It is quite remarkable that Mamedyarov’s preperation in the Semi-Tarrasch was checked three times in the same tournament. Adams and Navara both went down, but Ding finally managed to hold, although he had a bit of a shaky ride also.
In the Nc3-Petroff it seems that Caruana has finally joined Team Kingside-Castling, at least for now. Aronian didn’t manage to pose any problems and it looks like that he didn’t really try to do so.
There may be 960 different legal starting positions, but the definition of a terrible position never changes. Most of these 960 positions not only look bad, they are bad. The only reason why the engines are not showing excessive evaluations right from the start is that both sides are standing equally bad. This is really ugly chess.
Chess on the highest level is dead! Computers have solved the problems of opening theory and everyone has access to this information. The only way to get an advantage these days is to catch your opponent in a line where he has forgotten his notes. The so called solution to this dilemma is supposed to be Chess960.
Last night we had the chance to watch world class players slug it out in St. Louis. Frankly speaking I was not impressed. If that is chess, maybe I don’t like the game after all. On the other hand this whole experiment reminds me of the good old Animal Farm: Every starting position is equal, but one is more equal than all the others.
Can someone explain to me why Naka gives MC a protected passed pawn? The only explanation that I can come up with is arrogance. I am not claiming that white has an obvious win, but it was just simply totally unnecessary because even 4 vs. 3 is theoretically drawn. On club-level this is an easy draw, but a world class GM manages to lose. That is totally beyond me!
Aronian got lucky to beat Grischuk and MC certainly got lucky too. Let’s hope the tiebreak won’t be as boring as the classical games.
In the Candidates Tournament back in March Caruana lost in the Nc3-Petroff. Finally he got the chance to show his improvement. Aronian chose not to test it, blundered in an equal position and lost. Yes it was a blitz game, but these guys play better blitz than others play in classical games. Recalling your prep is not an issue in blitz.
Today in the game Svidler-Mamedyarov in Biel, another variation of the same structure appeared that I have already discussed before.
By going through the same process one should arrive at the same result. According to the Point-Count-Method black is slightly better. This time Stockfish agrees with this evaluation and gives Rc8 with a tiny advantage for black. In static positions point-count is reliable.
This time it was Svidler’s turn to deal with the underdog. He chose the Najdorf once again. When 6.Be3 appeared on the board he thought for a while and played e6. Georgiadis tried another brillant attack in the style of Tal, but this time he came up short. Svidler just played perfect moves and refuted it cold.
A key component of any assurance program is testing for security vulnerabilities and potential weaknesses that may allow a malicious party unauthorised access to an organisation. After a significant change in your system or application, testing should be conducted to ensure that new vulnerabilities or security issues have not been introduced. Testing after significant change is a critical step in the Systems Development Lifecycle (SDLC) that seeks to identify risk or potential risks in the system under development.
Foresight can provide a range of penetration testing and vulnerability assessment services for your organization, using an assessment methodology derived from well known and accepted sources such as PCI-DSS, OWASP, NIST, and OSSTMM.
Penetration testing provides management with the opportunity to conduct in-depth, detailed interrogation of configuration parameters to identify potential vulnerabilities and inadequacies in security configuration through simulated cyber exploitation. Penetration testing can be conducted on various infrastructure components and systems from both an internal and external perspective.
A vulnerability assessment provides invaluable information and evidence to assist management in identifying those areas in IT security that require improvement and re-configuration. A vulnerability assessment actively scans and probes, but does not exploit identified vulnerabilities.
Foresight’s certified personnel have experience in conducting penetration tests and vulnerability assessments for:
Whether an assessment may involve one or a combination of the above activities, Foresight can customise a test schedule specifically for your system or application. Assessments may be performed as either minimal disclosure (“black box” or “grey box”), i.e. with Foresight given limited information about the client’s systems and infrastructure, full-disclosure (“crystal box”), or a combination as required.
Our approach to testing ensures you receive a focused, non-cookie-cutter assessment that identifies and rates both the risks to your business, as well as technical findings and recommendations for remediation.
For more information on how Foresight’s penetration testing and vulnerability scanning services can benefit your organisation, please contact us at [email protected].
Thank you for choosing Jardis Cleaning Services, please fill out this form and someone will contact you as soon as possible.