|Sep-30-04|| ||Dillinger: Kasparov called 27...Qa5 the worst blunder of his career. |
|Dec-09-04|| ||offramp: This has got to be the worst game played between the pair of them. |
|Jun-12-05|| ||WMD: Karpov spent about five minutes rejecting 29.Be3 apparently fearing 29...Bg5 30.Nf6+ Kh6 31.Bxc5 Bxd2 32.Nxd7 Bxc1 33.Rxc1 Bxd7 was drawish due to opposite coloured bishops. |
Later Kasparov pointed out the winning continuation: 29.Be3 Bg5 30.Nf4! Qe5 31.Bd4 when 31...Qxe4 32.Rce1 Qf5 33.h4 forces the win of a piece.
|Jul-04-06|| ||RookFile: It's pretty silly to think that everybody in the audience at New York, home of some very strong players, probably saw the problem with
27....Qa5 before it was played.|
|Jul-22-06|| ||Honza Cervenka: Maybe that this game could have been another one piece of evidence for Fischer's belief that all K vs K games were fixed. Looking on the 27th move of black even I had a little deja vu feeling: Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 :-D|
|Jul-22-06|| ||euripides: <Honza> don't encourage him :-)|
I wonder what Kasparov missed.
It's hard to believe he totally missed 28 Nd5 as it's so thematic in these positions. But other explanations don't seem to work.
He might not have noticed that after 28...Qxd2 29 Nxf6+ Kg7 30 Bxd2 the f6 knight is protected. But even if it weren't, 30 Nxh5+ would win a pawn and the opposite-coloured bishops don't look enough for Black to hold.
It's easier for this sort of thing to happen if Qa5 is played several moves earlier, when Nd5 doesn't work yet, and something then changes in the position which makes it work.
Or perhaps he spent all his time thinking about 28 Bxd6 and forgot about other candidates.
|Jul-22-06|| ||Honza Cervenka: <It's hard to believe he totally missed 28 Nd5 as it's so thematic in these positions.> Yes, it is. It is even harder to believe it as Karpov's not the best continuation was still pretty bad thing for black. But in Spassky's case it was difficult to believe it as well. And in both cases it did actually happen, which can serve as a proof that even the world champions are only human beings and not flawless machines.:-)|
|Nov-29-06|| ||RookFile: Yeah well.... too bad Spassky played all these blunders, and Kasparov never did.... **cough**, **cough**.|
|Dec-05-06|| ||keypusher: <Yeah well.... too bad Spassky played all these blunders, and Kasparov never did.... **cough**, **cough**.>|
Too bad nobody ever suggested such a thing.
|May-16-08|| ||RookFile: You mean, other than Kasparov, in OMGP 4. Thanks for playing.|
|Nov-07-08|| ||PolishPentium: Hello, folks. Your resident duffer and analyst non-extraordinaire PP would like some clarification as to why Black could not play 29...cxd5, rather than the text move Bxd5.|
|Nov-08-08|| ||IraGraves: <PolishPentium>, I guess that didn't offer better drawing chances. White easily wins the material back since after 30. cxd5, not only is the black bishop hanging but the black queen is under attack by the rook on c1 and has to move.|
White should end up with a powerful passed pawn, e.g. 30. ... Qd4 31. dxe6 Re7 32. Qxd4 Bxd4 33. Bxd6 Rxe6 34. Rc7+ with a decisive edge.
|Jan-29-09|| ||Joshka: Wasn't Game 7 in NewYork 10/22/90?....I still have my ticket stub!:-)|
|Apr-17-09|| ||WhiteRook48: how is 27...Qa5 bad?|
|May-19-09|| ||Nimzonick: <WhiteRook> That d6 pawn had become somewhat of a battleground. After move 24, there were two attackers and two defenders, so it was solid. After the queen left, there was only one defender left. Karpov used one of his superb intermezzo combinations before actually taking the pawn, avoiding two annoying pins. The extra pawn ended up being decisive.|
As others have implied, Kasparov almost surely was aware he was weakening the pawn. Perhaps he thought the two pins would've been enough compensation after 28.Bxd6?, c5, winning the knight, but he overlooked 28.Nd5!
|Jun-30-09|| ||Knight13: Maybe 38...Kh6 is better? His king wouldn't be cut off from his pawns.|
|Sep-07-09|| ||A.G.T.HUTAHAYAN: It is difficult to find out game Robert James Fischer with Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasprov but rematch Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer 1992 after Fischer-Spassky 1972.|
|Jan-20-12|| ||tylerbritton5: <Knight13> Maybe 38...Kh6 is too passive. It does allow his King to stay connected to the pawns, but after something like 39. Rd4 White's Rooks are well placed and ready to double up on the 6th rank and pinned pawn (and soon after attack a7).|
|Mar-10-13|| ||Garech: Kasparov just could not beat Karpov with the King's Indian in this match; this was the only decisive game in 5 or 6 tries. Superb from Karpov!|
|Mar-11-13|| ||morfishine: <Garech> On your comment: < Kasparov just could not beat Karpov with the King's Indian in this match; this was the only decisive game in 5 or 6 tries. Superb from Karpov!> True, but try as he might, Karpov could not garner 1-win with his 'Zaitsev' vs Kasparov's <1.e4>; Granted, after his 'Zaitsev' was slaughtered in game 2, Karpov didn't give up on it [ie: fall back on his Caro Kann], but instead began aggressively playing <c5>; Although he got some promising positions, he was unable to convert; To me, this was the critical lacking: Karpov's inability to convert one Black win with this carefully prepared defense|
|Mar-23-13|| ||hoodrobin: Karpov is here the best positional player (15.Ng5!). Kasparov comments are always pro domo sua.|
|Mar-24-13|| ||beatgiant: <WMD>
<Later Kasparov pointed out the winning continuation: 29.Be3 Bg5 30.Nf4! Qe5 31.Bd4>
Can't Black at least escape immediate disaster with 29. Be3 Bg5 30. Nf4 <Bxf4> 31. Rxf4 Qa3? What am I missing?