< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
|Aug-29-05|| ||child of my tears: This is the game that got me back into chess one boring afternoon at the library when I stumbled across chessgames. I hadn't played in 10 years. It has a big place in my heart. If you can only bring negatives, please do not respond to my posts at all.|
|Nov-01-05|| ||svbabu: chessgames.com: <Will the rest of the game then be deleted? I guess it will - although it's very educational for people like me.... > Have no fear, we preserved the analysis in comments at the end of the game.|
I see the king is not getting mated in your analysis in comments (at the end). The g6 square is still an escape path for black king.
|Nov-01-05|| ||svbabu: I mean it could have been continued like this (after 28.Rxf7+): 28. ....Kg6 29.Ne5+ Kg5 30.Rg8+ Qg6 31. Rxg6+ Kh5 32.Rf5#|
|Nov-01-05|| ||Eric Xanthus: You are mistaken <svbabu>. There is a black pawn on g6.|
|Nov-04-05|| ||svbabu: Eric, Thanks for correcting, I was wrong!|
|Mar-12-06|| ||Fast Gun: "Kaspowerov" Garry does it yet again!!
It is difficult to understand how such a careful player like Anatoly Karpov could miss a move like 23.Qxd7:
It is reminiscent of his games against
Portisch in 1972 and Korchnoi in game 21 of the 1974 candidates final, where
Karpov overlooked a tactical threat that lead to his swift downfall:
I put this game into a weak computer and even it managed to avoid Karpov's blunder, while the all-seeing-Fritz came up with the universally accepted Rd6! although Rd7-c7 seems like an adequate reply and avoids a quick knock out.
How many times have we seen in Kasparov's games the move d5! where he opens up lines in the centre? Another GK hall mark is his subtle use
of the queen, for example 20.Qa4 and 22.Qg4, I like playing through his games they offer lots of instuction in how to open up lines of attack and there is just so much to learn from them:
|Nov-30-06|| ||sitzkrieg: <Ernest van der Sar: <child of my tears> Come on! What do you expect from Kasparov or any GM?? I think 80% of players >1700 rated would see the solution of this puzzle within a minute, after 22...Rcd8. I would almost call it an insult to Kasparov by calling this quite obvious move "a lovely tactical combo".>|
I think Keene called it an "unexpected, brilliant Queen sacrifice by Kasparov". Maybe he was rooting for Kasparov at the time.
|Nov-30-06|| ||unsound: <How many times have we seen in Kasparov's games the move d5!> That's not just Kasparov, that's a very standard theme in isolated queen's pawn positions. Although I wouldn't dispute that Kasparov played the attacking side of IQP positions brilliantly (and Karpov, usually, played the defending side brilliantly).|
|Mar-05-07|| ||larchmont: Great game, terrific discussion!
What *I* most remember about this game is of a different sort:
THE TV ANALYSTS AT THE TIME WERE FOOLED.
For the last several moves, AND EVEN AFTER 22, they all thought Karpov had it, and that it was a matter of time until Kasparov would resign.
And when the news of "resign" came, THEY ANNOUNCED IT WRONG!!
The lead analyst (I think it was Lyman) picked up the card, and said something like, "Well yes, here it is, Kasparov resigns."
And then he corrects himself: "No wait a minute, KARPOV resigns!!!!"
Momentarily he was shocked and confused. But after just a couple of seconds he realized what was going on, and he showed what the next moves would have been.
I've searched the web for any mentions of this remarkable thing -- that the expert analysts had the game wrong until the very end!!!
They knew that a resignation was coming -- but they had the wrong guy!!
I don't recall this happening any other time, ever.
Do any of YOU recall if you were surprised when KARPOV was the one who resigned, or were you really "getting it," despite the fact that the TV analysts weren't??
|Mar-05-07|| ||whatthefat: <larchmont>
Interesting story, thanks for that.
<I don't recall this happening any other time, ever.>
Very nearly the same thing happened in this famous game: R Byrne vs Fischer, 1963
|Mar-05-07|| ||larchmont: (Wow, you're fast!!!) :-)
I guess the main difference is that in this earlier game (Byrne-Fischer), nobody was making a fool of himself on >TV<!!!
From my web search I found that game 6 of Fischer-Spassky '72 (won by Fischer, Fischer vs Spassky, 1972) was also widely misunderstood until it was over, especially among Soviet grandmasters.
