< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-18-05|| ||MUG: I believe the novelty 10...Qa5 shows the huge difference in class between Champion and Challenger concerning home preparation. Kasparov was surprised by this move when he first faced it in:|
Kasparov vs Short, 1993
In the official book on the match he admits <This is a new move. It surprised me. I am now working on it for future games.> This should have been fair warning to Short, but he played it again anyway.
What I find amazing is that in just 9 days after facing it for the first time (whilst still playing other games in this match!) Kasparov and his team had found the best reply (11.Ne2 ) and even succeeded in completely bamboozling Short with 12.Be5:
<This move was a surprise for me. I spent 45 minutes on my reply. I could not fathom out the complications
- Short.>. Remember that we are only two moves in from Nigels original novelty of 10
Qa5 and already the Englishman is stumped!! (is this evidence that the research into
Qa5 was not his own?!?) Clearly Kasparov had looked much deeper into the critical lines for this position in just nine days, then Short had done in all his preparation time for this match!
Kasparov even stated: <The position after 19.Kxc2 was known to me before the game> but this might just have been his infamous bravado!
Incidentally, Shorts novelty fared even less well against another ex-World Champion:
Karpov vs Short, 2002
|Dec-18-05|| ||WMD: <What I find amazing is that in just 9 days after facing it for the first time (whilst still playing other games in this match!) Kasparov and his team had found the best reply (11.Ne2 )>|
|Dec-28-05|| ||seeminor: According to GM Daniel King after Short played 4...d5, Kasparov "gave a smile just like a crocodile who had just spied a lamb gamboling innocently by the river bank."|
|Jan-03-06|| ||MUG: How cheerfully he seems to grin
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!
|Nov-26-06|| ||DaveyL: I read Dominic Lawson's book, but there's no mention of the idea coming from Fischer. The idea of playing Kasparov off against Fischer is an intriguing one - and fits in with Short's use first of the Bg5 Najdorf and the Fischer-Sozin subsequently. |
I do recall Lawson mentioning that the idea was not new and had in fact been played in two games by Smyslov - with several decades separating the two games - maybe the 50s or 60s for the first game (can't find it here).
I still don't understand why Short repeated this line, knowing full well Kasparov would have gone into it with a fine toothcomb after the 18 move draw.
|Nov-26-06|| ||euripides: <davey> I think that it may have been in the Slav that Short borrowed from Smyslov. Unless it was both.|
|Nov-26-06|| ||DaveyL: I'm pretty sure it was the Nimzo. I recall Lawson describing it in his book (in the usual layman's terms) as a maneuver with the queen to the edge of the board. Or something like that. I'm prepared to be corrected though!|
|Nov-26-06|| ||euripides: <Davey> I think Qa5 in Kasparov vs Short, 1993 came from Smyslov. |
Certainly the innovation in the Nimzo was connected with Kavalek and with onr of the 1992 Fischer-Spassky games; Kavalek has written a column about it (though he rather avoids the tricky point that if this was his main theoretical contribution it's not a great advertisement, as Kasparov busted it in this game after drawing the first one).
|Nov-26-06|| ||DaveyL: Ah, OK - thanks! I find a few similar games, including the Smyslov game from Rostov-on-Don in 1993 mentioned in Lawson's book. |
Short tried it against Beliavsky
Beliavsky vs Short, 1995
And lost - he's not doing well with repeating innovations.
After that match, I often wondered what Short had in mind for the Marshall, but I can only find a few post-1993 games for Short in the Marshall and the results are pretty poor.
|Dec-14-06|| ||Sneaky: <maoam: Short didn't invent 10...Qa5, it had been played before: Spassky vs Fischer, 1992> No it had not been played before, at least not at the top level. Maybe he got the idea from Fischer but those are two different positions!|
|Mar-11-07|| ||Richard Taylor: Where did Short go wrong he looks as though he had a stronger position than Kasparov after Qa5?|
|Mar-11-07|| ||Richard Taylor: Remember that Kasparov had had years of tournament and match practice in which he learnt from Karpov and other opponents - and he also had a big team of really top GMs and so on working for him round the clock using computers and so on... |
Of course this still means he is/was great player...but the score of this match here may not quite reflect the relative strenghts of the players.
All players make errors. 46 e4 is a common enough and understandable error. These endings are very difficult - deceptive.
|Mar-11-07|| ||Richard Taylor: The ending looks to me to drawn in any case all the time. Earlier on Kasparov had the advantage, but from about move 40 on it looked drawn.|
|Dec-06-07|| ||cu8sfan: A Russian, sacrificing his Queen vs. Short. No banner here.|
|Dec-02-08|| ||WhiteRook48: There was another game Short played against Kasparov and lost. They made the pun "Stopped Short."|
|Apr-03-09|| ||whiteshark: After only 9 games Kasparov leads with +5 =4 -0.
