|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-04-03 | | PinkPanther: Karpov must have been kicking himself after this one. |
|
| Aug-04-03 | | PVS: I would wager that Kasparov has given Karpov more cause to kick himself than all of his other opponents combined. |
|
| Apr-11-04 | | Jim Bartle: If I'm not mistaken, this is a draw for two reasons, right? Plus it uses the stalemate defense. Obviously it Karpov takes the rook it's stalemate. 115. Ke8 Rxf5 116. Nxf5 is a draw. Buy what happened is that Kasparov went to the arbiter and claimed a draw on the 50-move rule. |
|
| May-27-04 | | zb2cr: Kasparov could have actually claimed a draw a move earlier. The last pawn vanished with White's 63rd move. Thus, the 50-move draw could have been claimed
by Kasparov on move 113. |
|
| May-27-04 | | Jim Bartle: Was this game played in one session, or was there an adjournment? |
|
| Jun-19-04 | | kevin86: Normally,strange as it seems,three pieces do NOT beat a rook. Stalemate possibilities,as here,as well as the weakness of minor pieces (bishops can only command one color,knight have an odd move-and cannot gain or lose tempi) are hinderences to them. A rook,can make tempo moves and can command long files and ranks. |
|
| Jun-19-04 | | acirce: <kevin86> What if there are two bishops and one knight instead? That should win, right? |
|
| Jun-19-04 | | kevin86: Chances are better-but I think that the games are mostly drawn. With two knights it is easier to sac the rook for the bishop and the two knight cannot force mate. Two bishops in theory should win---but Three pieces vs a rook is a strange animal-since three pieces draw vs a queen and four pieces BEAT a queen-it seems logical that 3 pieces vs a rook should win---logic also dictates that a bumble bee cannot fly. |
|
| Jun-20-04 | | acirce: It seems it would be easier to dominate the rook with two bishops, and it it also never drawn even if the rook is sacrificed for one of the pieces, just as you say. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | AdrianP: Monokroussos remarks that this is the only game he has seen with this endgame material imbalance. I searched via the Endgame Explorer - it's the only one on www.chessgames.com as well. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | AdrianP: There are no examples of R v BBN in the chessgames database (according to the Endgame Explorer). I suspect, like <acirce>, that R v BBN should be a fairly simple win for the pieces (using "simple" in a very broad way - I doubt I'd be able to mate with B + N v K...). |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | arifattar: Has this game been analysed enough? Is there no win for white here with perfect play? |
|
| Apr-29-06 | | Jim Bartle: According to Inside Chess, this game was adjourned after 60 moves, and people couldn't find a win for Karpov in analysis. Still, he understandably wanted to make Kasparov suffer. |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | kevin86: A strange ending: Kasparov can claim a draw in one of three ways-depending on Karpov's move. If 115 ♔xc3 it is stalemate
If 115 ♔d1 ♖xc3 116 ♘xc3 two knight cannot force mate Or the 50 minute rule! |
|
Dec-02-06
 | | cu8sfan: <Or the 50 minute rule!> (-: That should be the 50 move rule. |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | Rocafella: Imagine if it was 50 minute rule, how fun would that be :P |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | aazqua: Two bishops and one knight would win I think. The problem with one bishop and two knights is that if black can trade the rook for the bishop the game is drawn. |
|
| Jul-06-07 | | sanyas: Instead of playing 113...♖a6, he should have claimed a draw by the 50 move rule. But I can understand Kasparov's motivation perfectly; Karpov was just getting ready to give mate, and then... a check. "Hmmph," says Karpov, "a spite check." So he plays his king up one square, confident that there are no more checks. Then Kasparov checks him again! After 114 moves, it must have been agony for Karpov. |
|
| Jul-06-07 | | RookFile: I don't blame Karpov for playing it out though. Karpov once lost defending Queen and Knight vs. Queen against Spassky. If anything, I think Kasparov's task here was harder than defending Queen and Knight vs. Queen. |
|
| Jul-06-07 | | gmgomes: <What if there are two bishops and one knight instead? That should win, right?>
Using Nalimov Endgame tablebase (http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=...), after white 94. Be8 it is a draw; then I replaced the N at d4 for a bishop and it found a forced win for white in 31 moves. |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | devinjc: why not 44...Rxg4 instead of h5. As it has been pointed out, white cannot win with two knights and a king. This seems rather elementary for Kasparov to miss it; unless he thought that he could pressure Karpov into a blunder? |
|
| Aug-14-07 | | crapmaker: Two knights and bishop is usually a draw against a rook, but there are some positions where the pieces win in about 40 moves or less. Two bishops and knight is ALWAYS a win against a rook, but some positions could take over 65 moves, and a player could claim a draw after 50 moves. I would cause a scene if I got that ending and had to take more than 50 moves to win.
Also three bishops not all on the same color is an easy win against a rook. |
|
| Aug-14-07 | | pastpawn: <devinjc: why not 44...Rxg4 instead of h5. As it has been pointed out, white cannot win with two knights and a king.> However, paradoxically, white can win two knights against king and pawn, depending on the position of the pawn. (There has been a lot of research into this ending over the years. I don't know the details, but if I remember right there are tricks where ordinarily you would have to stalemate Black to trap the King en route to checkmate with 2 Ns. Conveniently for them, the pawn's legal move stops this "defense"). That said, I'm not sure if Rxg4 would be lead to one of those losing positions. Just that it's not so clear. |
|
| Aug-14-07 | | whatthefat: <pastpawn>
Good point. I just checked the position after 44...Rxg4 45.Nxg4 Kxg2, using Nalimov (http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=...) and apparently it's a win for White in 71 - not sure whether the 50 move rule is satisfied or not. |
|
| Aug-15-07 | | pastpawn: <whatthefat>: nice link! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
