In sports that reward maximum aggression and adrenaline, thinking American football here, a regular cliche has to do with not "giving the other team something to put up on the bulletin board" by talking trash during the week leading up to the game. This isn't exactly an issue in chess, which only rarely has head-to-head match-ups with any media attention to speak of, let alone much trash talk. The world championship has seen its share of both, if usually in relatively oblique fashion in interviews. But timing is everything, and when Kramnik gave interviews in Russia after his big Tal Memorial win, he got many questions about Carlsen and the Norwegian's ascent to the #1 spot and his work with Kasparov. Kramnik's comments were far from harsh, and he certainly didn't have any specific future battles in mind when he said things about how Topalov, Anand, and he were still playing at a higher level than Carlsen. There's no reason to doubt it was a typically forthright evaluation from Kramnik.
Fast forward to Tuesday in London. Fate, or perhaps karma, delivered the pairing Carlsen-Kramnik in the first round of the Classic. Carlsen, well aware of Kramnik's interview comments, plays one of the best games of the year and slowly dismantles the former world champion. It was Kramnik's first classical loss since game six of his world championship match with Anand a year ago. Really lovely stuff from start to finish. The opening was a popular line of the English Four Knights that has much in common with a Dragon reversed. There are many playable options in the early going and isn't really a fertile ground for startling novelties. With that in mind, it shows how often this line is played that they made it all the way to move 19 before leaving the database.
It also says a lot that Carlsen outplayed the positional maestro Kramnik in such a position. White won a pawn but Black had plenty of activity. Kramnik then started a series of bishop and queen maneuvers that got him nowhere at all and allowed Carlsen to consolidate. Look at the positions after 29.Qxd1 and after 36.Ra8. Black's queen is on f7 instead of c7, that's it! The knight on the rim was still dim and the white center pawns advanced to create an annoying bind. White's bishops started slicing and Kramnik got desperate in the final moves before time control, going from bad to lost in a hurry. Carlsen wrapped up precisely to take the early lead in the tournament. And, if you're into that sort of thing, also make a succinct reply to Kramnik's interview.
Later -- much, much later -- Carlsen was joined in the lead by Luke McShane, who needed 163 moves and nearly eight hours to beat Nigel Short. It was really a remarkable effort from McShane, who massaged a turgid position with a slight space and structural advantage for a long time before winning a pawn and then slowly, very slowly, wearing his opponent down. It could have lasted even longer since it looked like Short was hoping to make his young countryman mate with bishop and knight, but a potential 200-mover was avoided. Nakamura got a solid plus against Ni Hua but couldn't make use of his extra exchange. He gave the material back and tried to win the pawn-up rook endgame without success. The position turns double-edged if White keeps the exchange and goes for a race with 35.Rxh6 Rxb2 36.Rf6 Kd4 37.Rxf7. Howell tried the Scotch against Adams but met with some pretty tactical defense that led to liquidation.
A fantastic kick-off to the tournament! All four games went into the second control (Sofia rules are in effect, btw) and all were real fights. And things keep turning up roses as the leaders meet on Wednesday. Round 2: Carlsen-McShane, Adams-Nakamura, Kramnik-Ni Hua, Short-Howell.
Great comments Mig, as always, thank you. You are the best, a wit, never dull, and always informative, and interesting.
*
One tiny note off topic: Anyone care to photoshop image of Gelfand in his big fur lined cap on a basketball photo of Kurt Rambus, maybe going to the hole against a lithe Ponomariov on a raw Iverson tattooed body :).
*
Take care everybody, dk
Great stuff! Let's hope for similar quality games today.
I'm guessing Magnus will have to open a ratings gap to the other top players - and maintain that gap for at least a year - before you get the most ardent naysayers to unequivocally concur that he is the better player.
Kramnik stated recently that any of the other top 5 players could beat Carlsen in a head to head match.
"could"???
That's pretty obvious, isn't it? What Kramnik said, was that he still considered 3 of them _better_ than Carlsen, and that he'd even pick the 4th (Aronian) as favourite in a match against Carlsen.
Is Kramnik a naysayer? Not really - and regarding Kramnik and Anand, Carlsen acknowledges them to be "better" players than himself. I'm not convinced he's equally in awe regarding Topalov, though.
Carlsen did not say he play's better than Kramnik.
Why should he? He is not a wrestler.
May be Kramnik likes wrestling to much.
Regarding Kramnik's "naysaying", he hasn't withdrawn his opinion that Carlsen can become the Federer of chess & he recently said that working with Kasparov could mean he becomes world champion sooner.
That said, it's also not worth drawing too many conclusions from one game. Kramnik was also close to losing recently with black against Aronian, Ivanchuk & Gelfand.
"Kramnik stated recently that any of the other top 5 players could beat Carlsen in a head to head match."
Let us sincerely hope that somebody puts up the money to test that hypothesis! I for one, would love to see an extended Kramnik--Carlsen match. Shall we say the first player to achieve 6 victories, and at least two more than his opponent? No limit on the number of games...
I think that would have perhaps as large an audience (if not larger) as the upcoming Anand--Topalov match.
:)
The McShane-Short battle was one for the ages! This is what we should have more of, no agreeing to soft draws when the position is not dead! Well done, Luke, after that effort, I have become one of your fans!
Carlsen, whew!! What can I say.. Take a bow sir, I am applauding you..
@d_tal: Roughly estimated about 2/3 of those 163 moves was pointless woodpushing. If watching that is your idea of fun you can have it.
Kudos to the London Classic organizers for putting together such a nice tournament. Not some load of tosh, but a proper event. Brilliant, smashing, and good chess to boot!
