|Apr-11-05|| ||dragon40: The 6th game of the 1995 WC MAtch.
This was the first game that everyone thought Kasparov should have seriously played on and that he had winning chances..here are a couple of sample variations:
<28...Nc7?; 29.dxc5+, Kc6; 30.Re7!, Rc8; 31.Kc3, Kxc5; 32. Rc1!, b4+; 33. Kb2, Kb6; 34.Rc4>
< 28...Nb4 (best); a) 29.dxc5+, Kc6! (29...Kxc5 30. Rxd7! shielding White's King and preparing to play Rd6 is powerful) 30. Re7, Rd8+ is very close to call...>
<b) 29.Re7, cxd4; 30. Rxe6+, Ka5; 31.Rd6 and Anand thought if he played 31...Re8 he could draw, while others preferred 31...Rf8.>
The general conclusion was that White does not risk a thing by playing on. In fact, after the players had left, GMs Browne and Dlugy played this positon out and it resulted in a draw as well...<The variations were given by Daniel King from his book on this match> Match score after this game: 3-3
|Jul-06-05|| ||Hesam7: From Yasser Seirawan's column inside chess: http://www.chesscafe.com/yaz/yaz.htm|
Giving the d5-knight the boot from its dominating central perch. The audience was thrilled with this razor-sharp battle of thrust and parry.
Most of us felt that Kasparov was still cashing in on his earlier play when we were shocked into stunned silence. The players had shaken hands! Since the position still offered plenty of opportunity, we could only speculate that Kasparov must have chickened out and offered a draw!! Indeed, he had.
A storm of protests erupted from the audience. The viewers had paid their money to see two great chess minds battle it out and they were denied the second half of a great show. I was too stunned for words; I apologized to my audience and waited for the post-game commentary by Anand. (Black gives the post-game press conference in the event of a draw, otherwise it is the winner’s job.)
Anand explained that he had no intention of offering a draw himself, but was happy to accept Kasparov’s offer! He admitted that he was very uncertain about the evaluation of the final position, and had made what he considered a prudent decision.
Australian GM Ian Rogers shot out the brutally frank question, “Isn’t the audience being ripped off?” Staggered, Anand managed to offer the opinion that the game had already been exciting enough.
Thus ended one of the least satisfying games in the annals of championship chess. Cowardice by Kasparov? In this writer’s view, yes!
Certainly, the final position will be debated for months, perhaps years, to come. Is White winning? I can’t say with certainty, but White holds an advantage. The disgruntled audience wanted an answer, now!
GMs Walter Browne and Maxim Dlugy played a ten-minute game from the final position. Browne, playing White, quickly gained a winning position after 28...Nb4 29.dxc5+ Kxc5 30. Rc1+ Kb6 31.Re7 Rd8+ 32.Ke2 a3 33.Rc3! a2 34.Rxe6+ Kb7 35.Re7+ Kb6 36.Re6+ (Walter repeated moves to prove that White is taking no risks by playing on) 36...Kb7 37.Ra3 Rd4 38.Ra5 Rxe4+ 39.Kd2 Rd4+ 40.Kc3 Rc4+ 41.Kb3 and White was winning. In time trouble, Walter missed the trick 41...Nd5 42.Rg6? Rb4+ 43.Kxa2 Nc3+ 44.Ka3 Rb1! and now Black was winning! The game was drawn in a time scramble, but Walter had proven his point. White had an advantage.
After the game, Anand and Kasparov shared their thoughts with one another. Anand had intended 28...Nc7 (?) 29. dxc5+ Kc6 30.Kc3 (threatening Ra1-d1-d6+) 30...Rd8 31.Re7, but Black would be in Zugzwang and the compulsion to move would prove fatal. Clearly, Black’s best is 28...Nb4 and, although Browne’s treatment in a 10-minute game isn’t the final word, the verdict is clear: in practical play, White’s chances must be better.
Overall, this game was an interesting and complicated struggle, with Kasparov damaging his is reputation with a weak-kneed draw offer.>
|Nov-29-05|| ||morphyvsfischer: 6...exd4 7 Re1 d5 8 Nxd4 Bd6 9 Nxc6 Bxh2+ 10 Kh1! (Kxh2 Qh4+ 11 Kg1 Qxf2 12 Kh1 Qh4+ is perpetual) ...Qh4 11 Rxe4+ dxe4 12 Qd8+! Qxd8 13 Nxd8 Kxd8 14 Kxh2 is better for white.|
9 c3 is still theory's main line, even though everyone uses 9 Nbd2 nowadays pretty much.
