmarks of a champion is being dangerous with the Black pieces. Of course it helps when your rating is 200 points above the opponent's rating. |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <blackdranzer: Lucky magnus> Yeah, the more years he works, the luckier he gets. Very strange... |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <HeMateMe: <"Time trouble is not an excuse." Alekhine> that's easy for him to say--the man who could play 50 games of blindfold chess simultaneously. However, I think I could have beaten him at Backgammon...> If you had the dice from the movie "Octopussy" |
|
Jan-22-16
 | | perfidious: If I could have seen half of what Alekhine must have, I would have been in time trouble if they gave me a week for forty moves (with apologies to Jon Tisdall). |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | Ulhumbrus: 13 h4 begins what looks like an unsound attack but it is up to Black to find a way to refute it. White keeps his rooks disconnected and his king in the centre. Carlsen's answer appears initially to be to do little more than complete his development. After that however Carlsen first hinders White's attack and then sacrifices a piece so as to start an attack against White's king in the centre. On this occasion the lack of safety for White's king will turn out to be worth more than a piece. 23...Qg5!! pins White's d4 pawn to White's queen on d2 so that on 24 fxg4 Black can take White's d4 pawn by 24...Rxd4 and open the d file against White's bishop on d3. 37...Rf1+! is a final sacrifice which leads to the win of White's queen and the game |
|
Jan-22-16
| | perfidious: <....On this occasion the lack of safety for White's king will turn out to be worth more than a piece.> This is an example of annotation by result, overlooking that Carlsen was quite lost after the sacrifice. |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | frogbert: <perfidious> Lost is a slight exaggeration, isn't it? Yes, black is objectively lost after 27... Rxg2? but before that it's rather unclear, at least taking van Wely's time into consideration - which probably was a consideration before Carlsen chose to sacrifice his knight. So yeah, the sacrifice was speculative, and Carlsen also went wrong after the sac. And I would've preferred that Carlsen would win against van Wely - even with black - without having to play unsound moves. ;) |
|
Jan-22-16
| | perfidious: <frogbert> After Carlsen's 27th move, no exaggeration at all, but I do not propose to split hairs over what was clearly a risky undertaking, much as I admire Carlsen's enterprise. |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | Karposian: <frogbert: Lost is a slight exaggeration, isn't it?> Like <perfidious> says, no exaggeration at all. After 27..Rxg2?? White has a won position. But Van Wely missed 29.Qh4+ (understandable since he was down to seconds on the clock). After 29.Qh4+ g5 30.Qh3, Black's Rook is trapped. So, 27.Rxg2 is, objectively, a losing move. But it's the kind of move that can pay off when your opponent is in time trouble, and it did, in this case. |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | talwnbe4: here watching the game live I thought 23..Qg5 leaving the knight to be taken doesn't look sound. |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | frogbert: <Karposian> perfidious first said *after the sacrifice*. After 27... Rxg2? I agree that it's objectively lost - which I also wrote. However, the sacrifice was played on move 23. What I commented on was this:
<perfidious: Carlsen was quite lost after the sacrifice.> Which would mean (right) after move 23. |
|
| Jan-22-16 | | WDenayer: Ah well. Carlsen got away with it against Van Wely who was in time trouble, but it wouldn't work against the more immediate competition. Van Wely missed two enormous chances in this game, first Nb5! and later on he missed the checkmate or the trapped rook. I don't think that it is a good sign that Carlsen gives someone the chance to mate him, time trouble or not. This was not taking a chance, this is playing Russian roulette. |
|
| Jan-23-16 | | robin.bakkerus: Can anyone tell what is wrong with 15 d5 (instead of h5) in the Wely-Carlsen game.
It looks very strong to me, for example: 15 d5 Bd5: Nd5: Qd5: 16 Qd5: Rd5: 17 Rc8! |
|
| Jan-23-16 | | Nerwal: The critical line is 15. d5 ♗xc3+ 16. ♕xc3 ♗xd5. To me Black is fine there. |
|
Jan-24-16
 | | Richard Taylor: <tamar: The piece sacrifice, the pins, the makeshift piece shelter around White's King, all reminded me of the game 10 of the Lasker Schlechter championship match. Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910>
Yes. I played through that match fairly recently. Schlecter, in fact both he and Lasker played some excellent and dynamic games. Lasker had the match 'rigged' though, so that even though both were on = points he won. My book says it was because Lasker had seen the poverty that Steinitz ended his days in and hence. But, of course, and Lasker couldn't know this in advance and probably wouldn't have wanted it: but Schlecter died of hunger in the aftermath of WWI. He had been neglected and obviously the War didn't help him or anyone. So it was sad and rather ironic. As to this game. Carlsen has always been able to play a wide range of styles: like Lasker he shuts the opponent down, in other games he plays complex stuff, others are great games with a mix of positional ideas and attacks say as in the best games of the other great masters of the past. But you cant dial it up. It is not possible to play so dynamically (or riskily?) all the time as players adjust to your style. Although Kasparov did. But he also altered his style in response to his experience against Petrosian, Karpov etc |
|
| Feb-08-16 | | yurikvelo: 34.Nf4? followed by 35.Be2?? was decisive mistake for this otherwise drawn game. Carlsen missed 36. ... e5! forced win and it could be tough win for Carlsen if Loek played 37.Ng2! But... 37.Ne2?? blunder gifted immediate win for Carlsen (~M24) more multiPV http://pastebin.com/p9fiAC3y |
|
Feb-08-16
| | perfidious: Does Carlsen <ever> win a game which is not 'gifted' to him? If one were to believe some posters' comments, not a snowball's chance. The young grandmaster lays down the heat and very often, his opponents crack--this is at the heart of a good many wins by the newest champion in a lineage which have all demonstrated their mastery at the art of setting their opponents one problem after another. |
|
| Feb-08-16 | | King Radio: Nobody has ever won a game that was not 'gifted' to him. Difference is that Carlsen doesn't require as many 'gifts' as most players do. |
|
| Feb-09-16 | | yurikvelo: http://pastebin.com/Sk19NG4N
Eljanov vs Carlsen was not a gift (1 move blunder-gift), it was long positional step-by-step win.If Carlsen's oponent stand for draw and suddenly blunder - it's a gift. |
|
| Feb-09-16 | | morfishine: <perfidious> Very succinct postings. Carlsen is usually air-tight with his calculations. Here he was less than accurate; but since he got away with it, I guess this is an example of luck in chess, which I have argued doesn't exist. I will have to re-think that
***** |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 23...Qg5