I don't know whether Lyman and the other TV analysts were getting it right or not.
|Mar-05-07|| ||King sacrifice: I don't think it's important to know exactly when Karpov resigned. GMs makes some "obvious" moves in "obvious" position!!!Just like Fischer vs Gligoric 1966. Fischer wrote in his book "My 60 memorable games" that at the end of game analysts still thought that "Gligoric has a rook for two pieces" becouse no one could believe that Gligoric continues to play without 2 pieces!!!|
|Mar-05-07|| ||larchmont: No offense to anyone, but......It amazes me that anyone would feel it doesn't matter when the game ended.|
|Mar-05-07|| ||MrPatzer: <larchmont: And when the news of "resign" came, THEY ANNOUNCED IT WRONG!! The lead analyst (I think it was Lyman) picked up the card, and said something like, "Well yes, here it is, Kasparov resigns."> |
I'm looking at the board after 25.Be4+ and I wonder why anyone would think that Kasparov would be the one resigning. Maybe because the player with the only queen on the board isn't supposed to lose? Not a very sophisticated way of looking at it.
On the other hand, I just missed today's "easy" Monday puzzle, so what do I know?
|Mar-05-07|| ||RookFile: Well, I watched this on TV too. I vaguely remember this game. It might be the case that Shelby Lyman misspoke. |
The thing to understand is, although Lyman always deferred to people like Edmar Mednis, Lyman was a strong 2300 player himself.
The other thing was, they had access to HiTech during this match. Granted, it's not Fritz, but that thing was 2400 strength. HiTech would have understood, even if everybody else had it wrong.
|Mar-05-07|| ||larchmont: To MrPatzer:
They had become locked into how it had looked from the EARLIER positions.....Karpov's position had looked stronger, and seemed to be getting ever stronger (right?)....and the TV guys had already DECIDED that the game was basically over (in Karpov's favor). When people are viewing something in that kind of way, it can be hard to shake.
It wasn't just Lyman (or whoever the lead announcer was....I'm not 100% sure it was him but I think it was). There were at least 2 others in the studio, probably 3 or 4 others. And as I remember it, the others were higher-level players than him -- and they ALL had the same view: They all thought Kasparov's position was still hopeless, until the very end.
|Jun-11-07|| ||fm avari viraf: How come Karpov could not see this lovely combo & allowed Gary to finish off in great style?|
|Nov-24-07|| ||MarioBalibrera: I would just like to bring everyone's attention to the following abomination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTl_...|
Note that this episode is vastly superior to its predecessors. ;-)
|Mar-30-08|| ||sallom89: mind blowing... great tactical combo!|
|Jun-24-08|| ||dTal: <Badmojo: Sure worked for "coffeehouse" Lasker and Tal.>|
Calling the two of the greatest players in history (including the greatest tactician that ever lived) coffehouse players just shows your complete ignorance of the game.
|Jun-24-08|| ||keypusher: <dTal: <Badmojo: Sure worked for "coffeehouse" Lasker and Tal.>|
Calling the two of the greatest players in history (including the greatest tactician that ever lived) coffehouse players just shows your complete ignorance of the game.>
It was Bobby Fischer who famously said that Lasker was a coffeehouse player...do you think Bobby Fischer was completely ignorant of chess? :-)
As for Tal, well, Tal himself said the difference between him and Lasker was that Lasker was objectively lost in half his games, while he, Tal, was objectively lost in all his games!
|Jun-24-08|| ||wanabe2000: <keypusher> Absolutly! Kasparov-Karpov was +30-23=124. No one can rely on "blunders" for a relativly even score.|
|Jun-24-08|| ||sitzkrieg: Fischer vs Spassky, 1972|
is game 6
<From my web search I found that game 6 of Fischer-Spassky '72 (won by Fischer, Fischer vs Spassky, 1972) was also widely misunderstood until it was over, especially among Soviet grandmasters.>
is the wrong link?
But I can't see how anyone could think Spassky was winning that game.
|Jun-28-08|| ||dTal: <keypusher>, Tal had a quirky and self deprecating sense of humour, and he had many such ironic comments. Since you bring up quotes, many outstanding players regarded Tal as one of the few true geniuses of the game. Botvinnik once said that if Tal had seriously studied Chess literature, nobody could have beaten him. Euwe, who had crossed swords with Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca and Lasker said he had never seen such a genius as Tal. Kasparov says Tal is the only player who he ever met that "saw through" combinations, he didnt appear to consciously calculate them, and hundres of amazing variations were constantly whirling around in his head.|
|Mar-12-09|| ||E41AND14E: Yes, these games were commented on by Shelby Lyman, Edmar Mednis, and Jimmy Sherwin in a PBS show that covered the match live. The moves came over the teletype from, I think, Jonathan Tisdale. I don't remember Lyman saying Kaspy resigned, but I do remember after 23. Qxd7, Lyman saying, "Something is happening here." After the combo was played out and Karpov resigned, Lyman and Sherwin admitted they were embarrassed that they hadn't seen Qxd7. But when Lyman asked Mednis, "And how are you?" Mednis responded with a sheepish smile, "I'm fine!" |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·