Jeroen Piket vs Garry Kasparov (2000)

Jeroen Piket vs Garry Kasparov
Wijk aan Zee Corus (2000) · Gruenfeld Defense: Russian. Prins Variation (D97) · 1/2-1/2

To move:

Last move:

explore this opening	find similar games	14 more Piket/Kasparov games
	PGN: download \| view	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can learn a lot about this site (and chess in general) by reading the Chessgames Help Page. If you need help with premium features, please see the Premium Membership Help Page.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Pgn4web Quickstart Guide.

Jan-10-08		acirce: 10..e5! was a novelty based on analysis Kasparov had done already back in 1986 for the Karpov match. Piket had been working hard on the line but was still outprepared. Kasparov could equalize easily but misplayed the position later and actually Piket got what must have been a winning position or at the very least close but which he failed to convert in huge time trouble. 27..a6? was a serious mistake while 27..Rd2+ 28.Kb1 Rxf2 was comfortable equality. He had thought that after 28.Rd1 he could win by 28..Rxd1 29.Kxd1 b5 30.Bxe6 Rxc3 but had missed 30.Nd5! when White is on top.

Jan-22-11		KingG: <10..e5! was a novelty based on analysis Kasparov had done already back in 1986 for the Karpov match. Piket had been working hard on the line but was still outprepared. > Yes, Piket commented about this that <His [Kasparov's] memory is super-human. I thought I was well-acquainted with this kind of position but it turned out I didn't know enough. Kasparov said he had based his preparation on a game from the fifties that he had thoroughly analyzed some time in 1986. It was a game between two players I had never even heard of.> In the game, Kasparov should have played 27...Rd2+ 28.Kb1 Rxf2 29.Rd1 a6, with some advantage. What Kasparov has overlooked was that after 27...a6? 28.Rd1 Rxd1 29.Kxd1 b5, Black isn't losing a piece because of 30.Nd5!. Quite a serious oversight for some on the level of Kasparov, and he then went wrong again by not realising that after 30.Nd5 he could continue with 30...Ng5 31.Ne7+(or 31.Re3 Rc5 32.Nf6+ Kg7 33.Bd5 Ne6 34.b4 Bxe3 34.bxc5 Bxc5 =) 31...Kg7 32.Nxc6 Nxe4 33.Bf1 Nxf2 =. After 28.Rdc8 he was seriously worse and a bit lucky not to lose.

Feb-07-11		Eyal: <10..e5! was a novelty based on analysis Kasparov had done already back in 1986 for the Karpov match. Piket had been working hard on the line but was still outprepared. Kasparov could equalize easily but misplayed the position later and actually Piket got what must have been a winning position or at the very least close but which he failed to convert in huge time trouble.> According to the TWIC report at the time, <[after 32.b4] Piket was in desperate time-trouble at this stage with less than a minute to reach the time control. Its due to this pressure that he misses a couple of winning shots […] (http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/wijk2.h...)>. So one might say that Kasparov’s preparation still secured for him the draw in this game indirectly - leaving Piket in desperate time-trouble after all the time he had to spend in the opening in order to respond accurately to the novelty, so that he couldn’t take advantage of Kasparov’s mistake later on.

Dec-19-11		ScottWeatherill: Anyone see the reply to 21. e5 ?

Dec-19-11		Sastre: 21.e5 Bf5+ 22.Kb3 Rb6+ 23.Ka3 Rc8.

Times Chess Twitter Feed

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!

If you already have an account, you should login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
No personal attacks against other users.
Nothing in violation of United States law.

See something which violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collection [what is this?]

Round Two, Game #12
from Wijk aan Zee Corus 2000 by suenteus po 147