I didn't watch it live, but I love it that Luke can be bothered to actually squeeze it for a win. I dont know why they shuffled around quite so much, but I wonder whether there was any background to it.
Luke's trying the King's Indian against Carlsen today (gulp!). Kramnik's breaking the Mamedov/Kamsky dictum of not getting involved in a theoretical battle with the Chinese :) Namakura trying the French against Adams, and Howell playing the Russian against Short.
Kramnik (after 16. e*d5) has the preferable, if not winning, position:
16.-,Q*d5 17.B*c4,Q*e5 17.0-0-0! +/-
And if Ni isn't gonna take on d5 and e5 then what...?
a) 16.-,Nd7 17.Qd4,Re8 18.B*c4 followed by 0-0
b) 16.-,b*c3 17.Qd4 followed by Bc4/0-0 (interjecting Rb/d1 if Pb2 is played).
So much for the Chinese and their ability to play correct chess ;-)
And now after 18.a*b3 follows (as answer to almost any oppponent move) 19.Bc4 with an overwhelming position, that will solidify by the move...whereafter the centre wins on its own.
It's already clear.
Congrats Krammo!
18.a*b3,Re8 19.e6!
Ni Hua will probably get his knight to e5 after Qg5, and his position's still ok (the passed pawn might tell eventually, but it's by no means clear). And there's been nothing wrong with Ni Hua's play in the opening (except the time taken) - this is a popular line played e.g. by Malakhov recently against So (except So went for e6 instead of Qg4).
I had been looking at B*a6, but couldn't quite assess how afraid he should be of a possible bind in the a-line. But evidently it's solvable, fx Ra4 can be played. And Kd/f2 or 0-0 as necessitated.
Looks pretty clear, no?!
And 21.-,Rfe8 22.e4,f5 23.Kd2,f*e4 24.Bc4!
Of course not Rfe8 but 21.-,Rfd8 22.e4,f5 23.Kd2,f*e4 24.Bc4!
It looks good for Kramnik, I agree, and now it should just be a question of whether he wins or draws. The Chesspro commentator thought black should avoid the queen exchange with Qg6 & it's still complex (the white king's exposed).
Anyway, I just don't think you can dismiss Ni Hua's play (but maybe you were just joking...) - he seems to be meeting Kramnik's home preparation at the board & making reasonable moves. Of course it just might be that the position's objectively won for white.
"@d_tal: Roughly estimated about 2/3 of those 163 moves was pointless woodpushing. If watching that is your idea of fun you can have it."
So true. I posted it in the previous thread. I predict 3 wins today.
"Of course not Rfe8 but 21.-,Rfd8 22.e4,f5 23.Kd2,f*e4 24.Bc4!"
There e4's an awful blunder (after Rdd6) - but he should still play Rd8 & hope Kramnik misses 22. Ke2 - to be followed by: 22... Rxd5 23.Bb7 Rxa1 24.Rxa1 Rd8 25.Ra4 Nd3 26.Bd5! (from Chesspro)
I never understand how to play the types of closed positions arising out of the Kings Indian with either side. I am looking forward to having Carlsen and McShane demo it today!
As a lifelong French player, I am also glued to Adamas-Naka...
"As a lifelong French player, I am also glued to Adams-Naka..."
As someone who plays the Moro variation exclusively against e4 and d4, I'm even more glued. Want more ammo, I play the Grand Prix exclusively against the Sicilian. Let the ridicule begin.
Even better than the Grand Prix against the Sicilian is the Wing Gambit and the McCutcheon trumps the Be7 variation any day! This is your problem, you have inferior opening choices..
Of course I was joking, it doesn't matter where you come from when playing Kram in a pos like that...though in ref to recent discussion on 'correct' play or not, IMO there's definately such a thing.
The Soviet chess-school (which clearly existed - denying that is just plain ignorance) among other things stressed endless training with standard plans for various types of positions. And if you too often (in one game or still worse in general) play moves that turns out to be weak/wanting on plan/strategy then you are playing 'incorrect' moves.
Of course being a top GM (and the Chinese hasn't produced one yet - but maybe he'll come up in 5-10-15 yrs), one can afford the luxury of deviating from standard plans when necessary (Karpov actually once (in the early 70'es, I believe) made a comment to that effect).
After 23.Rhb1 Kram has everything under control. It's pretty to see an almost kind of zugzwang position for Ni. The Knight is restricted (though can be repositioned of course).
Regarding McShane-Short
With "eternal" increments there's no incentive to rush things, and the defender has always the more difficult part. So McShane tried every non-committal manoeuvre first, and only then he makes a move that changes the structure.
In the final 30 seconds phase there is also never enough time to accurately calculate a winning plan to the end. So if you're not 100% sure about a particular simplification, you try something else first.
And now after f5 he could do 24.Ra4 threatening to take Pb4 or to play Be2.
And as soon as knight moves we have Bc4.
"Of course being a top GM (and the Chinese hasn't produced one yet - but maybe he'll come up in 5-10-15 yrs), one can afford the luxury of deviating from standard plans when necessary (Karpov actually once (in the early 70'es, I believe) made a comment to that effect)."
Wang Yue is #8 in the world.
Of course it was a bit of a blanket statement - I'm sure Wang (and a few other of the best Chinese GMs) can deviate in a sensible manner.
But still - against peer-leaders...we talk consistent top-GM perf over a prolonged period. Plenty of strong GMs have come by for shortish (a few yrs) periods - and have faded away, never to be seen in the top-echelon again.
Another way of defining the top-GM I talk about could be to 'summitise' the word -> elite-GM.
I could point to players (randomly chosen: Svidler, Kramnik, Morozevich, Topalov, Anand, Ivanchuk) who can sweep any tournament, based on their special understanding. I don't think Wang is there - do you?
