2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

The very latest International round up of English news.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3776
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:37 pm

will be interesting to hear MC's thoughts after the game, presumably quite shortly now.

Oh well. But (breaking news) it can't be easy against someone who, even if he does make one clear error, then just keeps playing the best moves.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Nick Ivell » Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:46 pm

Gawain will remember this game as death by the pin. He missed his chance but we shouldn't be too critical. He wasn't a piece up for nothing.

Reading a computer evaluation is easy. Actually playing chess is not.

MJMcCready
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:09 pm

Well they are all claiming that Carlsen blundered a piece. The fact that he can win a game a piece down is staggering.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:11 pm

Meanwhile, Caruana struggling against back marker Hou.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3776
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:32 pm

MJMcCready wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:09 pm
Well they are all claiming that Carlsen blundered a piece. The fact that he can win a game a piece down is staggering.
But as has been said here, not exactly a piece for nothing.

In my view, quite a common reason for blundering a piece is that the opponent's move [which wins it] is in itself quite anti-positional, and that is why the thought of the opponent playing it has not even crossed the blunderer's mind. Now, when this happens, the piece is lost, but because the move which won it likely did have positional drawbacks, there is a fair chance that one might find oneself with some practical compensation. ("Accidental compensation" it is sometimes called; but it is not wholly accidental, because it was part and parcel of the reasons for the blunder that a compromising move was required to win the piece).

MJMcCready
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:39 pm

He certainly had compensation but-well its easy to say with computer assistance-had Jones played stronger defensive moves instead of moving his queen out to b6 and then back to d8, he should have had a substantial advantage.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:47 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:32 pm

But as has been said here, not exactly a piece for nothing.
Indeed - and “better player gets dodgy position then ends up winning anyway” is hardly an unknown phenomenon. We just usually see it 1000 points down the food chain, that’s all.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3776
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:51 pm

oh, much less far down that that as well ....

MJMcCready
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:04 pm

I suppose the stronger you are the better your utilisation of the material you have is.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:52 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:51 pm
oh, much less far down that that as well ....
Hou Yifan - Caruana, for instance.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:15 pm

Hou is having an absoute 'mare :oops:
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

David Robertson
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by David Robertson » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:33 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:15 pm
Hou is having an absolute 'mare :oops:
Cruel and sexist without doubt, isn't the 'rule' at this level that you keep it going until the woman cracks (as, evidence says, she will)? A rule, incidentally, that might be applied to players called 'Jones'; or 'Brits' generally (absent Adams); or players <2650

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7222
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:56 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:15 pm
Hou is having an absoute 'mare :oops:
Having looked at the game Hou played against Caruana, I think it was unfair to say that Caruana was struggling. It would be more accurate to say that Hou must have missed 33.Rf3 in the position below (she played 33.Qd2). I challenge anyone to see through the complications after 33.Rf3 (actually, on second thoughts, the combination is not that difficult, it is the follow-up to 33. Rf3 Kxh6 34. Rxf7 Qg5 (or even 34...Qe8 - the computer finds 34...Nb6) that may be difficult to see - is it 35.h4?). I wonder if Caruana saw it (or indeed if Hou saw it and rejected it)?



White to play.

Last edited by Christopher Kreuzer on Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4869
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:00 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:33 pm
Cruel and sexist without doubt, isn't the 'rule' at this level that you keep it going until the woman cracks (as, evidence says, she will)? A rule, incidentally, that might be applied to players called 'Jones'; or 'Brits' generally (absent Adams); or players <2650
I don't see the purpose of this post. Yes, 2800 players tend on balance to make a plus score against 2650 players - there's a reason for that. But on your specific targets, only three days ago Gawain hung on to draw a highly dubious position against Kramnik. Short and McShane have held their own in memorable scraps with the world's elite. I could go on, but why?

David Robertson
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

Post by David Robertson » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:22 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:00 pm
I don't see the purpose of this post. Yes, 2800 players tend on balance to make a plus score against 2650 players - there's a reason for that. But on your specific targets, only three days ago Gawain hung on to draw a highly dubious position against Kramnik. Short and McShane have held their own in memorable scraps with the world's elite. I could go on, but why?
The purpose of my point/post is to draw attention to the uncomfortable, and to me unpalatable, 'truth' that the strongest male players believe 'objectively' (ie from the evidence) that, with even the very best female players, a critical error will occur if they keep going long enough unless proven otherwise. That's my main claim. But because I don't have all the 'evidence', I concede that it could be true of all players in the class <2650 that they will be taken on by the super-elite in a similar fashion. That's not my impression though. I am not asserting that elite GMs are sexist per se. I am suggesting they are aware of the stats; hence, play the probabilities with specific reference to female players. Discuss

Post Reply