Looks like the worst start of a WC ever.
|Feb-26-11|| ||Atking: Is there a deep reason Kasparov gave up his good Bishop for a corner Knight at move 43? Simple 43.e4 is that bad?|
|Feb-26-11|| ||kudubux: He just reduced any chance of counterplay and simply converted the position into an elementary winning Rook ending.|
|Feb-26-11|| ||Atking: Well indeed this wasn't an elementary win as 46.e4? Rc5! draws... 43.e4 seems to do what you said, Kudubux, even better. Black Nh1 looks dead and White Bd5 so wonderful. But I could miss a tactical point so my question about.|
|Mar-28-11|| ||Atking: The idea of a quick Bf5 is indeed clever. As far I can see 12...Bg6!? looks playable as 13.BxRh8 Nxc5 ~ 14...Nd3+ xf2+ favors Black.|
|Mar-30-11|| ||Atking: More I look to Black dynamic setup, more I like it. I tried to "refute" 12...Bg6!? but I found nothing convincing. If someone has a new idea he is welcome.
On the materialistic 13.BxR Nxc5 14.Qd1 (14.Qd2 Nd3+ 15.Kd1 Nxf2+ 16.Kc1 Nd3 is at least equal) 14...Nd3+ 15.Kd2 Nxf2 16.Qe1 Ne4+ (16...NxR?! 17.Nc1~18.Bd3 White Bh8 is still free but not Black Nh1) 17.Kd1 (An amazing misplacement of the K&Q. But 17.Kc1 Nd7 and 18...Rc8) 17...Nc6 18.a3 f6 19.Rc1 BxN 20.NxB Kf7 21.NxN Qa4+ 22.Ke2 QxN 23.Bxf6 KxB E.g 24.Kf2 d4 25.exd Qxd4+ 26.Qe3 Qxb2+ 27.Be2 Re8 28.Qf3+ Kg7 29.Qc3+ QxQ 30.RxQ Nd4
More pragmatic seems 13.Qd1 O-O 14.Nc1 Nxc5 15.Nb3 NxN 14.axN Qd8 d5 is weak but as well is b2-b3 E.g 15.BxN!? RxB 16.Qd4 a5 17.Be2 b6 18.O-O Bc5 19.Qxd QxQ 20.NxQ Rfd8 21.Bf3 Kg7 threatening g4 and with Bc2 Black seems to keep the balance.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||Atking: About 12...Bg6!!?
More I analyse this position more I'm convinced a rook could be the price of this beautiful diagonal 13.BxR Nxc5 14.Qd1 Or 13.Qd1 Nxc5 14.BxR Nd3+ 15.Kd2 Nxf2 16.Qe1 Ne4+ (NxR maybe dubious as this Knight can't escape from the corner but white B can (e.g 17.Nc1 &Bd3) 17.Kd1 (On 17.Kc1 Nd7-Nc5 and Rc8 are new possibility of an attack) 17...Nc6 18.a3 (White best plan seems to be a3&Rc1) 18...d4!!? This move makes me happy for the day. Why Black should ask to the Bishop to come back in the game is the question. The d file is obvious but the real point is f5 square for the Queen. Now 18.Bxd4 Rd8! (better than O-O-O as White is playing for Rc1. Else 18.Nxd4? NxNc3+ 19.bxNc3 Bxc3 xe1 & xa1 For if 20.NxNc6? then 20...Qa4+. 18.exd4?! is more raisonnable but then 18...O-O-O 19.Rc1 Qf5 20.axBb4 Nf2+ 21.QxNf2 QxQf2 22.Be5 Kd7! (Freedom for the Nc6j23.Bg3 Qe3 24.Be1 (24.b5 Nb4!) 24...Bh5! 25.Bd2 Qxd4 Black looks better. E.g 26.h4 Nxb4 27.hxg5 Ke6 28.Nb1 Qxb2 Still the pattern mat Qb3+&Nd3)
Here I tried
A. 19.Kc1!? Kf8! ~ Re8 is the idea. This position looks incredible to me but I fail to see how White can make alive its piece up (Is it a form of zugwang like Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch ?). For example the natural 20.h4 then 20...Re8! here some tries
21.Ra2? NxBd4 22.axBb4 Nb3+ 23.Kd1 Rd8+ 24.Nd4 NxNc3+ 25.QxNc3 QxRa2
21.hxg5 NxBd4 22.NxNd4 NxNc3 23.Qh4 Nd5! 24.Qxh6+ Ke7 ~ 25...Bd2+
21.h5 Bh7 22.Rh3 g4...
