Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Commenting games

Often the winner in top-tournaments is invited to explain his game in front of the camera. This gives the spectators the opportunity to get a glimpse of what the top-grandmaster saw during the game and which emotions he experienced. Personally I find those post-mortems the most interesting and entertaining part of the complete broadcast. Nobody except the players are able to provide those insights so it also logical that a game is best commented by one of both players.

If I demand in my previous article live boards for a commentator then I also realize that this task should not be taken lightly.  Providing good comments on a game which you don't/ didn't play is not easy. I often catch oneself that I am so annoyed by the live comments that I switch off the sound and only look to the variations and evaluations of the engines. So I do understand HK5000 in his last article.

You won't find many detailed comments on my blog about games which I didn't play. Many of the published games from other players have the sole function to illustrate a certain theme. To dissect a game I almost exclusively do when I was involved myself in it. My article which games to analyze explains that I sift to the bottom all my own games. Hereby I imply the 2nd main reason why I often don't comment so deeply games from others. Somebody a bit active as player already has sufficient work with analyzing his own played games. To create high quality analysis needs a lot of time as explained in my article to analyze with an engine.

Of course time is a relative notion as motivation is closely connected. I also notice this behavior on my blog. Most reactions happen by players noticing their own name in the article. To abstain from commenting is much harder in such case which does not mean that I don't want to see comments, at contrary. The delicate balance between time/ motivation was also the reason why I refused polity a few times in the past to contribute at some analysis (e.g. for the praised book of the Tarrasch defense). 

Today anybody can create decent analysis with engines, see article theory. You search in the germane databases for the important games and you scrutinize the moves. Which databases to use and which games are important was covered in my article improvisation. To only prepare your own repertoire is already a gigantic task or maybe simply impossible. It is clear that only a thorough opening-study is made if you are pretty sure that you will reuse this later.