***BEGIN AUDITOR REPORT***
Our records indicate that Magnus Carlsen has topped the best rating ever achieved by Anand; with another win he should surpass Kramnik and Topalov's highest ratings, too. Thus it is fairly obvious he is playing at a superior level to all of them at this very moment.
Too bad the little quisling bailed out on the Norwegian team during the chess olympiad, though.
***END AUDITOR REPORT***
Wonderful day!
Adams shows Naka how to play positional chess - with proper time to ponder (as opposed to blitz, which is - to be honest - entertaining, but - to be serious - not really a grown mans full game).
Kramnik does one of these beautiful games where (standard) themes (did anyone say plans? ;-) are: 'fields of one color' and 'dominace of bishop over knight'.
Carlsen seems on his way to a win in a seemingly innocuous position: a bit more space - jawohl - but other than that? Well, oppponent having little time (5 mins for 3 moves)!. Ok: sac a piece to complicate things. If opp accepts there could be a dangerous attack - and if not it'll be a pawn in the sac :-)
Elementary, my dear Naka-Hua-Shane...
Why couldnt Naka play 29.. Qd7? instead Qf8 and avoid giving up a pawn? And wasnt 36... Nh6 a blunder by Luke. allowing 37. Bb6!?
"Ok: sac a piece to complicate things. If opp accepts there could be a dangerous attack - and if not it'll be a pawn in the sac :-)"
What sac are you talking about? First of all, 37. Bb6 Rb6 38. Nb6 is not sac'ing a piece. Secondly, 37. .. Rb6 runs into 38. Qf2, threatening mate on f8, winning the xchg.
I think 36... Nh6? was a blunder in time trouble by Luke.
Should have said "First of all, 37. Bxb6 Rxb6 38. Nxb6 Qxb6 is not sac'ing a piece. Its sac'ing 2 pieces for a Rook, very different."
Hadn't seen the nice - interpolated - Qf2.
(Were it not for that - after the sac 37.B*b6,R*b6 38.N*b6,Q*b6 it would have been an interesting position with b-passer-fish swimming in the open a- and c-files-ocean for the rooks.)
Amazing. After the likely jetlag with Kramnik, now Carlsen gets to play the deadtired McShane after the 8 hours Short made him play. Again he probably gets an early 2-0, and everyone else will mail in the result. While in the Tal he got to play the dead-enders in the last two rounds to eat up an easy 10 Elo points.
Naka gotta show he can defend the rooks. Tourist or Champ?
I'm not so sure McShane did blunder. There are some tricks still. It isn't at all easy to extract that bishop from b6 without losing b5. Anyone got any engine input?
Your write-on. magnus has all the pairing help from the draws. though biggest lsoer with karlsen winning domination mustbe anand. Now big veselin gonna needs to jam him to regain his personal #1. only hope before was topalov didnt need to charge so hard and treaded water too long. now the bulagarians should need +3 or more to retain #1, so anand should probably just take the money and run. just my opinion...
Ni Hua gave up so early? Rybka could only +2.2 and is often wrong on real draws in thne endings. Free part of the 3 points for Kramnik. He gets the McShane with black tomorrow, with the rest day to come. Scenario One: Carlsen wears down McShane in a win, and Kramnik plays for victory against pooped opponent. Scenario Two: Carlsen agrees to draw, and Kramnik plays for victory to attain lead. Scenario Three: Kramnik takes the easy draw with Black before the rest day. Short let Howell play an easy Petroff draw so he'll be well-rested to play Carlsen with White tomorrow, so a draw is in reach.
Magno is so superior to the non-elite-GMs, that after winning against Krammo, he'll get something like 5,5/7.
This guy keeps on pressing and pressing all through the endgame - if he doesn't win outright from early middlegame (fx. against Pono in TalMem recently). His technique seems to be on par with the greatest players! (It's miserably sad that FIDE in its quest for more entertainment and more money has all but abolished the proper endgame. Would have been interesting to see how Carlsen (or any other of the new generation for that matter) would have fared.)
Carlsen goes for the win against the 2600 Brit. Now Rxb3 and Qxf6+ and the fatigue will be +6 for Magnus. Plus he has twice the clock. Hard to think even Kramnik can catch him now.
Nc5! Hola!
Well, if Carlsen had that under control back when he played Bxb6 he's some player. Possible he had other wins of course.
I didn't understand why McShane didn't play 41...Nd7. Is there some easy answer?
According to my calculations, after the win vs. Ni Hua Kramnik just needs another draw to qualify for the candidates matches based on rating.
But by a draw his rating will go down... You mean he can lose the rest and still qualify?
Should be 1-0 soon. McShane with 8 minutes and the Rg3 hoser.
I don't really understand why ...Rg3 and not somne other square. Either a desperate defence or Luke has some trick in mind, but I'm not sure which. I agree it's not a good-looking sign, though. Still, Carlsen hasn't come up with whatever winner he has in mind yet, according to my relay.
I mean the only way NOT to qualify would be losing the rest. One draw in five games is enough.
The point is that the only one who could threaten him (and is not otherwise qualified) is Gelfand. But if Gelfand beats Ponomariov in the World Cup final, then he'll qualify as the World Cup winner and his rating will no longer be relevant.
Actually, for Kramnik not to qualify for the candidates matches, he would have to lose the last five rounds in London; AND Gelfand would have to tie his match with Pono and then lose the tiebreak.
Ah, I think I see. He wanted to stop g4 in this line; eg Rb8 Kf7; Rb7+ Kf6; g4.
You'd still think White has to be winning here, but not at once, I don't think.
