|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-11-02 | | Sudipto: good Stalemate attempt! |
|
Aug-15-02
 | | Sneaky: Yes, that is good. If White had one more pawn on f4 it really would have been a draw. |
|
| Apr-06-04 | | fred lennox: This is Kasporav only victory against Karpov with the Petrov and I don't believe Karpov lost it in the opening. Perhaps 22 Qc3 is a possiblity, threatening e6. |
|
| Apr-06-04 | | Kenkaku: Perhaps a good stalemate attempt in a game against a normal opponent, but against a GM they're really no more than spite checks. |
|
| Apr-06-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Well, it did work against GM Matulovic. Poor guy, one blunder and he fell to a funny stalemate. Matulovic vs Suttles, 1970 |
|
| Apr-08-04 | | fred lennox: Since white won my last sentence was a bit of a no brainer. The funny stalemate pointed out by Benjamin Lau makes it a nice one. |
|
Oct-31-04
 | | offramp: "I gave him 48 free chess lessons." - Karpov. |
|
| Oct-31-04 | | Spassky69: <offramp> For some reason that quote makes alot of sense and touches me. |
|
| May-08-06 | | Confuse: perhaps karpov, unable to have the legacy passed onto him by fischer, saw it as his personal duty to create the next great player, saw the potential in kasparov and instead of winning quickly slowly drew out the championship to teach kasparov rather then crush him. just a crazy theory of course : p |
|
| Nov-17-06 | | thegoodanarchist: This is a beautiful attacking game by Garry. He only wins a pawn, but converts that extra pawn into a second, and then a win. And the first pawn win was a nice little tactic, not too difficult for us lesser players to understand. |
|
| Mar-04-07 | | gauer: White needs the vanishing spell to make things work here, but what are those magic words again? "Abracadabra"?! "Disappear"!? White on move, checkmates within five
click for larger view
A hint is to count how many decoys are to be shot from this lake filled of inactivity of the opposing armada. "Opposites attract" is another theme seen with this heavy equipment...
Composition by Kremer, Positional Chess Handbook, ch 1. |
|
| Apr-08-07 | | Fisheremon: Seemingly a game between two amateur players who don't know the nuances of Petroff defense: Once played 6...Nc6 he should bear in mind the possibility Nb4 the move could be played twice (8...Nb4!?, 10...Nb4!?), or 10.h3?! should be credited as amateur's one, perhaps in order to protect Bg4? (10.cxd5!?). So far a route Nc6-a5-c6 wasting time (11...a6!?) and a series of "no idea" moves 12...Be6?! (planning Bc4?), 14...a6?! (planning b5, but Black had no time to play that move), so after 15...Qd7?! Whit got a solid advantage. 20...c6?! (it makes sense to sac this pawn to activate pieces 20...Qe6!? 23...Bf8?! (23...Bf6!?)
31...Qc7? an amateur's blunder cos' it led to a lost rook ending (certainly it could be normal if he didn't know rook ending theory!?). |
|
| Apr-08-07 | | Aseem: <Seemingly a game between two amateur players who don't know the nuances of Petroff defense:> And who on earth are you??? who refers to Kasparov and Karpov as amateurs |
|
| Apr-08-07 | | Fisheremon: <Aseem: <Seemingly a game between two amateur players who don't know the nuances of Petroff defense:> And who on earth are you??? who refers to Kasparov and Karpov as amateurs> At that time there were different stories about physical and psychological exhaustion, especially from Karpov. Now I've had some time to look back at the thing from the chess art itself (you could see my detailed analysis of the games, especially after 27 game). I could be convinced that in the interval 28-48 games those were not Karpov and Kasparov, cos' a lot of bad moves and missing chances from both. Kasparov might be right claiming that he could win the marathon. I could be convinced it were the case within these 21 tedious games, say if the score were 4-0, cos' he's physically stronger, but he had a fear to lose the last game! Karpov was punished for a series of agreed GM draws. Fischer was perhaps right in fighting against draw death, but not with unlimited matches. |
|
| Apr-24-07 | | soughzin: Knowing the trendy move Nb4 doesn't somehow grant you all encompassing knowledge of the Petroff. They were pure book through 14 so I doubt they were bumbling around without a plan just making random amateur moves. But I agree that Karpov is a bit overrated. Some list him as greatest of all time but I think he's more like 5th best so I doubt he knew his Rook endings. |
|
Apr-24-07
 | | plang: "but I think he's more like 5th best so I doubt he knew his Rook endings." Well if you think he is 5th best that is your opinion but I think most people feel that "knew his rook endings" !?! |
|
| May-26-07 | | Helios727: I think 33. -, exd5 would have been much better than the move played. Qxe5 lost a pawn for no compensation. |
|
| Jun-04-07 | | Helios727: Oops. 33. -, exd5 is met by 34. Qe8#, so I was wrong. |
|
| Jun-04-07 | | chess61: <soughzin> Karpov is not overrated. He is at least number 2 (overall in chess history) in the opinion of many. And had he won his first match against Kasparov, he would have certainly been in an excellent position to be number 1. Unlike Fischer (who is a genius, no doubt), Karpov was a very active player with the best tournament record. Overrated? I don’t think so. |
|
| Jun-04-07 | | soughzin: Did no one realize I was joking? Karpov still never learned the two bishops mate though ; ) |
|
| Oct-16-07 | | PAWNTOEFOUR: smmfh@y'all............i have no further comment |
|
| Oct-16-07 | | clma55: Karpov was one of the best ever players..You learn analyzing his games! He reigned about 15 years and only Kasparov -the best ever in my opinion- was able to beat him. And last but not least he was not the kind of players that hidden himself behind the title asking for crazy conditions to expose it. |
|
| Mar-13-08 | | hedgeh0g: In my opinion, Karpov is one of the strongest positional players ever, but his weakness is the occasional tactical oversight. Many of his losses to Kasparov (such as this one) have been due to being tactically outplayed, although he has been positionally hammered on several occasions. |
|
| Apr-11-08 | | Knight13: But still come on... You gotta learn something from Karpov cutting White's king off in the endgame. That's really nice attempt, deserves lots of credit on his part. |
|
| Aug-05-08 | | acirce: This is the 48th and last game before the 1984/85 Kasparov-Karpov match was halted. Kasparov's book on his first two matches against Karpov is soon to be published. In New In Chess 2008/5 his complete notes from the book on this game are published. Very, very interesting. Incidentally, he calls it not just <his> best game of the entire match, but <the> best, when the play of both players are taken into account. <It was full of instructive moments, of clashes between attack and defence. In all its phases there was a tense, interesting struggle, without blunders such as those that were the cause of my defeats. It is hard to find a move by Karpov which definitely deserves a question mark, and it is well known that the quality of a win is best judged by the standard of play by the loser and the number of interesting ideas demonstrated by the winner (by these criteria the second best game was the 32nd [ Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984 ]).> So much for the popular theory, so often presented as established and indisputable fact, that Karpov was "collapsing" and could no longer play at anything like his normal standard. Not just has Karpov always denied it, Kasparov certainly does not believe in it either. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 23.Bxg6