Jan-30-04
 |
| refutor: huge blunder by kasparov |
 |
| Jan-30-04 |
| PinkPanther: That's what he's good for :)....along with grinding people into dust when he's not blundering. |
|
| Oct-10-04 |
| fasting: oops... but when is the blunder played? is it 41.Kh4? |
|
| Oct-10-04 |
| Knezh: 45. Ra4? looks like blunder to me |
|
| Oct-10-04 |
| fasting: guess you are right, thougt I saw something else... |
|
| Oct-10-04 |
| Eggman: The blunder here puts me in mind of Huebner vs Korchnoi, 1980. |
|
| Jan-09-05 |
| Poisonpawns: Kasparov vs M Gurevich, 1991
Kasparov is 0-1-2 against the Leningrad Dutch.This Speelman game is just hilarious though. |
|
| Jan-09-05 |
| WMD: The event was the Infolink European Speed Championship. 25 minutes on the clock. Speelman went on to beat Mickey Adams in the final.
According to Keene (How to Beat Gary Kasparov), after 47...Ne6, there were 'a few more unimportant moves, Kasparov resigned'. Thanks Ray. |
|
| Jun-08-05 |
| farrooj: I guess he just really wanted that a-pawn
|
|
| Jun-08-05 |
| slapwa: 44. ..., Re3! is very strong, threatening ... Nh3+ but also ... Ne5 with a King fork. White can't avoid giving the exchange back. I think 41. Kh4 might be the problem. |
|
| Oct-17-05 |
| ConfusedPatzer: Wow! Mr. Analysis missed a fork!?!?!?! He must have curled up into a ball and cried for 3 days after the game. |
|
| Oct-17-05 |
| RookFile: It's an odd truism, that applies
not only to Kasparov, but to all of
us. We tend to make our mistakes
in those areas of our lives that
are actually our strengths. There
are times that we let our guards down
with our strength - but this doesn't
happen with things we know we are weak at. In Kasparov's case, he had no doubts about his calulating ability, and rightfully so, but occasionally, he suffered a letdown
and was caught napping. |
|
| Jun-11-06 |
| pepellou: I think 41.Kh4 is the real blunder (I think that 41.Kg2 can be a drawish line), that allows many threats and forced moves starting with 41...,Nf2.
45.Ra4 is obviously another blunder, but I guess white pieces are already lost. I don't see how white can save the position: if 45.Rh4 then 45...,Ne4+! 46. Rhxe4,Rxe4 46.Rd6, Rc4 47. Rxc6, a5 48. Ra6, Rxc5 and the pawn will cost the rook. I think the same line will follow to a white king's 45th move. And any other move will loose a rook or allow the fork in h3. |
|
| Aug-28-06 |
| sfm: Yes, 41.Ka4?? Is it playing for a win?
Amusing and unusual position with the rooks forced to cover each other, can't get away because of the crowding on the 4th row, and to be fatally split by a knight on e4. Wonder what Fritz & al would say to 41.Kg2. |
|
| Aug-28-06 |
| sfm: BTW, so why wasn't 43.Kh5 tried? This avoids forks and clears a space for a rook on h4. |
|
Sep-17-07
 |
| notyetagm: <slapwa: 44. ..., Re3! is very strong, threatening ... Nh3+ but also ... Ne5 with a King fork. White can't avoid giving the exchange back. I think 41. Kh4 might be the problem.> Yes, indeed, 44 ...  h3-e3! is a wicked strong tactical blow by Speelman. By vacating the h3-square (<CLEARANCE>), Black threatens to <FORK> the White f4-rook and g5-king with 45 ...  f2-h3+. But that's not all! By moving the Black h3-rook to the e3-square, Black adds to his control of the e4-square to support (<COORDINATION>) his Black f2-knight going to e4, cutting off the line of life-giving force (<INTERFERENCE>) from the White f4-rook to the <LOOSE> White d4-rook while giving <CHECK> at the same time. A nasty double threat which as no satisfactory response for White. 44 ... h3-e3! and Black threatens:
45 ... f2-h3+ <fork> and 46 ... h3xf4 45 ... f2-e4+ <interference> and 46 ...  e5xd4 So 44 ... h3-e3! both vacates the h3-square for the Black f2-knight (<CLEARANCE>) and supports the Black f2-knight going to the e4-square to close the line from d4 to f4 (<INTERFERENCE>). A wonderful tactical shot by Speelman.
|
|
Sep-17-07
|
| notyetagm: Position after 44 ... h3-e3!:
click for larger viewNow Black threatens 45 ... f2-h3+ <FORK>:
click for larger viewas well as 45 ... f2-e4+ <INTERFERENCE>:
click for larger view |
|
| Sep-18-07 |
| scholes: other amazing part of this combination was that it was forced after kasparov blunder 41 kh4 ? .Black was threatening so many things after that move , first the rook , mate , c6 -c5 then finally Rh3-e3 . Kasparov had nothing better than perpetual draw at move nor 41 |
|
Sep-18-07
|
| notyetagm: <scholes: other amazing part of this combination was that it was forced after kasparov blunder 41 kh4 ? .Black was threatening so many things after that move , first the rook , mate , c6 -c5 then finally Rh3-e3 . Kasparov had nothing better than perpetual draw at move nor 41> Thanks for explaining 43 c4-c5. I didn't understand why White played this move. White played 43 c4-c5 to prevent Black from playing 43 ... c6-c5!, <REMOVING THE GUARD> of the White f4-rook by <DRIVING OFF (DOMINATION)> the White d4-rook. |
|
| Oct-02-07 |
| beginner64: In addition to moves 41 and 45, which are questionable, I also don't like 36. Rb3. Perhaps 36. Rxa7 would be better for white. I will try to check if black can corner and force a mate in that situation. |
|
Oct-02-07
 |
| whiteshark: A bit weird, this game. But the outcome is o.k. |
|
Jul-15-09
 |
| ajile: Kasparov's version of an Anti-Dutch system failed miserably. |
|
