Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:02:55 08/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 1999 at 02:00:40, KarinsDad wrote: >On August 19, 1999 at 20:39:51, James Robertson wrote: > >[snip] > >>> >>>Yes. Shirov's match against Nisipeaunu was very strange. In both games, Shirov's >>>king was exposed through most of the game. Why do these superGMs think that they >>>can avoid the standard idea to protect their king? >> >>Just his style. He certainly was not lost in game 1, and had a won position in >>game 2 but blundered. > >That's the point. His style failed him. You HAVE to play for a win every game in >that late of a round. Your opponents are going to be too strong for anything >except your best. > >> >>> >>>In the first game of Nisipeaunu-Shirov, Shirov played the Sicilian and had to >>>perpetually check his opponent due to his own king being exposed. He fought, but >>>he was in trouble. The game ended after 22 moves. Again, a superGM allowed a >>>draw in very few moves. Not the mark of a champion. >> >>His was not a "GM" draw. There is a big difference between a draw with 2 piece >>sacrifices and a draw out of the opening. >> >>>How many of Kasparov's games >>>end within 22 moves? Even his draws are 40 moves or more on average. >> >>Not any fewer than Shirov. >> >>> >>>The second game of Shirov-Nisipeaunu was a real mystery. Shirov tried to force a >>>win in a Sicilian >> >>Caro-Kann. > >Yes, of course. Fast typing gets me every time. > >> >>>by throwing his pawns at black. Nisipeaunu calmly checked >>>Shirov's king, forcing it to move and effectively stay in the center. >> >>Nisipeanu was _dead_. Bf4 instead of Qe6+? would have WON for Shirov! Every >>computer on FICS and almost every analysis I have read said Shirov was >>completely won. Read GM Rohde's analysis on www.uschess.org. > >Actually, I wondered about that move myself. But it really doesn't matter. >Although Shirov had a win, he didn't see it. So, he lost. > >Having a 6 game format per round is similar to the last FIDE finals. Each format >favors SOMEONE. Last time, a 6 game format for the finals favored Karpov since >he was fresh and Anand played 15 games or so first, just to get to Karpov. > >The 2 round format gives the slightly lower rated players a better chance, but >they still have to play the games. They still have to win. Whining about the >fact that all of the FAVORITES got knocked out is just that: WHINING. They had >as much chance as every other player and in fact, they had better chances (one >less round to play). But they blew it. > >> >>I think Shirov is the best example of how this two game knockout is bogus. I >>believe he has the makings of a champion, and yet he was knocked out because of >>ONE game. > >He was knocked out because he didn't play his best in either game. He should >have tried to win the first game instead of offering the draw. He blundered >there too. > >> >>I find it impossible to believe that a two game match with blitz playoffs can >>give a result equal to a more traditional round robin and 6 game playoff. > >That may be so, but answer this. Why should a tournament be designed to FAVOR >the strongest players? Why should a tournament not be designed to be equally >fair to everyone? A two round tournament is as fair as you can get. > >> >>Nisipeanu, Akopian, and Khalifman have all played "GM" draws in this event. >>Based on your previous paragraph doesn't this disqualify them from having the >>makings of a champion? But one of them will be champion. I hope I don't sound >>mean, but I think your argument kind of falls apart here. > >No offense taken. How does it fall apart? True champions win at all cost. Second >raters don't. Shirov, Kramnik, Adams, etc. had the chance and blew it. >Nisipeanu, Akopian, and Khalifman were playing against higher rated opponents >time and time again and prevailed. Maybe that is why Kasparov has stayed at the >top for so long. The rest of the field (Anand, Kramnik, Shirov, Adams, etc.) >might just not have his level of desire to win. > >The point is NOT that the higher rated players gave draws, and hence are not >champions and therefore, the same logic should apply to the lower rated players. >The point is that the higher rated players gave draws so early in the game >instead of playing for wins. It cost them the tournament, so they do not deserve >to be called the champion. > >Adams offered a draw at move 16 as black after he was already down 0-1 in a 4 >game match. That meant that he would have to at least win one and draw one to >even have a chance. How can you say that this wasn't a huge blunder on his part? >Kasparov or Fischer would have NEVER offered a draw at move 16 in that type of >situation. Shirov offered a draw at move 22 as black. Again, the draw as black, >win as white theory. If you take that type of chance, you get what you deserve. >A two game format DEMANDS that you play to win every game. > >And one final point: Nisipeanu, Akopian, and Khalifman each played an additional >round MORE than the favorites (i.e. the tournament was ALREADY skewed in favor >of the favorites) and STILL managed to kick their butts. Maybe there are >champions (beyond this tournament) in the making within their ranks after all. > >KarinsDad :) Neither of you are going to convince the other. Why not let it lie? Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.