What a time to be alive!..This quality of review by one of the best chess commentators straight after the game and absolutely for free..Thank you Peter! This is gold!
Fantastic anlysis once again. When I was learning chess, games of this level were only available months later in a magazine with analysis limited by print space. I would spend hours trying to understand what Peter conveys in 30 minutes. Peter's gigahertz mind is a challenge to stay with however so I do like that PAUSE button. Takes more like an hour to watch.
Kramnik has always been at his best in technical positions with only very clear tactics. He is not bad in wild positions but it takes too much energy to play that kind of chess in one crucial game after another. Kramnik also is older than all of the other players in the candidates. Resiliency is typically reduced as a player ages.
Finally synchronization with the other top YT chess channel - PowerplayChess picked another game. It is a pity that you guys usually do the same thing with both excellent talents. Seriously, both of you should announce somewhere which game you plan to cover, and duplicating of resources will be avoided.
An intelligent person would realize that a mistake is possible even in regards to a genius... A simple mind hurls insults without a care in the world... Yes... I overlooked the fact that Jan's analysis is in German... Thanks for pointing out my mistake bud, and I own it... Maybe next time you could do it without throwing an insult in there like one of those simple minds I'm referring to??..... or maybe you can't
Sorry , but you don't get to condemn the reaction to your initiation of insulting rhetoric... You start shit, I'll strike back... I'm not a pacifist in regards to violence or rhetoric Have a good one bud...
If I ever met Peter, I would ask him what he means with the word "objectively". He is using this word a lot in all of his commentaries about chess positions. My guess is that he uses the word with either of the two meanings below: 1) Objectively: according to machine evaluation. Specifically according to Stockfish, running on a strong PC. 2) Objectively: mathematically, aka according to endgame tablebases (imaginary tablebases to include even middle game positions). There are obvious problems with both definitions. For example the first definition implies that objective play will most of the times lead to defeat, when playing against AlphaZero!
I've noticed that too, it's a good question. Maybe he means to contrast 'objective' play with what can reasonably be found over the board, given time pressure, lack of computer assistance and so on. Sometimes I think he means the move that wins most quickly, i.e. many practical moves may win by first clarifying the position to some familiar winning endgame without being the most direct win.
As far as I understand the opposite of "objective" is "subjective". But have you ever heard Peter talking about "the subjective evaluation" of a position? Me not. Although he could use this phrase to describe Kramnik's evaluation of various positions, at the press conference after round 7 with Ding LIren. :-) Here are the general definitions of these words at dictionary.cambridge.org (out of chess context). Objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings. Subjective: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.
Peter, blink twice if you're being held hostage.
Hostage to chess.
What a time to be alive!..This quality of review by one of the best chess commentators straight after the game and absolutely for free..Thank you Peter! This is gold!
Thank you Peter for all the good work, you are for me the best commentator chess has ever known.
That seems so. Excellent.
Your analisys are superb, theses games are unbeleivable. Nice to have a super GM to comment and analyse :) thanks
Mr. Svidler you do the best analysis. Thank you for this.
These variations with the rooks and bishops flying around, pins everywhere, wow
Fantastic anlysis once again. When I was learning chess, games of this level were only available months later in a magazine with analysis limited by print space. I would spend hours trying to understand what Peter conveys in 30 minutes. Peter's gigahertz mind is a challenge to stay with however so I do like that PAUSE button. Takes more like an hour to watch.
23:49 Sergey on the press conference said that he saw this line, but didn't want to complicate things
Great stuff, as always, Peter.
I just watch this for Peter.. he's a great guy. He can beat the scrap out of any of these candidates. Don't know why he's not playing much..
No he can't lol. He could compete here sure, but he wouldn't win
The only trouble with Svidler's annotations is that he calculates so rapidly at times that it's difficult for ordinary players to follow.
Slow it down then
Kramnik has always been at his best in technical positions with only very clear tactics. He is not bad in wild positions but it takes too much energy to play that kind of chess in one crucial game after another. Kramnik also is older than all of the other players in the candidates. Resiliency is typically reduced as a player ages.
Great game, great analysis.
Wow! Fantastic analysis!
Sometimes, I compare the difficulties of the games among different ages: nowadays, the play has become much harder than before
?after be2 pinning the rook, what about rh3 complications
Why Kramnik resign, he was better.
He was much better but just one little tempi, a little bit not in time
Finally synchronization with the other top YT chess channel - PowerplayChess picked another game. It is a pity that you guys usually do the same thing with both excellent talents.
Seriously, both of you should announce somewhere which game you plan to cover, and duplicating of resources will be avoided.
Why is Rxb5 not an option for white at 7:20?
Ba6
We can't blame the mere human Caruana for missing a win after 7 grueling hours.
jesus Peter, your collar!
don't take the Lord's name in vain sinner, repent!
KRAMNIK, Y U NO WINNING CANDIDATES
Why are you and Jan analyzing the same game for the same network??... Pick some different games... Toss a coin if you can't decide who gets what game
An intelligent person would realize that a mistake is possible even in regards to a genius... A simple mind hurls insults without a care in the world...
Yes... I overlooked the fact that Jan's analysis is in German... Thanks for pointing out my mistake bud, and I own it... Maybe next time you could do it without throwing an insult in there like one of those simple minds I'm referring to??..... or maybe you can't
Sorry , but you don't get to condemn the reaction to your initiation of insulting rhetoric... You start shit, I'll strike back... I'm not a pacifist in regards to violence or rhetoric
Have a good one bud...
Another Dimension
Lol... Right on bud... Have a good one
GO FABI
If I ever met Peter, I would ask him what he means with the word "objectively". He is using this word a lot in all of his commentaries about chess positions. My guess is that he uses the word with either of the two meanings below:
1) Objectively: according to machine evaluation. Specifically according to Stockfish, running on a strong PC.
2) Objectively: mathematically, aka according to endgame tablebases (imaginary tablebases to include even middle game positions).
There are obvious problems with both definitions. For example the first definition implies that objective play will most of the times lead to defeat, when playing against AlphaZero!
I've noticed that too, it's a good question. Maybe he means to contrast 'objective' play with what can reasonably be found over the board, given time pressure, lack of computer assistance and so on. Sometimes I think he means the move that wins most quickly, i.e. many practical moves may win by first clarifying the position to some familiar winning endgame without being the most direct win.
As far as I understand the opposite of "objective" is "subjective". But have you ever heard Peter talking about "the subjective evaluation" of a position? Me not. Although he could use this phrase to describe Kramnik's evaluation of various positions, at the press conference after round 7 with Ding LIren. :-)
Here are the general definitions of these words at dictionary.cambridge.org (out of chess context).
Objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.
Subjective: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.
hmmmm :/
first?
No?