17 Nov 13
Originally posted by Fat LadyFischer in 1972 started playing QP openings in the World Championship with good success.
I have never seen Anand play anything except the Ruy Lopez against 1. ... e5. It's probably not the best idea in the world to suddenly start playing a completely new opening with different ideas and patterns. I remember watching Korchnoi commentate the Short vs McShane game where Short tried the Kings Gambit (and lost) - Korchnoi was scathing about how foolish Short was to try to become a Kings Gambit player without hundreds of practice games first.
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by SMesqAnand is a central man... always has been and always will be. He'd never play the Bird's, but yes.... what a shocker that would be, for him, as Carlsen casually plays d5. 😀
Even more shocking would be 1.f4 . . . . has Anand ever played it?
What a game THAT would be in a WC match.
-m.
17 Nov 13
Anand is battering his head against that Berlin Wall.
Maybe a Four Knights, in the past Carlsen has played the Rubinstein.
White can sac a theoretical pawn to drum up things.
What the last games are showing us is that computers telling us one fact
(postion is level) and what humans do with it are two different things.
Highlighting the dangers for people who look at a computer middlegames
and see 0.00 not realising the human needs to play like a computer to keep it at 0.00.
17 Nov 13
3 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34I stated way before, Anand should play the Colle, its the only opening worth playing in a world championship match, that and the Pirc, which btw I am having a great time with in blitz, i do not understand why, normally i get wasted pretty easily but it seems that those at my measly level don't understand that in choosing a move against the Pirc ( 4.f4, Nf3, g3, Be3 etc etc ) one must also choose an idea, anyway, I don't understand what all the fuss is about the openings, Anand did not lose the opening, nor the middle game, he played some inaccuracies in the end and that is why he lost. If one thing Carlsen has proven its that chess games are not won or lost in the opening and at master level not even the middle game, but its the endgame that is paramount. This we have known for ages, but who actually likes studying endgame principles? and you are correct great pawn in your assessment of computer analysis and humans.
Anand is battering his head against that Berlin Wall.
Maybe a Four Knights, in the past Carlsen has played the Rubinstein.
White can sac a theoretical pawn to drum up things.
What the last games are showing us is that computers telling us one fact
(postion is level) and what humans do with it are two different things.
Highlighting the dangers for ...[text shortened]... dlegames
and see 0.00 not realising the human needs to play like a computer to keep it at 0.00.
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by greenpawn34Or people reading 0.00 and confusing "even" with "draw".
Anand is battering his head against that Berlin Wall.
Maybe a Four Knights, in the past Carlsen has played the Rubinstein.
White can sac a theoretical pawn to drum up things.
What the last games are showing us is that computers telling us one fact
(postion is level) and what humans do with it are two different things.
Highlighting the dangers for ...[text shortened]... dlegames
and see 0.00 not realising the human needs to play like a computer to keep it at 0.00.
As yet we have not devised a way to distinguish a dymanic 0.00 versus a stalemate 0.00. Fritz 15, I suppose!
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExcellent point, Robbie.
If one thing Carlsen has proven its that chess games are not won or lost in the opening and at master level not even the middle game, but its the endgame that is paramount. This we have known for ages, but who actually likes studying endgame principles? and you are correct great pawn in your assessment of computer analysis and humans.
In the last 10 years or so the books and other literature on the endgame have improved dramatically, both in content and presentation, but the chess world is only beginning to appreciate it.
I have only really learned to appreciate it in the last year or so, because Ocean64 has been pushing me in that direction. Greenpawn34's most recent blog shows what is out there for us, and there are a huge number of other good- and perhap even more important, interesting- books out there now.
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMaster games can be lost in the middlegame. What we are seeing here is Magnus exploiting an apparent weakness in the Anand armor.
I stated way before, Anand should play the Colle, its the only opening worth playing in a world championship match, that and the Pirc, which btw I am having a great time with in blitz, i do not understand why, normally i get wasted pretty easily but it seems that those at my measly level don't understand that in choosing a move against the Pirc ( 4.f ...[text shortened]... e principles? and you are correct great pawn in your assessment of computer analysis and humans.
17 Nov 13
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambityes of course its possible and it happens, Anand it seems was not able to create enough imbalances to seriously unbalance Carlsen in the middle game and buoyed by his success he pressed for a win knowing that he was one game ahead anyway. He traded down and then played like Qg4 with what idea? Qd7? it was always going to be covered by Carlsen entering into a rook and queen endgame with mutual chances. I don't know what you do against Carlsen, its not like he cannot be beaten, he can. I wonder if this has inspired anyone other than Leggy to seriously look at endgames?
Master games can be lost in the middlegame. What we are seeing here is Magnus exploiting an apparent weakness in the Anand armor.
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by Paul Leggett😀
Excellent point, Robbie.
In the last 10 years or so the books and other literature on the endgame have improved dramatically, both in content and presentation, but the chess world is only beginning to appreciate it.
I have only really learned to appreciate it in the last year or so, because Ocean64 has been pushing me in that direction. Greenpawn ...[text shortened]... e number of other good- and perhap even more important, interesting- books out there now.
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI bought a John Nunn book on endgames, my goodness it was so 'dry' I was virtually catatonic by page 90. Perhaps there are more readable works out there for patzers like me......if so, I would love to know what they are.
I wonder if this has inspired anyone other than Leggy to seriously look at endgames?
17 Nov 13
Originally posted by SMesqI know they can be like a desert region, one expects an Arab caravan to pass at any moment. The trick i think is to make it fun somehow, like if you are up material in blitz, under promote to a knight or bishop and try to mate your opponent with minor pieces.
I bought a John Nunn book on endgames, my goodness it was so 'dry' I was virtually catatonic by page 90. Perhaps there are more readable works out there for patzers like me......if so, I would love to know what they are.