| May-10-06 |
| spirit: I'm sure GAZZA as blac was very satisfied with this...but couldn't he have won this guy??? |
 |
May-10-06
 |
| Eric Schiller: Kasparov was furious that his opponent chose a forced drawing line instead of taking the opportunity to play a game against a World Champion. He was talking about it for a long time after the event. If Black varies, theory says he has a bad game, and Kasparov was not willing to play second-rate moves and get a bad game. It was up to White to play for a win, but Edelman chickened out, and Kasparov's prognosis concerning his further development proved correct. |
|
May-10-06
 |
| chancho: Edelman got crunched by John Curdo in this game.
D Edelman vs J Curdo, 1983 |
|
| May-11-06 |
| spirit: if i were playing with ALMIGHTY GAZZA i'll do the same...i wouldn't care if i was blac!!!! |
|
May-11-06
 |
| Landman: Considering that his opponent was Kasparov, he'd likely end up with a bad game in any case. And in exchange for giving up a "real" game, he has a draw with a World Champion. One can argue for either side of this ledger; it depends on your personal chess goals. Besides, Kasparov's 10...Qa5+ is tantamount to a draw offer. If Black wants a real game, 10...Be7 (or 12...Be7) is fully playable. So the chess evidence points to both players chickening out. There's nothing particularly shameful about this - a regret perhaps, but regrets are a part of chess. |
|
May-11-06
|
| Eric Schiller: <spirit> I can't understand that. I had only one opportunity to play against Kasparov, and I gave it my all, though he wiped my Tarrasch defense off the board. It wasn't a blindfold game, though the quantity of alcohol in each of us could have qualified it as one! I've always approached games against GMS going all-out to win, and have won a fair number of such games. Playing for a draw is not a bad idea when the tournament situation requires, but is otherwise inexcusable. In Edleman's case, it cost him the respect of the Champion, and having a book draw in the database is hardly a medal. |
|
| May-11-06 |
| square dance: <eric schiller> whats wrong with the playing 10...Be7? thats just standard sveshnikov theory. |
|
| May-11-06 |
| square dance: and <landman> is right when he says:<Kasparov's 10...Qa5+ is tantamount to a draw offer.> if anything its white who gets the short end of the stick by not playing 11.Bg2. |
|
| May-11-06 |
| hayton3: <Kasparov was furious that his opponent chose a forced drawing line> Kasparov shouldn't have played Qa5+ - simple. |
|
May-12-06
 |
| acirce: <In Edleman's case, it cost him the respect of the Champion> If you lose Kasparov's respect, often it just means you have done something right. How typical of him to get <furious> and be <talking about it for a long time> for such a trifle, and something that was his own fault anyway! How did Edelman feel after Kasparov played this against him instead of going for a real game? |
|
May-12-06
|
| Landman: Any criticims of Edelman for his play in this game ought be muted. It's Garry who "forced" the draw - within his right to do so. IMO it's a little harsh to dismiss as "inexcusable" approaches to chess that merely differ from one's own. "To defeat a stronger player, one must first learn to draw." I don't necessarily agree with this, but players aren't bad people to think in this way. I'd prefer it if we all go back to criticizing chess moves rather than the personalities of the players. With the chessgames.com kibitzers leading the charge, we'll have the Internet civilized in no time. ;P |
|
| May-12-06 |
| spirit: <eric schiller> if i was playing a semi-casual game with GAZZA of course i'll come out wild and clear, i dont know of this event,but if it was a tournament i'll do exactly what edelman did...unless i was rated 3000+...i'll b any... |
|
| Sep-13-06 |
| piroflip: I have the one hour long TV docu of this event.
