|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Apr-06-06 |
| Daodejing: Yes this was a blitz game.
The surprise of the tournament was Fritz 3 as joint winner with Kasparov ahead of an extreme strong field (Kasparov then won the tiebreak). One of the strongest blitz tournaments ever and I was there :-) DDJ |
 |
| Apr-06-06 |
| Whitehat1963: Might Kramnik have been better off playing 14. Bxc7, giving back the queen? |
|
| Apr-06-06 |
| setebos: I have seen similar games involving queen sacs in blitz games. An old Svidler game played on ICC under his handle Tendulkar comes to mind. |
|
Apr-27-06
 |
| notyetagm: All-powerful Black knights dominate this game.
|
|
May-09-06
|
| notyetagm: <ksadler: <refutor> It was actually Kramnik who avoided the Bayonet attack (which wasn't universally popular until Kramnik's 1996 10. Re1! was found) and went into the Petrosian line.> I thought it was Ivan Sokolov who found 10  e1 in the Bayonet Attack!? |
|
| May-21-06 |
| Arpit Deliwala: a brilliant game by kaspu.but answering to my friend newtochess who asked how the game is over i should answer him. 41.kf1,...g2+.42.kg2...re1  |
|
| May-21-06 |
| alphastrike20: I know this has nothing to do with kasparov but can anyone tell me if the alekhine defense is a viable opening at the super grandmaster level |
|
| Jul-13-06 |
| fgh: <alphastrike20>: This may help you: Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 and Spassky vs Fischer, 1972. |
|
| Aug-18-06 |
| ikipemiko: Truely amazing game!
|
|
| Dec-06-06 |
| slomarko: great play by Kasparov against the Petrossian variation played by a "Petrossian" player. |
|
| Jan-10-07 |
| adviser: Kaspy playes too much with his knights and playes tactically in any level although almost nobody else can just come out from positional play in a high level. |
|
Nov-04-07
 |
| sallom89: great tactics by Kasparov. |
|
| Nov-09-07 |
| Defiler: Wow incredible game. Would Kasparov already have been aware of the queen sac move? Or did he discover it OTB? |
|
| Nov-09-07 |
| pacelli: Only Kasparov can venture to play with the KID at top level chess, and succeed. |
|
| Jul-12-08 |
| Everett: <pacelli>
Have a look at Radjabov's games. Since he is in the top ten (as of this post) and plays the KID regularly, with success. |
|
| Jul-12-08 |
| Everett: Here's another exchange involving black's Q for the bishop pair an a couple of pawns, this time in the Saemisch KID. Spassky vs Bronstein, 1956
In subsequent tries, it seems that black is fairing very well in these lines. T Ernst vs Lind Jan-Olov, 1990
B Spycher vs Piket, 1986
Kasparov vs Seirawan, 1989 |
|
| Oct-31-08 |
| KCJayhawk: Drifter: All these people calling this a sacrifice.
You have to be kidding me, I want to poll all the other kibizers to let me know how many of you think that this is a sac...I say that it is...no question |
|
Jan-07-09
 |
| Raf: I would agree this was an exchange, not sacrifice. Actually in many games of GM this is quite a regular thing to swap queen for 2 light pieces for some minor positional improvements with no clear prospective for a decisive win. |
|
| Mar-17-09 |
| Funicular: Define "sacrifice" then we´ll see if this is one or not. I think it´s a sacrifice. A sacrifice that exchanges the unused queen for a pawn and 2 light pieces - with a lot of positional compensation. So y'all be the judge. Your queen for a couple of pieces and a pressure increasing 20-move attack.
Sac? Y / N |
|
| Mar-25-09 |
| matherd1: Well, I suppose technical its a sac, since it gives way material by the end of the combination. But its only material equivalent to a pawn sac, so maybe just calling it a combination for positional advantage is better... |
|
| Mar-28-09 |
| Thrasybulus: Well, the queen sacrifice would have been a terrible blunder were it not a blitz gme. Kasparov must have counted on his superior tactical game and the dearth of time his opponent had to think to carry him to victory. Otherwise he would have lost after Bxd8 to any 2000+ player. |
|
| Mar-28-09 |
| Jim Bartle: "Kasparov must have counted on his superior tactical game and the dearth of time his opponent had to think to carry him to victory. Otherwise he would have lost after Bxd8 to any 2000+ player." Any kibitzers, perhaps some with "GM level understanding," care to agree or disagree with this? |
|
| Mar-28-09 |
| phachara86: I'm 2000 player and i dont think i can play better than Kramnik did in this game even with additional 60min on the clock. The position is too unclear especially OTB. In my opinion i think a 2700 player can play higher quality blitz games than a 2200 player with classic time control. |
|
| Mar-28-09 |
| chillowack: That's nonsense that "any 2000 player could have beaten Kasparov in a normal time control." Absolute nonsense! The queen sacrifice was totally legitimate: in addition to the 8 points of material Kasparov gained (3+3+1+1), which in itself was almost material parity, he also gained a powerful attack, great squares for his pieces, the initiative, a psychological edge (White is forced to prove Black wrong), and the fact that White has very little counterplay. That's more than enough return on his modest 1-point material investment. Not only is there no 2000 player alive who could have survived this game at a normal time control, there are few 2500 players who could have. This game is just like a lot of Tal games I've seen, where he defeated the world's best at normal time controls. |
|
| Apr-02-09 |
| MrQuinn: Chillowack: Just so! Nicely said. And phachara86 is absolutely correct that a FIDE 2700 can play better quality games at five minutes than a 2200 can at 40/2. The average garden variety master would be pressed to duplicate Kasparov's understanding of this game even with a week to study it. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 12...Nfxe4
