What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Main

Date: 05 Oct 2006 14:08:15
From: Zero
Subject: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Kramnik is not a perfect player and he has to have a weakness. So what
is his weakness and what kind of position do you have get into to beat
him? Is he not good tactically? Shirov beat in that match in 1998 in
sharp positions.

Topalov won 1 game by forfeit and he just won 1 game now. But it had
been a struggle for him. So what does he have to do win again ?

Date: 18 Oct 2006 02:20:21
From:
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Zero wrote:
> Kramnik is not a perfect player and he has to have a weakness. So what
> is his weakness and what kind of position do you have get into to beat
> him? Is he not good tactically? Shirov beat in that match in 1998 in
> sharp positions.
>
> Topalov won 1 game by forfeit and he just won 1 game now. But it had
> been a struggle for him. So what does he have to do win again ?
>

Change managers?

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Date: 06 Oct 2006 11:36:03
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

>> > Topalov won 1 game by forfeit and he just won 1 game now. But it had
>> > been a struggle for him. So what does he have to do win again ?
>>
>> Kramnik lost today because he willingly walked into Topa's home
>> preparation by playing
>> 12 Bb5..13. Ne5
>>
>> It is difficult (for me) to understand why he did it. It looked
>> suicidal since it was obvious
>> home prep in a sharp position thus the kind that a sane mind would
>> avoid. Maybe he too analyzed once this position, he also plays the
>> Meran, so he may have thought that he would handle it .Wrong idea.
>
> Possibly both players had done preparation on this line?
>
> It is in Fritz Powerbook06 up to move 13. Ne5 Qc7
> (that game continuation swapped knights and simplified)

I like 12. Qxd8+ as well (if I played this fascinating line, but I'm not a
1. d4 player until someone tries to exploit me playing 1. e4)

> And it isn't clear to me that Kramik couldn't have held the game
> together with either the bold pawn grab
>
> 15 Qxa7 (possibly foolhardy in a GM level match, but Shredder thinks it
> is OK).

This was his last chance at a decent game, and the silicon doesn't find
anything for Black that refutes this. The game continuation was horrific.

After 15. Qxa7!, Black is suddenly on the defensive: 15...bd6 16. f4 O-O 17.
Nxd7 Nxd7 18. Bd2 Nf6 19. Rac1 Qe7 20. Qb6 (0.27) according to my personal
engine.

GMs are going to have to get used to needing to find moves like 15. Qxa7,
and to playing against people who are booked up solid even this far into the
game.

The 1/x rule dominated this game and should dominate the rest of the match.
Kramnik will be lucky to draw two games or win one.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 06 Oct 2006 07:57:06
From:
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

David Richerby wrote:
>
> That's a gross simplification. If you look at Susan Polgar's blog,
> you'll see that... Oh, damn. She's changed it. That's a shame.
> During the game, she was saying that there was a lot of grandmaster
> disagreement about who was best through the middlegame. Now, she's
> rewritten it with a lot of hindsight saying that Topalov was better
> all along.
>

it is isn't any "gross simplification", Topalov himself had it at the
post game press conference as :

"I just was lucky in the opening, managed to catch him on my
preparation. I will abstain from judging his play, but the ending is
very complex.... Actually, I don't think the initiative in today's
game was in Vladimir's hands. I won two pieces for a rook - only
Black can be better after it...."

Kramnik misjudged an imbalanced postion as "ok" or "playable" and went
for it confidently while in fact it was "very bad or difficult to
defend at best" and Topa new the right conclusion having tested it at
home.

That's no excuse for Kramnik, he had few good options during the game
to sidestep Topas's opening preparation traps and to simplify the game,
but he wanted to go to the end....and he got there

Date: 05 Oct 2006 17:34:58
From:
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Actually, Ray spends more time studying openings than most in the hopes
> of becoming a grandmaster. Usually, people tell him he's studying chess
> the wrong way--that openings are rarely as decisive as middlegames and
> endgames. No doubt, he was happy to see a strong counter-example in
> this world championship match.
>

ok, it make sense now, that's what happen when an ignorant tries to be
sarcastic

about the game... it still puzzles me whether Kramnik just went for it
trusting his luck suicide like (not his style ) or he did get at home
the position at the move 22 and misjudged it ( supeficially judged it
as ok while in fact is very bad if not lost)
thus he played it out convinced that he would be ok

it wont be the first time, he did something similar in a game with Leko
in the 2002WCC

we will find out after the match

Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:11:49
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
>
> ok, it make sense now, that's what happen when an ignorant tries to be
> sarcastic

he he
:-)

> about the game... it still puzzles me whether Kramnik just went for it
> trusting his luck suicide like (not his style ) or he did get at home
> the position at the move 22 and misjudged it ( supeficially judged it
> as ok while in fact is very bad if not lost)
> thus he played it out convinced that he would be ok
>
> it wont be the first time, he did something similar in a game with Leko
> in the 2002WCC

Actually in Leko-Kramnik He played a little inferior ending but the
problem was not the opening but his endgane play in that game (He missed
some drawing lines).