Naka is putting up a good fight in that rather lost-looking rook ending, as well.
All I know is, I'm investing in Arctic Securities.
Dont think Naka was ever lost. He played well. But the move score for the game is WRONG! It gives that Adams played 61. Ke4 when only Kings were left, but the Rules of Chess already ended the game when Naka played Kxg3 on move 60 because noone had any winning chances.
I really enjoy Carlsen's play but find it sad that he allows sponsors to use his clothing as a billboard. There is something foul about the practice. Such are the times we live in.
Anand's been wearing shirts with logos for a while now. I agree it looks weird. Formula 1 drivers have more stickers though ;) In some sports they change hats with different logos during interviews or press conferences, really sick!
Are you guys serious?
For the longest time the chess world has been complaining about how difficult it is to get corporate sponsorship, and when someone does, you complain about some logos on the player's clothing?
No one is going to give away money for nothing...
"Of course it was a bit of a blanket statement - I'm sure Wang (and a few other of the best Chinese GMs) can deviate in a sensible manner. ... I could point to players (randomly chosen: Svidler, Kramnik, Morozevich, Topalov, Anand, Ivanchuk) who can sweep any tournament, based on their special understanding. I don't think Wang is there - do you?"
Wang is the 8th best player in the world ahead of Svidler, Morozevich, and Ivanchuk. China is the 5th best country ahead of India, the US, and Armenia. Yes, I think Wang is there and can win a tourney against players like Morozevich.
Whaddya talkin about, theres millions who do that for FREE and are proud of it!!
Hey, maybe I could convince some non-playing corporate guy that I'm a chess genius and get millions...I could use you guys as references..I'll slip a few shares your way
"Anand's been wearing shirts with logos for a while now. I agree it looks weird. Formula 1 drivers have more stickers though ;) In some sports they change hats with different logos during interviews or press conferences, really sick!"
LOL @ NIKON Mike :)
Frogbert may be pleased that you attach so much value to the live rating list (actually I don't even think this is the case). Two simple facts:
- Before the World Cup Wang Yue was #15. He climbed to #8 because he won his first two matches 2-0 and drew his rated games against Bacrot (and because rating differences from #6 to #20 are minimal).
- His current lead over Ivanchuk is a whopping and highly significant 0.3 points.
However, Ivanchuk has already shown that he can "sweep a high-level tournament" to obtain clear first. To my knowledge, the closest Wang Yue came was _shared_ first (with Gashimov and Carlsen) in the Baku Grand Prix.
And back to the London event (or something related), and also related to my comment in the other thread about "events that might escape our attention":
Have a look at McShane-Gustafsson, 1-0(124)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1541451
A double rook ending becoming a single rook ending, a pawn ending, then a queen ending (then an easily won pawn ending ...).
This is from the last round of the German Bundesliga, the game decided the match Bremen-Hamburg (4.5-3.5).
This guy "Noone" keeps popping up all the time. What's his rating?
"Dont think Naka was ever lost. He played well."
Actually, I think Nakamura was utterly lost and dead, while I agree that he defended well. Adams however, shows that he's not the Adams he used to be; not converting that rook ending is a sign of faltering technique.
Adams threw away the win with 39. Rxe6? I think. Taking the distant pawn 39. Rxc5 is intuitively more logical, and the deeper point is that after 39. Rxc5 Rxa4 40. Rc7! white can lock out the black king, while the white king can help rounding up black's e-pawn while at the same time defending his own king-side pawn.
I think either the h-pawn or the e-pawn will be doomed in the above scenario, and white should convert quite comfortably.
"This guy "Noone" keeps popping up all the time. What's his rating?"
Notmuch.
Peter Noone? aka Herman No-one ..
"the move score for the game is WRONG! It gives that Adams played 61. Ke4 when only Kings were left"
Apparently it has to be repeated once in a while ... : this is a feature/error/bug of the live transmission! At the end of the game, the kings are put in the middle of the board to indicate the result. If these moves happen to be legal, the software picks it up. Actually the last "moves" were 61.Kd4-e4 Kg3-d5 - but (only) the latter is rejected as illegal.
In other situations, this has caused confusion when black resigned after Kf5-g6 (and then the software says "j'adoube" and shows Kf5-e4.
Nice programme for the event on the official site:
http://www.londonchessclassic.com/docs/Chess_Brochure_30-11.aw.pdf
"Too bad the little quisling bailed out on the Norwegian team during the chess olympiad, though."
OK, I'll bite. I haven't fed any trolls for awhile ...
Don't you think 'quisling' is a little harsh? After all, not playing isn't an active act of treason is it? Or passive, for that matter!
Just an observation ...
CO
There are 2 reasons why Wang Yue climbed into top 10 on the latest liverating. To his credit, he did well in the World Cup, 4-0 straight is certainly significant. Gelfand and Ponomariov, although finalists, didn't gain as many rating points.
But it also helped Wang Yue that many top rateds who were ahead of him in the previous list lost rating points (Morozevich, Ivanchuk, Radjabov, even Svidler and Eljanov lost points).
It seems likely that Wang Yue will keep his top 10 status in the next official rating list. That makes him the first Chinese to enter that group - and probably not the last.
You don't appear very convincing regarding facts.
1) Carlsen did play for the Norwegian Olympiad team, in 2008 (you're mixing it up with the European Team Championship)
2) You should have a look at the efforts of the Norwegian fleet during WW2, not the navy, but the sailors and fishermen.