Kasparov was visibly upset and became very animated (not to mention noisy) after this short draw. He even had to be “shushed” by the other competitors. Another annoying and disrespectful trait of his was turning his head 90 degrees to the side whilst shaking hands with opponents. |
|
Feb-07-08
 |
| FSR: GM Dorian Rogozenko, in his book "The Sveshnikov Reloaded," p. 31, says that "[m]any Black players do not like [9...Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qd8] because it is equivalent to a silent draw offer." (Note that the move numbers in Rogozenko's book are one less than in the present game because Kasparov transposed into the Sveshnikov by 2...e6 and 7...e5.) If Kasparov didn't want to draw, 10...Be7 (or 12...Be7) was the way to go. Had Edelman wanted to play on, he could have played 12.Bd3, 12.Nxf6+, or 12.c4. Kasparov had no doubt studied these far more than Edelman (who may not have studied them at all). On page 36, Rogozenko notes of 11.c4 (again, this would have been 12.e4 if Edelman had played it) Nxe4 12.cxb5 Be6 13.Bc4 Ne7 14.Be3 Rc8!?, "Kasparov introduced this move in a simultaneous game in Zurich 1987. The idea is after 15.Nb6 to sacrifice the exchange with 15...d5! Then 16.Nxc8 Nxc8 (17.0-0? Bxa3! 18.bxa3 dxc4 was bad for White in Gobert-Kasparov, Zurich (simul) 1987) 17.Bd3 Qa5+ 18.Kf1 Bxa3 19.bxa3 0-0 offers Black enough compensation." I don't see what was wrong with Edelman accepting Kasparov's tacit draw offer rather than going into his prepared variation by deviating on move 11. |
|
| Feb-07-08 |
| Riverbeast: Edelman was just playing the objectively strongest moves in the position. Of course Kasparov could have played 12..Be7 if he wanted to win. I don't even know why this is so 'second rate'...it looks like it just transposes to the Sveshnikov main line |
|
Feb-09-08
|
| FSR: You're right. Be7 isn't second rate at all. Actually, Rogozenko thinks that Kasparov's Qa5+ is second rate since 12.c4! (rather than repeating with 12.Bg5, as Edelman did) favors White with best play. The inferiority of Qa5+ is confirmed by chessgames.com's Opening Explorer. In the standard move order (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5), Black played 9...Be7 1300 times on this database, with White scoring +29.8%/=45.2%/-25.1%, an unimpressive total of 52.4%. Black played 9...Qa5+ only 127 times (i.e. less than a tenth as often), and scored much worse with that move: White scored +35.4/=47.2/-17.3, a total of 59.0%. |
|
Feb-15-08
|
| FSR: <Eric Schiller: If Black varies, theory says he has a bad game, and Kasparov was not willing to play second-rate moves and get a bad game.> The only opening theory I recognize is that contained in "Standard Chess Openings" by Eric Schiller, which according to its cover is "THE COMPLETE AND DEFINITIVE STANDARD TO ALL THE MAJOR CHESS OPENINGS" written "BY THE WORLD'S LEADING WRITER ON CHESS OPENINGS!" That most authoritative of texts (page 211) ONLY gives ...Be7, not ...Qa5+ as Kasparov played. The three lines stemming from ...Be7 end with "Black had the better endgame . . . S Bojkovic vs Sveshnikov, 1979 ," "Black had the more flexible position in Muratov-Sveshnikov, Soviet Championship 1981," and "Black had a strong kingside attack in Geller vs Sveshnikov, 1978 ." I don't know what happened in Muratov-Sveshnikov, but Black won the other two games. |
|
Jun-18-08
 |
| ToTheDeath: Another one of Kasparov's egocentric crybaby episodes. Heaven forbid Garry play the non-drawing line with Be7. No one forced him to play this variation instead of the Najdorf, and Garry had to learn to make quite a few draws with Karpov before he could beat him. |
|
| Jul-12-08 |
| Jesspatrick: Given the state of theory at this point, I think that 10...Qa5+ is the best move in this position. Why give up a clear edge to White with 10...Be7? Black faces a long uphill struggle just to equalize in that line. |
|
Jul-17-08
|
| FSR: IM John Cox in his 2007 book "Starting Out: Sicilian Sveshnikov" says of 10...Be7, "This natural move is really the only one worth considering . . . ." He refers to Kasparov's 10...Qa5+ 11.Bd2 Qd8 as a "craven draw offer." (As with Rogozenko, whose book I discussed above, Cox's move numbers are actually one move lower than those I've given above, since he uses the more common move order 2...Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 rather than that used by Kasparov.) |
|
Oct-20-09
 |
| hedgeh0g: It's pretty obvious that Kasparov was the player who willingly played into the Sveshnikov and forced the draw, so he had nothing to cry about. White is absolutely forced to repeat the position, otherwise e4 drops, but Kasparov had a perfectly good alternative in ...Be7. This is tantamount to executing a Qg5+ Kh8 Qf6+ Kg8 perpetual on someone and then complaining about their attitude. That being said, I really can't see why people play these forced draw lines. If you're going to play chess, then play chess. Why go into a textbook sequence of moves, requiring nothing but memory when you can avoid all the trouble of actually thinking by not playing at all. |
|
| Oct-21-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Emanuel Lasker would have played ...Be7 for the win, even if it was less well regarded than ...Qa5+. |
|
