If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
They have betting lines on 25 of the 32 R2 matches but not on Mareco - Kovalyov. There are no 1/200 mismatches this round. Indeed, the biggest favourite to advance to R3 is Wei Yi at 4/9.
What do you tell your students about the endgame of K+R vs K+B+R? Easy draw? Usually lost for the weaker side?
This was the endgame in Kramnik-Bruzon and the commentators cited events where the ending occurred, usually lost.
Here Bruzon had a draw until 113…Kb7
World Cup Baku 2015
Sept. 14, Round 2, Game 1
Kramnik, Vladimir – Bruzon Batista, Lazaro
E05 Catalan, Open, Classical Line
What do you tell your students about the endgame of K+R vs K+B+R? Easy draw? Usually lost for the weaker side?
This was the endgame in Kramnik-Bruzon and the commentators cited events where the ending occurred, usually lost.
Here Bruzon had a draw until 113…Kb7
World Cup Baku 2015
Sept. 14, Round 2, Game 1
Kramnik, Vladimir – Bruzon Batista, Lazaro
E05 Catalan, Open, Classical Line
Such incredible precision. The Cuban player found some box moves [79, 83 and 86 were 1 of 2 moves, 88, and 91] but that still wasn't good enough. He moved his K to b7 - 7 (or 8, including an earlier move) times - but the last time was a mistake. Kramnik's remark (later) is educational: "He followed the pattern - bang! - and it's over."
Brutal.
Supplemental: GM Jan Gustafsson has pointed out in a YouTube Video that Bruzon still had a drawing line after his mistake with 113... Kb7??
We have: 114. Ra1 Rb3 115. Ra7+ Kc8!! [GM Jan Gustafsson] 116. Rh7 Rd3+ 117. Kc6 Rd2 118. Rf7 Rd1 119. Ra7 Rb1 120. Ba3 Kb8 121. Rg7 Ka8 122. Rg5 Rb7 123. Re5 Rb3 124. Ra5+ Kb8 125. Bd6+ Kc8 126.
Ra8+ .... At this point, the 50 move rule applies and Bruzon can claim the draw, say, by writing 126.... Rb8 on his scoresheet and claiming the draw. Remarkably, White's next move could be 127. Rxb8 mate!!
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=705&v=CjsHwPYjAPA
Here's another KRB vs KR ending that went much more quickly. White had blundered a pawn away but still had drawing chances against his much higher-rated opponent. [The late Dave Langner made up for it by winning the event. The "cleaner" did us all proud.]
Read a report that Krnan accepted an 18 move draw in the second (must win) game? I am interested to hear the details of that decision.
The 'quick' draw was not the intention at all, but the repetition in the final position is objectively by far the best continuation for either side. There are sharp lines arising from this opening, but White has to co-operate as well. I thought my opponent would try and play for a win as well, for obvious reasons.
As for the final position, I thought for 35 minutes before repeating moves. Any other move will lead to an inferior position, and most importantly with very little potential to complicate the position. For example, 16....Qd7 14.h4; 16....Nxf3 17.exf3 and 18.f4; 17....Nxd4 18.Nxd4 Bd7 19.e4 and Nf5 are all better for White, and especially it's very easy position to play for White. If I pass, White will play Nd4 and will force a trade of some light pieces on d4/d5 and then can prepare f4 with advantage, or can liquidate into a simple endgame almost at will. I actually thought when I played 13....g5 I'll have lot of options after 15....Nge5 and I rushed it a bit, otherwise I would have played 13....Kh7.
Playing inferior moves and avoiding exchanges to play for win would have most likely resulted in me losing the position withing 15 moves. Given the calibre of my opponent and the position, it would be more of 'playing for a loss' than 'playing for a win', and I decided against it. And a draw against a top 10 player in the world is not completely useless.
Damage was done in the first game, as 29.h6! Qa2 30.Rd1! would have actually forced a draw. And frankly if we reached the 2nd game's final position with a tied score, my opponent would probably decide to repeat as well, because after any other move he would be slightly worse for nothing.
The 'quick' draw was not the intention at all, but the repetition in the final position is objectively by far the best continuation for either side. There are sharp lines arising from this opening, but White has to co-operate as well. I thought my opponent would try and play for a win as well, for obvious reasons.
