(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
(Moderators: RoleyPoley, proustiskeen, trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent" (Read 11578 times)
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #20 - 12/16/10 at 15:44:51
Post Tools
That was what I was thinking about yes. No doubt could have done stuff differently earlier but hard to blame him too much for liquidating down into an ending which must have seemed like it 'had' to be won. Or maybe for going e6 a bit fast.

Well perhaps by his normal standards it is but it certainly wasn't as easy as implied Smiley 

Its not like the ending he had before he liquidated down the R&N pair was wholely trivial. Pieces a bit loose, a pawn a pest and very hard to build a passed pawn. Must have been winning of course but still.

Now what he did against Nakamura really was a bit odd.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3192
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #19 - 12/16/10 at 11:18:52
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 12/16/10 at 10:08:14:
The only win they've found that Kramnik is meant to have missed is not at all trivial.

The only forced win in the endgame with an extra piece? Otherwise, he had loads of moves that would have won the game easily earlier on, his position was enormous.
  
Back to top
WWWFacebookTwitter  
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2115
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #18 - 12/16/10 at 10:08:14
Post Tools
Actually that game mostly just showed how incredibly hard it can to actually win a game of chess sometimes Smiley 

The only win they've found that Kramnik is meant to have missed is not at all trivial.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1414
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #17 - 12/16/10 at 05:58:35
Post Tools
Carld wrote on 12/16/10 at 03:54:59:
Reverse wrote on 12/01/10 at 02:41:02:
Not sure the last time someone like kramnik won something.


Not really on topic, but Kramnik won Bilbao in Spain earlier this year. He also should have really done better in, and even won, both the Tal memorial, where he blundered in a good position against eventual winner Aronian, and in London where he should have beaten Carlsen and should not have blundered and lost to Nakamura.



It was painful to come back and see Kramnik drew Carlsen. I left to get errands done because the position was so simple that there was no defense left to it.  Even *I* could win it. Then I came back and saw the 1/2 I had to check multiple sources to be sure it wasn't just an error on that site. I was shocked. It just goes to show you how tired he was.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Carld
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 132
Joined: 12/06/06
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #16 - 12/16/10 at 03:54:59
Post Tools
Reverse wrote on 12/01/10 at 02:41:02:
Not sure the last time someone like kramnik won something.


Not really on topic, but Kramnik won Bilbao in Spain earlier this year. He also should have really done better in, and even won, both the Tal memorial, where he blundered in a good position against eventual winner Aronian, and in London where he should have beaten Carlsen and should not have blundered and lost to Nakamura.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
winawer77
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 249
Location: UK
Joined: 03/31/07
Gender: Male
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #15 - 12/01/10 at 17:31:37
Post Tools
I think the whole argument regarding style is a little misleading. Chess style is overstated nowadays, since all top players nowadays can play pretty much all types of position. Its just that some have preferences over others, thats all. Its why there is a difference between Topalov and Kramnik, even though they play the same opening variations on occasion.

Putting pressure on your opponent is not necessarily the same thing as playing aggressively. Being on the receiving end of full on attack in the Sicilian and being suffocated in a queenless Catalan middlegame both constitute pressure. They are just different types of pressure.

I think the original point made by Short is of the need to give your opponent problems to solve, rather than playing quiet chess. In this case the the variations used in the example (Max Lange  & Evans Gambit) achieved that aim, if only for those specific games.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #14 - 12/01/10 at 16:59:33
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 12/01/10 at 15:54:19:
I dunno. Karpov usually won his tournaments and he wasnt the most agressive player around, likewise Anand and Carlsen.


Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/01/10 at 15:38:56:
I think the notion that Kramnik doesn't put pressure on his opponents is just wrong.

I agree. The same is (was) true for Karpov.

Göran wrote on 12/01/10 at 15:37:59:
But beeing not aggressive doesn't mean that you are passive? Active play and aggressive play must be two different criteria doesn't it? Huh

Again I agree. Only for the sake of the OP I assumed the two were synonym. And that means that Karpov and Kramnik play(ed) with a very sound dose of aggression - more than Capablanca and Petrosjan.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1847
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #13 - 12/01/10 at 16:40:26
Post Tools
I think we've had similar discussion in the past with mixed amounts of agreement. In my post I meant, "aggressive" as in preferring positions with high tactical and strategical complexity, with a preference for attacking chess. 

I wouldn't categorize Kramnik (on average) in the this category. I would categorize Topalov, Shriov, Karjakin, and the like in this category.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #12 - 12/01/10 at 16:31:52
Post Tools
Does playing "aggressive" mean "going for forced lines"?

or 

is "aggressive" just "impatient"?

or

is "aggressive" in a Karpovian way just a "positional squeeze"?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #11 - 12/01/10 at 15:54:19
Post Tools
I dunno. Karpov usually won his tournaments and he wasnt the most agressive player around, likewise Anand and Carlsen.
  
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 454
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #10 - 12/01/10 at 15:42:58
Post Tools
Alias wrote on 12/01/10 at 15:00:15:

... A more solid style seems rewarding in match play.


Agree but - It seams like Carlsen is not interesting in match play and gets his reward in another way!? And who may complain on the result?
  
What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #9 - 12/01/10 at 15:40:43
Post Tools
Hacker, you're right. I read the comments as referring to two separate classes of players. The original poster was discussing top-flight chess, while some of the others focussed on club chess. My response was to the ones discussing club chess.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #8 - 12/01/10 at 15:38:56
Post Tools
Reverse wrote, Quote:
Nigel discussed how if when playing the top guys in the world you don't put pressure on your opponent then they play almost perfectly and quite easily draw. ... Not sure the last time someone like Kramnik won something.


Btw, I think the notion that Kramnik doesn't put pressure on his opponents is just wrong. If you study his games, he ratchets up the pressure almost every move. He's won quite a few tournaments against +2700 fields doing just that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 454
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #7 - 12/01/10 at 15:37:59
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/01/10 at 15:31:11:
Chess may not really reflect life. He who attacks first usually wins. 

...

Active play is good play. Passive play is bad chess.


But beeing not aggressive doesn't mean that you are passive? Active play and aggressive play must be two different criteria doesn't it? Huh
  
What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Nigel Short: "Putting pressure on your opponent"
Reply #6 - 12/01/10 at 15:31:11
Post Tools
Chess may not really reflect life. He who attacks first usually wins. 

There are great counter-punchers, but they are truly exceptional. Aggressive play is generally good play. Of course, it's possible to be over-aggressive, but it's still likely that an over-aggressive player will win against most opponents, especially in the lower rating ranges.

Active play is good play. Passive play is bad chess.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge