|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-09-05 | | azaris: The very first game of the match. Kasparov and Adorjan had prepared 9. g5 Ng4 10. Be2 d5!. Karpov smelled a rat and sidestepped their home preparation with 9. gxh5, but Adorjan later had the chance to employ this line with great success. Schmittdiel vs Adorjan, 1984
Sznapik vs Adorjan, 1984 |
|
May-31-05
 | | offramp: The first 47 games of this match were played at the Hall of Columns, Moscow. The 48th game was played at the Hotel Sport because funds had run out and the match eventually had to be stopped. White took 2h 28' for the game, and Kasparov 2h 25'. |
|
May-31-05
| | offramp: [Event "K-K I. World Chess Ch, Moscow 1984-5"]
[Site "Moscow, Hall of Columns"]
[Date "1984.09.10"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Karpov, Anatoly "]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2705"]
[BlackElo "2715"]
[PlyCount "72"]
[EventDate "1984.09.09"]
|
|
Jul-28-05
| | offramp: What was the prize fund for this match, if any? |
|
| Oct-19-06 | | Hesam7: 19... Nc4
<This move set up a debate in the press centre. The old guard, Smyslov, Polugaevsky and Taimanov all felt that Black should have stored up energy with the preliminary 19... Rc8. The younger grandmasters, Yusupov and Dorfman, were unanimous in support of Kasparov's choice.> -- GM Keene |
|
| Mar-31-07 | | Ulhumbrus: 19...Rc8 improves the placing of a piece placed worse than the Ne5, the Rd8, but it also makes way for the piece placed worst, the Rh8. In the position reached after 19...Nc4 20 Nd2 if we place Black's Rd8 on c8 and Black's Qc7 on a5, Black has then 20 ...Nxb2! 21 Kxb2 Qb4+. |
|
| Apr-11-08 | | Knight13: Kasparov is very hard to crack in this Scheveningen defense, even with Keres attack, it seems. |
|
| Dec-01-08 | | DwayneMeller: The first game of the match against a 9 year World Champion...you'd think he'd win...this just shows how even being 12 years younger (less experienced) how much of a phenom Kasparov really is! |
|
| Oct-14-09 | | birthtimes: Kasparov was fortunate that he had a multitude working for him, such as Adorjan, and that they all took apart every single one of Karpov's games, thus finding new ways to confront him. Karpov would have killed Kasparov if their ages were reversed, it would have been no contest... |
|
| Jan-15-11 | | swr: <Kasparov was fortunate that he had a multitude working for him, such as Adorjan, and that they all took apart every single one of Karpov's games, thus finding new ways to confront him.> I don't think you'll find much support for your claim that Kasparov had a greater multitude supporting him than Karpov. |
|
| Jan-15-11 | | percyblakeney: <I don't think you'll find much support for your claim that Kasparov had a greater multitude supporting him than Karpov> Maybe as much support as for the claim that Karpov at 21 would have beaten Kasparov at 33 :-) |
|
| Aug-26-11 | | Ulhumbrus: 7 g4? disturbs White's King side pawns without necessity and starts an attack when it seems unlikely that White's advantage is great enough to justify this attack. 6...h6? disturbs Black's King side pawns without necessity and helps to justify the attack g4. 6...Nc6 7 g5 Nd7 8 Be3 Nb6 may be better One justification for 7 Be3 instead of 7 h4 is that it transposes into the sequence 7 Be3 h6 8 g4. The effect is that of playing g4 in reply to ...h6. With 7 Be3 White prepares to castle on the Queen side as quickly as possible. |
|
| Aug-26-11 | | goldenbear: <Ulhumbrus> You don't usually say stupid things, but that was a stupid post the whole way through. |
|
| Aug-27-11 | | Ulhumbrus: <goldenbear: <Ulhumbrus> You don't usually say stupid things, but that was a stupid post the whole way through.> The three parts of the message represent my present opinion, for which I have given reasons. My opinion is subject to change if I encounter cause to consider those reasons insufficient. However my opinion may also turn out to be right. This being so, you may wish to reconsider your opinion of what you take to be stupidity on the part of this message or on the part of other messages which I have sent. |
|
| Aug-27-11 | | Everett: <Ulhumbrus> I give you credit for questioning theory, and I say this with no irony or sarcasm. We as a whole have to make moves that make sense to us. Though this game may have accorded with Karpov's and Kasparov's way of playing, it may just not be your cup of tea. Though, the obvious take-away is that the above moves may not be "right" for you, but they are certainly not "wrong." The question marks you put on each player's 6th moves is a stretch. |
|
| Aug-27-11 | | DrMAL: <Ulhumbrus> Well, 6...h6 was not necessary but it does stop g5 and, as such, was probably best. Black needn't worry about some big K-side attack but he did not have to play into it with 8...h5?! either. Kasparov clearly wanted some sort of excitement. After both were committed to castling long, 11.Nxc6! would also have been strong to prevent black from doing so. Personally, I thought 15.Bg2 rather pointless especially after 14.Rg3, whatever. In any event, your post was not at all stupid, thanx for the ideas, cheers. |
