| Mar-29-04 | | steven18: Talk about balls of steel. Playing this variation of the kings gambit against the world #1 takes some guts! |
 |
| Mar-29-04 | | Bobsterman3000: Morozevich lasted about 10 more moves than I would have guessed, considering the somewhat dubious opening... |
|
| Jul-03-04 | | tomh72000: What was Moro thinking? |
|
| Sep-14-04 | | cuendillar: Maybe his plan was to turn Kasparov off balance and avoid any risk of opening preparation. It didn't quite work out, but you can't say he didn't try to win :) |
|
| Oct-15-04 | | Apocalypse79: g3 pawn was great! Why did Moro play king-side castling ..?? How about queen-side..?? |
|
| Oct-15-04 | | resty: i dont see queen-side castling in the KGA opening. it would cost white some tempo, which is the soul of KGA. this opening requires the 'fastest' speed of development, or else . . . |
|
Jul-17-05
 | | patzer2: Kasparov's 21...Bc4! wins with an attack on Morozevich's weakened castled position. |
|
Jul-17-05
| | patzer2: Kaspaov's 22...Rxf2! finishes off the combination begun with 21...Bc4! by setting up a winning double attack 23...g3  . |
|
| Aug-02-06 | | Confuse: kasparov being the tactical genius that he is, I suppose is the perfect counter to Morozevich's attempt to create a wild tactical battle. |
|
| Feb-01-07 | | who: If I recall correctly Gallagher thinks Moro made a mistake with 10 0-0, but I don't remember what he recommends instead. |
|
| Apr-27-07 | | Hot Logic: I love the way Kasparov concentrates on development. He really does see everything! |
|
| May-21-07 | | IMDONE4: You have to give Morozevich credit for trying something like this against Kasparov (a risky, disreputable opening); although Kasparov has again and again proven that this simply does not work against possibly the world's most pre-prepared player (possibly behind anand, who knos almost every line of theory known to man) |
|
| May-23-07 | | Hot Logic: This was back in '95 when Moro was a hot blooded young man, nowadays he's still hot blooded but older.
I don't think the King's Gambit is all that bad myself, although such an early piece sac is something else. Moro really throws everything at Kasparov in this game. |
|
| May-23-07 | | mack: <(possibly behind anand, who knos almost every line of theory known to man)> Morozevich vs Anand, 1995 |
|
| May-23-07 | | IMDONE4: <mack>, i am talking in terms of theory. Kasparov wins more games like this than Anand does because he is simply more talented, although he does do a ton of research (over 4000 opening suprises on his computer yet to be used), but it is general consensus that Anand knos more theory. |
|
| Nov-17-07 | | timhortons: daring...no respect of kasparov at all...a pawn followed by knight sacrifice? |
|
| Nov-17-07 | | HOTDOG: so Kasparov against the King Gambit played the Fischer defense,although in another game against Short he played 3...Be7 |
|
| Apr-28-08 | | ToTheDeath: Yes 10.O-O is an error, the h pawn hangs for nothing. 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.Be3 Nf6 12.O-O looks better, with some compensation for the piece. This was a crushing refutation of unsound speculative play. |
|
| Nov-07-10 | | haine92: I think the worst move is not 10. O-O but 6. Ng5 in order to do 7. Nxf7 because in the Fischer defence, this sacrifice doesnt work. |
|
| Jan-16-11 | | DanLanglois: Kasparov deviated from Fischer's famous article w/6...h6, not 6...f6. The deviation seems not to be an improvement, but why argue w/a 24-move crusher. I also might not insist that 8...Bg7 is best (unless there is something wrong with 8...Nc6). |
|
| Aug-17-12 | | Everett: <DanLanglois> Actually, I had thought Fischer recommended the move order in this game: Spassky vs Karpov, 1982 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 <h6> This move order seems to be the most safe and stable. Karpov equalized and missed a basic simplification to a winning endgame. |
|
| Jan-02-13 | | fisayo123: <everett> only if white plays 4.Bc4 |
|
sac: 22...Rxf2
icon.
