|Sep-06-04|| ||Jack Rabbit: Does anyone have an opinion about <28 -- Rcd7> as a way for Black to hold the position?|
28 -- dxe4 looks like a mistake (perhaps the decisive mistake) in that it fails to do anything about the f6 point and opens the a2/g8 diagonal, giving White's King's Bishop full scope. It also allows the opening of the f-file, exposing the weakness to a frontal assault.
28 -- Rcd7 covers the b-Pawn (under attack from the Knight at a4) and leaves open the possibility of an eventual -- Ne8, covering f6.
|Aug-23-05|| ||Queens Gambit: Poor Short he lost 6 games in this WC match and won only one.|
|Aug-23-05|| ||Norman Glaides: <Poor Short he lost 6 games in this WC match and won only one.>|
Come now, that doesn't quite tell the full story.
|Aug-23-05|| ||euripides: <Jack> according to Dominic Lawson's book, 28...dxe4 was an attempt to complicate the game in Kasparov's time trouble.|
|Aug-23-05|| ||Shams: <Come now, that doesn't quite tell the full story.> maybe not, but it tells a lot of it. As Bill Parcells says, you are what your record is. Short got flayed.|
|Dec-28-05|| ||seeminor: 28...Rcd7 is better, however Kasparov was intending to reply 29 e5, move his bishop back to b1 and then start advancing the f pawn. I cant imagine Short surviving much long in this line|
|Dec-28-05|| ||syracrophy: The two advanced white pawns, pushed by the rooks, are too strong and are winning|
|May-03-06|| ||offramp: ...And if this match had been the first to 6 wins, then this would have been the last game, with Kasparov winning +6 -0 =9.|
|Jan-09-07|| ||notyetagm: <Shams: ... As Bill Parcells says, you are what your record is.>|
|Mar-11-07|| ||Richard Taylor: 12...g6 seems wrong - he permanently weakens his K side.|
|Mar-11-07|| ||Richard Taylor: 12...Ne4 might be better.|
|Oct-28-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: One justification for 13...a5 14 b5 c5 is that after White has weakened his e3 pawn by f3, Black may become able to isolate his d5 pawn by ...c5.|
|Apr-14-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: An alternative to 29...Qe8 which attacks the e4 pawn is 29...Rc7-d7 which attacks the d4 pawn. One justification for attacking the d4 pawn instead of the e4 pawn is that the d4 pawn can advance less easily to d5 than the e4 pawn can advance easily to e5, and to quote Lasker, that which is immobile suffers violence.|
|Nov-01-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: After 10..Bxb4 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 Nxd5 Qd6 13 Nxb4 Qxb4 14 Qc2 c6 15 Rfb1 Qe7 Black may succeed in defending himself.|
|Nov-01-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: An alternative to 14...Nh5 is the pair of moves 14...Ng7 followed by 15...Bf5 as Stahlberg may have played in this variation|
|Feb-13-13|| ||bennytakeapawn: why not take on b4??can see it|
|Jul-02-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: Instead of 10...a6, 10...a5 induces White to displace the b4 pawn by 11 b5 so that on 11...Ne6 12 Bh4 c5 becomes possible|
|Aug-03-14|| ||kamikazzi: in reply to bennytakeapawn.
10...Bxb4. 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nxd5! Qxd5 13.Qa4 and white is winning
as your name suggests, u really love pawns
|May-20-17|| ||Clement Fraud: In view of his deficit in score at this point of the match, and also in view of his daring nature... I wonder why Nigel Short did not try the Hennig-Schara Gambit (which became an option for black after white played 3.Nc3)?|