|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Aug-22-04 |
| BenReilly: Fischer said that Kasparov spent too much time to make the only move that he had (10. d3). |
 |
| Nov-14-04 |
| Airlock: I thought that Fischer said that all the moves of all the games were fixed. |
|
| Dec-20-04 |
| ruylopez900: A neat mate threat to end it. Just two questions.
I'm having trouble finding amazing play for the pawn after 11.cxd5. pawns undoubled, up a pawn, Ne4 can be played and e3 is a very weak pawn. Secondly, 22...Nc2 and 23...Nc2 both look good, winning material. What's wrong with it? (Attacking the queen doesn't help because upon capturing the other major piece the queen is protect again.) Thanks. |
|
| Dec-20-04 |
| Minor Piece Activity: There is nothing wrong with 11. cxd5, which is also (surprise!) theory. ;) 11...Nxd5 12. Ne4 f5! (13. c4 Ndb4 14. Nc3 Qf6 15. Bb2 f4!) is dynamic equality. 22...Nc2 23. Qc3! with a perpetual if white takes the rook-> Karpov wanted much more than that. You are right, I think, about 23...Nc2! though. It does win I think. The reason Karpov did not take it I think is because of 23. Qb2(!) which leads to a very dangerous attack. |
|
| Dec-20-04 |
| Minor Piece Activity: This is a real tactics rich defense with the knights pretty much going crazy. =) It might not be the defense for you if you don’t play very actively with your knights. Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987 is a more famous example of this defense. |
|
| Dec-20-04 |
| Minor Piece Activity: Oops obviously I meant if *black* takes the rook. =) The perpetual is like 9 moves deep. I wonder if Karpov knew just by instinct that it was a perpetual or if he calculated that far. |
|
| Dec-21-04 |
| ruylopez900: Alright, thanks again <Minor Piece> |
|
| Dec-21-04 |
| gambeteer: AdrianP: ... perhaps, something along the lines of this simul game Kasparov vs Rao, 1989 a murderous 5 pawn K-side pawn storm...
Basically in that game white has 2 ideas: play on a possible weakness on b7 (which is easily defended) and a pawn storm on the kingside. If black is moving his pieces without any particular plan, this is bound to happen. So I suggest a center break with d5 at move 14 for black. I wonder what Kasparov would have played against that move? I don't have a board with me (at work there's no room for that) but I tend to set up this position later at home and analyse it. Should be interesting... If anybody has comments on this. Please feel free to respond. After all this only my second post... |
|
Feb-10-05
 |
| acirce: <Sometimes top-ranking grandmasters play strong moves which they themselves find hard to explain. Furthermore it is virtually impossible to prove even in post-mortem analysis that these moves are objectively strongest. Despite this, they help to solve the problems in the particular context of the game. They leave their imprint on the whole of the subsequent struggle; they give it its essential character. By detecting such moments in games by top players, you can dramatically increase your understanding of chess. One example is the second game of the fourth Kasparov-Karpov World Championship match, Seville 1987. After the well-known opening moves 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 Bb4
5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O e4 7.Ng5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Re8 9.f3, Karpov employed a novelty: 9..e3!? What is White's best response? The task that faces him is exceptionally complex. Kasparov found an outstandingly good solution, clearly the best solution to any opening problem in the entire match: 10.d3! d5 11.Qb3!! Such moves are often conceived not in home analysis but over-the-board, under strong emotional pressure. Many commentators could not understand why Karpov never repeated his novelty after winning the game. The explanation is simple: Kasparov refuted the novelty over the board - his 11.Qb3 is very powerful. I was Kasparov's second in that match, and I can definitely assure you of this.> -- Sergei Dolmatov in Dvoretsky/Yusupov: "Opening Preparation" |
|
| Oct-08-05 |
| ConfusedPatzer: I don't think anyone would've told Kasparov about the clock... He's a great player but he's an A hole |
|
| Oct-08-05 |
| Kangaroo: Novelty? - Look at this game played in 1964!
Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1964
First moves: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 O-O 5.a3 Bxc3 6.bxc3 e4 7.Nh3 Re8 8.O-O d6 9.Nf4 b6 10.f3 e3 11.d3
- they all were known to both Kasparov and Karpov. |
|
| Oct-08-05 |
| AlexanderMorphy: wow, i can't believe it...Kasparov actually get's outplayed tactically...doesn't happen very often does it? |
|
| Mar-19-06 |
| alexandrovm: <AlexanderMorphy: wow, i can't believe it...Kasparov actually get's outplayed tactically...doesn't happen very often does it?> Karpov was very strong at that time. Is this the famous game where Kasparov forgot to push the clock on move 26 having a few minutes left? |
|
| Mar-19-06 |
| Jim Bartle: Is this the last game Karpov won with black against Kasparov? |
|
| Mar-19-06 |
| Jim Bartle: (Why think when you can look it up?)