Commenting a game played by others and moreover with an opening completely outside of your own repertoire is no fun. I often read comments which are completely wrong. 2 examples of the internet on which I could not resist to react : schaaksitechessbase. In the book My Great Predecessor Part 2 I even caught Kasparov committing a serious shortcoming in the analysis. It regards the game Bronstein - Ljubojevic of which I already covered a fragment in my article the horizon.
[Event "Petropolis Interzonal"] [Site "Petropolis"] [Date "1973.08.07"] [Round "11"] [White "Bronstein, David I"] [Black "Ljubojevic, Ljubomir"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B03"] [WhiteElo "2585"] [BlackElo "2570"] [PlyCount "81"] 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5 c5 7. d5 e6 8. Nc3 exd5 9. cxd5 c4 10. Nf3 {(The best move according to Kasparov but nothing about d6 which was well known in advance of the publication of the book.)}Bg4 {(After Bb4 Kasparov admits that it is unclear if white can claim any advantage. I have not studied this in detail but black scores more than 50 percent with Bb4.)} 11. Qd4 Bxf3 12. gxf3 Bb4 13. Bxc4 O-O 14. Rg1 g6 15. Bg5 Qc7 16. Bb3 Bc5 17. Qf4 Bxg1 18. d6 Qc8 19. Ke2 Bc5 20. Ne4 N8d7 21. Rc1 Qc6 22. Rxc5 Nxc5 23. Nf6 Kh8 24. Qh4 Qb5 25. Ke3 h5 26. Nxh5 Qxb3 27. axb3 Nd5 28. Kd4 Ne6 29. Kxd5 Nxg5 30. Nf6 Kg7 31. Qxg5 Rfd8 32. e6 fxe6 33. Kxe6 Rf8 34. d7 a5 35. Ng4 Ra6 36. Ke5 Rf5 37. Qxf5 gxf5 38. d8=Q fxg4 39. Qd7 Kh6 40. Qxb7 Rg6 41. f4 1-0
The analysis explains us that 10.Nf3 is the best move but I have serious doubts about that especially because Kasparov admits later that he is not sure if which can obtain some advantage with this move. Besides the critical move 10.d6 is not mentioned at all. Although the move is already known from 1976 so several decades before the book was written. I played 1 standard game in this line.
[Event "Open Gent 3de ronde"] [Date "2008"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Passchyn, M."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B03"] [WhiteElo "2319"] [BlackElo "2036"] [PlyCount "73"] 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5 c5 7. d5 e6 8. Nc3 exd5 {(I encountered in 1997 the more obscure Qh4 line by Geert Danneel.) } 9. cxd5 c4 10. d6 Nc6 11. Nb5 Qh4 12. g3 Qe4 13. Qe2 Qxe2 $6 $146 {(I evaluated the critical main-line with Qh1 already in 1997 as very good for white. The unknown Bf5 looks to me the only way to avoid bigger damage.)} 14. Bxe2 Nxe5 15. Nc7 Kd8 16. Nxa8 Nxa8 17. Bf4 Bxd6 18. O-O-O Kc7 19. Nf3 Nd3 20. Bxd3 Bxf4 21. gxf4 cxd3 22. Rxd3 Be6 $6 {(This inaccuracy is too much for blacks position. Better is Bf5 but also then black has a very difficult defense ahead.)} 23. Ng5 Nb6 24. Re1 Bd5 25. Nxf7 Rf8 26. Re7 Kb8 27. Ne5 Rxf4 28. Nd7 Nxd7 29. Rxd5 Nb6 30. Rd8 Nc8 31. Rxg7 Rh4 32. Rdd7 Rxh2 33. Rxb7 Ka8 34. Rxh7 Re2 35. a4 Re5 36. Kc2 Re3 37. b3 1-0
Of course we ask ourselves what happens if black takes the rook on h1. Online I've won already countless blitz and bulletgames in this variation. A short summary can be viewed below.
[Event "Rated game, 3m 0s"] [Site "Main Playing Hall"] [Date "2012"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Spezial"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B03"] [WhiteElo "2294"] [BlackElo "2349"] [PlyCount "35"] 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5 c5 7. d5 e6 8. Nc3 exd5 9. cxd5 c4 10. d6 {(Kasparov ignores completely this move in his analyses of the game Bronstein - Ljubojevic played in 1973.)} Nc6 11. Nb5 Qh4 12. g3 Qe4 13. Qe2 Qxh1 14. Bg5 {(I was already familiar with this move from my analysis made in 1997. In the databases the move pops up since 1999.)} f6 (14... Be6 15. O-O-O Qxg1 (15... Kd7 16. Bg2 Qxh2 (16... Qxg2 17. Qxg2 Rc8 18. Nf3 h6 19. Be3 Nb4 20. a3 Nd3 21. Kb1 Bd5 22. Nc3 Be6) 17. Bxc6) 16. d7 Nxd7 17. Nc7# { (Blitz 2008 Brabo - Bebysitter 1 - 0)}) (14... Nd5 15. O-O-O a6 (15... Qxg1 16. Rxd5 Qb6 17. Nc7 {(Bullet 2014 Brabo - Virginiax 1 - 0)}) 16. Bg2 Qxh2 17. Bxd5 axb5 (17... Qxe2 18. Bxc6 bxc6 19. d7 Bxd7 20. Nc7#) 18. Qxh2 {(Blitz 2009 Brabo - Furago 1 - 0)}) (14... Qxg1 15. Nc7 Kd7 16. Qg4 f5 17. Qxf5# { (Bullet 2012 Brabo - Guest 1 - 0)}) (14... Bf5 15. O-O-O Qxg1 16. d7 Nxd7 17. Nc7# {(Bullet 2013 Brabo - Guest 1 - 0)}) 15. Nc7 Kf7 16. e6 Kg6 17. Be3 { (I follow my own old analysis but current engines consider 0-0-0 as stronger.)} Bxd6 (17... f5 18. e7 Nxe7 19. Bxb6 axb6 20. dxe7 {(In 1997 I ended here my analysis and assessed the position as won for white which is still correct.)}) 18. Qg4# 1-0
I don't reproach anything Kasparov as it is an opening which he never played with any of the colors and probably never studied. By the way the other games of which he does possess opening-knowledge, largely compensate. I do have problems when a commentator hides on purpose elements because it does not fit the story or because it would show some own shortcomings. Unfortunately there are many of such type. Honesty is at my opinion the main asset to captivate the reader or spectator.


No comments:

Post a Comment