JoeTheXC (el 31/01/15 a las 7:04 pm)
Vastly overrated game. Several more correct moves by Anand, as early as
move 22, and the KID would have been proven unsound against the Bayonet
once again. 29.Nc4?? was a particular bummer by Anand that definitely
shouldn't have been played. Plus, Nakamura knew that he WAS objectively
lost because at one point, from move 22 to 29, Anand had a +2 to +5
gigas81 (el 03/11/12 a las 7:02 pm)
I'd rather let a 3rd party person commentate a game. Asking players to
re-analyze the game they just played is weird. I mean as chess players
we're thinking a ton of things at many points during the game we can't
REALLY articulate what we thought through the entire match. Anand shouldn't
need to recall a game back then (just pull up the notation from archive!).
Riaz Ali (el 14/09/12 a las 10:42 am)
Who is the guy commenting (apart from Nakamura)? Is it Nigel Short? Whoever
it is, I wish he would shut the fuck up as he is not amusing nor
entertaining with his commentary one fucking bit.
Mattslayerable (el 21/02/12 a las 8:36 am)
SHUT UP and let Hikaru speak!!!!
irradiatedbadger (el 26/11/12 a las 12:16 pm)
this year's london classic is going to be very exciting
A Ki (el 21/04/13 a las 8:40 am)
"Objective" is only as good as your opponent in a two player information
game like chess. What might be objectively lost against the chess god of
the universe is an easy win against my little brother. The question was a
stupid one and stupid questions get stupid answers.
Woody Eckerslyke (el 07/12/11 a las 10:46 am)
Nakamura's at ~4:30: "If I played a computer [in this position] I would
lose every single game...but we're not computers, we're humans." Spot on.
mrajib82 (el 08/12/11 a las 10:42 pm)
@woodyeckerslyke well this was an answer to the question he was asked
whether he felt he was *objectively* lost at a certain point in the
game..he preferred to *dodge* it rather than to face it.