Originally posted by Jusuh 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.
Ivanchuk choose risky (I would say dubious) line in risky opening where one inaccuracy can be decisive if your opponent plays well.
In this game it was 20...Qc7 (20...Qd7 was better).
If you understood chess better then your judgements would not be so absurd.
Originally posted by Jusuh Saying that Ivantsuk played badly does not require GM-level understanding.
if you think he played badly then please, show us your analysis to PROVE he played badly.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Korch 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.
The 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by exigentsky 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.
He is playing well + his opponents playing not so well = great score
Can Carlsen keep it up?
06 Mar '07 18:11
Back to Top