Some days you just seem to have a little angel on your shoulder. Today reminded me of that scene in Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" where they are in line at a movie arguing about Marshall McLuhan, and Allen produces McLuhan himself to step over and tell the other guy he knows nothing about his work. Then Allen, vindicated, says to the camera, "Boy, if life were only like this!"
Yesterday, after being hassled by the usual suspects here for suggesting Kramnik wanted no more than a draw yesterday against Anand or he wouldn't have played the lame Petroff line he played, I said that the 13.Re1 line was sharper. As if on cue, England's Mickey Adams took out Kramnik today in the Petroff with 13.Re1. Boy, if life were only like this!
Okay, patting self on back segment over. Great game, and Kramnik brought the complications on himself, to his credit. He won Adams' queen with a deep combination, but the white pieces picked off Kramnik's pawns one by one and the world champion had to resign. An exciting battle all round, and the third win in a row by Adams over Kramnik. (Corus 2004, Dortmund 2000, plus a bunch of draws.) Polgar-Topalov (Berlin?! Say it ain't so, Veselin!) and Anand-Ponomariov were drawn, so Adams is in clear first. Games and analysis now at ChessBase.com. Should be some exclusive photos there soon.
It's odd that Topalov and Polgar overlooked the possibility 23..Nxe5! (or is it us others who overlook something here)? He played it later, but shouldn't Polgar have played 28.g4 then?
One of the chess.fm commentators speculated that it was the fault of the tournament conditions, making the players unnecessarily tired. I don't know if that aspect has much relevance this early, but it will take its toll later on.
How was Adams-Kramnik before 34..a3??
"...making the players unnecessarily tired."
I can't believe this.
We are in Round 3 of a tournament with the best players in the world and given to understand that too much is being demanded of them because they have, perhaps, been forced to play chess.
I really don't know what to say.
Exactly. It's not as if these are all marathons anyway. And as many of us in favor of move minimums always say, if the position is trivially drawn it shouldn't take much effort play it out. The ability to offer a draw at any point for any or no reason is one of the silliest things in any sport. As yet, no one has given a good reason for why this feature should exist in chess.
A question for the chess statisticians out there: Is Kramnik more or less likely to win the next game following a tournament loss?
Easy, from now on it's gonna be drawnik all the way...
It seems like Kramnik just miscalculated with a3 (he probably thought he could play a2 against White's Nd3). I believe his real mistake was his 26. ..Qc5, attacking the White Bishop, still defending the c7-pawn. It would have been better to play 26. ..Qa4 hitting the Bishop and the Rook simultaneously. Now the bishop cannot retreat to f1, but needs to go to e2, still undefended.
Maybe Kramnik started to play for a win after winning Adams' Queen :-)
Adams leads? In the Ninja's poll, guess who was the only one from 60 participants who voted for Adams? :-)
Maybe I have a nose.
Dear acircle and all chess-loving friends,
I looked at 28.g4! in the Polgar-Topalov game with Hiarcs 9 and the analysis that followed showed ways for Black to equalize, albeit with difficulties. Black still gets a compensation of 2 pawns for a sacrificed exchange although White will have a slight plus in the endgame. The moves that Judit Polgar played in the game with 29. d6! is good enough and a good move in its own right. 28.g4! is really hard for a human to find at the board (I don't think tiredness is a good reason, how tired can you get when you're a young person? Chess is not soccer, you know! ;-) ) given the circumstance of the natural recapture of the Black knight with the f-pawn which I think all players from amateurs to grandmasters will play at a glance, I regard it as a typical computer move.
Regards,
JZY
Well at such an early stage I doubt that either of these very experienced players was tired,but "Chess is not soccer" is one of the worst arguments I have heard in a long time,as a chess player you must be knowing a)soccer games dont go on for 4 hrs and b)being a decent sportsman myself I can assure you a full length chess game is as draining as any physical sport.
I would argue that tournament chess is more draining than physical sports. After concentrating for 4 - 7 hours during a game, you then spend the evening replaying it in your head while also trying to prepare for your game the next day, meaning you get very little actual rest. And since when do soccer players play every day? Last time I checked they always have at least two days rest between games, if not an entire week.
Oddly enough, even my sadistic junior high school physical education coaches remarked to our class (this was many years ago of course) that chess is the most demanding of "sports". They were total barbaric jerks who wouldn't be caught dead playing the game; yet even they appreciated that fact some how. A 3 round day at a weekend swiss drained me even when I was very young. Just 2 rounds is enough to send me reeling to the nearest bar these days.
i was wondering whether I was seeing things when Kramnik sac'ed a piece, because it looked horribly complicated and completely unclear, which is perhaps not Kram's usual style..? Maybe he wants Adam's scalp really badly. Anyway great game, and Mickey played superlatively I thought to steer his way through the complications.
This tournament turning out to be much worse than Linares so far.Just 2 results in 12 games.83% draws.Surprisingly Topolov and Anand couldn't produce even a single result in 7 games.I wish both defeated tomorrow.