English Chess Forum

Big blow for Carlsen's hopes of winning the tournament. Thought Anand was going round in circles for a while there without making much progress and then it ended very quickly. Another opponent might've made Anand play on for a while in the final position.

Anand and Carlsen now providing a post mortem on Playchess.

I bet Keith Arkell is enjoying the end of McShane-Kramnik.

Kramnik wil be seeing that game for the rest of the night, I'll bet. It looked like he was in such a strong endgame position but Mcshane is such a slippery customer and kept finding resources to keep himself alive.

In Anand-Carlsen, was there a reason Anand didn't play:

31.Rxd7 Qf8 32.Ba3

That seems to be a much quicker win. (Not my idea, someone else pointed it out). I missed the post-mortem as I had to go home, but did anyone see what was said after the game? And talking of certain players finding it difficult to play against each other (Adams-Short was mentioned earlier), what do people think of Carlsen's record against Anand?

Jonathan Bryant wrote:I bet Keith Arkell is enjoying the end of McShane-Kramnik.

He was too busy making it 18/18 with R&B v R in the evening blitz tournament at the time

LozCooper wrote:

Jonathan Bryant wrote:I bet Keith Arkell is enjoying the end of McShane-Kramnik.

He was too busy making it 18/18 with R&B v R in the evening blitz tournament at the time

Really? That is (almost) unbelievable. Any other player, I'd think you were making that up.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:I'm surprised Kramnik didn't resign after losing that piece to the g5 move. It was move 12, though, so I can understand playing on for a bit. But what compensation did he think he had? It was rather a strange game, that one.

I doubt Kramnik reads this forum (I hope he doesn't!), but if he ever reads what I wrote above, I hope he reads my apology here. Why I ever thought of criticising a former world champion and saying he should have resigned on move 12, I don't know...

Anyway, there is some fascinating (translated) commentary here from Shipov using a Russian folk tale about a turnip:

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/ ... ssic-rd-2/

Amazing. The other commentaries by Shipov (he covers one game from each round following a vote from his audience) are well worth reading as well:

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/ ... ssic-rd-1/
http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/ ... ssic-rd-3/

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:In Anand-Carlsen, was there a reason Anand didn't play:

31.Rxd7 Qf8 32.Ba3

That seems to be a much quicker win. (Not my idea, someone else pointed it out).

Doh! The reason 31.Qe6+ was played first is to prevent the queen sacrifice 31...Qxd7, when Black may have a fortress after taking the bishop on b2 with the rook. I realised this after reading Shipov's commentary. Oh well, first I make silly comments about Kramnik's game, and then I try and improve on play by the current world champion (Anand). Maybe I can make it three out of three tomorrow and try and 'improve' on a move in Carlsen's game? Or maybe I should resolve to ask Fritz first before trying to 'improve' on any games by grandmasters...

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:In Anand-Carlsen, was there a reason Anand didn't play:

31.Rxd7 Qf8 32.Ba3

That seems to be a much quicker win. (Not my idea, someone else pointed it out).

Doh! The reason 31.Qe6+ was played first is to prevent the queen sacrifice 31...Qxd7, when Black may have a fortress after taking the bishop on b2 with the rook. I realised this after reading Shipov's commentary. Oh well, first I make silly comments about Kramnik's game, and then I try and improve on play by the current world champion (Anand). Maybe I can make it three out of three tomorrow and try and 'improve' on a move in Carlsen's game? Or maybe I should resolve to ask Fritz first before trying to 'improve' on any games by grandmasters...

Personally, I think following the games without Fritz or Rybka is part of the fun of kibbitzing the games of world class players (yesterday I was working while repeatedly coming up with the one suggestion more inane than the other!). Doing it without an engine, and trying to work it out for yourself, makes you realize how good those players really are. And as Danny King and Chris Ward repeatedly pointed out in yesterday's live commentary, some positions are dreadful for a human being, regardless of how drawish a computer engine might consider them (and vice versa of course).

LozCooper wrote:

Jonathan Bryant wrote:I bet Keith Arkell is enjoying the end of McShane-Kramnik.

He was too busy making it 18/18 with R&B v R in the evening blitz tournament at the time

That's hilarious! Do we know who the victim was and whether s/he knew just how inevitable their defeat was?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Really? That is (almost) unbelievable. Any other player, I'd think you were making that up.

Some of Keith's thoughts on KRB v KR (and endings in general) can be found here:-

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... w-iii.html

Jonathan Bryant wrote:I bet Keith Arkell is enjoying the end of McShane-Kramnik.

He was too busy making it 18/18 with R&B v R in the evening blitz tournament at the time [/quote]

That's hilarious! Do we know who the victim was and whether s/he knew just how inevitable their defeat was?

Not sure who the opponent was but for once it wasn't me

Howell and Short are possibly in somewhat uncomfortable positions at present.

Update: This is quite rare at top level I'm sure but I suspect Short just blundered his Bishop? Vishy Anand has found Qd6 which prevents the perpetual that Short was going for I believe.

London Chess Classic guest of honour Viktor Korchnoi's first of two simuls was a great success as 'Viktor the Terrible' scored 21 wins, four draws and one loss. Jamie Morgan was the winner with a 21 move victory in a Benko Gambit.

Anyone got the moves for this one?

That was last year. I'm not sure if the moves are available...