< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Aug-24-14|| ||agb2002: <Jimfromprovidence: ...
I guess the point is that after exchanging f pawns, white can somehow black's d pawn, but how does that happen?>
One only needs to use the king and the knight to push back the black king until reaching a position like
click for larger view
Now 1.Ne7+ wins Black's d-pawn and the game.
There's a simplified version of this ending in Pachman's "Modern Chess Strategy", page 311.
|Aug-24-14|| ||Jimfromprovidence: <agb2002> I very much appreciate what you posted but earlier kibitzing offers a potential alternative for black.|
<...according to Dvoretsky's endgame manual, after 55. Nh5 Bxf3 56. Nxf6, Black can try 56..Be4+! 57.Kg5 Bd3!>
click for larger view
<As is easy to see, the king cannot force its way into the f6- or e5-squares. So he has to take the pawn:
58.Nxd5+ Kd6 59.Nc3 (59.Ne3 or 59.Nf4 changes nothing) but then Black plays 59..Bf1! 60.Kf4 Bg2 61.Ke3 (intending Ne4-c5) 61..Bh3! 62.Ne4+ Kd5 63.Nc5 Bc8 64.Kd3 Bf5+ 65.Kc3 Bc8, when Black appears to draw.>
So It would be better to see a definitive proof one way or the other if it's available.
|Aug-24-14|| ||WDenayer: The very last thing I want to do is to contribute to the non-debate about who was better, Fischer or Karpov, but I remember this game and others and my feelings about it. I always found that Fischer's games were clear. It's not that they weren't great - of course they are - or difficult, of course, but I could understand them - I mean, analyse them. And then these two played and I got lost. I did not understand it. It was too difficult for me. I couldn't analyse it. In my opinion, K and K put chess on a whole other level. Chess had never been so sophisticated before. It was stellar. These two were better - by far - than any other GM at the time. What they did was incredible.|
|Aug-24-14|| ||perfidious: <WDenayer> Karpov and Kasparov indeed had that extra, indefinable something which characterises players of the very highest quality; whatever one makes of their apposite styles of play, no denying it. The younger man could hardly have become the great champion he was without Karpov to drive him ever higher.|
|Aug-24-14|| ||M.Hassan: <diagonalley>:
Is PN4 old notation of g4?
|Aug-24-14|| ||Everett: <Jimfromprovidence>
Dvoretsky goes on to show that after Marin's improvement <55.Nh5 Bxf3 56.Nxf6 Be4+ 57.Kg5 Bd3 <58.Ng4>>, with much analysis, White wins with best play. I can quote it, but you may find it easier in the Endgame Manual 2nd Edition (English) pg 133|
In any case, it confirms that White has to time precisely his capture of the d5-pawn in order to win against best play.
|Aug-24-14|| ||patzer2: <Everett><Specifically, White would plays after <48..Bg6 49.Nf4 <keeping Black's K back> Bf7 50.Kh4> and White wins the h-pawn and is in perfect position to outflank the Black K if the minors come off.> So does White have a forced win after 48...Bg6?|
|Aug-25-14|| ||Everett: <patzer2> I don't know if it is forced, but it does allows White to organize his pieces and gather the f- and h-pawns, and to be patient grabbing the others.|
|Jan-13-15|| ||1 2 3 4: 23. Qa5 was a little bad, BUT KARPOV SURE IS THE BEST POSITIONAL PLAYER EVER|
|Apr-01-15|| ||morphyesque: Could someone please explain what Kasparov would have played had Karpov played the pawn fork 18.b4 (instead of Rad1).Does this not win the exchange (or knight) for white?I can only see black's best continuation then as 18...Rxc3 19.Qxc3 d4 20.Qd2 dxe3 21.Qxd8 exf2+ 22.Rxf2 Rxd8 and white seems a good exchange up!|
|Apr-01-15|| ||Retireborn: <morphyesque> My notes give 18.b4 Rc8 19.bxa5 d4 with initiative for Black; extendeding this with 20.Rfd1 Qxa5 21.Rxd4 Rxc3 22.Qd2 looks pretty drawish however. In any case Karpov would not have wanted to allow Black to eliminate his isolated QP so cheaply.|
|Jun-03-15|| ||bellh: I picked up some chess books yesgterday from a used book store that is closing, and then saw this game last night for the first time.|
From IA Horowitz (Chess for Beginners) "In master play, the preference is for the bishop; although he covers squares of only one color, his cruising range is much generally greater than that of the kniight."
Apparently, Karpov never read that book.
