< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Jun-20-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @PawnJockey
I had Fritz 12 running for a little while and it liked black before 19...bxa4. I don't think 19...bxa4 is the sort of move Black wants to play here - it gives white the c4 square?! - and playing down the b-file sounds too slow. White's potential k-side attack can be lethal. I guess 19...bxa4 20. exf5 Rxe3 21. fxe3 Bxd5 22. e4 Bc6 is possible. Fritz calls this equal
Kasparov doesn't mention 19...bxa4 in his notes. Karpov played 19...Qd7 in a later game. 19...c4 has also been suggested. "The Ruy Lopez: a Guide for Black" by Johnson and Johannessen (Gambit 2007) didn't consider 19...bxa4 either.
It seems academic anyway because white has moved away from 18. Rae3. Yes, we are still in opening theory at move 18 in this line. 18. Nh2 Nf6 19. Rf3 has been played a lot.
As for understanding this position? Well, I think these main Ziatsevs are a mess! Perfectly suited to the great Ks but not for us mere mortals. Also, I haven't seen any time when a GM has played bxa4 in these lines.
I hope this helps in some way.
|Jul-21-11|| ||ycpl: What do you do after 18... fxe4?|
|Aug-11-11|| ||positionalgenius: Ray keene in <Battle of the titans> : <<"Just as an illustration of how dangerous it is to snatch the central pawn,>> 19...fxe4 20.Nxe4 Nbxd5 21.Nxf6+ Nxf6 22.Rxe8 Nxe8 23.Qd3 Nf6 24.Ng4 <<with a dreadful attack since his queen will penetrate to H7. I never tire of stressing in this and similar variations of the ruy lopez that if white can succeed in blasting open a bath for his king's bishop he will often win>>>|
|Aug-17-11|| ||M3ANDROS: Actually, according to Kasparov himself, he states that move, 30. Nxh6, didn't take much for him to consider or analyze. "I didn't calculate," he says.|
Consider this great YouTube video, around 8:25:
|Dec-25-11|| ||Domdaniel: < "I didn't calculate," he says.>
He's exaggerating. Or simplifying, maybe even boasting a little, to give the impression of 'natural' genius. Of course he calculated: you don't play such moves on a whim, or on 'feel' alone. Not even if you're Kasparov.|
In video of the match you can see him calculating, on this as on later moves. He'd seen a stupendous, dazzling array of tactics -- not a single forcing line, but a whole range of different ones, starting with the truly beautiful stuff if Black takes the Knight on its first visit to h6: 26.Nxh6! Rxh6 27.Nxd6 ... and he had winning attacks prepared for 27...Qd7, 27...Qh5, even 27...Qxe1+.
Okay, so he hadn't seen *everything* through to a win, and there was intuition involved in playing 26.Nxh6. But he didn't just blitz it out because it looked nice. He'd seen deeply into the position.
His slight slip-up near the end, playing the winning Bxg6+ rather than the crushing Rxg6, is trivial, and to criticize Kasparov for 'missing a mate' is just sad. Yes, Rxg6 is a pretty win and might have given the game the classic status it deserves. Mate in 3 or 4, depending which desperado lines Black plays - one nice sequence is 37.Rxg6 Ne7 38.Rxe7 b1(Q) 39.Ng5+ Kh8 40.Rh7#. Of course 39.Bxb1 also mates, but letting Black promote is more pleasing.
Of course 37.Bxg6+ is also a pretty trivial win. He'd done the heavy lifting by then. I remember once being congratulated by an IM for winning a game with a sacrifice. "Oh", I moaned, "I should have won quicker". "Yes", he replied, "You had a mate in four and you played a mate in six. So what?"
This K-vs-K epic was a key game in arguably the last great title match in history: later events have been one-sided or too short. The reason Kasparov's opening prep became legendary is that he honed it in long matches against a very dangerous rival -- after 20+ games, a player might have to use their third-choice defence if the others were looking suspect. It doesn't happen in 12-game matches.
This is a great game between two of the strongest players ever, at a crunch moment in their long duel. If we're incredibly lucky, Anand and Gelfand might come up with something half as good.
|Dec-26-11|| ||King Death: < Domdaniel: < "I didn't calculate," he says.> He's exaggerating. Or simplifying, maybe even boasting a little, to give the impression of 'natural' genius...>|
The flip side of this claim by Gazza is the annotator who writes that they've seen everything in a brilliant attack. Maybe one advantage of computers being out there now is that some of those players can't BS their way through the public any more.
|Dec-26-11|| ||SChesshevsky: I'm guessing Kasparov did plenty of calculating on 26.Nxh6 as he knew he probably had a winning position if he could keep tempo and open some lines.|
I always thought Kasparov's greatest gift was the ability to calculate very deeply and accurately so maybe by 30. Nxh6 it was a line he already saw as a win and just had to double check.
|Dec-26-11|| ||Domdaniel: <King Death> I agree. Though I honestly can't say which is worse: old-style annotation by result, or engine-assisted annotation by centipawns.|
<SChesshevsky> Yes, and that's pretty much what Karpov thought afterwards: that 25...Qe8 was a losing move, and White was winning after 26.Nxh6. Karpov still found a tough defence, but the sheer momentum of Kasparov's attack was irresistible. I love the calm 31.Kh2 in the middle of it -- knowing when to make such moves is the mark of a genius.
