< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·
|Mar-19-15|| ||Baron Harkonnen: <If a man is tired of this game he is tired of life.>|
What about a man who believes in the M61MG book?
|Mar-22-15|| ||Alex Schindler: The comment about finding it strange for kasparov to play this gem in 1999 rather than 1990 "at his statistical peak" was certainly weird, and certainly not because Garry's gut says his peak was in 1999.|
Its weird because elo takes victories, losses, and draws as its sole input. Creativity and beauty are completely unquantifiable, or at any rate no one has made an attempt to quantify them for the sabrematricians of chess. Moreover, whether a game was a massacre, a narrow victory, the result of opponents' extreme blunders, a product of time pressure or tournament circumstances, a slow positional dance or a hyperkinetic tactical melee - this all goes completely outside the algorithm.
So the thought that Garry's highest statistical likelihood of winning a game against a given opponent would have been nine years earlier is unbelievably irrelevant to the quality of this or any other game. To think otherwise isn't just a religious attitude toward statistics, it's an innumerate one.
|Apr-02-15|| ||kingscrusher: My latest video annotation for this amazing game - one of the greatest games ever played:|
|Apr-18-15|| ||narayase: Why not 20... Qd6?
After 31 Qf6 Rd1+, 32 Kb2, Qd4+ forces Queen exchange and black's position becomes stronger. I don't see anything immortal in this game.
|Jun-20-15|| ||Mfrankpsyd: After 31... Rd1 32. Kb2 Qd4+ 33. Qxd4 Rxd4 34. Rxf7 White has mate threats (Be6 followed by Bb3 or Rf6) and also passed pawns on both sides compensating favorably for the exchange. You don't see what's immortal about this game?!? Beauty is immortal.|
|Jun-21-15|| ||narayase: Hi
Dont feel offended. I am a chess enthusiast and have studied hundreds of games with extraordinary combinations and this is one such interesting game.
After 34 Rxf7 Rd6 can prevent both Be6 and Rxf7 and still the game is on for Black with twin rooks.
|Jun-23-15|| ||posoo: now dis - DIS - is a classic example of da debate of chesse. SALLTY SIMPSON says dat da kasp sac is SOUD bc it WON. And she is rite!|
I have no time for people of shurpnovus's ilk, who swallow the ribbons of Rubka with da zeal of a happy lrge fellow with a donut!
Chess shod NOT be about computers and it' nice dat kaspo strate ROLLED da tupluv with his INTUIOTION and not his cupoter.
Lol da thing of it is dat shurpolio couldn't beat kuspo with ROOKE ODS and a dump.
|Jun-23-15|| ||Reisswolf: This is obviously Kasparov's immortal, but it also featured great calculation by Topalov. He calculated the sequences after 24. Rxd4 very well. I believe the move that he missed was 37. Rd7.|
|Jun-23-15|| ||offramp: <Reisswolf: This is obviously Kasparov's immortal...> You're entitled to your opinion. I quickly grew fed up of this game. Kasparov has played many more games that are more interesting than this, Kasparov vs Kramnik, 1994 for example.|
|Jun-23-15|| ||FairyPromotion: <offramp> After gladly agreeing with you on the Karjakin-Anand game, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Kasparov has played many amazing games, and 6 of them are possible candidates for (my personal) top 100 games of all time, that win vs Kramnik included. But I would say that there is a clear seperation between this game, which I would rank as top 5, and the other 5 that I wouldn't put in my top 30. |
The win vs Kramnik features a great journey by the h pawn, and is exceptional as a whole, however the final move by Kramnik is a huge let down. On the other hand sequence between 24. Rxd4!! and 37. Rd7!! in this game applies heavy gravitation on my jaw, no matter how many times I've played it over.