Answering my own question, no, Karpov also won game 16 of this match with black. His last against Kasparov unless you count a rapid in 2002. |
|
| Mar-19-06 |
| alexandrovm: <Jim Bartle: (Why think when you can look it up?) Answering my own question, no, Karpov also won game 16 of this match with black. His last against Kasparov unless you count a rapid in 2002.> lol! thanks for the info anyway... |
|
| Jun-25-06 |
| TommyC: Kangaroo - it's still a novely as the position is different. Otherwise there could be no novelties at all. |
|
| Feb-08-08 |
| HOTDOG: Kasparov was in zeitnot,and 23...Nf5!? was a psychological move,Kasparov had obviously analyzed only 23...Nc2 and after 23...Nf5 he had to spend more time on the clock |
|
| Mar-07-08 |
| Tomlinsky: Karpov: "I recall that Kasparov's use of the English Opening in this match was unexpected for me. However, strange as it may seem, it was I who managed to produce a surprise at the start. In any case, in the present game my opponent thought for over one and a half hours over his tenth move! It is interesting that the novelty, which had such an effect on Kasparov, was prepared by me as far back as the end of the 70's for my match in Baguio. But at that time it had remained unused.
click for larger view9...e3!?
It was precisely this move, suggested in his day by my long time second, Igor Zaitsev, that plunged my opponent into seep thought. Previously Black had automatically taken on f3; Incidentally, I had played this in the fourth game of the match." "In principle, the point of the thrust e4-e3 lies in upsetting the harmonious development of White's pieces, driving a wedge into his position. Though this idea is not original, I was convinced it had not been played before in the present situation. But how surprised I was one day, when, upon opening the Chess in the USSR magazine, I saw the game Berndt - Seitz, played nearly ten years before the duel in Seville." |
|
Mar-16-08
 |
| whiskeyrebel: This is the first game in Karpov's book on the English opening, which I think I learned quite a bit from. |
|
May-29-08
 |
| Cinco: <Sometimes top-ranking grandmasters play strong moves which they themselves find hard to explain. Furthermore it is virtually impossible to prove even in post-mortem analysis that these moves are objectively strongest. Despite this, they help to solve the problems in the particular context of the game. They leave their imprint on the whole of the subsequent struggle; they give it its essential character. By detecting such moments in games by top players, you can dramatically increase your understanding of chess.
One example is the second game of the fourth Kasparov-Karpov World Championship match, Seville 1987. After the well-known opening moves 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 Bb4 5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O e4 7.Ng5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Re8 9.f3, Karpov employed a novelty: 9..e3!? What is White's best response? The task that faces him is exceptionally complex. Kasparov found an outstandingly good solution, clearly the best solution to any opening problem in the entire match: 10.d3! d5 11.Qb3!! Such moves are often conceived not in home analysis but over-the-board, under strong emotional pressure. Many commentators could not understand why Karpov never repeated his novelty after winning the game. The explanation is simple: Kasparov refuted the novelty over the board - his 11.Qb3 is very powerful. I was Kasparov's second in that match, and I can definitely assure you of this. -- Sergei Dolmatov in Dvoretsky/Yusupov: "Opening Preparation"> Karpov's side of the story: "After 9. f3, I played 9…e3, which leads to absolutely unusual complications with a lot of variations. And, actually, nobody repeated this variation after, even me. But we spent a lot of hours analyzing the position, and we couldn’t make a clear decision who was better after 9…e3." |
|
| Sep-21-08 |
| Woody Wood Pusher: Great game, GK finding d3! and Qb3! at the board was impressive stuff, but that ultimately just makes the victory even sweeter when your opponent plays at such a high level. The AK-GK matches were the best of all time. |
|
Jun-29-09
 |
| Knight13: 18. Bxf6 wow giving up the powerful bishop for that knight on f6 which isn't really doing anything! Definitely missing something! |
|
| Aug-20-09 |
| Colonel Mortimer: That knight was coming to e4 and then to the outpost at d2 - game over. Kasparov's move prevented this while allowing his own knight which really isn't doing anything to take up a position on e4 where it blocks the rook from protecting its own pawn at e3; resulting in its eventual capture and countering any threats down the e file |
|
| Sep-26-09 |
| Astardis: I'd just love to see a video of Kasparov's reaction after e3. His rich facial expressions are so amusing. I imagine it something like wide opened eyes followed by some head shaking with a couple of doubtful looks at his opponent in between. Certainly his hand approaching the board several times in order to make a move that would easily refute such a bad move. Then slowly getting into thinking that it might not at all be such a bad move. More head shaking to come during the next 90 minutes, for sure :) |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