One possible starting point for those who care: http://www.warsailors.com/freefleet/index.html
3) Similarly you appear ignorant to the fact that the Norwegian resistance was one of the major reasons that Germany didn't win the H-bomb race
The wikipedia article on this part of WW2 history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage
4) At the outbreak of the war, the small country Norway obviously was no match at all for the German troops - still they managed to sink one of the great "unsinkable" battle ships as it approached Oslo (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Bl%C3%BCcher ) and they managed to get both the king and our contry's gold reserve out before the Germans took control. At no point was it realistic that Norway could've resisted the attack on its own.
I seriously don't understand Why anyone in their right mind uses a chess blog to talk about WW2 and Nazism using the laughable misnomer "Norwegian collaboration" (yes, in Norway as in most other European countries, there were some Nazi-friendly people at the time, who used the invasion to get their 15 minutes of (in)fame - but the percentage that welcomed the invasion was _very_ low, obviously). Clearly there must be some level of envy underneath that I'm unable to fathom.
Here's a semi-decent overview of nazi collaboration during WW2. Everyone can have a look at the list of countries mentioned, and please do look up the paragraph about Norway and see for yourself which numbers we are talking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II
Norway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II#Norway
"I seriously don't understand Why anyone in their right mind uses a chess blog to talk about WW2 and Nazism using the laughable misnomer "Norwegian collaboration""
It's called trolling. Read some of his other posts. http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2009/03/ad-watch.htm#comment-198683 should suffice.
If you can find it, The Heroes of Telemark is an interesting movie about the HW saboteurs.
The problem is that not everyone abroad are aware of Norway's "role" in WW2. I doubt US children learn too much about in school, and when some guy portrays some distant, European nation as Nazi collaborators, some younger readers might think "Ok. Those awful Norwegians. Pitiful" or something to that effect.
While trolling is a well-known phenomenon for any long-time Internet users, I think there might be a limit to the kind of detrimental rubbish Mig should allow being posted here. He's usually quite liberal and does very little editorial edits, which is good in a way, but I've got a feeling that sufficiently anti-American propaganda posted here might be short-lived. I do not intend to find out, though.
Absolutely. Especially in the climate of this general ignorance, I understand you can't resist the temptation to educate him and others about the realities of Norway during WWII. I wouldn't either. I've certainly gone off on a political tangent now and then... Of course, if somebody criticized Sweden's role during WWII I'd probably just agree - not much to be proud of there... (Although there are nuances, of course.)
I agree with Frogbert, unfortunately Adams played badly the endgame against Nakamura. Certainly I am not a Super GM, but I find incredible that.
(a) I think Adams took the wrong pawn with the rook at move 39.
(b) Adams could have reduced the game to a R+2P vs R endgame that sometimes is a theoretical draw, but certainly is more challenging to defend than placing your king in the h-file, lost a pawn and play on a R+P vs R+P endgame.
I think any SuperGM could have posed a lot more difficulties to Nakamura (who is not a keen endgame player, as showed yesterday) than Adams did. For example, Kramnik won a theoretically drawn R+2P vs R endgame in Corus against Aronian, after the latter fell in time trouble and despite playing more than thirty accurate moves (and several only moves), he blundered at the end.
So, I found Adams endgame play today painful to watch; his is one of the few times I see a top level chess game and say "Hey, I could have played a bit better than he did" ... and this says a lot because I am not a GM.
"I've got a feeling that sufficiently anti-American propaganda posted here might be short-lived."
And I've got a feeling you're 100% wrong.
acirce himself routinely takes off his shoe and beats it on table about the U.S. and Mig never bats an eyelash.
While I cannot be certain if frogbert actually intended to denigrate the education of US children, his tone certainly was not reassuring. This invocation is just as bad as the provocative commentaries that led this discussion in the first place.
A couple days ago I whole-heartedly agreed with Tchkachiev and wrote I was all for women chessplayers wearing mini-skirts as like a uniform. Maybe Mig didn't censor anything, but somehow that post was very short-lived.
Umm ... when I said I about to feed a troll, I had no idea exactly what I was getting us into. I was proud of the fact that I knew what 'quisling' has come to mean, and its origin. I did not realize that the troll I was feeding had an agenda. I thought he was just concerned with Carlsen. I was unaware of his previous proclivities.
I apologise to the group for opening that door.
CO
@Arctic Stones, Dec. 9, 8:00 a.m.
A 6 victories, no draws counting, unlimited games match would be great. I would be more than satisfied with the old standard 24-game match, however. Sadly, I think the last 24-game WC match was Kasparov-Short in 1993.
Nonsensical comparison. I'll be generous and assume that you didn't really think before posting that.
I think you missed how sardonic Greg Koster's post was.
You're an idiot.
OF COURSE there were Norwegian collaborators, just as there are and were British, French, American, Dutch and Danish nazis.
In case you were unaware, Quisling was executed in October '45 as were nearly 50,000 others.
50,000 would be less than 2% of the 1945 population of Norway; not far off the election results for Nasjonal Samling (Norwegian Nazi party) in 1933 and 1936.
As you would have gathered if it weren't for the fact you're an obvious troll, this infers that the VAST MAJORITY of the population were not collaborating in any way with the nazis.
But, I am still expecting a post "proving" your point, where you're using at least 10 words you don't understand.
Apologies - of course there was not 50,000 executions; that was the number of Norwegians tried for collaboration/war-related crimes.
There were a number of executions, mostly the NS high command as well as German high-ranking officers.
Off Topic
Enough of Kramnik ...
No disrespect meant, but let's discuss Kasparov, or rather his "close confidante", SERGEY BELINSKY.
Please follow the link below:
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_when-vishwanathan-anand-played-mentor_1320535
and this:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.do
Kindly ignore the second link ...
I intended a link to Susan Polgar's website, but it didn't turn out the way I hoped ...