As for the final position, I thought for 35 minutes before repeating moves. Any other move will lead to an inferior position, and most importantly with very little potential to complicate the position. For example, 16....Qd7 14.h4; 16....Nxf3 17.exf3 and 18.f4; 17....Nxd4 18.Nxd4 Bd7 19.e4 and Nf5 are all better for White, and especially it's very easy position to play for White. If I pass, White will play Nd4 and will force a trade of some light pieces on d4/d5 and then can prepare f4 with advantage, or can liquidate into a simple endgame almost at will. I actually thought when I played 13....g5 I'll have lot of options after 15....Nge5 and I rushed it a bit, otherwise I would have played 13....Kh7.
Playing inferior moves and avoiding exchanges to play for win would have most likely resulted in me losing the position withing 15 moves. Given the calibre of my opponent and the position, it would be more of 'playing for a loss' than 'playing for a win', and I decided against it. And a draw against a top 10 player in the world is not completely useless.
Damage was done in the first game, as 29.h6! Qa2 30.Rd1! would have actually forced a draw. And frankly if we reached the 2nd game's final position with a tied score, my opponent would probably decide to repeat as well, because after any other move he would be slightly worse for nothing.
Thanks for posting that commentary Tomas. Congratulations on reaching the tournament (an achievement in itself!) and for giving your best. Clearly it is hard to play for a win in a situation that does not have that property and is even more difficult (and foolish) against a player of your opponent's calibre. It must have been an amazing experience to play in such an event; I wish you continued success.
... White has to co-operate as well. I thought my opponent would try and play for a win as well, for obvious reasons.
Apologies Tomas, but I don't understand the logic here. If he already has the win in round one, why would he play for more than a draw? Are there additional incentives for winning a round 2-0
I know it's hard to go for complications as black. If you had to do it again, how would you have opened differently?
By my count 15 games go on to the tiebreak tomorrow.
________
After yesterday’s game in which Kramnik ground out the win against Bruzon in the rook and bishop vs rook endgame, Kramnik was just as fatigued as his opponent. In chess-news.ru he analyzes the game
- I have played this endgame several times in my career and all those games were drawn. Although I was pretty close to winning against McShane.
- (After 79…Kc6) Deep inside I already accepted the draw, nonetheless, I knew that I still had to use every possibility. I knew that fatigue plays the major role in such endgames... The defensive setups keep turning one into another, and the defensive side can get confused easily. Perhaps the old method is more simple - roughly speaking, it's keeping the rook on d1 and the king on e8. It's not so straightforward but it's harder to get confused there... (Commentator Sergei Shipov called Bruzon's defence strategy an "accordion". Indeed, the king and the rook are placed on the second (seventh) rank (file) after a square. For example, king is on d7, while the rook takes f7 square; the king goes on e8 in case of check and then returns to d7. It resembles the accordion at play - CN).
- I was lucky, although I kept pressuring him the entire game. The opening was successful for me, but I should admit, my rival was defending very creatively."
As Kramnik admitted, you can't forget such a game instantly. "Nonetheless, I should prepare for the next game. Maybe I will have a walk now or visit the hammam to let all the stress out... Well, the hammam works till 23:00. So, I should either manage to eat first or get to the hammam. Or maybe I should just have a walk... I should kind of "let go" this game for now, and the sooner I will do so the better.
______
I thought hamman might be a masseur but it turns out that it is a Turkish Bath!
Online Comments
- Yuri Vovk hits back to take his match with Wei Yi to tiebreaks!
- Lu Shanglei at 2599 is an early contender to win the Most Underrated Player of the World Cup. He seems to be playing at around 2700
- Kramnik-Andrekin, a repeat of the 2014 World Cup final, is a confirmed pairing for Round 3
(Carlsen) – Sergey Karjakin shows how to win on demand!
- Caruana will face Kovalyov in Round 3 after drawing his second game with Mamedov
(Eric Hansen) - A terrible opening for Artemiev in a must-win game. Not a fan of the knight on g3
- Nakamura-Shankland is going to tiebreak after two quick draws
World Cup 2015
Round 2, Game 2, Sept. 15, 2015
Karjakin, Sergey – Onischuk, Alexander
C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defence
Apologies Tomas, but I don't understand the logic here. If he already has the win in round one, why would he play for more than a draw? Are there additional incentives for winning a round 2-0
I know it's hard to go for complications as black. If you had to do it again, how would you have opened differently?