10...Nxb3 11 Nxb3 is better for white, since d4 is heavily controlled.
11 Bxe6 Nxe6 12 cxd4 Ncxd4 is fine for black.
11...Qxg5 12 Qf3 0-0-0! (...Bd7 13 Bd5 with white advantage) 13 Bxe6+ fxe6 14 Qxc6 Qxe5 15 b4! with a small advantage.
14...Qxd1 15 Bxd1 Be7 16 Be3 Nd3 17 Bb3 Kf7 and white has a small advantage.
27 e4 looks best, kicking the knight immediately.
Possibilities after the draw are 28...Nb4 29 dxc5+ Kxc5 30 Rc1+ Kb6 31 Rd7 a3 with an unclear position, and 28...Nb4 29 dxc5+ Kxc5 30 Rd7 (likely the most accurate for white)
|Apr-23-09|| ||rwsmith29456: Kasparov gives a pawn away. His queenside is invaded and he converts this into an advanced 3-pawn kingside roller with two connected passed pawns. Voodoo, plain and simple. Voodoo.|
|Apr-23-09|| ||rwsmith29456: Sorry. I kibitzed the wrong game.|
|Nov-10-09|| ||WhenHarryMetSally: it's not a draw yet. they should have played on.
but who am i to argue with kasparov?
|Sep-06-10|| ||kasparvez: In 'Garry Kasparov's greatest Chess Games- vol.2' Igor Stohl gives us an insider's perspective. He says "When Kasparov turned to e4 in game 6, Anand came up with a significant novelty in the open Ruy Lopez, which led to a very unclear position." No chessplayer battling for the WCC likes to be confronted with a novelty, and i think we can excuse Kasparov for not willing to get into an unsure situation. And no matter what Seirawan says, the real goal of a player playing for a WCC is to get or retain the crown than to give public entertainment. |
Besides, how can we criticize Kasparov for drawing this game? It's because of its unclear end Anand repeated this line optimistically in game 10, and we know what happened there. Kasparov analyzed it inside out and crushed Anand as nobody crushed him before. Given the bigger picture, this game served Kasparov rather well in the match.
p.s: This game, and Kasparov's strategy in particular, reminds me of a classic line from a James Bond film: 'Live Today, die another Day'. It works.
|Sep-06-10|| ||e4d4: Rybka 4 eval at move 28 is -0.69 (depth 20)|
|Sep-06-10|| ||percyblakeney: <And no matter what Seirawan says>|
I think what he says reveals more about Seirawan than about Kasparov...
<Kasparov must have chickened out and offered a draw!! Indeed, he had>
<Cowardice by Kasparov? In this writer’s view, yes!>
<Kasparov damaging his reputation with a weak-kneed draw offer>
Seirawan did write on some occasion that he regretted not punching Kasparov in the face during one of their games, so he has never been much of a Kasparov supporter.
|Sep-08-10|| ||Everett: Seems many agree with Seirawan that Kasparov was a jerk throughout his career. Many other WC's did not have to be such a-holes.|
My money is on Seirawan in a real fight.
|Sep-08-10|| ||kasparvez: The anecdote to this game perhaps says it all: Kasparov vs Seirawan, 1988.
Kasparov was indeed a jerk at times. But so were many other world champions. Botvinik, Fischer, Karpov, all used psychological tricks before. At the very top level of chess, every inch counts.|
'There are tough players and there are nice guys, and i am a tough player' [fischer].
|Sep-08-10|| ||BobCrisp: From a 1991 Seirawan interview with Cathy Forbes:
<Terrible. I'm furious with him, because I used to feel brotherly with
him but now greedy men and poor advisers have corrupted him. I look at
his entourage, plus his four or five bodyguards, and I see ugliness. I
mean, you don't have to be a genius to see that these are not nice
|Aug-26-14|| ||SpiritedReposte: Lol Kasparov hurt Seirawans feelings aww.|
|Dec-22-15|| ||Howard: Regarding Ian Rogers' "brutally frank" question (See posting from July, 2005),
this just looked to me like a typical case of biased journalism back when I read this in Inside Chess, in 1995.|
It's just too easy to criticize players for agreeing to a draw in positions where it's NOT your prize money or nerves that are at stake. Seirawan's comments were rather biased, and probably stemmed from that 1988 loss he had against Kasparov.