21.Bh8 Nc5 22.Qd1 Rd8 23.Bd4 NxBd4 24.exNd4 Nd3+ 25.Kd2 gxh4 ~ 26...Qg5+
B.19.Rc1 which looks more natural but here too Black seems to equalize by 19...BxNc3 20.NxBc3 (If 20.RxBc3?! Qa4+ 21.b3 (21.Kc1 Nb4!) then 21...Qxa3 Black is better. I can't resist to give you a line in which Bg6 is the master of the board: 22.g4 Qa1+ 23.Rc1 Qb2 24.Rc3 NxBd4 25.exNd4 Kf8! 26.Re3 Kg8 27.Bg2 Rc8! 28.BxNe4 Rc2!! and Black wins!) 20...NxBd4 21.exNd4 Rxd4+ 22.Kc2 Qe5!! Again a major piece taking some risk to free the Knight 23.Kb1 (23.NxNe4 RxNe4 24.Bd3 Re2+! 25.Kd1! BxBd3 26.Qc3 Qd5 Or 23.Bd3 RxBd3! 24.KxRd3 Nd6+ 25.Kd2 Nc4+ 26.Kd1 Nxb2+ At least a draw) 23...NxNc3++ 24.Ka1 QxQe1+ 25.RxQe1+ Ne4 ... A little material handicap but black pieces are more active.
Of course such lines (if correct. I still doubt) which gave me many hours of joy could occured in a postal chess game, but difficultly under a usual time control. Nevertheless I hope this analysis will help to enjoy the idea of Bf5 deeper.
|Apr-03-11|| ||Atking: I would just add that 13.Qd1 Nxc5 14.Nc1 O-O 15.Nb3 NxNb3 16.axNb3 Qd8 may be a more simple (positionnal) approach. True that d5 is a bit weak. But in case of 17.BxNb8 RxBb8 18.Qd4 a5 19.Be2 Black could defend by 19...b6 20.O=O Bc5 21.Qxd5 QxQ 22.NxQ Rfd8 23.Bf3 Kg7 is adequate (g4 is the threat) as next Bc2 will recover the pawn.|
|Apr-05-11|| ||Atking: On 12...Bg6!? Nigel Short suggested an even better positionnal approach by 13.Qd1 Nxc5 14.Ng3 (My previous 14.Nc1 only focus on black weak pawn d5) here the knight could work on the weakened king side (E.g Nh5~Nf6) which means a long term active bishop on the diagonal a1-h8 may help (In my previous try I was hurry to exchange this Bishop to stop the d pawn. (BxNb8 then no more Nc6-d4)) Still the position is (For me ) incredibly complex:|
14...BxR seems still too greedy. 15...NxN 16.BxN BxB+ 17.bxB Qxc3+ 18.Ke2 (With Nc1 - instead of Ng3 - 18.Qd2 is possible 18...QxR 19.Bb5+ Nc6 20.O-O White is better) 18...Qc4+ 19.Kd2 Qb4+ is draw. 15.a3 BxN+ 16.bxB f6! 17.Bxf6 O-O 18.Bd4 Nc6 20.Rc1 NxB 21.QxB Rac8 22.Be2 Nxc3 23.O-O Qxa3 This position is unclear. In one hand Black king side is weakened but in other hand the connected pawns on queen side. 15.Rc1 may be more building. 15....O-O 16.a3 BxN+ 17.BxB NxB 18.RxN Rc8! 19.b4 (19.Ne2 Rc4!) 19...Qd8 20.RxR QxQ 21.Qa1 (21.Qa2 a5 22.b5 Qc5 with Nd7 and Rc8 Black should able to defend) 21...d4! 22.exd Nc6 d5 Nd4!! forces the perpetual. Esle 15.Qd2 (Not the best square for the queen. Nevertheless 15.Qb3 Nc5 is only going to repeat the position (16.Qxd5?? Nd3+!)) 15...O-O 16.h4!? Nc6 17.a3 exchange on c3 then Ne5 should keep the balance. Asking to a chess program I got a surprising 15.Bb5+!? QxB 16.BxR but I suspect the control of d3 square may counter balance the piece handicap after 16...f6!? The threat is of course c3 but the hidden idea is to win a precious tempo by Nd7-Nc5 17.Bxf6 the most natural 17...Nxb2 18.Qb3 Nd3+ 19.Kf1 Qa6! 20.Qa4+ QxQ 21.NxQ Nd7 Black is a minor exchange down but all its pieces are very active. The main idea is Rc8-Rc2. I don't know if that's enough. But yes for today.
|Jun-09-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: After 11 Nge2 one justification for the move 11...Nb8-a6 is that on e2 White's king's knight does not attack the point e5 as the move Ne5 attacks the point e5, and this suggests that it becomes then easier for Black to leave the point e5 undefended by his queen's knight by playing Black's queen's knight to a6 instead of to c6 or to d7|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·