< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Sep-29-10|| ||paavoh: I think I submitted this one - though must admit having seen "Gata go now" earlier last year.|
|Sep-29-10|| ||thegoodanarchist: pathetic play by Kramnik IMO|
|Sep-29-10|| ||mworld: games like this take the breath away.|
|Sep-29-10|| ||kevin86: I like how black is able to open so many avenues of attack. It looked for a second that the attack would fizzle,but black carried it through.|
|Sep-29-10|| ||asokan: Kramnik could have salvaged a draw with 33.gxf4 right? or am I missing something here?
33.gxf4 Rg4+ 34.Kh3 Rg1+ (repeat the same steps for draw)
May be he never thought he will lose this game. Gata kept it tantalizing for Kramnik to deceive him...|
|Sep-29-10|| ||Marmot PFL: At one point Kamsky made 16 straight moves that were the first choice of the computer. This ought to be investigated.|
|Sep-29-10|| ||scormus: Gata walks a tightrope in this game, he must have calculated it from 26 exf6, or earlier. One of the great GOTD.|
|Sep-29-10|| ||Ferro: NO HAY DERECHO|
|Sep-29-10|| ||Ferro: Cuando yo naci...|
|Sep-29-10|| ||Ferro: El Caballo era P6 (CP6)|
|Sep-29-10|| ||Ferro: O NP6|
|Sep-29-10|| ||Nova: <asokan> 33. gxf4? seems to be just as bad as the text. Black can still achieve a winning position. 33. gxf4 Rg4+ 34. Kh3 Rg5+ (not Rg1+? which draws). Then 35. Kh4 Rh5+ and black wins rook for queen and has an easily won game.|
|Sep-29-10|| ||Ferro: POBRE KRAMNIK|
|Sep-29-10|| ||donehung: Going straight to my favorites!|
|Sep-29-10|| ||donehung: How to avoid # in 1, 1o1|
|Sep-30-10|| ||SuperPatzer77: What an amazing game by Gata Kamsky!!
32...Qxf4+!!! (O divine!!), 33. Qxf4 (only move) Rh1!, 34. g4 (only move) h6! 35. Kh3 g5, 36. Qd4 Rg1!, 37. f3 d2!! below:
38. Qxg1 Ba4!, 39. Bc1!? d1=Q! (not 39...dxc1=Q??, 40. Qxc1 ), 40. Qxd1 Bxd1
38. Qxd2 Bb5! (threatening Bf1#) 0-1
|Sep-30-10|| ||Yodaman: GG
This game amazes me when I see how genius some of the people are who play it.
|Oct-01-10|| ||Richard Taylor: <goodevans> not necessarily - effort I have seen further than twenty moves myself (usually following analysis in a book) - but sure it would be hard OTB but in order to iwn he could well have seen a lot of what he played. In fact he had to or he was mated! |
So, as with some of Lasker's combos that are sometimes a deep as 20 or more moves - this was one of them I think.
Kasparov's "Immortal Game" was about 18 moves deep.
Many combos or attacks are of course played with a mix of calculation and insight or evaluation - judgement.
Also long calculations are rare as it is needed to see many (more or less short) lines and make judgments most of the time (and in fact the clock literally means it is risky to make deep calculations - the long ocmbos come perhaps only at critical moments. This was too deep into the game to be opening prep but at least one of Shirov's combos was found initially by Fritz -he said so after his game in one case.
So there are all sorts of factors. mostly we all see only few moves and try to see the right ones!
|Oct-01-10|| ||Richard Taylor: However he did it - it is a great game in my view. I believe he didn't do too well versus Kramnik. But credit where credit is due!|
|Apr-08-11|| ||rwbean: Great combination. It looks like 18 ... Nxe4 19 Qf4 f5 20 g4 Bc6 21 gxf5 Rf8 is great for Black (18 ... Nxe4 was mentioned on page 1 of the comments).|
What was not mentioned so far is that 25 ... h6 looks like a much simpler win :-( If White plays 26. Qh4 then he doesn't have the option of playing Kh4 later, so 26 ... Re2 or 26 ... Qa5 are clearer wins than the game, and if he plays 26. Qf5 or 26. Qf4 then just 26 ... dxe5.
|Apr-28-11|| ||Richard Taylor: < goodevans: <Richard Taylor>|
That would indeed be a remarkable feat.
I'm more skeptical. Looking at the position after <25 Qg5> I reckon the last two moves would be incredibly difficult to envisage. My guess would be that at that point he probably saw as far as <33 ... Rh1> and judged this as safe/winning.
Even seeing that far would be beyond most mortals. >
Yes, I tend to agree. As I "revisit" this game it seems incredible. I did see some combos by Lasker that were calculated than 20 moves deep when he was young. These (deep combos) are rare though.
It is maybe not the depth (of moves) but the ideas.
If you can have ingenious (or logical really)ideas. Many of Alekhine's (to take only one example) really brilliant moves really only involve seeing a few moves but seem impossible until one sees them...
Often they are "strategic" or positional ideas. In fact most of his games are really won by positional factors as indeed tactics cant really be separated from tactics of course.
|Apr-28-11|| ||cunctatorg: I often have the impression that Gata Kamsky was playing more imaginative and better chess during the 90's than he does now...|
|May-09-11|| ||James Bowman: Kamsky the bishop miestro Gata be a Pope because nobody can get more out of the clergy than he does, So cool that he keeps his thermostat set to 45 degrees.|
|Jul-04-11|| ||apexin: Mr Kamsky is awesome.|
|Oct-16-11|| ||Jambow: Should still be on Kamsky's best games list in my opinion. I really think Kamsky squeeses more out of a bishop than anyone.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·