|Dec-06-05|| ||KingG: If 14.Bg4, Kasparov had in mind 14...h3! 15.Bxh3 Rxh3! 16.gxh3 b5, with the idea of ...Bg7 and ...Rc8.|
|Aug-01-08|| ||Helios727: What would black's next move be to hold the draw?|
|Aug-24-08|| ||lostthefight: <What would black's next move be to hold the draw?> I have no clear idea of the position but my best guess is ...Bxe4; Nxe4 Rxe4; Qc8 Bd8; Qxa6 d5. Black appears to have enough counterplay at that point and the king is relatively well defended against the queen menace. But I'm sure that analysis is flawed somehow. If someone has a better continuation he or she can think of, please let us know. No particular interest in computer analysis.|
|Oct-30-13|| ||Howard: If I remember correctly, the book Experts Against the Sicilian states that if Short had played 21.exf5, then he would have had a won position.|
The book backs this up with computer analysis, saying that "chess was a different game" back in 1995, since computers were nowhere close to the level they're at now.
Comments, anyone ?
|Oct-30-13|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<Howard>
Kasparov annotated the game for Informator (63/224). He gave 21. exf5 a "!?" and provided a 13 move long variation leading to equality.
|Oct-30-13|| ||Shams: <Simon> Wouldn't be above Garry to try to win the analysis too, though.|
|Oct-30-13|| ||Howard: Actually, SimonWebbsTiger, I'm aware of Kasparov's rather lengthy analysis to that move, since I do have the Informator 63 volume. Granted, I should have mentioned that earlier. But I'm almost sure that Experts vs the Sicilian states otherwise. That book, by the way, came out about 8-9 years after the Informant did.|
|Aug-24-16|| ||Howard: Anyone care to show the forced win that the aforementioned book alluded to ?|