< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Jun-06-04|| ||rochade18: Is "It" as location short for "International Tournament"? (May be all It-games are played in Italy;) |
|Jan-14-05|| ||Durateston: I can't figure it out. why did black pieces move on 29. Qxa2 instead of Rxc6??? and 35. Nb6 instead of Rc7??? |
|Jan-14-05|| ||beatgiant: <Durateston: I can't figure it out. why did black pieces move on 29. Qxa2 instead of Rxc6???>
On 29...Rxc6 30. Nxd7 Rxc1 31. Nxf6+ gxf6 32. Bxc1, White comes out a pawn ahead and Black's kingside pawns are broken up. By the simplifying maneuver in the game, Black probably hopes to reach a drawish endgame.|
<and 35. Nb6 instead of Rc7???>
That can be answered by 35...Nb6 36. Ne7+ Rxe7 37. Rxc7 Be8 38. Ba3, which looks like it wins the exchange (38...Rf7 39. Be6).
|Jun-22-06|| ||The17thPawn: The thing that comes through to me in all the encounters between these two players is that Petrosian always had the black pieces and still managed an even score. The argument that this was a young Kasparov is counter-balanced by the fact that this was an old Petrosian.|
|May-31-07|| ||tonsillolith: I don't understand Kasparov's queen maneuver Qc2-e2-f2 or mysterious rook moves 17. Rac1 and then 19. Rcd1|
Why develop the queen to c2 before developing more minor pieces and then moving it to e2 when it will soon relocate to f2?
Why play 17. Rac1 and then quickly move it one more square to the right?
|Jul-30-07|| ||Fusilli: <tonsillolith>, I'm not sure if mine are the best answers, but I'll give it a shot.|
<Why develop the queen to c2 before developing more minor pieces and then moving it to e2 when it will soon relocate to f2?> I don't know why Kasparov moved the Q to c2 initially, but that's a rather standard destination for the Q in this type of position. The move 15.Qe2 seems to announce his intentions of playing e4. However, Petrosian played 15...Re8, threating to advance his own e-pawn to e5 (and I suspect 16.e4 could be answered with 16...e5). Then Kasparov has to take his Q out of potential harm's way. f2 looks like a safe place now that the black rook is not in f8 anymore. (Could Petrosian have then considered going back with the rook to f8, which prevents e4 thanks again to the location of the white Queen?)
<Why play 17. Rac1 and then quickly move it one more square to the right?> I think the clue here is given by Petrosian's intervening moves. After 17. Rac1, Petrosian played 17...Qe7 and 18...Qf8. Only then Kasparov decides that his rook should be in d1. My guess is that Kasparov played 17. Rac1 to dissuade Petrosian from developing his Queen to c7 (which seems to be a natural place for the Queen to prepare for and support the pawn advances c5 or e5, unless there is a rook in c1.) Not that there is a tactical blow against 17...Qc7. There is not. But I think after 18.Re1 Kasparov would have been seriously threatening 19.e4 unless the black Queen sought refuge in b8. Kasparov probably figured out that it was best to waste a tempo to "direct" the black Queen to f8 rather than b8.
I think that the white rook is better placed in d1 if white is ever going to play e4, and for some reason Kasparov felt more comfortable taking his rook to d1 once the black queen had landed in f8 (and, again, I suspect his Rac1 move had something to do with the direction that the black Queen took.)
To wrap up, I don't claim to really get it. I don't. But my feeling is that these rook-queen dances are profound strategic maneuvers. I thought both players were trying to position their heavy pieces as safely and functionally as possible before opening up the position. The tension was latent. Reproducing this game I had an overwhelming feeling of witnessing superior chess. Two very, very deep strategic minds at work, and I feel I can appreciate the magic, even if get lost on the challenge of interpreting their concealed intentions. Kasparov's last ten moves are simply superb, aren't they?
|Feb-21-08|| ||hedgeh0g: Why did Black resign?|
|Feb-21-08|| ||keypusher: <hedgeh0g> I don't have a computer, but in the final position White is threatening 52. Nh4+ Kh7 (52...Kg5 53. f4#) 53. Rxf7+. If 52...Nd6, then 53. Nxd6 Rxd6 54. f4 and I don't see an answer to the threat of f5+. If the bishop moves, then 55. Rg7#.|
|Feb-21-08|| ||sallom89: New game - Fritz 11
click for larger view
Analysis by Fritz 11:
1. (5.44): 51...Nd6 52.Nxd6 Rxd6 53.f4 Ra6 54.Kh4 Ra4 55.f5+ Kh7 56.Rxf7+ Kg8 57.Rg7+ Kf8 58.Bf6 Ra6 59.Be5 Ke8 60.Rh7 Rc6 61.Kh5 Rc1 62.Rxh6 Re1 63.Re6+ Kf7 64.Kg5 Rc1
2. (5.68): 51...Rf6 52.Rc7 Re6 53.Nh4+ Kh7 54.Rxf7+ Kg8 55.Rb7 Rc6 56.Nf5 Nd6 57.Nxh6+ Kf8 58.Rh7 Nb5 59.Bg7+ Ke8 60.Nf5 Nd6 61.Nxd6+ Rxd6 62.Kf4 Rd7 63.g5 Rf7+
looks like you guys need some analysis.
