|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| 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 ... ♘h3x♖f4 45 ... ♘f2-e4+ <interference> and 46 ... ♔e5x♖d4 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. |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | newzild: This might have been only the third time that a British player has beaten a reigning world champion in equal, classical combat. My understanding is that Karpov vs Miles, 1980 was only the second. Can't remember which was the first. Can anybody name any others? |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | newzild: I think Nigel Short might be the only other Brit to beat Kaspy in equal combat. Murray Chandler beat him twice, but he is a New Zealand citizen. |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | BobCrisp: <Blackburne> beat <Lasker> twice as champion and <Penrose> beat <Tal>. <Adams> beat <Karpov> as FIDE World Champion in 1994, but you'll probably discount that. I don't think <Gunsberg> counts as British. |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | ughaibu: In any case, this wasn't "classical". |
|
| Mar-26-11 | | Dionysius: I believe this was a rapid play game played at a tournament held at the Atheneum club in London. I certainly watched Speelman beating Kasparov at that tournament in the late 80s or early 90s, and this is the only game the database gives with a Speelman win over Kasparov.
I was lucky - Ray Keene had advertised the event in his Times column and written that although generally spectators were by invitation only, if anyone was very interested and got in touch with the organisers they would probably be accomodated.So I did and I was. Great day. It was held in the library, and I think there were only 6 or 8 participants and about 20 spectators (Leonard Barden, Michael Stean I remember), so it was quite a small scale affair.
This game I remember going on a long time, and in those days increments weren't added per move, so it must have just about gone to the wire. When Speelman had won he looked exhausted and muttered something to LB about playing Kasparov being like dying. In contrast K was standing by the library door chatting to a non-participating friend/minder within 5 minutes of the game being over.
It was such fun being there. The only time I've done something similar was going to the Veterans v Ladies tournament in London in 1996 which I've kibitzed about in the Polgar Smyslov 1996 game. There too the audience was small and not commercially organised - what a treat to feel almost an eavesdropper on a friendly tournament with such elite players! |
|
| Mar-26-11 | | Dionysius: Sorry - in my last post "which I've kibitzed about in the Polgar Smyslov 1996 game" should have read "Xie Jun Smyslov 1996 game". |
|
| Apr-23-11 | | ToTheDeath: Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgUg... |
|
| Apr-23-11 | | Nietzowitsch: and part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t06v... |
|
| Dec-09-11 | | Eric Farley: This game clearly shows that Kasparov was surprised by a Dutch, and when the opening didn't fall within the realm of his home preparation, he had no talent to solve things on the board.The several blunders he made here attest to that without any doubt. After all, he was no Capablanca |
|
| Dec-09-11 | | hedgeh0g: <This game clearly shows that Kasparov was surprised by a Dutch, and when the opening didn't fall within the realm of his home preparation, he had no talent to solve things on the board.The several blunders he made here attest to that without any doubt. After all, he was no Capablanca> I'm retarded and I approve this message! |
|
| Dec-09-11 | | JoergWalter: retarded 2 |
|
Dec-09-11
 | | keypusher: <Eric Farley: ...when the opening didn't fall within the realm of his home preparation, he had no talent to solve things on the board.> It can be very hard to tell when someone here is joking, trolling, or just plain dumb, but this game was also outside Kasparov's home prep. Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999 |
|
| Dec-09-11 | | King Death: <keypusher> This <Eric> has a thing about Kasparov, kind of like <frogbert> does about Nakamura. Any putdown will do. Things like facts confuse him. |
|
| Mar-22-13 | | philby47: Can someone explain 9...Bh8? |
|
| Mar-22-13 | | IndigoViolet: I think he played it for the same reason that Hillary climbed Everest: because it was there. |
|
| Mar-22-13 | | Jim Bartle: George Mallory said that, not Hillary. |
|
| Mar-22-13 | | Shams: <philby47> <Can someone explain 9...Bh8?> This nice prophylactic move is a response to White's h-pawn thrust. Black keeps the option of meeting h4-h5 by pushing past with ...g6-g5, as happens as in the game. Black buys a little time with this line-closing idea. If instead 9...Na6 10.h5 g5 11.h6! looks like trouble for Black. An idea to remember. |
|
| Mar-22-13 | | IndigoViolet: I believe ...Bh8 is an idea that's also been seen in the Dragon variation to avoid swapping off the bishops after white plays Bh6. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 23...Kxg7