< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-08-05|| ||siu02jm: so is 33...♗xd4!? the cause of Neil Short downfall. it seems he has trouble later getting it to back to block the pawn on f file. And was gasparov luring him with that d4 pawn? was it really necessary for him to take it. |
|Feb-08-05|| ||euripides: On reflection 35...Nxh6 36 Qg5+ Kh7 37 Bc2 may be better. Now if 37...Bxf2+ then simply 38 Kxf2; if 37...Qc6 then 38 f6+ Qxc2 39 Qg7 mate; and if 37...f6 then 37 Qg6+ Kh8 38 Qxh6+ Kg8 39 Bb3+. Best may be 37...Bf6 38 Qxf6 with Re4-h4 to follow. Is there a better defence ? |
|Feb-08-05|| ||WMD: <Were there any analysis comments by Kasparov, Short (or both) or anyone else on this game on the lines suggested above ?>|
Naturally. 35...Nxh6 loses to 36.Qg5+ Kh7 37.Bc2! Bf6 38.Qxf6 Re8 39.Re6!.
Kasparov criticised his move 27.Nh4, giving the superior 27.Kg2! Qxf5 28.Rh1 with a big advantage.
When Short played 34...Bxd4? it appears he missed 35.Ng4 Bf6 was refuted by 36.Qxh6! and the knight fork on f6 decides. Better chances were offered by 34...Bg5 or ...c6 (Fritz).
|Feb-08-05|| ||eyalbd: <WMD, euripides> Yes, 35...Nxh6 36 Qg5+ Kh7 37 Bc2! is the clearest way to win.|
The bishop controls f5 so the Bxf2+, Qf5+ trick doesn't work.
Once again, the threat (of f6) is stronger than then the execution (Nimzovitch)
|Feb-08-05|| ||radu stancu: <Open Defence> I think this is the game in question: Ivanchuk vs Adams, 2002 |
|Feb-08-05|| ||acirce: Kasparov has never allowed the Marshall Attack in a serious game -- he has shifted between the 8.h3 and 8.a4 anti-Marshalls -- unless you count a game in a simul against computers in 1985. |
|Feb-08-05|| ||Open Defence: <radu stancu> sorry i was searching for a Marshall game instead of Anti Marshall |
|Feb-13-05|| ||Clubfoot: That's it, that's the Anti-Marshall game from Linares 2002 and sorry to Open Defence for the delay...I think it's one of the most beautiful chess games ever; it was a shock to chess commentators that Ivanchuk-Adams was not chosen as Game of the Tournament later on, but I believe it was another Ivanchuk game that took the prize: his loss to Ponomariov in the first round in a grisly French. |
|Feb-13-05|| ||Swindler: Taking into account Kasparovs reluctance to accept the Marshall, can it be looked upon as a safe gambit, or does Kasparov never accept gambits as White? |
|Feb-13-05|| ||samvega: Kasparov may have refused to allow the Marshall just to irritate Short. "I play an hombre move like 7..0-0 and he gives me this quiche" |
|Aug-04-05|| ||bomb the bishop: Actually many grandmasters consider that accepting the Marshall Attack by playing c3 is an unnecesary risk because it gives too much initiative to black|
|Aug-04-05|| ||who: <samvega> Kasparov also never played the Marshall as black.|
|Aug-04-05|| ||who: I meant Swindler not Samvega in my previous post.|
|Oct-30-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: 21...g5 disturbs the King side pawns. An alternative is 21...Ne7 with the plan of ...c6, ...Nc7 and ...Be6 to exchange White's King's Bishop.|
|May-21-11|| ||alexrawlings: I don't have a chess programme to hand to refute this myself at the moment, but would 25.. h6 or f6 have been any better?|
|Jun-09-11|| ||newton296: kasparov is just a great attacker!|
|Jun-09-11|| ||Check It Out: <alexrawlings> 25...h6 fails to 26.Nxg5 uncovering the queen attack on black's h5 knight. 25...f6 weakens black's light square complex and leaves the h5 knight without a retreat square.|
Fritz recommends 25...Qd7, actually.
|Jul-02-11|| ||ycpl: What is 21... g5 about? I give it a question mark.|
|Oct-22-11|| ||indoknight: why not 26...Qxf5 ?|
|Oct-22-11|| ||Retireborn: <indoknight> Kasparov does give 26...Qxf5!? 27.Bd5 f6 without evaluation in Informator, implying it was a better try; after 28.Be3 Ne7 29.Nh4 Qd7 30.Qxh5 Nxd5 31.Ng6+ White wins the exchange. The problem is that White's bishops dominate the board. Black should probably try 26...Nf6 or 26...Bf6.|
Incidentally Kasparov's reluctance to play the Marshall with either colour probably indicates a reluctance to remember huge amounts of theory he might never be able to use; I wouldn't take it as a comment on the soundness or otherwise of the gambit.
|Oct-22-11|| ||Retireborn: <vcpl> Kasparov does gives 21...g5 a ?! and gives variations with 21...gxh5 and 21...Nf4 as critical in Informator. I assume that Nigel was hoping for exchanges on f4 after ...Nf4 and then an attack on the open g-file with ...Rg8, which is the plan he started with 20...Kh8, but Gary's pawn sacrifice 23.g3! puts a stop to that.|
|May-26-12|| ||wordfunph: "I am playing the world championship and I have to defend my title and I want to do it convincingly. That is my only goal. If it is not a close race, I'm sorry, but I want to win."|
- Garry Kasparov (after the game and leading the match 5.5-1.5)
|Jun-24-14|| ||RookFile: < Uhlhumbrus: 21...g5 disturbs the King side pawns. An alternative is 21...Ne7 with the plan of ...c6, ...Nc7 and ...Be6 to exchange White's King's Bishop.>|
21....Ne7 22. h6 and black can resign.
|Jun-25-14|| ||perfidious: Simple, concrete tactical point noted by a strong player demolishes yet another generality by <u>.|
|Aug-04-18|| ||Ulhumbrus: < RookFile: < Uhlhumbrus: 21...g5 disturbs the King side pawns. An alternative is 21...Ne7 with the plan of ...c6, ...Nc7 and ...Be6 to exchange White's King's Bishop.>|
21....Ne7 22. h6 and black can resign.> If the move 21 Nd5 transforms the move h6 into a threat one alternative to 20...Kh8 is 20...Ne7
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·