|Feb-21-08|| ||Riverbeast: A beautiful positional game by Kasparov. He is most famous for his tactical attacking play, but he had an excellent touch for strategic chess as well.|
|Feb-21-08|| ||euripides: I seem to remember Kasparov once said attack in the endgame was his favourite strategy. Certainly it remained a feature of some of his best games: |
Kasparov vs Grischuk, 2003
<looks like you guys need some analysis.> The first computer line confirms <key>'s analysis, doesn't it ?
|Feb-21-08|| ||keypusher: <euripides> <The first computer line confirms <key>'s analysis, doesn't it ?> Thanks, I was hoping someone would point that out. :-) What's interesting is the computer's second line: Black offers the exchange with ...Rf6, White "passes" with Rc7, and the computer can find nothing better than to give up the knight with ...Re6. Again, the bishop can't move on pain of instant mate.|
|Mar-04-08|| ||crchandler: What is most curious about this game is that Petrosian played the Dutch Defense, which I think he always regarded as unsound.|
|Apr-02-08|| ||chess61: <crchandler> Absolutely true. He once said "I love playing against the Dutch". I was surprised as well.|
|Apr-03-08|| ||Petrosianic: <Absolutely true. He once said "I love playing against the Dutch".>|
Yes, he said that in his notes to this game:
Petrosian vs Larsen, 1972
|Nov-11-10|| ||kasparvez: Here is a nice anecdote:
..."My 2nd round game with Petrosian, where for a long time i held the initiative, was adjourned in an unclear ending, where we each had a rook, bishop ,knight and three pawns. It was due to be resumed immediately after dinner. Holding a sceptical assessment of my winning chances, I decided not to spend much time on analysis and went down to the restaurant.
Sitting there were nearly all the participants and, as usual they were discussing the games that had just been played. Spassky asked me about my adjournment:'Well, what do you think?" I replied 'I appear to have thrown away my advantage.' He suddenly said: 'No, it's not so simple! The bishops are of opposite colours, and this is in favour of white: He can create an attack. You have a look! Petrosian hasn't come down for dinner- that means he doesn't like his position.'
I looked at the adjourned position with different eyes! The resumption lasted only nine moves: Petrosian avoided passive defence, 'flinched' and came under an irresistible attack."- Garry Kasparov [from OMGP III]
|Mar-11-12|| ||Everett: <kasparvez> thanks for that. Yet another reminder as to why I think adjournments are terrible. With the inevitable outside help, the result is adulterated in my eyes.|
The best thing computers have done for us is allowed the end of adjournments.
|Mar-11-12|| ||ephesians: I agree that from a sporting point of view, adjournments are bad.|
On the other hand, i sure learned a lot about endgames from studying adjournments.
|Mar-11-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: even worse than adjournments, which I don't think anyone really liked because it involved losing a lot of sleep and not being mentally and physically fresh for the next round game, was the practice of adjudication. Games would simply stop at a specified time and the result called by stronger players. They used that in British club chess; I doubt the actual players gained anything from it in terms of improving their practical chess skills.|
Chess has perhaps gained a new gauge of strength with the abolition of adjournments. You have to know your endgames and have technique from previous home study and training. The flip side -- as noted by GMs like Timman and Portisch -- is players can't produce beautiful endgames because they don't really have the time to ponder endgame positions as time tends to be short when they get there.
|Mar-12-12|| ||Everett: <SimonWebbsTiger> I think the need for practical endgame skill without adjournments is absolutely great, and is a truer indicator of strength than having friends help you with the homework. |
In a way, any "beautiful endgames" created after adjournment lose their luster a bit.
|Apr-13-12|| ||ozmikey: 46...Ne3 is an interesting possibility. White can't take the bishop (47. Rxf7+? Kg6 and White will have to give up his rook to prevent the mate by 48...Nf1+ and 49...Rxh2), and he probably has to block his own h-pawn by 47. Kh3. Certainly not quite so easy for White to win after that.|
|Jul-13-12|| ||Eggman: "If your opponent wants to play the Dutch, you should prevent him!"|
|Jul-13-12|| ||perfidious: < SimonWebbsTiger: even worse....was the practice of adjudication. Games would simply stop at a specified time and the result called by stronger players. They used that in British club chess; I doubt the actual players gained anything from it in terms of improving their practical chess skills....>|
Even in my early playing days (1972-73) here in USA games were adjudicated now and again. A dreadful practice and I'm thankful it's gone.
In an interview with CHO'D Alexander, Larsen was critical of adjudications; I believe he stated that they reduced fighting spirit and that players didn't learn endings.
|Jul-13-12|| ||Petrosianic: Adjudication was never very common, especially at the top level. I think in both volumes of The Games of Tigran Petrosian, there's maybe one game (from the 1940's) that was decided that way.|
It was more common at lower levels, though. In some of the High School tournaments we played in, they had to adjudicate in order to get the required rounds in.
I once heard a story (don't remember the details) about a New England tournament director, who adjudicated his own game (because he was the highest rated player available), and for the life of him couldn't see any conflict of interest when he gave himself a win.
|Jul-13-12|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic> This was probably before my time in New England chess; at any rate I've never heard that one.|
The following happened to me once though in an event back in 1981/82 in Vermont, so strict USCF rules weren't used, though the rulebook was to hand and invoked-or not-as needed:
It's the last round, I'm 4-0 and have somehow gotten three Blacks despite being the highest-rated player in the tournament. The TD and I met. He too had got three Blacks, so somehow he assigned me a fourth (third in a row, no less!). No protests would change his mind, as he was what one would politely call stubborn. In the end, he got his, as I ground him down despite his machinations.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·