Only Chess
26 Feb 07
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by JusuhIvanchuk choose risky (I would say dubious) line in risky opening where one inaccuracy can be decisive if your opponent plays well.
only after 24 moves white already had completely won position. so there must be some blunders, or at least series of inaccuraties from the black.
How does my chess understanding have anything to do with this? Black played poorly and thats that.
In this game it was 20...Qc7 (20...Qd7 was better).
If you understood chess better then your judgements would not be so absurd.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by bikingviking1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Na5 11.Bd3 b6 12.Rc1 cxd4 13.cxd4 e6 14.Qd2 Bb7 15.h4 Qe7 16.h5 Rfc8 17.e5 Rxc1 18.Rxc1 Rc8 19.Rxc8+ Bxc8 20.Bg5 Qc7 21.Bf6 Nc6 22.Qg5 h6 23.Qc1 g5 24.Bb5 Bd7 25.d5 exd5 26.Nd4 Bxf6 27.exf6 Qd6 28.Bxc6 Qxf6 29.Bxd7 Qxd4 30.g3 Qc5 31.Qxc5 bxc5 32.Bc6 d4 33.Bb5 Kf8 34.f4 gxf4 35.gxf4
Anyone feel like posting the moves of the game?
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by Jusuhif you think he played badly then please, show us your analysis to PROVE he played badly.
Saying that Ivantsuk played badly does not require GM-level understanding.
Korch is right, that opening is very risky but it wasnt a losing one.
whites attack on the kingside was strong and that's what gave him a great game. there was very little Ivanchuk could do to stop whites attack without giving up the position completely.
20.....Qc7 instead of 20.....Qd7 was the only inaccuracy made because it could have led to an even game or possibly a winning game for black.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by Jusuhbut where did he play badly besides move 20?
lol.
I still fail to see how my level or your level or any under 2500 rated's level has anything to do with this.
He played badly for his level. Period.
Can someone with a program like Fritz, or Chessmaster, please do an analysis on the game and show me where Ivanchuk played badly, please!?
07 Mar 07
4 edits
Originally posted by JusuhAnalysis with engine shows that he played not so bad. Black inaccuracy in 20th move was not so obvious.
lol.
I still fail to see how my level or your level or any under 2500 rated's level has anything to do with this.
He played badly for his level. Period.
Can you prove your point somehow?
Also IMs and GMs (who understand chess much more than you and I), agreeing that Ivanchuk played not so bad and that Carlsen exploited black inaccuracy very well.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by KorchThe point is that if black has a lost position after only about 20 moves, he must have played badly. Ivantsuk didnt make any gross mistakes, but in his level even slight errors can lead to doom. Carlsen took advantage of them, but then again I guess any 2700 rated could have done the same.
Analysis with engine shows that he played not so bad. Black inaccuracy in 20th move was not so obvious.
Can you prove your point somehow?
Also IMs and GMs (who understand chess much more than you and I), agreeing that Ivanchuk played not so bad and that Carlsen exploited black inaccuracy very well.
And sure, if GMs say Ivantsuk played well then who am I to deny it. It just seems little obscure claim as he lost so quickly.
07 Mar 07
I think what Korch is getting at is that you refuse to give Carlsen any credit. If he loses, it's because he was completely outplayed. If he wins, it's because his opponent was playing poorly and not that Carlsen was playing well. As I see it, Carlsen is playing exceptionally well during this tournament.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by exigentskyHe is playing well + his opponents playing not so well = great score
I think what Korch is getting at is that you refuse to give Carlsen any credit. If he loses, it's because he was completely outplayed. If he wins, it's because his opponent was playing poorly and not that Carlsen was playing well. As I see it, Carlsen is playing exceptionally well during this tournament.