Author: James Robertson
Date: 00:10:59 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. Shirov a) definately played for a win and b) definately had a won position. Everyone blunders, and it is just Shirov's luck he happened to lose that one. Kasparov's loss to Ivan Sokolov in this year's Wijk aan Zee was no differert. > >> >>> >>>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. I'm talking about the format years before that. The last FIDE thing was just as bogus, in my opinion. This year the final will be 6 games too. > >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 still cannot see how you call that first game a GM draw. Did you watch it? It was one of the most complicated, hard-pressed games this whole thing. Shirov tried for a win with black in _every_ game of this tourney. He tried for a win with white in _every_ game. If that doesn't qualify him to be a 'true champion' I don't see what does. > >> >>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. It is perfectly fair, but _very_ random. Luck plays a huge factor in the games. Six games is just as fair, but luck does not play as much of a role. > >> >>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. That doesn't answer my question. Those three players all showed a willingness to draw multiple times. Why does their tendency to draw with black not count, while for the top seeds it is a sign of unworthiness to be champion? > >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. Yes, at least one of them did. Remember the 22 move draw against Fischer played against Petrosion in their match after he had just lost? Remember Linares last year where Kasparov got ONLY ONE WIN out of the entire tournament and DREW the rest of the games? All last year Kasparov had a very bleak tournament record, drawing nearly all his games.... Even Fischer was reduced to a drawseeker in his WC matcher, drawing like 8 games in a row. Yet I think you would define both of them as "true champions". >Shirov offered a draw at move 22 as black. Again, the draw as black, >win as white theory. To not _force_ the draw would be practicing the lose with black theory. He had to draw or lose. >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 he did. He played for a win with black after defeating Short in the first game. He played for a win with black against Nisipeanu and only drew when he had no other choice. He played for a win with white and then again with black against Sokolov. He did not play a single game in which he did not try to win. Same with Ivanchuk. He won four straight games (the only player to do so) then tried to win 3 more before blundering the eigth. The only player who really tried the draw with black/win with white strategy was Kramnik, who carried it to absurdity by drawing a very promising position in game 2 with Adams! But even then, the drawmaster of the tournament Akopian made it to the finals with a win % of 36%. Nearly all his draws were quick affairs in which he made no effort to win. Can he be a true champion by not trying to win every game? James > >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 :)
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.