I think it's just the case in last WCC game, I think the loss was
produced by his poor endgame play in that concrete game. Most of GM
watching that game were not sure about what player was better out og the
opening (as example Karjakin and Fedorowicz wrote that white was a
little better)

AT

Date: 06 Oct 2006 12:54:28
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
>> about the game... it still puzzles me whether Kramnik just went for it
>> trusting his luck suicide like (not his style ) or he did get at home
>> the position at the move 22 and misjudged it ( supeficially judged it
>> as ok while in fact is very bad if not lost)
>> thus he played it out convinced that he would be ok
>>
>> it wont be the first time, he did something similar in a game with Leko
>> in the 2002WCC
>
> Actually in Leko-Kramnik He played a little inferior ending but the
> problem was not the opening but his endgane play in that game (He
> missed some drawing lines).

I think levelerman is referring to game eight of the match, where
Kramnik saw 25... Qd3 in his home preparation but didn't let the
computer run long enough to find the win for Black.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Homicidal Sword (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a razor-sharp blade but
it wants to kill you and it burns
really easily!

Date: 05 Oct 2006 20:42:49
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

>> Actually, Ray spends more time studying openings than most in the hopes
>> of becoming a grandmaster. Usually, people tell him he's studying chess
>> the wrong way--that openings are rarely as decisive as middlegames and
>> endgames. No doubt, he was happy to see a strong counter-example in
>> this world championship match.
>>
>
>
> ok, it make sense now, that's what happen when an ignorant tries to be
> sarcastic

Today's game showed the strength of my approach to chess.

I suspect the remainder of this match is a mere formality, as Topalov has
now "solved" Kramnik.

When I do to a player what was done to Kramnik today, he rarely if ever ever
regains an edge over me.

Kramnik's toast. I give it two more games, maybe one.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 05 Oct 2006 17:21:03
From:
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

[email protected] wrote:
> Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:
>
> > Thought that chess games weren't decided in the opening...
>
> perhaps you dont know much chess then

Ray, so now you know... openings are important. ;-)

Actually, Ray spends more time studying openings than most in the hopes
of becoming a grandmaster. Usually, people tell him he's studying chess
the wrong way--that openings are rarely as decisive as middlegames and
endgames. No doubt, he was happy to see a strong counter-example in
this world championship match.

---
likesforests
Become a Chess Expert - http://likesforests.blogspot.com/

Date: 05 Oct 2006 20:35:06
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

>> Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:
>>
>> > Thought that chess games weren't decided in the opening...
>>
>> perhaps you dont know much chess then
>
> Ray, so now you know... openings are important. ;-)

NOW they tell me!!!

> Actually, Ray spends more time studying openings than most in the hopes
> of becoming a grandmaster. Usually, people tell him he's studying chess
> the wrong way--that openings are rarely as decisive as middlegames and
> endgames. No doubt, he was happy to see a strong counter-example in
> this world championship match.

From what I gathered, the key mistake wasn't in allowing the "novelty," but
was several moves later (my computer pinpointed something around move 20-25
as the key error).

I don't see how any modern grandmaster would not have considered 13...Qc7 in
his preparation. Even if the move isn't in the books, the computers found
nothing wrong with it, and I see more and more moves like that, where
there's no real theory to speak of, and no real refutation to be found.
It's the type of move a computer finds, and I'm sure Topalov noticed this
(maybe by losing to it) and decided to pick it up.

Tomorrow's champions are going to need an approach to the opening that
doesn't leave them shellshocked with a minor deviation such at this.
Attacking the knight on e5 is certainly worth exploring, especially with the
aid of silicon.

As for the line chosen in general, these openings don't really lend
themselves to quick, smashing victories, but modern miniatures are more the
result of several superior moves played consecutively in the early
middlegame rather than anything terribly new in the opening.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 05 Oct 2006 17:06:12
From:
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:

> Thought that chess games weren't decided in the opening...

perhaps you dont know much chess then, you have to survive the opening
so as to decide by better play the game later, this game saw a rare and
very sharp variation of Meran and Kramnik went for it seemingly
unprepared or badly prepared...while Topalov just bashed out his home
preparation

have a read at

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3405

Date: 06 Oct 2006 12:47:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

<[email protected] > wrote:
> Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:
>> Thought that chess games weren't decided in the opening...
>
> perhaps you dont know much chess then, you have to survive the
> opening so as to decide by better play the game later

You are Ray Gordon and I claim my five pounds.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Perforated Cheese (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a brick of cheese but it's
full of holes and twice as fast!