Obviously I can't provide the insight that Tomas can, but I presume he meant that his opponent would likely try to leverage the 450 point rating differential and try to crush Tomas playing Black (without jeopardizing a possible draw if need be).
Thanks for posting that commentary Tomas. Congratulations on reaching the tournament (an achievement in itself!) and for giving your best. Clearly it is hard to play for a win in a situation that does not have that property and is even more difficult (and foolish) against a player of your opponent's calibre. It must have been an amazing experience to play in such an event; I wish you continued success.
Thanks Kerry! Yeah it's been a great experience for sure, and an enjoyable vacation at the same time. The result was respectable - it was far from a crushing loss, although I would have loved to at least get to a tie-break. But I thought he played with excellent precision the whole game 1 and was simply too strong. From quickly replaying game 2, one can get a justified feeling of Black's sort of resigned attitude (match wise). So I felt it was appropriate to provide some insight on the tough decision and the one I took lot of time making.
Apologies Tomas, but I don't understand the logic here. If he already has the win in round one, why would he play for more than a draw? Are there additional incentives for winning a round 2-0
I know it's hard to go for complications as black. If you had to do it again, how would you have opened differently?
Kerry is spot on - my opponent was much higher rated and playing White, and closing in on 2800 rating. Everyone has different strategy, but many top seeds play for a 2-0 win in the first round just from the fact they are much higher rated. I think my opponent also had 2-0 in mind, but he wouldn't take unnecessary risks in a specific position. I have a feeling he would also play on if there was any other reasonable move, but repetition was the only way for him to keep equality. I think the opening was fine, there are many sharp lines that White can enter. 13....g5 was based on wrong evaluation, it is objectively the best only because of the repetition. I may have played 13....Kh7 otherwise and be close to equality with some more options. But honestly, given the way Ding is playing (his round 2 win was extremely impressive), I don't think I would get even close to an advantage in a position like that against him anyway.
There's finally a betting line on Anton Kovalyov. He's 12 to 1 to win his match against Caruana without tie-breaks and just under 3 to 1 (149/50) to make it to tie-breaks. Caruana is the 7/20 favourite (to win the match without needing tie-breaks).
I thought my opponent would try and play for a win as well, for obvious reasons.
As stated by others, I'm not sure I agree. The difference in value between a win and draw for him is extremely tiny, and a 100% chance of a draw is in reality better than a 90% chance of a win.
Playing inferior moves and avoiding exchanges to play for win would have most likely resulted in me losing the position withing 15 moves. Given the calibre of my opponent and the position, it would be more of 'playing for a loss' than 'playing for a win', and I decided against it. And a draw against a top 10 player in the world is not completely useless.
A draw is a loss in this situation. And the draw has no value because no one is going to look at it and say "Canadian GM drew with a top 10 player in the world!" - they are going to say "Top 10 player grants Canadian GM a draw and sends him home." I suppose there might be some rating benefit but from what I see, the difference between a loss and a draw gained you maybe 5 points. The difference for you between being 2445 and 2440 cannot really make any difference in your chess career.
I mean, it's your game and your judgment, but I can't agree this was a good decision. I don't claim to be in the same stratosphere as a player as you, but several of the continuations you grant certainly provide some imbalance (king side pawn weaknesses, or the two bishops). This isn't an opposite color bishop ending we're talking about.
You say "if we reached the 2nd game's final position with a tied score, my opponent would probably decide to repeat as well" - ask yourself - if you reached the position in game 2 and you were ahead 1-0, do you think your opponent would have decided to repeat?
I think you should also keep in mind that he's a top 10 player, but he's 22 and it's his first World Cup experience. Nerves can certainly come into play and what might be an easy and nice position for him to play in round 4 of Aeroflot might not be an easy and nice position for him to play with his chance at the world championship on the line.
Aronian, the 2nd individual betting favourite, behind only "Any Other" and Nakamura, loses both his 25/10 Rapid Games to Areshchenko and becomes the highest seed to be knocked out of the World Cup. The first 3 winners of the present 128-player knockout format introduced in 2005, Aronian (2005), Kamsky (2007), and Gelfand (2009) have now all been eliminated in the first two rounds.
Tweet
Comment