|
Main
Date: 15 Oct 2008 11:20:32
From: chessplayer
Subject: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively like he started earlier on. Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the point of calling it a draw on move 32. However, I still feel Kramnik with his earlier aggresive moves could have pulled off a victory. But since neither Kramnik pushed for a victory and later since neither Anand did so I guess a draw in that sense was a fair result. At least this game was more exciting than the boring first one.
|
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 00:19:34
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 3:41=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > > slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > > c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > > Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > > like he started earlier on. > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. He should have taken c4 with the knight and not the queen, provided he had played properly on move 25. Don't criticize unless you understand what is written. If you don't understand at least ask with what he should have taken c4.
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 00:10:38
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 5:17=A0am, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: > * Offramp <[email protected]> (00:41) schrieb: > > > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > >> slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > >> c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > >> Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > >> like he started earlier on. > > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. > > I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not > rec.games.chess.computer. > > mfg, =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 simon .... l I did post in on rec.games.chess.computer but it may not have come on it. I honestly feel (after analyzing the game after move 18 when white plays Qe2), that it was clearly black's game from there onwards. However, Kramnik let off the pressure and played it safe. Ironically when they both agreed to a draw on move 32 it was just about a very slight edge to Anand. But I guess the mental drain that occurs after such a game you cannot blame Anand for not trying to push for a win.
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 00:07:44
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 3:41=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > > slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > > c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > > Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > > like he started earlier on. > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. After 18 when white played qe2 it was black's game but Kramnik did not play as he should have. Even then he could have won it upto move 26 but he made a few minor mistakes as to what he should have played. Later on when he was a pawn down he could still have played c5 before white did so. Anyway, its my opinion that after move 17 Qe3+ it was clearly black's game. If you want we can go to a chess website and play from thereonwards using whatever software to aid you.
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 02:17:42
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
* Offramp <[email protected] > (00:41) schrieb: > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a >> slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on >> c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. >> Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively >> like he started earlier on. > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not rec.games.chess.computer. mfg, simon .... l
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 08:20:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
"Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Offramp <[email protected]> (00:41) schrieb: > >> On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a >>> slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on >>> c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. >>> Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively >>> like he started earlier on. >> >> After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- >> Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. > > I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not > rec.games.chess.computer. I beg our pardons, but it is difficult always to assess what /is/ on topic at chess.computer, since it seems to prefer to discuss abstractions. That may seem to be a trite comment on the whole realm, but divorcing the chess from the computer has often sems to me to be a pointless exercise - for example, if what alan obrien writes about is true - can the computer evaluate it? Interestingly the most advanced chess conversations seek to reintegrate man/machine - such as in Albert Albert's MAMS studies, and I obtained for Dr A an introduction to Rybka's inventor, who certainly thought so! From the chessic point of view - if the chess engine cannot see what we people see, then its evaluation function is insufficient, and MAMS suggests that this is because the engine still has great difficulty perceiving exchangesw of material for other advantages. Without solving this aspect of chess computing, then the subject is as stalled as it was 10 years ago, and only processor speed and bigger databases and end-tables cause its advance - in other words, things largely independent of the program intself. Phil Innes > mfg, simon .... l
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 14:52:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote: >> I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not >> rec.games.chess.computer. > > I beg our pardons, but it is difficult always to assess what /is/ on > topic at chess.computer, since it seems to prefer to discuss > abstractions. It's very simple, Phil. If it's an article *about* computer chess, it's on-topic in rgc.computer. If it isn't about computer chess, it's off-topic, even if it uses analysis from a chess computer. Analysis done by computer is off topic, unless the angle is why the computer `thought' what it did. So, discussion about why all the computers think that such and such a move was really bad is on-topic -- the goal is to better understand computer chess. Discussion about why Anand or Kramnik did or did not play such and such a move is off-topic -- the goal is to better understand a game played by humans. > That may seem to be a trite comment on the whole realm, but > divorcing the chess from the computer has often sems to me to be a > pointless exercise - for example, if what alan obrien writes about > is true - can the computer evaluate it? There is no attempt to divorce chess from computers. However, if one is commenting on an Anand-Kramnik game, even using computer analysis as a tool, this is no more on-topic in rgc.computer (I used Fritz!) than it is on comp.os.windows (it was running under XP!). > From the chessic point of view - if the chess engine cannot see what > we people see, then its evaluation function is insufficient A discussion along those lines would be entirely on-topic and welcome in rgc.computer. Dave. -- David Richerby Swiss Erotic Chicken (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ farm animal but it's genuinely erotic and made in Switzerland!
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2008 21:00:56
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
Hey i like this because my webtv sucks so i can not watch the game live + i am at work when they are playing .. Keep us informed , thank you
|
|
Date: 15 Oct 2008 15:41:51
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected] > wrote: > Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > like he started earlier on. After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.
|
|