|
| Aug-27-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: <DrMal>
not sure why you gave 8...h5 <?!> given it has been standard theory since the 80s. As pointed out by <azaris> in his post dated May-09-05, Adorjan employed the line with great success after working with Kasparov. The line 8...h5 9. g5 Ng4 10. Be2 was decommissioned by 10...d5! which won most important novelty in Informator 39. I remember first seeing the idea on a school trip to France where I picked up Europe d'Echecs, with a theory article on this by Adorjan! <Black is OK!> |
|
| Aug-27-11 | | DrMAL: <SWT> Good point, provided the weaker 9.g5 Ng4 10.Be2 is played. My notation came from what I wrote, that black did not have to play into white's attack (via stronger 9.gxh5). This gives some small advantage to white, whereas 8...d5 better equalizes. IMO, 8...h5 was not so great (perhaps dubious is too strong a criticism) in light of 8...d5 but I'm also sure Kasparov knew this anyway, it was clear to me he played this line hoping for some complications to maybe eek out a later advantage from. Although certainly a good move, I don't really see how (after 9.g5 Ng4 10.Ng4) 10...d5 is so award winning, it seems 10...Qb6 is also strong (if not even stronger), maybe 10...Be7 as well. Here are the two CG games well exemplifying 10...Qb6 Opening Explorer |
|
| Aug-27-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
yeah, taking on h5 was always the acid test. I don't think <Ulhumbrus> realises just how strong and good a theoretical reputation 6. g4 has had since Paul Keres first played it! I've heard it said that there is many a person who would rather enter the Scheveningen via the Taimanov (2...e6/4...Nc6) or Najdorf move order than the usual way simply to avoid the Keres Attack. White - being a spoil sport - has the English Attack waiting there instead. |
|
| Aug-27-11 | | Everett: Suba's games from the black side of the Keres Attack are worth checking out. |
|
| Aug-28-11 | | Ulhumbrus: <SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal> yeah, taking on h5 was always the acid test. I don't think <Ulhumbrus> realises just how strong and good a theoretical reputation 6. g4 has had since Paul Keres first played it!> The move has been played by former world champions Spassky (eg in the game Spassky vs Ribli, 1976 ), although Spassky has seemed to prefer to play it from the Black side, Fischer ( eg in the game Fischer vs Bukic, 1967 ), Karpov ( eg in the famous game Karpov vs Hort, 1971 ) and Kasparov ( eg in the game Kasparov vs Sax, 1989 as well. My present opinion, subject to change if I encounter reason to change it, is that the move 6 g4 is mistaken and that its reputation is undeserved, but that Black has not yet found the right answer to it. One alternative to 6...h6 is 6...Nc6 7 g5 Nd7 8 Be3 Nb6 when the N on b6 supports the advance ...d5 |
|
| Aug-28-11 | | DrMAL: <Ulhumbrus> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, at least it's not something related to how Karpov would have won if ages were reversed LMAO (new moron for IGNORE). I do think your <that the move 6 g4 is mistaken> is quite silly and not real likely to have much concurrence by anyone Master or above. I am not endorsing it as a super-powerful move it is not considered to be one anyway. But I would certainly not call it a mistake either, it is double-edged like any other sharpening move and it's statistical results indicate it is sound as such. |
|
| Aug-28-11 | | Everett: <Ulhumbrus> As I'm sure you know: Games Like N Padevsky vs Petrosian, 1965 |
|
| Aug-28-11 | | Ulhumbrus: <DrMAL: <Ulhumbrus> ...I do think your <that the move 6 g4 is mistaken> is quite silly...> The words may seem silly to you if you look at the words in isolation without the reason for them. That reason can be put in the form of the following question: The attack g4 begins a pawn attack against Black's King. Can White be said to possess, after the move 5...e6, a positional advantage that is great enough to justify an attack whose aim is as high as that of checkmating Black? If the answer to the question is no, the attack is unsound and can be forecast to fail. The words may turn out in the end to be wrong, and then again, they may not. But silly? I think not. |
|
| Aug-28-11 | | Ulhumbrus: <Everett: <Ulhumbrus> As I'm sure you know:
Games Like Games Like N Padevsky vs Petrosian, 1965> I have just taken a quick glance at the game. I suspect that Black's victory owes more to Petrosian's strength than to either player's choice of opening, but the game warrants looking at further. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