Lars,
Those executed was just a hand full, primary Quisling and the key members of the Rinnan gang (Gestapo).
A Russian poster at Chess Vibes claimed there were no gulgags or corruption in the USSR/Russia after 1960! Kasparov must be imagining the corruption. ;)
The word is spelled gulag.
Why don't you fellas pick up some books that document happenings during World War II? Wikipedia only provides general info. One could be "Rise and Fall of the third Reich" by William Shirer which is like a tell all book (detailing the Norway things as well) but it's also 1000 plus pages. However Shirer's book explains what an international terror pre-war Nazi Germany was. No wonder some countries simply decided to be friendly with them! Another is Churchill's epic multi-volume tome.
Besides Norway, there were many other European countries that collaborated with Nazi Germany. Some did it simply out of fear (e.g Russia/Soviet Union)But it was mostly indivuduals and independent groupings wihin these countries that collaborated with Nazi Germany. Though Norway, according to Shirer and Churchill had a pro-Nazi slant during the pre-war days.
Britain itself had some people who were ardent Nazi's or who encouraged Nazi philosophy. Hitler was a great fan of a British eccentric (can't recall the name) who during the 1920's and 1930's lived in Germany and wrote books expounding on things like race classification etc. So many people on whom the dirt is.
Also don't forget, the Allied powers like Britain defeated the Nazi's but after that what do they do? They institute their own gulags in their African colonies (cf Mau Mau repression in Kenya) where possibly hundreds of thousands were murdered at British colonial hands. So the british are no better then the Norwegians if anybody is to be blamed.
By the way calling Carlsen a Quisling as someone here did is certainly a grave insult. That's crazy!
To shorten the Quisling discussion:
If you take a random sample of 1 000 000 people from any region in the world you always get 13% = about 130 000 asholes. (Only counting the pure asholes)
This is completly indipendent of latidude and longitude from where you get your sample.
This is not a physical constant. Physical constants might change over time, regarding the latest cosmic observations.
I was disheartened to read these comments to Mig’s most recent post.
A lot can be said about Norwegian (and others’) resistance and collaboration during World War II, but surely this is not the place for it!
And to pull Magnus Carlsen into that discussion is disgusting and patently absurd! As absurd as it would be to associate Aronian, Radjabov or Gashimov with transgressions (from one side or the other) in the Armenian--Azerbaijani conflict.
Please! Can we return to the discussion of CHESS?
-- ArcticStones
Sorry for posting on chess and on-topic, but having looked more closely at the game, perhaps you're right and Luke's Nh6 wasn't the simple pawn losing blunder I thought it was. The play afterwards was very complex, and Carlsen eschewed the xchg, went into the endgame and won a few moves later. Magnus Carlsen is a phenomenon!
The insult to our intelligence is far greater. That is, people continue to react like this to the crude, oh so crude, trolling of that moron Auditor. Keep it up folks, I'm sure he's giggling with every new reaction.
If you need to engage with a troll, (sometimes I am guilty of this too) can you at least ensure that the trolling is somewhere within 1000 miles of a genuine fact? As in, "worth" arguing with? Not clearly provocative rubbish, which deserves a one-line dismissal at best. (I'll try keep to this rule too :) )
As for Frogbert, why do you assume US children are not taught certain things about WWII, did you pull that out of thin air?
Anyhoo, back to chess, I have a question. Carlsen said that he had planned on Kramnik "not feeling comfortable" in English positions. But how could he be so sure that K would go for the line he did? After all, one feature of the English is its great capacity for transposition. K could have gone for 1. ...e6 or 1...c6, transposing to a possible Semi-Slav, Panov Caro-Kann, QGD, or black side of a Catalan; excepting the Panov I can remember seeing K playing all the above...
LOOK TO NORWAY
-These famous words could have been one of the great headlines of Mig Greengard.
Actually it’s from legendary speech by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, in praise of Norwegian sailors and Norway’s will to fight against the German occupation during WWII.
WWII also gave birth to the term “Quisling”, meaning “traitor”. It’s relevant even today. For instance you might say that CHESS AUDITOR is a quisling to the great spirit of this chess blog.
Regarding frogbert's remark on US high school history education, I have some first-hand experience - obviously both limited and dated: I was a (German) exchange student in 1983/84. History lessons included detailed coverage of the US Civil War (battles and battle plans, ...). Maybe World War II was covered in another year, but at least one fellow student was seriously convinced that the USA and Germany fought World War II together against Russia .... hmm, this was at the peak of the cold war.
Anyway, certainly Norway had Nazi collaborators as well as resistance and - probably the majority - people remaining "neutral" or passive. Actually the same might hold even for Germany, with different percentages of the total population. What was Carlsen's role in all of this (Hendrik, let alone Magnus)?? Maybe we should move on and scrutinize Caruana, surely bad things happened during the Roman empire!
"As for Frogbert, why do you assume US children are not taught certain things about WWII, did you pull that out of thin air?"
chesshire cat, I simply don't _know_ what US children learn in school about the insignificant, little country Norway's role in a huge, complex affair like WW2.
Don't expect Norwegian children to be very much up to speed on the Civil War in the US either. Making this up to be a slight to the US school system is very much an irrelevant (and ridiculous) tangent.
My impression is that young people today don't know very much about history at all, and specifics about the amount of nazi sympathies in various small European countries during WW2 is _not_ something I would expect to be portrayed as the main take-aways from the WW2 lessons in any education curriculum on other continents.
If this kind of knowledge indeed is common among US teenagers, you have my sincere apologies and my deepest respect for an awesome historical education, but honestly I find it hard to believe that such kind of knowledge can be trusted to exist - which is why I consider it necessary to respond to the obvious trolling.
