|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-29-04 |
| Whitehat1963: Excellent game. Very patient defense. |
 |
| May-18-05 |
| ryanpd: Why didn't Kamsky play 18. ... Nxe4 ? |
|
Jun-23-05
 |
| YouRang: That rascally black d pawn delivered two crushing blows to Kramnik! (1) 24... d4! : A queen deflection that allows the rook to move to e2, which was 'the beginning of the end'. (2) 37... d2! : A clearance sacrifice! An obvious threat to promote, and a more subtle threat to clear the path for the subsequent bishop attack (38... Bb5, threatening Bf1+) which forces the loss of the white's queen. Amazing tactical foresight by Kamsky in this game. |
|
| Jan-29-06 |
| Australopitecus: Kamsky was a very talented player, another great game against Drawnik. |
|
| Mar-18-06 |
| Fischerissweet: What an amazing chess player |
|
| May-14-06 |
| whithaw: I was first shown this game at the age of about 20, by the local chessclub president. I was amazed, and it had a major impression on me at that time. I was in awe of the logic of the entire game, and I analyzed it until every move made complete sense to me. Kamsky must have seen Rh1 before the entire combination, a move that kramnik missed. What a great player he was, even at this young age. |
|
| May-14-06 |
| popski: Indeed, amazing game!! |
|
Jan-01-07
 |
| notyetagm: <Benjamin Lau: Kamsky was a promising player indeed. Here's another sharp game from him, against guess who.
Kamsky vs Kramnik, 1994
Prodigy or not, Kamsky had some very good tactical and positional vision.> Kamsky was and still is a great player. Here's hoping he does well in the Candidate Matches later this year. |
|
Jan-01-07
|
| notyetagm: <matein8: Here’s an interesting game that shows the promise that Kamsky had as a chessplayer and just how much Kramnik had improved by the time of the Braingames match in 2001. Kamsky doubles Kramnik’s pawns at move 9, and wins one of them at move 13. Kamsky then expands nicely on the Q-side. Kramnik tries to increase his activity on the K-side by 18. Rf3, but this allows Kamsky to increase his influence over the Q-side. 18.Rf3 is a blunder by Kramnik because the e-pawn is no longer defended and Kramnik had to waste time to defend it by 19. Re1. This gives Kamsky the time to seize the c-file for himself by 19…Rbc8 and establish a superior position on the Q-side. Kamsky has a winning advantage by the time that he plays 22…Rc2 (he’s up a pawn and has a superior position). Kramnik tries to protect the e-pawn and R by playing 23.Qc3 but this is another blunder because Kamsky plays 23…exd5 and Kramnik cannot open the e-file without disadvantage (because of 24.exd5 Re8! exposes the weakness of Kramnik’s backrank). As mentioned above, 24…d4! exploits the weakness of White’s backrank. An exciting finish as Kamsky is one move away from being mated (31. Qh6) but Kamsky finds all the winning moves. The obvious conclusion of the game is that to avoid mate, Kramnik must give up his Q.> Great analysis. Does anyone know if this great Kamsky win was ever annotated by Kamsky for any magazine? |
|
Jan-01-07
|
| notyetagm: Having now played through this game several times, all I can say is <WOW(!)>. This was a -stupendous- game by Kamsky! |
|
| Jan-02-07 |
| themadhair: This is one of those combinations that makes you realise just how good some of the top chess players really are. A game of chessical incandescence. |
|
Jan-04-07
|
| notyetagm: <themadhair: This is one of those combinations that makes you realise just how good some of the top chess players really are. A game of chessical incandescence.> If only Kamsky hadn't quit ...
|
|
| Jan-04-07 |
| alicefujimori: <notyetagm><If only Kamsky hadn't quit ... >If Kamsky hadn't quit he might be the firmly established number 2-3-4 in place of Kramnik or Anand. It was no doubt that Kamsky was Kramnik's nemesis and it would have been interesting to see if Kramnik would had still been gifted a free match to play Kasparov if Kamsky was still around then. |
|
| Jan-04-07 |
| Lt. Col. Majid: Kramnik lost one match to Kamsky and u call Kamsky his nemesis? OMG. Nemesis would if one player has a history of dominating another ‘globally’ as in both tournament and match play e.g Shirov being Kramnik's nemesis. Though since Kramnik moved up 2 gears in 2000, I have no doubt he would be too much for Shirov in a head-to-head contest. One thing one has to understand is chess players develop at different paces and timelines. Simply because Kamsky matured early does not mean he would have had a better career than his rivals or outperformed them in the long run if he hadn't retired. Kamsky does not have the talent of Anand or Kramnik. According to Karpov, Kamsky worked extraordinarily long hours to get to where he was in the mid-90s. He was renowned for this punishing schedule even b4 leaving Russia. However, it was always on the cards that once Anand and Kramnik’s “train-ability” matured their superior talent would take them beyond whatever level Kamsky could/would get to. Kamsky was a natural match player; he was tenacious, patient and solid. If he hadn’t retired, he would have been up there with other "solids" in Kramnik, Leko & Anand as the best match players around today. |
|
| Jan-04-07 |
| themadhair: <Lt. Col. Majid> I remember a match for the FIDE championship with Karpov. I got the impression that Kamsky had come better prepared but that Karpov's talent shone through in the end. Although who knows - maybe Kamsky had another gear or two to move up... |
|
| Jan-04-07 |
| Lt. Col. Majid: <themadhair:> <Although who knows - maybe Kamsky had another gear or two to move up...
>
I think so. I dont think he got to his peak by the time he retired. |
|
| Jan-05-07 |
| Udit Narayan: What amazing vision from Kamsky!!! |
|
| Feb-04-07 |
| IMDONE4: 32... Qxc4+!. Impressive. |
|
| Feb-04-07 |
| IMDONE4: I think 20. Bf1 and 22. d5 are the decisive mistakes |
|
| Dec-14-07 |
| Poisonpawns: Kamsky/Kramnik 2009! |
|
| Dec-14-07 |
| syracrophy: 32... xf4+!! was almost unexpected |
|
| Dec-14-07 |
| shintaro go: this is an insane game |
|
| Dec-15-07 |
| popski: I hope Shirov didn't check this game today, could harm his moral... :) |
|
Feb-18-09
 |
| hedgeh0g: It's interesting how all of White's pieces were pointing at the Black king, who had no real defenders and yet there never seemed to be any concrete attack for White. |
|
| Feb-18-09 |
| swarmoflocusts: I am amazed that Kamsky, with demise looking him in the face, stayed calm enough to pull off that attack. White is threatening forced mate in one from his 26th move to his 33rd while black is throwing his pieces at white's king... Until the deadly-cool Rh1. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
icon.