Perhaps he read Capablanca (A Priner of Chess) who said that a blocked position with the pawns only on one side of the board "is about the only case where a knight is more valuable than the bishop" because Karpov methodically reduces the game to that position from about moves 47 to 54.
|Jul-06-15|| ||CHESS LIZARD: classical game of good knight and bad bishop|
|Oct-14-15|| ||The Kings Domain: WDenayer: Interesting comment. Kasparov and Karpov kept Chess in the limelight after it peaked with Fischer with their personalities and skill. They represented and were responsible for the last great era in Chess. Their rivalry was the greatest of the sport. But I don't get your comment on how you don't get their games, particularly in contrast to Fischer's which you claim is "clear". Kasparov's and Karpov's games are the same as any master where each player jockeys for the best position in order to win. Perhaps what you meant with Fischer's games as being "clear" is that they stood out, particularly in quality where some were brilliant. Kasparov and Karpov were never able to pull off a "Game of the Century", much more when they were Fischer's age when the latter accomplished that feat. Kasparov and Karpov were pretty much representatives of the Botvinnik school: the cold, calculating style of play which Tal rebelled against.|
|Dec-14-15|| ||Brandon D Davis: The Kings Domain,how can you say that Kasparov or Karpov never pulled off a so- called game of the century and use as a measuring stick between the 3? First of all in regards to the Donald Byrne vs Fischer game that you're talking about, yes it was a brilliant game and impressive for his age but it was one guy (maybe Golembek) that saw the game and dubbed it as such and the term stuck. You take Kasparov's pre Championship career and Kasparov vs Anderson Tilburg 1981 can easily be put on the same level as Fischer's win over Byrne if u ask me,which by Kasparov's own admissions was the best in his career for a long time. And please let's not forget Kasparov's famous "octopus game" in their first match WCC 1984 against Karpov,that's probably one of the most well known game in all of chess...And Karpov at a very early age had the famous attacking game against Gik which have been reprinted in tactical books the world over and is a model game for destroying the Sicilian Dragon as his game against Korchnoi(another game that was talked about the world over!)in their famous 1974 match where he brilliantly destroyed Korchnoi's Dragon and picked up the top brilliancy prize to boot!Karpov in these two games looks like a refined Tal... His games in 1971 against Hort with White and 1974 against Unzicker with white are also sheer Masterpieces. And Fischer for the record didn't turn out brilliancy prizes at every tournament he went too either, as a matter of fact I'm sure Kasparov and especially Alekhine trumps him in that department by a wide margin! I think you're wrong to try and take that one game and make claims about Fischer being the better player. Personally I don't think Fischer wanted any parts of Karpov,he knew what he was up against.He had more than enough chances to defend his title and under very reasonable circumstances and didn't do it. That's his fault.Karpov is a true Champion!|
|Dec-14-15|| ||WDenayer: What I meant to say is that I did not understand these games. It was only later, when Timman provided long and extremely detailed analyses of the games in Schaakbulletin that I got it: many, many moves that had the sole purpose of creating and then exploiting a slight weakened square – it turned out to be important 25 moves later on. Unbelievable. The chess that these guys played was better, more complex, more sophisticated than anything that had ever been seen before. And this was before computers could do anything.|
|Nov-29-16|| ||andrea volponi: 66...Ah1!!-Cf5 Rd5-Cg3 Ag2-Ce2 Rc4!-Cf4 Ac6=|
|May-01-17|| ||ZackyMuhammad: Knight vs Bishop|
|May-01-17|| ||offramp: A game that proves that the worst bishop is better than the best knight. Black could have drawn this very late in the game.|
|Jul-23-17|| ||andrea volponi: 55Nh5(!gm marin,ecc...) Bxf3 -Nxf6 Be4 -Kg5 Bd3 -Ng4(!gm marin) Bf1 -Ne5 Bh3 -Kg6! Ke6 -Nc6 Kd6 -Na5 Ke6!!(Ke7 marin,dvoretsky) -Nb7 Ke7 -Nc5 Bc8 -Kg7 Bf5 -Nxa6 Bd3 -Nb8 Be4 -Nc6+ Kd7 -Ne5+Ke7 -Ng4 Ke6 -Ne3 Bd3 -Kh6 Kf6 -Nxd5+ Kf5 -Nc3 Kf6 -a4 bxa4 -Nxa4 draw tablebase .|
|Mar-03-18|| ||AgentX: After deep analysis, and consulting the Endgame Manual, I think 55.Nh5 wins, following 55...Bxf3 56.Nxf6-Be4+ 57.Kg5-Bd3 and now 58.Ng4!!. The simple idea is to bring the knight over to the queenside (the c5-square), trying to win a6, and when the bishop is stuck defending the pawn from c8, white invades with the king.|
|Jun-18-18|| ||Omnipotent00001: 70. Nd6 is a mate in 20 moves.|
|Jul-26-19|| ||thegoodanarchist: < offramp: A game that proves that the worst bishop is better than the best knight. Black could have drawn this very late in the game.>|
OK, so the long-lost <offramp> says Black could have drawn. Based on a line by < andrea volponi>?
I don't know.
I can tell you this - Karpov played an exquisitely subtle and beautiful endgame for a non-silicon engine player. Obviously he studied Fischer's end game play, and may have drawn from it himself in this game, which was played at the highest level of chess - a WCC match.
This endgame is so sophisticated it is difficult for a non-master to really learn a lot from it the first go-round.
|Aug-01-19|| ||Chesgambit: 46.gxh4?? Bg6!!|
|Aug-22-19|| ||Chesgambit: notice Nh5 is draw and opps gxh6?? is bad move not losing move but now white knight is better than bishop|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·