< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Apr-14-04|| ||Dudley: Since Pillsbury was an earlier player than Rubinstein I think he was the one who first showed the chess world the effectiveness of the move Bg5 combined with a later Ne5 in the QGD. At one time he, like Rubinstein, could probably have been the world champion but never got the chance. I think both players are excellent to study. I have always liked Pillsbury's method in the QGD and I only recently learned that Rubinstein was great tactician as well as an engame artist. Their play appeals to me more than Lasker's, although he is hard to fault from the view of practical success. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Shakh: I've never seen a single interesting or even comprehensible comment from you before, so I'm putting you on my ignore list. Don't bother responding to me, I won't be able to hear it. Your nonsense on the Judit Polgar vs Kasparov, 1994 page resembles slothrop's, if you ever meet him, have a chat, I think you two would like each other. Sorry to everyone else for clogging up this page. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> I was never saying you post out of bias, only that we both have our favorite players and enjoy commenting on them more than on players we are perhaps less fond of (I assume you will now argue no, that you like commenting on everyone equally, but so be it). This is the only point I was trying to make. I never meant to imply that you were biased about this game. I see now that the exclusion of "=)" is apparently a grave error. When you misunderstand what I'm saying, I have to respond. Letting you have the last word after your "??" response would have made it seem like I was fool, so I clarified. Perhaps we are both at fault for being overly confrontational and misunderstanding each other. But once again your need to prove that I'm wrong has compelled me to respond. My allusion to Rubinstein being a favorite player of yours (which many newcomers may not know) was no less uncalled for than your commenting on ughaibu's post; the influence is obvious if you merely click the link. That's all. This has been talked about too long already. I too apologize for getting off topic.|
Here's a contribution to the actual game to make up for it:
11...Ng4 was somewhat of a blunder, allowing white to gain far too much momentum. If not for this, black might have had time to start a queenside attack, forcing Kasparov to turn his attention to some defensive measures.
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: You assume way too much to presume that I would say I comment on all players equally. I don't. My point was that your statement that I am more likely to post about Rubinstein was unnecessary since the fact I like Rubinstein is clearly stated in my profile, so both newcomers and old players here know. Stating it again is unnecessary. No one has commented on the Rubinstein link for months and I would know since I was here when it was first posted in September, so I felt obligated to say something about the significance. I apologize as well if you think this is redundant but it only seemed logical to me. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> Alright, let's just conclude that we both made somewhat unnecessary statements. Fair enough? As for my assumption, I was merely anticipating more attacks on my statements, I didn't necessarily think that you would argue that. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Your blunt presumption was not exactly the most diplomatic statement in the world and probably a poor choice if you want to end the argument (you can never end a debate by attempting a "last jab"), but I'll let it slide since it seems you regret saying it anyway. The only thing I feel now though is an itch to go to all of your Pillsbury games and write something along the lines of "Kenkaku, I think it is fair to say we are both biased and that your choice of including a Pillsbury game in your collection is clear evidence of bias." ;) <- (see this, it's called not taking yourself seriously Kenkaku, try using the smileys! :) |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> Heh, in that case you would indeed be somewhat correct. I created a Pillsbury collection because he is one of my favorite players, so bias/favoritism was certainly a factor in my decision to do that! As for the individual games themselves, I try to be objective in their selection. I would indeed ask you to refrain from carrying out your "threat" =P |
|Jan-23-07|| ||TrueFiendish: Ah, Ben Lau... We miss ya baby!! If he were around we could make busy splitting some more hairs.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||sandmanbrig: I love this system. It looks so dangerous for white but black doesn't really have much attacking possibility.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||nimzo knight: Ah so much fighting for this game. How much time, energy and emotion people waste expressing themselves on internet|
|Jan-23-07|| ||norami: Must have been a thrill for Campora taking on the greatest player who ever lived right when he was at his peak.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: 21.Rhg1! was as profound and subtle a move as Kasparov has ever played. Somehow, he knew that somehow he would somehow turn that Rook into a decisive player in the attack, even with 3 Knights and 2 pawns between the Rook and the King.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||black knight c6: since blacks extensive defensive prepations on moves 18, 19, 20, 21, 21 AND 23 all would seem to have failed horribly, you would have to think he could've done something better with his time? two general and relevant sayings: Having the best defence will only ever get you a draw; but apparently the best defense should really be offense. Perhaps this might've been in order? Black's c5, cxd, and a6 hardly seemed to generate much counterplay for his chances.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||kevin86: Having the chance to play a champion at his peak is probably a hope for nearly all of us. Imagine challengng Mike Tyson as his peak-except that in chess,a player can emerge with his chin (and ears) in tact |
White has it in mind that he would checkmate at h8---and sure as shooting,he did (at least in spirit,as the opponent resigned).