|Dec-26-11|| ||Penguincw: 36.Bxf5+ is smart. Grab an extra free bishop while the queen still can't be saved.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||Domdaniel: Going through Kasparov's analysis (on the video version) is an amazing experience, especially without using an engine.|
At several points he flashed out a quick sequence of moves, said "This wins" and moved on. Each time I'd reconstruct the sequence, find the 'final' position, and have to *work* for several minutes to see a win. With the final position on a board in front of me -- a position Kasparov had visualized and evaluated six or eight moves earlier...
|Jan-06-12|| ||King Death: <Domdaniel> With White to move before 30.Kh2, just like many other positions this could be given as a problem, but Kasparov visualizing the idea is the really tough part even for a player in his class. He was brilliant in complicated positions, in the same class as Tal and Korchnoi.|
|Feb-09-12|| ||Diademas: Great coverage of the match and analyses on this game by Kasparov here.
|Jul-28-12|| ||Conrad93: 34. Nf7+ Qxf7 35. Qxh6+ Bh7 36. Rxa8 Ne7 37. Rxf8+ Ng8 38. Rxg8+ Qxg8 39. Qxh7#.|
Seems much quicker. I know you can't expect player to see this kind of stuff, but nonetheless Kasparov is famous for his calculating abilities.
|Apr-21-13|| ||wilbeerthoven: Why not 11.Cg5!... ??|
|Apr-21-13|| ||Phony Benoni: <wilbeerthoven>: <11.g5>:|
click for larger view
is an often played move that can lead to a quick draw. Black has no better answer than <11...f8>, then White has nothing better than moving back with <12.f3>. There are literally dozens of games in the database where the players just repeat these moves and quickly agree to a draw.
The idea can also be used as a device to play a few extra moves without thinking in order to save time on the clock.
On the other hand, not playing <11.g5>, as Kasparov does here, can be considered a declaration that White is playing for a win.
|Apr-28-13|| ||wilbeerthoven: Ok 12.Nf3 is the right choice at top level, but really 12.f4 isn't playable for the rest of us?|
|Apr-29-13|| ||mistreaver: <wilbeerthoven: Ok 12.Nf3 is the right choice at top level, but really 12.f4 isn't playable for the rest of us?>
Kasparov in his books says the following:
<12.f4, including the f-pawn in the attack, encounters a clever tactical rejoinder - 12... exf4 13 Bxf4 Na5 14 Bc2 Nd5>
And also, the natural 12... h6 doesn't look that bad at all, say 13 Nf3 Re8 and black is fine.
|Jul-03-13|| ||Everett: We can credit Kasparov with making Karpov play this double-edged system as Black. IMHO this is one of the reasons why Karpov became even a bigger beast after losing the title, since he started to play with more bite as Black. Perhaps he knew he could not afford to play solid/passive positions vs Kasparov.|
And the fact is, in many of these Zaitsev Ruy games, he was actually alright out of the opening, but boy were the positions complex. Kasparov seemed to handle them better at crucial times, even though he was in hot water in a couple of them through the years, including the 1990 match.
That said, I wonder why Karpov never played the Breyer-like <13.Nb8> as be did here Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985 Maybe his team saw something in that line that put them off of it.
|Jul-04-13|| ||Everett: <chessenthus: <black will lose more quickly with 29. Kg8
after 29...kg8 30.Nf6+ Nxf6 31 Nh6+ Kh7 32. Nf7#>|
A bit of a calculation mistake on yur side....Black cant play 31...Kh7 as that square is controlled by the bishop on b1.
And if he plays 31..Kh8 32.Nf7 is not checkmate.
I feel that 29..Kg8 was a better move.>
indeed, 29..Kg8 looks like a draw to the computers.
|Jul-30-13|| ||ynaamad: <Everett> indeed, 29..Kg8 looks like a draw to the computers.|
Are you sure? 30. Kh2 clears the way for the deadly Ng5, which black can't stop without sacrificing an insurmountable amount of material.
|Jul-30-13|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: 29...Kg8 30. Kh2!
"...is decisive - Black is in a kind of zugzwang."
Garry Kasparov - On Modern Chess, Part Four (p.248)
|Sep-08-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: This is a beautiful win by the second greatest chess player of all time.|
|Sep-21-13|| ||Eduardo Leon: I noticed a comment from long ago with an engine analysis that says that <34.f7+> is a mate in 6. Would the complete line be <34.f7+ xf7 35.xh6+ h7 36.xf8+ xf8 37.xh7 (any) 38.(wherever)+ h7 39.xh7#>?|
|Nov-11-13|| ||Zhbugnoimt: <thegoodanarchist>: good point. Fischer was better.|
The engine gives 12.Ng5! Re7 13.Nxf7! Rxf7 14.Bxf7+ Kxf7 15.d5! Nb8 16.Nf1 Nbd7 17.Bg5 Be7 +0.54. that would be + over =
|Nov-11-13|| ||Zhbugnoimt: 34.Nf7+! Qxf7 35.Qxh6+ Bh7 36.Rxa8 and mate in 3.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·