Author: James Robertson
Date: 17:39:51 08/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 1999 at 17:17:27, KarinsDad wrote: >On August 19, 1999 at 16:14:15, James Robertson wrote: > >[snip] >>> >>>Fischer, Kasparov. Someone who would have played for a win in every game in such >>>a short format and wiped his opponents as opposed to these players who say >>>"Well, I have black first round. So, I will play for a draw and attempt to win >>>in round two. And if that fails, I may still be able to get into tiebreaks.". >>> >>>Bogus. Anyone who draws after 16 moves is not a true champion. For example, >>>Adams game 2 round 6 after already being down 0-1. Kasparov would have fought >>>tooth and nail for a win in round 2 and never would have OFFERED a draw. >>> >>>KarinsDad :) >> >>Well, the player in the field who fits that description is Shirov and he LOST. >> >>James > >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. > >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. >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. 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. 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. 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. James :) >When >Shirov's attack faltered, Nisipeaunu calmly moped up. Shirov went for the big >attack and the big win, but it didn't work. It's not that he didn't play for the >win. It's that it didn't work. But at least game 2 went beyond the 22 move draw >of game one. > >KarinsDad :)
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.