|Jan-23-07|| ||Tomlinsky: <AAAAron> Well their disagreement was almost 3 years ago. Heck, they could be married and have babies by now...|
|Jan-23-07|| ||norami: <kevin86> When Tyson was at his peak there was a fight, Cooney-Spinks, the winner to challenge Tyson. They were nothing compared to Tyson so the fight was called "Sissy Boy Slap Time".|
|Jan-23-07|| ||AAAAron: <Tomlinsky> Ha Ha Ha..... I didn't even notice that! I have since deleted my comment. I mean who wants to read arguing anyways. I love life and chess, and all of you. :)|
|Jan-23-07|| ||Defiler: Amoungst all his other strengths Kasparov is a tactical master with whom few compare.|
I think that black needed to continue applying pressure on the queenside to stay in this game. Although its difficult for me to see is this was even possible after around move 19. If so how did he go wrong?
|Jan-23-07|| ||Themofro: great game, i especially like the pawn sac by Kasparov to open black's king pawns up like a can opener.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||Defiler: After a look look it seems to me like black was forced right from early to play on the King-side when he really would rather have been on the Queenside.|
|Jan-24-07|| ||Whack8888: This is a good game by Kasparov but Campora played a lot of really crappy moves.
Does anyone know why he played 18...Re7 only to play 21...Ree8 and then finally 28...Re7? Also after 9...Nf8 I can just picture Kasparov thinking 'This is going to be easier than I thought'|
Next move he castles Queen side and his King is never even close to being in danger.
|Apr-19-09|| ||skemup: I like 24 move of white,G.K. was probably intending do sacrifice a knight, instead of this he gained another advantage-weak shelder of black king.I wish I can see such things. From 31 move it could be friday or saturday puzzle.|
|Oct-22-11|| ||DrMAL: Garry Kasparov was by far most important influence on me, I grew up with him becoming and remaing WC, pouring over each game for hours learning nuances to his technique. I do not want to get into discussion about who was best, everyone is entitled to opinion, but I personally would not even compare anyone to him as being greatest ever. Chess has had several quantum leaps and he led revolution into 21st century, in last decade computer took over as most important.|
This game is very useful for studying attck technique. Opening was along standard lines where white castled long for K-side attack, this was hinted to with 5.Bg5 instead of Bf4 (and h3). After 11.Kb1 principled move, 11...Ng4 to swap Bs was poor, wasting tempo and giving white some advantage which Garry took with 13.Nf4! and 14.f3! two free moves. 14...c5 was one way to start overdue counterattack but after 15.g4! exchange of pawns was bad strategy over 15...c4 it is great to have such powerful engine now to check notes with, result is quite surprising here.
Houdini_20_x64: 32/76 6:03:47 229,211,855,891
-0.31 15. ... c4 16.Bf1 Red8 17.h4 Ne8 18.e4
-0.35 15. ... cxd4 16.exd4 Qd6 17.Qd2 a6 18.h4
Pre-computer notes from 1988 had main line as 16.Be2 Ng6 17.Nxe6 Qxe6 18.g5 Nd7 19.e4 Nb6 computer shows how white maintains same advantage via 16.Bf1 Red8!? I had 16...Ng6 and 16...Qd6 as main responses, computer often gives new insight this way. I don't think eval for 15...cxd4 can get enough compute time to demonstrate mistake, this is strategical error too far in moves.
After 17.a6 (seemingly to start b5-b4) Garry does not immediately start pawn storm h4-h5 or g5-h4 but instead maneuvers N out of way 18.Nce2! a more elegant approach. Here, Campora starts bad strategy of defending instead of counterattack. 20.Ng2! to avoid exchanging pieces was strong as was 21.Rhg1! another elegant move. It is difficult to appreciate subtlety of technique here, for me Kasparov games like this were key to jump in level. More basic technique of simply storming pawns would work well too.
21...Ree8 was surprisingly accurate as computer shows but Kasparov continues to take his time with 22.Rdf1 readying another piece. I think this was also very elegant idea, black is focused on defending and not counterattack so it allows such moves.
Houdini_20_x64: 28/82 50:33 33,095,589,813
+0.33 21.Nh5 Kh8 22.h3 f6 23.h4 Rae8 24.g5
+0.29 21.Rhg1 Ree8 22.Nf5 Bxf5 23.gxf5 Ne7 24.Qg5
22...Ngf8?! was unnecessary and poor, prompting start of strong attack plan Kasparov played. 24...Nf6 was most accurate defense, with 24...g6?! combination starting with f4! (best) was probably decisive. Looking with Houdini (allow sufficient compute time) helps to even greater appreciate Kasparov technique every single move he played in attack was evaluated best. After 30...Qb6?! instead of 30...Qe7 finish was easy 31.g6! was again best most elegant way 31.Nf7+ was strongest alternative.
|Oct-22-11|| ||KKDEREK: Great analysis. Yeah, by that time (86-89) Garry was a beast.
I'm sure you might know this one from later period.
Kasparov vs Leko, 2001
One of my all time fave from him. Not sure why is not listed on his notable games. But anyway a good tactical piece for analyses ;o). cheers
|Oct-22-11|| ||DrMAL: Thanx <KKDEREK> yes I remember this game. Will post on it tomorrow it is especially fun for me to revisit Kasparov games with Houdini to find new nuances or verify old notes, cheers.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·