Date: 05 Oct 2006 20:15:56
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

>> Thought that chess games weren't decided in the opening...
>
> perhaps you dont know much chess then, you have to survive the opening
> so as to decide by better play the game later,

You're preaching to the choir; I was being sarcastic.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 05 Oct 2006 16:26:41
From:
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Ron wrote:

> So, one might think that, to the contrary, he doesn't really have to
> change anything -

This is Topalov's first victory in 8 games and it was due to a strong
opening novelty.
After 13..Qa5! Kramink was already in great difficulty and had to trade
rook and pawn for two knights , the rest was agony.
Kramink has been slowly outplayed Topa in the middle game and endgame
for most of the games so far but for the opening preparation Topalov
appears as better prepared.
Kramnik has in store only positional and drawish variations while Topa
has well studied at home sharp varitions and sacrifices.

Topa can not change anything, He has already tried as hard as he can in
all the last games and only ended up outplayed by Kramnik.[ see the 7th
one]
What he can do is to hope to catch again Kramnik off guard in the
opening as it happened today.

Date: 06 Oct 2006 12:45:57
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

<[email protected] > wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>> So, one might think that, to the contrary, he doesn't really have
>> to change anything -
>
> This is Topalov's first victory in 8 games and it was due to a
> strong opening novelty.
> After 13..Qa5! Kramink was already in great difficulty and had to
> trade rook and pawn for two knights , the rest was agony.

That's a gross simplification. If you look at Susan Polgar's blog,
you'll see that... Oh, damn. She's changed it. That's a shame.
During the game, she was saying that there was a lot of grandmaster
disagreement about who was best through the middlegame. Now, she's
rewritten it with a lot of hindsight saying that Topalov was better
all along.

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/#116004640847064167

Dave.

--
David Richerby Generic Cat (TM): it's like a cuddly
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pet but it's just like all the others!

Date: 06 Oct 2006 01:23:50
From: Ron
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:

> Kramink has been slowly outplayed Topa in the middle game and endgame
> for most of the games so far but for the opening preparation Topalov
> appears as better prepared.

Do you really think that Kramnik "slowly outplayed" Topa in game one, or
do you think Topa blundered badly in a won position?

-Ron

Date: 05 Oct 2006 19:53:20
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

>> So, one might think that, to the contrary, he doesn't really have to
>> change anything -
>
> This is Topalov's first victory in 8 games and it was due to a strong
> opening novelty.
> After 13..Qa5! Kramink was already in great difficulty and had to trade
> rook and pawn for two knights , the rest was agony.

What about 13...Qc7, which occurred in the game?

Thought that chess games weren't decided in the opening...

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 05 Oct 2006 22:26:20
From: Ron
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

In article <[email protected] >,
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Topalov won 1 game by forfeit and he just won 1 game now. But it had
> been a struggle for him. So what does he have to do win again ?

Well, Topalov had a winning position in game one, and failed to
capitalize. He was also certainly not worse in game two, until a major
error cost him the game.

So, one might think that, to the contrary, he doesn't really have to
change anything - except he needs to stop missing opportunities late in
the game.

This isn't a case like the Kasparov-Kramnik match where it seemed like
Kramnik was in control the whole time (and his small lead in the score
seemed almost unsurmountable). Kramnik is very lucky not to be down by
a point, even ignoring the forfeit.

He's the one who should be concerned about his strategy. After today,
trying to draw out and claim that he's "really" won, protesting the
forfeit, doesn't sound so appealing.

-Ron

Date: 05 Oct 2006 15:02:51
From:
Subject: Re: What are Kramnik's weaknesses?

Zero wrote:

> Topalov won 1 game by forfeit and he just won 1 game now. But it had
> been a struggle for him. So what does he have to do win again ?

Kramnik lost today because he willingly walked into Topa's home
preparation by playing
12 Bb5..13. Ne5

It is difficult (for me) to understand why he did it. It looked
suicidal since it was obvious
home prep in a sharp position thus the kind that a sane mind would
avoid. Maybe he too analyzed once this position, he also plays the
Meran, so he may have thought that he would handle it .Wrong idea.

Topa will win again if he has another such " homemade" strong, sharp,
new variation in store and Kramnik wants again to be the guinea pig for
it instead of simplifying.