1 edit
Anand's (playing black) sacrifice was too speculative. That can be acceptable in a 5 minute game (when you are playing for time) but not in an Olympiad where for a 2800 player you can expect to meet 2300's desperate "for a kill"
Here is the game
[Event "37th Olympiad"]
[Site "Turin ITA"]
[Date "2006.06.03"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Charbonneau,P"]
[Black "Anand,V"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2510"]
[BlackElo "2803"]
[EventDate "2006.05.21"]
[ECO "B44"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6 7. N1c3 a6 8. Na3 Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O b6 11. Bf4 Bb7 12. Qd2 Ne5 13. f3 Qc7 14. Rac1 Rac8 15. Rfd1 Qb8 16. Kh1 Rfe8 17. Bf1 Kh8 18. Be3 Ba8 19. Bg1 Rg8 20. Qe3 Ned7 21. Nab1 g5 22. Nd2 Bd8 23. b4 Bc7 24. Qe1 Rg6 25. Bd3 Ne5 26. Be2 Rcg8 27. Be3 Rh6 28. Nf1 Rgg6 29. Qd2 Qg8 30. a4 Bb7 31. c5 dxc5 32. bxc5 bxc5 33. Rb1 Bc6 34. Bxc5 g4 35. f4 g3 36. fxe5 Nxe4 37. Nxe4 Bxe4 38. Bd3 Bxg2+ 39. Qxg2 gxh2 40. Bxg6 Rxg6 41. Ng3 Rxg3 42. Qe4 Rg4 43. Be7
1-0
Originally posted by z00tAnand is my Fav. player but we all lose now and then.
Anand's (playing black) sacrifice was too speculative. That can be acceptable in a 5 minute game (when you are playing for time) but not in an Olympiad where for a 2800 player you can expect to meet 2300's desperate "for a kill"
[fen]6qk/2b2p1p/p1b1p1rr/2B1P3/P3n3/2N3p1/3QB1PP/1R1R1N1K w - - 0 37[/fen]
Here is the game
[Event "37th Olympiad"]
[Site "T ...[text shortened]... xg2+ 39. Qxg2 gxh2 40. Bxg6 Rxg6 41. Ng3 Rxg3 42. Qe4 Rg4 43. Be7
1-0
Btw, he lost to a 2500 Canadian player 🙂
Originally posted by z00tMeh. Who are you to tell Anand when he can and cannot sac??
Anand's (playing black) sacrifice was too speculative. That can be acceptable in a 5 minute game (when you are playing for time) but not in an Olympiad where for a 2800 player you can expect to meet 2300's desperate "for a kill"
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemMeh show me how to save the game after black's 38th move. A 2800 rating does not mean you can play in any manner, ask Short who left his piece enprise not so long ago... or even in the archives Kasparov being mated by Ivanchuk.
Meh. Who are you to tell Anand when he can and cannot sac??
Are you suggesting that this position is out of your depth?
Originally posted by z00t"A 2800 rating does not mean you can play in any manner..."
Meh show me how to save the game after black's 38th move. A 2800 rating does not mean you can play in any manner, ask Short who left his piece enprise not so long ago... or even in the archives Kasparov being mated by Ivanchuk.
Are you suggesting that this position is out of your depth?
Wrong. It means you play in an excellent manner most of the time. It does not, however, mean that you play perfectly.
You further stated that a 2800 should not make speculative sacrifices against 2300s "looking for a kill". As GM Waitzkin said, "You have to trust yourself." I imagine Anand didn't get where he is today by gutlessly passing up opportunities to take the advantage. It doesn't matter that even he occasionally miscalculates and loses games. His rating is proof that, most of the time, his judgement is more correct than his opponent's.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
1 edit
Originally posted by z00tYou really dont understand the concept of sacrificing. Anand plays the chess he wants, none of us really know if the move we are making is good or bad be it a sac or not. With you comment you just condemned the most exciting player of all times, Tal. Somehow I think Tal understood chess more than you do and looking at his games he tended to disagree with you.
Only sacrifice if you have a chance of mate/material gain.
Its just a question of style.
Originally posted by BedlamTal? How many times was he champion for only one bleeding year, he waas overpowered by Botvinik's positional play. Kasparov was taught his chess by Botvinik. See the following Wikipedia article [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_(chess)[/url]
You really dont understand the concept of sacrificing. Anand plays the chess he wants, none of us really know if the move we are making is good or bad be it a sac or not. With you comment you just condemned the most exciting player of all times, Tal. Somehow I think Tal understood chess more than you do and looking at his games he tended to disagree with you.
Its just a question of style.
Originally posted by Wikipedia article
Ordinarily, if a player loses a chess piece or exchanges it for a lower value piece, it is detrimental to their game, decreasing their chances of winning and/or increasing the chances of losing the game. However, in the event of a sacrifice, the intention is to improve one's position. To be a sacrifice, the piece is deliberately given up by the sacrificing player, not lost due to oversight or a forced capture. In spite of the intended effect, a sacrifice can still turn out to be a mistake.
Originally posted by z00tThat's one year longer than Anand, or for that matter you or I. And Tal was overpowered by alcohol and the impact it had on his liver, not Botvinnik's especially greater genius. Anand's attack is interesting; Bd8-c7 and Rg8 with g5 are the new plans of the Hedgehog, but he evidently seriously mishandled them.
Tal? How many times was he champion for only one bleeding year, he waas overpowered by Botvinik's positional play.
"To avoid losing a piece, many a person has lost the game." -- Tartakover
You "Doubting Thomases" never cease to amaze me. Show me how to save black's game after his 38th position or forever hold your peace. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If Anand normally plays like this he would still be an IM. Who remembers by how much he was crushed in his match with Kasparov? Don't forget Anand is from the school of 1.e4 players not from the positional style of Botvinik/Kasparov.
Kasparov/Botvinik/Karpov all played sacrifices when the position called for it, not from some "kamikaze sac, sac" ideology.
Originally posted by z00twww.geocities.com/MIGHTORS1/Radjabov/kasparov-Radjabov_linares2003.html
You "Doubting Thomases" never cease to amaze me. Show me how to save black's game after his 38th position or forever hold your peace. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If Anand normally plays like this he would still be an IM. Who remembers by how much he was crushed in his match with Kasparov? Don't forget Anand is from the school of 1.e4 players not fr ...[text shortened]... d sacrifices when the position called for it, not from some "kamikaze sac, sac" ideology.
This one is great. The alleged 'calm sacrificer' Kasparov gets crushed by a sacrifice from a teenager.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by z00tIf you ever manage to make it over 2200 I will be shocked.
Tal? How many times was he champion for only one bleeding year, he waas overpowered by Botvinik's positional play. Kasparov was taught his chess by Botvinik. See the following Wikipedia article [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_(chess)[/url]
Originally posted by Wikipedia article
[b]Ordinarily, if a player loses a chess piece or exchang ...[text shortened]... capture. In spite of the intended effect, a sacrifice can still turn out to be a mistake.[/b]
Originally posted by BedlamStop arguing like a sissy and show me the continuation for black after move 39. Perhaps in your mind you have seen something that is "extraordinary" and you can share it with us. Once you have finished showing us the continuation that supports such a loss of material, write your own book of chess.
If you ever manage to make it over 2200 I will be shocked.
I would like to play you if you are going to make such sissy sac's. You are even contradicting the Wikipedia article & well established principles of chess.