2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
-
- Posts: 4662
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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.
Reading a computer evaluation is easy. Actually playing chess is not.
-
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
Well they are all claiming that Carlsen blundered a piece. The fact that he can win a game a piece down is staggering.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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)
-
- Posts: 4662
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
But as has been said here, not exactly a piece for nothing.MJMcCready wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:09 pmWell they are all claiming that Carlsen blundered a piece. The fact that he can win a game a piece down is staggering.
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).
-
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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.
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:32 pm
But as has been said here, not exactly a piece for nothing.
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 4662
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
oh, much less far down that that as well ....
-
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
I suppose the stronger you are the better your utilisation of the material you have is.
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
Hou Yifan - Caruana, for instance.
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
Hou is having an absoute 'mare
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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
-
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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.
-
- Posts: 8473
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:33 pmCruel 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
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
Re: 2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January
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. DiscussNickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:00 pmI 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?