| |
Main
Date: 23 Oct 2008 13:23:16
From: Fritz Wuehler
Subject: Vladimir Kramnik's Sacrifice: A Silent Attacking Perspective.
|
Has anybody considered the idea that as a result of Kramnik's
experience with Topalov in the 2006 WC match, Kramink is
intentionally sacrificing his winning chances with Anand. From my
perspective I see it as Kramnik handing the World Championship
to Anand on a gold platter hence a potential Anand vs Topalov
matchup. Thus sparring Vladimir the unpleasant experience of
meeting Topalov in a WC environment (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_World_Chess_Championship_2
006). Also it could be conjectured "Kramnik implicitly stated that
he would not be in competing past 40, that's two years." A chess
romanticist would like to think of the Anand vs Kramnik WC as an
opportunity to lure Garry Kasparov out of retirement and a Anand
vs Kasparov rematch then Kramnik jumping back into the picture
against the likes of Aronian, Carlsen, etc. I think it valiant of
Kramnik if he is sacrificing his chances against Anand.
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2008 22:39:53
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: Vladimir Kramnik's Sacrifice: A Silent Attacking Perspective.
|
On Oct 23, 4:23=A0pm, Fritz Wuehler
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Has anybody considered the idea that as a result of Kramnik's
> experience with Topalov in the 2006 =A0WC match, Kramink is
> intentionally sacrificing his winning chances with Anand.
I honestly believe that what happened to Kramnik was a result of the
psychological battering
we recieve when any of us play tournament chess even as club level
players. Consider this.
The first two games are drawn. In game two Kramnik had his chances we
he could not exploit
and than had to settle for a draw. In game three (which was the
turning point) he committed a blunder
where it was all over. In game 4 he could have played N X d4 vs R x
d4 (which was a certain draw). But I believe Kramnik was so
psycologically battered after losing game 3 he settled for a safe
draw. However, its game 5 which to me was the most crucial match of
them all. It was clearly Kramnik's game and his strategy of playing N
x d4 was not bad but the tactics were off. Which I have written in
detail in one of my posts. I believe Kramnik should have really won
that match. Had he done so it would have been 1-1 going into the sixth
game where Kramnik would have settled for a safe draw vs going for a
risky win resulting in a loss. And after six games they would still
have been 1-1. Now the next two games are drawn and we could have
actually seen Kramnik leading going into the last 2 games. Or at worst
being tied with Anand. It could really have been a different affair
had things gone better for Kramnik.
But that's how it goes and although I feel bad for Kramnik I am
looking forward to a Topalov vs Anand match. :)
From my
> perspective I see it as Kramnik handing the World Championship
> to Anand on a gold platter hence a potential Anand vs Topalov
> matchup. Thus sparring Vladimir the unpleasant experience of
> meeting Topalov in a WC environment (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FID=
E_World_Chess_Championship_2
> 006). Also it could be conjectured "Kramnik implicitly stated that
> he would not be in competing past 40, that's two years." A chess
> romanticist would like to think of the Anand vs Kramnik WC as an
> opportunity to lure Garry Kasparov out of retirement and a Anand
> vs Kasparov rematch then Kramnik jumping back into the picture
> against the likes of Aronian, Carlsen, etc. I think it valiant of
> Kramnik if he is sacrificing his chances against Anand.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2008 09:32:47
From:
Subject: Anand-Kramnik Game 7 is a draw
|
On Oct 23, 11:45=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 23, 10:38=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Fritz Wuehler <[email protected]> =
wrote:
> > >> Has anybody considered the idea that as a result of Kramnik's
> > >> experience with Topalov in the 2006 WC match, Kramink is
> > >> intentionally sacrificing his winning chances with Anand.
>
> > > I can understand that Kramnik's unpleasant 2006 experience with
> > > Topalov (or more accurately, with Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov)
> > > might be something he's not in a hurry to repeat. But deliberately
> > > losing now to Anand just to avoid Topalov? Seems far-fetched. And if
> > > true, I would not characterize it as "valiant."
>
> > And, surely, throwing one game would suffice? =A0Maybe two, just to be
> > sure. =A0(You know, it would look kinda suspect if Anand blundered a
> > piece and Kramnik didn't go on to win.) =A0But three out of the first
> > six?
>
> > Or maybe he knows that two would be enough and knows that we know this
> > so he's deliberately losing more to make it look like he's just
> > playing badly. =A0Hmm...