If anyone feels like doing a field study by going to a mall in your city, I would suggest trying this question to all the teenagers you meet as a warm-up exercise:
Which of Sweden and Norway was first taken by Nazi-Germany during WW2?
(Alternatively, which country, of Norway and Sweden, was invaded by Germany in WW2 if you want to make it less of a trick question.)
If you would get more than 75% correct answers (as 50% is the one you would get by pure guessing) to this question in a sample group of at least 30-40 teenagers, there might be reason for going forward asking which of a selection of European countries that actively cooperated with the Nazis after being occupied, alternatively to rank the countries according to amount of Nazi sympathy and degree of active participation. I would expect very few EUROPEAN teenagers to have any clue about this, actually.
Meanwhile, back to CHESS.
Anyone have a link to the video where Carlsen and Kramnik analyse their game?
After Round 1, the official website stated: “Video of Carlsen’s post mortem analysis to appear tomorrow.” Yet the only video to appear is the one from the pre-tournament press conference.
A link, anyone?
"Regarding frogbert's remark on US high school history education"
Actually, I hardly made a remark about US high school education at all - what I said was the following:
"The problem is that not everyone abroad are aware of Norway's "role" in WW2. I doubt US children learn too much about it in school"
If anyone here thinks US children learn much about Norway's "role" in WW2, then please say so. As I said, I would find it odd and strange if the issue was given much coverage at all, given the huge amount of other and more important things to learn about the last "great" war.
I get your point, but maybe we have to cut it down to an even more basic question (geography rather than history): Could the average American teenager find Norway on a world map?
"I simply don't _know_ what US children learn in school about the insignificant, little country Norway's role in a huge, complex affair like WW2."
You don't know-but you assume they know little or nothing.
"Don't expect Norwegian children to be very much up to speed on the Civil War in the US either"
Well, Norway was not involved in the Civil War, so this is very much an irrelevant (and ridiculous) tangent. Most of the world was involved in WWII, the Civil War parallel is silly.
I would expect that US kids get educated about the basic sympathies of countries in WWII, anyway.
You might have said "children" instead of "US children". In addition, this quote:
"and when some guy portrays some distant, European nation as Nazi collaborators, some younger readers might think "Ok. Those awful Norwegians. Pitiful""
Has again implicit implications that Americans don't know or care to know too much about "distant" nations, and that they lack critical judgement.
Your follow-up post smacks of back-pedalling.
Nice, Thomas. I'm sure prejudices about Germany are equally welcome to you.
You are asking a Macdonald's employe about why he didn't bring you the fondue you ordered.
SCNR (sorry could not resist) ... . But I argue that it's not just my prejudices, I was indirectly referring not only to the dumb American blonde video linked here several times ("Hungry, is this a country? I have heard of Turkey ..."), but also to actual polls among American teenagers: A significant minority couldn't even find the USA on a world map, but automatically pointed to the biggest country (the Soviet Union). This is obviously also dated, maybe things did change for the better in the last 10-15 years?
Another story is that the German school education system also didn't fare that well in international comparisons (Pisa studies).
Regarding your other post, "basic sympathies of countries in WWII" is IMO far too simplistic. What do you mean? The government? A majority of the population? A significant minority?
Here in the Netherlands, I guess most people were happy when the war was over and the country was liberated. But a minority may have been not that happy: those who, for whichever reason, had collaborated with the Germans (not discussing numbers, but the very fact that they existed is undisputable).
The manager says he can offer you some mcnuggets instead.
I don't understand why you're making a lot out of nothing here.
This is a US blog about chess, presumedly read by relatively more US people than any other geographical/national group. Therefore the concern for what US children/teenagers reading it might think.
I was not talking about some coarse-grained division of nations into "Allies" and "Axis" - I would expect that to turn out mostly right. But instead of this huge indignation, why don't you go for that field study I suggested?
I didn't make a comment about "school systems" or "dumb US teenagers" - I commented on "lack of expert knowledge about huge, complex matter, wrt to small, distant country". That some of the grand-parents of these children were directly involved in WW2 is not likely to make them connect much more to the less significant tidbits of the war than Norwegian children do regarding the US Civil War - even though the latter also is taught in Norwegian schools.
Personally I think I remember more from the TV series North & South than from any history lessons about it in school.
Anyway, I think it's odd that you consider an imaginary, perceived slight to the US school system more important than clear and direct efforts of labling "Norwegians" as "Nazi collaborators", like the troll did now and in a previous thread. Like the overview I linked to shows - those existed in varying degrees in almost all occupied countries.
Meanwhile, BACK TO CHESS. (Jeez!)
Anyone want to make predictions for Round 3?
Can McShane pull off a miracle and hold Kramnik? Truth be told, I thought Ni Hua did surprisingly well in the first part of his game against Vlad.
Will the brave Chinese player fare better against Adams?
And will Nakamura once again pull of a draw, this time against Short? Or better?
My wager is on Carlsen chalking up 3–0. Or 9–0, if you prefer.
Either way, definitely a plus score. ;)
-- ArcticStones
I don't agree with most of your post, but never mind, I won't repeat myself.
"you consider an imaginary, perceived slight to the US school system more important than clear and direct efforts of labling "Norwegians" as "Nazi collaborators"
It was not imaginary. As for Auditor, I dismissed him already, I try not to engage in debate with dribbling morons who relish every response as the attention they are seeking. There is little point in posting detailed responses to trolling rubbish. Logic and trolls are not chums. Whereas I do expect accuracy from you-if your views are as you say then I urge considerably more accuracy in your language.
And once again you are superimposing your views, your quote is not my opinion.
Thomas, you will note the word "basic", which allows for the elaboration of the more complex reality.
