chessgames.com

register now - it's free!
Vladimir Kramnik vs Garry Kasparov
Novgorod (1997)  ·  King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation. Bayonet Attack Sokolov's Line (E97)  ·  1-0
To move:
Last move:

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 37 times; par: 28 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 121 more Kramnik/Kasparov games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: To flip the board (so black is on the bottom) either press F or click on the d7 square.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with the default chess viewer, please see the Pgn4web Quickstart Guide.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-22-05  ryanpd: Analysis by Shredder 9 in PGN format:

[Event "Kosmos m 5'"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1998.11.27"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E97"]
[WhiteElo "2780"]
[BlackElo "2815"]
[Annotator "Deep Shredder 9 (120s)"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1998.11.27"]

E97: King's Indian: Classical Main Line (6...e5 7 0-0 Nc6): 8 Be3 and 8 d5 Ne7, not 9 Ne1 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. d4 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 a5 10. Ba3 axb4 11. Bxb4 Nd7 12. a4 f5 13. Ng5 Nc5 14. Bxc5 dxc5 last book move 15. Bf3 Ra6 16. a5 Kh8 (16... f4 17. Bg4 Nf5 18. exf5 gxf5 19. Ne6 (19. Bxf5 $5 Bxf5 20. Nge4 Rh6 $17) 19... Bxe6 20. dxe6 fxg4 21. Qxg4 $14) 17. Ne6 Bxe6 18. dxe6 f4 (18... b6 19. axb6 Rxb6 20. Qxd8 Rxd8 21. Ra7 $16) 19. Qxd8 (19. Qb3 b6 20. Rfd1 Qb8 $18) 19... Rxd8 $16 20. Rfb1 Rb8 21. Nd5 Nxd5 (21... Rxe6 $4 Taking that pawn is naive 22. a6 Nc8 23. Bg4 Rxa6 24. Rxa6 $18) 22. cxd5 (22. exd5 $2 e4 Clearance to allow g7-a1 23. Bxe4 Bxa1 24. Rxa1 Kg7 $19) 22... Bf8 23. Be2 Ra7 24. a6 Bd6 (24... Rba8 25. axb7 Rxb7 26. Rxa8 Rxb1+ 27. Bf1 $16) 25. h4 (25. Ra2 Kg7 $18) 25... Kg7 (25... Rba8 26. axb7 Rxa1 27. Bf1 $16) 26. Bc4 (26. Ra2 Kf8 $18) 26... b6 $2 (26... Rba8 $142 $5 $16) 27. Bb5 h6 28. Kf1 Rf8 29. Ke2 Rf6 30. Rb3 Kf8 (30... g5 31. hxg5 hxg5 32. g3 $18) 31. Rh3 Ke7 32. Kd3 Kf8 33. Kc4 Kg7 34. Bc6 Kf8 (34... Rf8 35. Bb7 $18) 35. Kb5 (35. g4 keeps an even firmer grip fxg3 36. Rxg3 h5 $18) 35... Kg7 36. Bb7 Kf8 (36... Rf8 37. g4 $18) 37. Rg1 (37. g4 and White can already relax Ke7 38. g5 Rf8 $18) 37... Ke7 (37... Kg7 $18) 38. g3 f3 39. Rc1 Kd8 40. Rc3 h5 (40... Ke7
a fruitless try to alter the course of the game 41. Rh1 $18) 41. Rh1 Ke7 42. Rd1 (42. Rd1 Rf8 43. Rdd3 $18) (42. Re1 $5 seems even better Rf8 $18) 1-0

Mar-01-06  alexandrovm: one of last kings indian played by Kasparov, here Kramnik defuses it calmly
May-25-06  Everett: Kasparov should study some of Smirin's games to defuse the bayonet attack. One idea is an earlier h5, around move 9.

Kramnik vs Smirin, 2002

Jan-06-07  seeminor: Im sure that around this time Kasparov realised Kramnik was the only player in the world with the mental strength to take his title. Ivanchuk was a talented but fragile player, Anand was shown to have psychological weakness in 1995, Shirov was destined to never get even 1 win against Gazza. But Vlad just never seemed to care about Kasparov's theatrical huffing and puffing, played his moves, and took his title. Its only because he started playing Kasparov at 16 thhat Kasparov has (only just) a plus score against him.
Apr-01-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  plang: I'm not sure I believe Kasparov. He had had a lot of success with the Kngs Indian until Kramnik came along. I believe this is one of the last games that he used the defence. It came just a few months after his loss with the Kings Indian to Ivanchuk at Linares.