|Jun-23-15|| ||offramp: <FairyPromotion>, I do understand your concept. But I dislike games where "one player plays, the other sits and applauds". I like games where both players play very well. I think Topalov was playing like a shill in this game.|
|Jul-07-15|| ||Albion 1959: Kaspowerov !! This is an amazing game to play through. The lines are profoundly deep and mind blowing !! This must surely be one of Kasparov's best ever games ? Was this brilliant deep tactical calculation ? Or was this something more intuitive ? This must have been sheer instinct with a gut feeling that something "must" be there for white ! However, in the final analysis everything just seems to work for Kasparov. Not even Fischer at his peak produced games like this !|
|Aug-10-15|| ||Albion 1959: I had another look at this game, and I gave it the Rybka treatment. Topalov was doing okay up until move 31, when he blundered with Kxa3?? This allowed Kasparov to keep the attack going with Qxa6+ and c3+, keeping Topalov's king on the run. He could have done better with Rd1+ for example:
Black reaches an ending, the exchange ahead, though white has two pawns:
Move 33 instead of Qb6, if Kasparov tries Rxf7, Topalov has the powerful
Which practically forces Qc3 and an exchange of queens:
In Star Trek parlance, Mr Spock would have said to Captain Kirk about this game "It's chess Jim, but not as we know it!"
|Nov-18-15|| ||dnp: I never get tired of playing through this game|
|Nov-18-15|| ||yurikvelo: http://pastebin.com/yRVTkKuC
this game "Myth Buster"
|Dec-07-15|| ||yurikvelo: D=42, 100 BN
1. (-0.43): 24...Kb6 25.b4 Qxf4
2. = (0.00): 24...Rhe8 25.Rxe8 Nxe8
3. = (0.00): 24...Rhf8 25.c4 cxd4
4. = (0.00): 24...Rhg8 25.c4 cxd4
5. = (0.00): 24...Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Nxd5
6. = (0.11): 24...g5 25.Qxd6 Rxd6
7. = (0.15): 24...Nxd5 25.Qxf7+ Kb8
8. (0.42): 24...Qxf4 25.Rxf4 Nxd5
9. (0.70): 24...Kb8 25.Qxd6+ Rxd6
10. (0.86): 24...Bb7 25.Qxd6 Rxd6
11. (1.47): 24...h5 25.c4 g5
12. (1.95): 24...h6 25.c4 bxc4
13. (2.85): 24...c4 25.Rxc4 Qxf4
14. (3.62): 24...Ne8 25.Qxf7+ Nc7
15. (3.87): 24...b4 25.axb4 cxb4
16. (5.30): 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb8 <-- Topalov played
17. (6.18): 24...Ng4 25.Nc6+ Bxc6
|Jan-11-16|| ||Aaron Wang: <dnp> Me too|
|Mar-20-16|| ||Waxmati: The fact that Topalov hasn't take Re7 blows my mind completly.|
|Apr-26-16|| ||masoudsad: Why not "29...Rd6" instead of "29...Bb7"? Can somebody explain this to me?|
|Apr-26-16|| ||Jim Bartle: <Why not "29...Rd6" instead of "29...Bb7"? Can somebody explain this to me?>|
I think 29...Rd6 30. Rxa6 check Rxa6 31 Kb2 and black cannot avoid mate.
|Apr-26-16|| ||offramp: People who like sausages and admire Kasparov's games should never watch either of them being made.|
|May-08-16|| ||Balbery: I can't find the forced mate after Rd6 for Black on move 29 rather than Bb7. Rxa6+ Rxa6, 31 Kb2 is suggested but I can't find the force mate. White bishop too far away and queen check covered by queen - blocked. Some assistance here please? It must be obvious as no game commentary even covers the option! LOL|
|May-08-16|| ||DWINS: <Balbery: I can't find the forced mate after Rd6 for Black on move 29>|
29...Rd6 30.Kb2! (threatens mate in 2 by 31.Qb3+ Qxb3+ 32.cxb3#)
30...Qd4 31.Qxd4 Nd5 (the Queen is immune because of the mate threat 32.Rxa6#)
32.Qd3 (threatening 33.Qb3#)
32...Nxb4 33.Qxd6 (threatening 34.Qxb4#) Nc6 34.Rxa6+ Na5 35.Qb4#
|May-10-16|| ||LOYAL2ONE: It ended before checkmate. Does that mean he surrendered?|
|May-10-16|| ||markz: <yurikvelo: (5.30): 24...cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb8 -- Topalov played>|
Agree, 24...cxd4 is a blunder.
<Albion 1959: I had another look at this game, and I gave it the Rybka treatment. Topalov was doing okay up until move 31, when he blundered with Kxa3??>
Agree, 31...Kxa3 is another blunder. After 31...Rd1+, 32.Kb2 Ra8 looks like a draw.
This game is overrated, clearly not immortal.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·