"And once again you are superimposing your views, your quote is not my opinion."
While you are telling me the meaning of what I said, which is even worse.
When I say there was no intended slight to the US schools system, there indeed was no such slight. No matter what you think or feel.
The manager tells you that this is McDonalds - the psychiatric clinic has moved to the building next door.
1) As any good lawyer can tell you, when something appears clear, it usually is not.
2) "Quisling" has become synonym with "traitor." It is a fairly accurate description of Carlsen's bailing out on the Norwegian team and sponsors a few weeks before the competition. Tennis players regularly pretend they're sick during smaller tournaments held before grand slams. This was similar. In any case, some people here believe Quisling descended from Mars and acted all on his own, as though he had no help from anyone. I disagree -- and so does the English language.
3) If Norway's alleged collaboration never existed, why would Frogbert go out of his way to discard the relevant evidence?
4) Where does this cabal of professional historians come from?
I hate to say it , but i told you. :)
1) My sister has very long ears.
2) "kaka" means cake in Swedish (like it or not).
3) If it rains in France, it's most probably Normandie (the grass is green there).
4) Where does the north pole come from?
"3) If Norway's alleged collaboration never existed, why would Frogbert go out of his way to discard the relevant evidence?"
That's simply too dumb. But it makes it easy to follow chesshire cat's advice regarding your nonsensical drivel next time around.
To spoonfeed the guy without a brain: I gave a link to a description of WW2 nazi collaboration, detailing the case of Norway. Nobody has even hinted that Nazi collaboration did NOT exist. Something entirely different is your beyond stupid generalization of "Norwegians as Nazi collaborators", with not even a subtle hint that it only applied to a very small minority of the population.
I guess your problem is related to having a brain the size of a pea.
An unfair comparison for several reasons:
1) How many _individual_ European countries can compare with the USA regarding population size and (total) number of universities? Maybe Russia ... .
2) University rankings are dubious or questionable anyway.
3) Most important: The top of the pyramide doesn't say much about its foundation. [I exaggerate for the sake of argument:] If a (hypothetical) country has a few top universities and research institutes, and ten Nobel Prize winners ... could, would or should it be proud of its education system? Should other countries try to opy such a system?
Oops, part of my point three got lost in editing: "If half of the population of that country doesn't know how to read and write" is missing
We're talking k-12 education:
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/edu-education
gee, why am I not finding the U.S. at the top of any of these lists except "average years of enrollment" and "tertiary enrollement"?
Actually if we take population into account, United Kingdom is doing better than USA in getting Nobel prizes. The number of Nobel prize winners from the UK is about 1/3 that from the USA, but the population is only 1/5. Hence the UK is doing better proportionally. This is true in the case of Germany as well.
And from the same perspective, Norway is also doing better than USA :-).
Not that the number of Nobel recipients reflect general education. Just thought it is interesting.
The large number of foreign students studying in the US is a result of many factors, including language. If Japan uses english, a large number of those students studying in the US (especially from asian countries) might prefer studying in Japan.
If anyone feels like doing a field study by going to a mall in your city, I would suggest trying this question to all the teenagers you meet as a warm-up exercise:
Which of Sweden and Norway was first taken by Nazi-Germany during WW2?
(Alternatively, which country, of Norway and Sweden, was invaded by Germany in WW2 if you want to make it less of a trick question.)
****
Not a very fair question -- as Sweden was not occupied at all.
And some consider Norway a breakaway province of Sweden. What was Swedish...will be ours again!
PS my favorite history question is:
Name the 4 allied powers that fought Russia in the Crimean war.
Answer: Britain, France, Turkey, Kingdom of Sardinia.
"Not a very fair question -- as Sweden was not occupied at all."
But shouldn't that be _elementary knowledge_ for the bright and well-educated US children that are able to rank every minor European country according to amount of nazi-collaboration in occupied countries?
Anyway, chesspride - you also quoted my alternative, less "tricky" formulation of the question, but I seriously wouldn't expect any difference in how the two alternatives would be answered.
Giving Obama the peace prize probably did as much for raising the awareness of Norway as a country as the 12 first years of school does for the average US child. That's not meant as criticism of the US school, but as underlining the general insignificance of little Norway and its 4,5 million people.
My personal experience is that people in th US know Norway because
a) relatives immigrated from Norway
b) some sport interest, like chess or soccer, made them bump into Norwegian athletes
c) olympics on Lillehammer in 1994
d) some other personal interest brought them into contact with something norwegian
Obviously there will be lots of exceptions too, but in areas where general media coverage won't do much to inform people (and that applies to every subject not very "current", like a 65+ year old war), I simply don't expect very much. And that's based mostly on experience, obviously - nobody "taught me" that foreigners don't know much about Norway.
But everybody knows Norway, and can find it on a map, because of all those wriggly lines. Slartibartfast won a prize for it.
"applies to every subject not very "current", like a 65+ year old war)"
I respectfully disagree, in that WWII will surely be a "current" subject for centuries, being the climax of human madness. It was not just "a" war, it was "the" war, and surely the major event of the 20th century. Heck, there are people still alive who experienced it.
I'm an average Irish guy, and I am aware of the basic events of this war, maybe I'm being naive when I expect everyone else to, too.
End of off-topic diversion (tips hat).
Maybe we should donate a copy of the Guide to Chess Auditor. At least it would keep him occupied for a while. ;o)
And some book on basic math too, so that he learns that 50/3000 isn't equal to 10/100.
chesshire cat, i take your cue to let this "debate" die. But I suspect the perspective from Ireland (or Northern Ireland) is a bit different than from the other side of the (big) pond - going west, that is.