Tactics

Now that I’ve said that calculation is more important than tactics, I play this game. Actually, it is both as usual. Perhaps my games really are becoming more tactical. Even tactics exercises are getting easier each time I see one.

Anyway, my opponent said ‘analysisbot’ analyzed it; he had this done almost immediately after the game somehow, quite interesting tactics yes. 🙂

http://cyberfish.wecheer.com/annotated_games/3630785.html

So cool, wished I had known about this feature earlier. Here’s how to do it:
http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5502&view=next
“tell analysisbot annotate [game history number]” (I’m putting this here for future reference).

After the game, my opponent asked what he should have done in that position, how to proceed, instead of Nf5, and I thought back of when I used to wonder this sort of thing like he was doing, or what some other players might wonder. I suggested to him Qh5 instead of g4, but even then I calculated that I think I can pull off Bd4 and Qf6, although even there the complications would probably not seem easy to say a D class player because Nd5 can attack both f6 and d4 at the same time, so the order has to be right. I look at my opening monographs or biographies and everyone is showing off their kill shots. Perhaps Teichman was right that chess is 99% tactics, but that doesn’t leave much left over for strategy then, does it?

Naturally, I missed a lot, so the look after the game was worth it.

Incidentally, Anand blitzes Kramnik FTW! I didn’t think this stuff happened at World Championship level. Kramnik is clearly winning but loses to Anand who is strong on the clock, while the position is still too tactical to blitz out the win properly. Note that I believe Kramnik can even give up the exchange at one point and still win or draw, and that’s after he missed Qb3, in favor of Qe2 earlier.

http://live.chessdom.com/kramnik-anand-2008-g3.html

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Tactics

  1. Sorry, pushed the wrong button. I remember that game, that was dramatic one. I read that Bareev’s book about Kramnik’s matches with Kasparov and Leko, very interesting. Kramnik looked much stronger in the first match than with Anand, not only from the chess point of view, also mentally and physically, not that strong but still better with Leko, than again with Anand.

  2. I went to 2 games of the 2000 Kramnik v Kasparov world championship in London.
    Kasparov looked a beaten man in game 1.
    His body language was not good.
    Some say he had non chess worries,i dont know.

    Kramnik seemed the same against Anand in Bonn last year.

    Perhaps the pressure gets to much for some players and not others.

  3. It was Nigel’s overconfidence that nearly brought him wins, but it was that same overconfidence that lead to his losses and the loss in the match, IMO. I don’t see Nigel as the type to think “Oh, I’ll just get a draw today, take it easy, see what happens.” I find that Nigel is one of the more exciting players to follow, and can influence chess openings theory because his games are that strong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s