>
> > Dave.
>
> > --
> > David Richerby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Old-=
Fashioned Gerbil (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/=A0=A0 =
=A0a children's pet but it's perfect for
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
=A0 =A0 =A0your grandparents!
>
> =A0 Hmmmm, maybe there's something to Herr Wuehler's hypothesis.
> Checking today's game:
>
> =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/wc2008/client.html
>
> Kramnik again looks like he's playing to lose. Or at least he's
> certainly not playing to win.
Funny, Fritz8 rates the final position at about +2.00, but it looks
like Black has an impenetrable fortress, so no point in further play.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2008 17:09:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik Game 7 is a draw
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ecf0334d-d5c9-4410-99b8-f54fec73fd42@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 11:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 23, 10:38 am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Fritz Wuehler <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Has anybody considered the idea that as a result of Kramnik's
> > >> experience with Topalov in the 2006 WC match, Kramink is
> > >> intentionally sacrificing his winning chances with Anand.
>
> > > I can understand that Kramnik's unpleasant 2006 experience with
> > > Topalov (or more accurately, with Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov)
> > > might be something he's not in a hurry to repeat. But deliberately
> > > losing now to Anand just to avoid Topalov? Seems far-fetched. And if
> > > true, I would not characterize it as "valiant."
>
> > And, surely, throwing one game would suffice? Maybe two, just to be
> > sure. (You know, it would look kinda suspect if Anand blundered a
> > piece and Kramnik didn't go on to win.) But three out of the first
> > six?
>
> > Or maybe he knows that two would be enough and knows that we know this
> > so he's deliberately losing more to make it look like he's just
> > playing badly. Hmm...
>
> > Dave.
>
> > --
> > David Richerby Old-Fashioned Gerbil (TM): it's
> > likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a children's pet but it's
> > perfect for
> > your grandparents!
>
> Hmmmm, maybe there's something to Herr Wuehler's hypothesis.
> Checking today's game:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/wc2008/client.html
>
> Kramnik again looks like he's playing to lose. Or at least he's
> certainly not playing to win.
Funny, Fritz8 rates the final position at about +2.00, but it looks
like Black has an impenetrable fortress, so no point in further play.
=======
During the play Anand refused a draw offer, below is the game score - and
what follows are Seirawan's comments, or notes on his comments as reported
by Susan Polgar //Phil Innes
American grandmaster Yasser Seirawan praised Anand's "dominating performance
so far" and said there hasn't yet been "a return of service" from Kramnik.
Seirawan said he thought Kramnik was "very fortunate. He made a few
inaccuracies and was on the edge" of losing.
With Black, Kramnik chose the Slav Defense and the players followed the
first playoff game between Kramnik and Bulgarian Veselin Topalov in their
2006 reunification match until Kramnik varied on move 15.
Anand called the line "interesting." Kramnik said it was "maybe not the best
choice" given his large deficit, but "it's not so easy to get winning
chances" with Black against 1.d4.
Kramnik's 17th move, giving up his bishop for a knight, was new. Preserving
the bishop was probably safer but, given his deficit, he had to unbalance
the position.
Seirawan thought that Kramnik might have been hoping for a
good-knight-versus-bad-bishop position. If so, he quickly got the opposite.
Anand rated his position "slightly better" because "Black's knight is much
weaker than White's bishop."
Kramnik exchanged queens on move 21 and offered a draw. He said afterward
that he may have been "a little bit over optimistic" in making the offer.
Anand said that the draw offer "surprised me a little" and that he declined
it because "Black still has to make a few accurate moves."
Anand (2783) - Kramnik (2772) [D18]
World Championship (7), 23.10.2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7
9.Qe2 Bg6 10.e4 0-0 11.Bd3 Bh5 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Qe3 Re8 15.Ne1 Bg6
16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Nd3 Qb6 18.Nxb4 Qxb4 19.b3 Rac8 20.Ba3 Qc3 21.Rac1 Qxe3
22.fxe3 f6 23.Bd6 g5 24.h3 Kf7 25.Kf2 Kg6 26.Ke2 fxe5 27.dxe5 b6 28.b4 Rc4
29.Rxc4 dxc4 30.Rc1 Rc8 31.g4 a5 32.b5 c3 33.Rc2 Kf7 34.Kd3 Nc5+ 35.Bxc5
Rxc5 36.Rxc3 Rxc3+ 1/2
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2008 08:45:27
From:
Subject: Re: Vladimir Kramnik's Sacrifice: A Silent Attacking Perspective.
|
On Oct 23, 10:38=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Fritz Wuehler <[email protected]> wr=
ote:
> >> Has anybody considered the idea that as a result of Kramnik's
> >> experience with Topalov in the 2006 WC match, Kramink is
> >> intentionally sacrificing his winning chances with Anand.
