Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member woodypusher
    misanthrope
    27 Mar '13 18:12
    Both of Kramnik's wins are against fellow Russians, keeping him in the running to be the next WCC challenger.
  2. 27 Mar '13 23:04
    🙂 Nothing like a conspiracy theory to get a thread going but as yet no takers.

    This is a ref to Curacao 1962 and the infamous 'the Russians are cheating
    and fixing world chess' claim.

    Petrosian, Geller and Keres all pre-arranged to draw their games with each
    other thus conserving their energy and not risking any losses.
    (they each played 4 games against each other and all 12 were drawn.)

    Korchnoi backed up Fischer's claim (well kind of agreed with it) then
    withdrew it years later saying it made perfect sense.
    Petrosian and Geller were great friends and always drew, Keres was getting on
    in years so agreed to join in.

    One could look at the final table and claim it was Korchnoi who was the bad guy
    as he lost games to all three players winning none. (nonsense by the way.)

    The truth is a mixture of Fischer not playing well at Curacao 1962 (which is a fact)
    and the unsporting (though not illegal) behaviour of the top three players.

    However in the Kramnik case I think this is a non-runner.
  3. 28 Mar '13 00:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    🙂 Nothing like a conspiracy theory to get a thread going but as yet no takers.

    This is a ref to Curacao 1962 and the infamous 'the Russians are cheating
    and fixing world chess' claim.

    Petrosian, Geller and Keres all pre-arranged to draw their games with each
    other thus conserving their energy and not risking any losses.
    (they each played 4 aviour of the top three players.

    However in the Kramnik case I think this is a non-runner.
    It is inconceivable to me that Grischuk played 30.Bxd4 today against Kramnick:



    Like, really? Any 1500 player should be able to see that that loses, time trouble or not.

    It's also interesting that Ivanchuk decided to donate 2 points to Aronian by playing "whatever" openings and losing on time. Bet he plays the most drawish opening he knows tomorrow against Carlsen and just fights to hang on for dear life...
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    28 Mar '13 01:07
    Originally posted by Kareemelbadry
    It is inconceivable to me that Grischuk played 30.Bxd4 today against Kramnick:

    [pgn][White "Grischuk, Alexander"]
    [Black "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
    [BlackElo "2810"]
    [WhiteElo "2764"]

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nc3 Bd7 10.h3 h6 11.Rd1 Kc8 12.a4 a5 13.b3 b6 14.Bb2 Ne7 15.Rd2 c5 16.Ne2 Ng6 17. ...[text shortened]... opening he knows tomorrow against Carlsen and just fights to hang on for dear life...
    I think Grischuk played 30. Bxd4 to prevent Kramnik from winning a pawn with 30...Nxb3.
  5. 28 Mar '13 01:16
    Brilliant.

    The point is that anyone of Grischuk's calibre (and anyone of your calibre, too) should be able to see that the pawn ending that follows the exchange is dead lost.

    On the other hand, the pawn could have been won back (with interest!) fairly easy with something like
    30.Ke3...Nxb3
    31.e6.....fxe6
    32.Bg7
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    28 Mar '13 03:42
    Originally posted by Kareemelbadry
    Brilliant.

    The point is that anyone of Grischuk's calibre (and anyone of your calibre, too) should be able to see that the pawn ending that follows the exchange is dead lost.

    On the other hand, the pawn could have been won back (with interest!) fairly easy with something like
    30.Ke3...Nxb3
    31.e6.....fxe6
    32.Bg7
    We all over-look things sometimes and he may have even seen what you suggested and was worried about Kramnik not taking with 31...fxe6, but instead playing 31...Ke7 and was psychologically blinded at that point and thought that would give Kramnik a better game and went with the other move by default. Or perhaps he just played that move on instinct to get rid of the strongly posted knight and didn't do any calculating at all.
  7. 28 Mar '13 06:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Or perhaps he just played that move on instinct to get rid of the strongly posted knight and didn't do any calculating at all.
    Yes, that'll be it.
  8. 28 Mar '13 06:59 / 2 edits
    It`s easy for arrogant patzers to teach GM`s how to play, while sitting at PC and running Houdini.
  9. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    28 Mar '13 12:30 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Kareemelbadry
    Brilliant.

    The point is that anyone of Grischuk's calibre (and anyone of your calibre, too) should be able to see that the pawn ending that follows the exchange is dead lost.

    On the other hand, the pawn could have been won back (with interest!) fairly easy with something like
    30.Ke3...Nxb3
    31.e6.....fxe6
    32.Bg7
    Instead of 31. ... fxe6 black has 31. ... Nd4 blocking the diagonal again as the black king has time to mop up the pawn. With the white e-pawn already gone black doesn't even need to exchange the d pawn for the e pawn as in the game (move 35. ... d3 36. Kxd3 Kxe5); always assuming that white swaps the last pieces off, if not then white's bishop has no scope what-so-ever and a serious queenside pawn deficit. I'm afraid that your suggestion leaves white even more stuffed than he is in the game.
  10. 28 Mar '13 12:36
    Originally posted by Pacifique
    It`s easy for arrogant patzers to teach GM`s how to play, while sitting at PC and running Houdini.
    Indeed, humility is a virtue I have yet to master. Care to give me a lesson? 🙂
  11. 28 Mar '13 12:44
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Instead of 31. ... fxe6 black has 31. ... Nd4 blocking the diagonal again as the black king has time to mop up the pawn. With the white e-pawn already gone black doesn't even need to exchange the d pawn for the e pawn as in the game (move 35. ... d3 36. Kxd3 Kxe5); always assuming that white swaps the last pieces off, if not then white's bishop has no s ...[text shortened]... icit. I'm afraid that your suggestion leaves white even more stuffed than he is in the game.
    I don't think that works. After 31...Nd4, white can simply push the pawn, forcing black to play Ke7. Then after 33 Bxd4, it is white who is winning the ending.

    Yes, the line isn't totally obvious, but Grischuk had more than ten minutes left on his clock and I really don't think it's hard to see that the ending following 30.Bxd4 is lost.
  12. Standard member woodypusher
    misanthrope
    28 Mar '13 17:59 / 1 edit
    Getting curiouser and curiouser. Svidler crushed Aronian today, Grischuk held Carlsen to a draw, and Radjabov rolled over for Kramnik...
  13. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    28 Mar '13 18:11 / 1 edit
    Aronian's play today was considerably strange indeed, a couple of questionnable moves, I think his efforts for winning this tournament have been grounded.

    As for Radjabov, well he hasn't had the best of runs has he?
    Kramnik is on a mini roll (Cadburys? not had one of them in a while) but Carlsen is still strong enough to drive it home I feel
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    28 Mar '13 20:02
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    🙂 Nothing like a conspiracy theory to get a thread going but as yet no takers.

    This is a ref to Curacao 1962 and the infamous 'the Russians are cheating
    and fixing world chess' claim.

    Petrosian, Geller and Keres all pre-arranged to draw their games with each
    other thus conserving their energy and not risking any losses.
    (they each played 4 ...[text shortened]... aviour of the top three players.

    However in the Kramnik case I think this is a non-runner.
    Of course Fischer was right!
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    28 Mar '13 20:04
    Originally posted by Pacifique
    It`s easy for arrogant patzers to teach GM`s how to play, while sitting at PC and running Houdini.
    So you think those commentators were just arrogant patzers like us?