>
> > I can understand that Kramnik's unpleasant 2006 experience with
> > Topalov (or more accurately, with Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov)
> > might be something he's not in a hurry to repeat. But deliberately
> > losing now to Anand just to avoid Topalov? Seems far-fetched. And if
> > true, I would not characterize it as "valiant."
>
> And, surely, throwing one game would suffice? =A0Maybe two, just to be
> sure. =A0(You know, it would look kinda suspect if Anand blundered a
> piece and Kramnik didn't go on to win.) =A0But three out of the first
> six?
>
> Or maybe he knows that two would be enough and knows that we know this
> so he's deliberately losing more to make it look like he's just
> playing badly. =A0Hmm...
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Old-Fa=
shioned Gerbil (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/=A0 =A0 =
=A0a children's pet but it's perfect for
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0your grandparents!
Hmmmm, maybe there's something to Herr Wuehler's hypothesis.
Checking today's game:
http://www.chesscafe.com/wc2008/client.html
Kramnik again looks like he's playing to lose. Or at least he's
certainly not playing to win.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2008 17:45:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Vladimir Kramnik's Sacrifice: A Silent Attacking Perspective.
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Or maybe he knows that two would be enough and knows that we know this
>> so he's deliberately losing more to make it look like he's just
>> playing badly. =A0Hmm...
>
> Checking today's game:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/wc2008/client.html
>
> Kramnik again looks like he's playing to lose. Or at least he's
> certainly not playing to win.
He failed to win or lose! Even I could win or lose against Anand.
Sheesh.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Technicolor Clock (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ clock but it's in realistic colour!
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2008 06:23:27
From:
Subject: Re: Vladimir Kramnik's Sacrifice: A Silent Attacking Perspective.
|
On Oct 23, 7:23=A0am, Fritz Wuehler
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Has anybody considered the idea that as a result of Kramnik's
> experience with Topalov in the 2006 =A0WC match, Kramink is
> intentionally sacrificing his winning chances with Anand. From my
> perspective I see it as Kramnik handing the World Championship
> to Anand on a gold platter hence a potential Anand vs Topalov
> matchup. Thus sparring Vladimir the unpleasant experience of
> meeting Topalov in a WC environment (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FID=
E_World_Chess_Championship_2
> 006). Also it could be conjectured "Kramnik implicitly stated that
> he would not be in competing past 40, that's two years." A chess
> romanticist would like to think of the Anand vs Kramnik WC as an
> opportunity to lure Garry Kasparov out of retirement and a Anand
> vs Kasparov rematch then Kramnik jumping back into the picture
> against the likes of Aronian, Carlsen, etc. I think it valiant of
> Kramnik if he is sacrificing his chances against Anand.
I can understand that Kramnik's unpleasant 2006 experience with
Topalov (or more accurately, with Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov)
might be something he's not in a hurry to repeat. But deliberately
losing now to Anand just to avoid Topalov? Seems far-fetched. And if
true, I would not characterize it as "valiant."
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2008 15:38:59
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Vladimir Kramnik's Sacrifice: A Silent Attacking Perspective.
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Fritz Wuehler <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Has anybody considered the idea that as a result of Kramnik's
>> experience with Topalov in the 2006 WC match, Kramink is
>> intentionally sacrificing his winning chances with Anand.
>
> I can understand that Kramnik's unpleasant 2006 experience with
> Topalov (or more accurately, with Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov)
> might be something he's not in a hurry to repeat. But deliberately
> losing now to Anand just to avoid Topalov? Seems far-fetched. And if
> true, I would not characterize it as "valiant."
And, surely, throwing one game would suffice? Maybe two, just to be
sure. (You know, it would look kinda suspect if Anand blundered a
piece and Kramnik didn't go on to win.) But three out of the first
six?
Or maybe he knows that two would be enough and knows that we know this
so he's deliberately losing more to make it look like he's just
playing badly. Hmm...
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Gerbil (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a children's pet but it's perfect for
your grandparents!
|
|