The system with 10 Re1, developed by Ivan Sokolov, was having a lot of success at this time. One of the ideas was that the black knight at f4 was not as much of an inconvenience to white as previously thought. In fact, after 16 g3..Nh3 the 17 Bh3..Bh3 the bishop ends up misplaced at h3. 15 Ra3 is a clever multi-purpose move with one of the idea being to transfer the rook to the king side (either for offence or defence). The gambit with 15..g5!? never seems to get off the ground; in fact it is Kramnik who ultimately gets the kingside initiative. Kramnik recommended 15 Kh8 as an alternative. I love 25 Nf3. There is no way for Kasparov to take advantage of the pin. Still, it was not necessary for Kasparov to play 26..Bf3?; Kramnik again recommended 26..Kh8. 31 Nc7 is simple but pretty; taking advantage of blacks queen being tied to h5 to defend against the queen sacrifice on h6.

Aug-26-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  HAPERSAUD: Personally I think Kasparov had am uncompromising style that practically made the kid dead to him, I've played many games against candidate masters using 17 plus move variations in the bayonet and I've had the great fortune to talk to grandmaster federowicz and pitch a few of my ideas which he was impressed with. So maybe the kid isn't dead. All you need is a player with a different style that the opening suits
Mar-25-11  PSC: <HAPERSAUD: Personally I think Kasparov ... and pitch a few of my ideas which he was impressed with. So maybe the kid isn't dead. All you need is a player with a different style that the opening suits.>

This has got to be one of the most hysterically arrogant comments I have ever read. Douche.

May-16-11  BobbyFissure: Kasparov said he gave up the KID because it was too much theory to play that and the Najdorf constantly at the highest level. I don't see any reason to question that statement.
Sep-19-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Cemoblanca: Attacking Chess: The King's Indian, Volume 1 by David Vigorito (more info: http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/...)

<The King's Indian has always been considered a somewhat risky opening, but despite that common sentiment, the King's Indian has an impressive pedigree. While this dynamic system was pioneered in the 1950s by Russian and Yugoslav players such as David Bronstein, Efim Geller and Svetozar Gligoric, the two big names that are often attached to the King's Indian are those of its World Champion practitioners, Robert Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Whereas Fischer's retirement signalled the end of his King's Indian era, Kasparov gave up our favourite opening while he was still an active player, which 'indicated' its unsoundness. At least that was the general feeling after he lost a well-known game in 1997 to Kramnik in the then dreaded 'Bayonet' system.

In fact Kasparov stated something to the effect that the Sicilian and King's Indian were too much to keep up with at the level he was playing at, and so he stuck with the Sicilian while heading for more solid systems in the closed openings. Nowadays young players are not so worried about this; with advances in technology many modern talents play both the Sicilian and the King's Indian, as well as other sharp defences.>

Nov-12-11  DrMAL: <BobbyFissure: Kasparov said he gave up the KID because it was too much theory to play that and the Najdorf constantly at the highest level. I don't see any reason to question that statement.> Yes this is irony about computers taking over in last decade. Kasparov created much if not most of new theory for both openings in 80s and 90s but with computers showing refutations and more sophisticated lines, it is simply different game today.

Game here is good example, it is easy to see today with Houdini engine truth behind statement <hickchess99: <acirce> kramnik felt that the sac was not sound and that he had a won position from that point.> many analyses and commentaries before very strong engines were incorrect. Here is eval just before pawn sac, Kramnik had solid advantage.

Houdini_20_x64: 28/69 1:05:15 40,378,405,497
-0.53 18. ... Qd7 19.Qxg5 f5 20.f3 fxe4 21.Ncxe4
-0.64 18. ... Bd7 19.Qxg5 f5 20.Qh5 f4 21.Nb5
-0.82 18. ... Qc8 19.Qxg5 f6 20.Qe3 Bd7 21.Nf3
-0.88 18. ... Bc8 19.Qxg5 f6 20.Qh5 Bd7 21.Nb5
-1.07 18. ... g4 19.Nf3 f6 20.Bh6 Rb6 21.Nb5

However, this computation is not accurate for move 18...Qd7 deeper computation shows less advantage overall, and better score if sac is declined. In any case Kramnik did not have "won game" at all. Offering sac with 18...Qd7 was not unsound, it was best move in the position.

Houdini_20_x64: 29/82 2:09:15 84,161,164,637
-0.34 18. ... Qd7 19.a5 f6 20.f3 g4 21.Nd1
-0.64 18. ... Bd7 19.Qxg5 f5 20.Qh5 f4 21.Nb5
-0.82 18. ... Qc8 19.Qxg5 f6 20.Qe3 Bd7 21.Nf3
-0.88 18. ... Bc8 19.Qxg5 f6 20.Qh5 Bd7 21.Nb5
-1.07 18. ... g4 19.Nf3 f6 20.Bh6 Rb6 21.Nb5

It is not difficult, especially with computer, to see how Kasparov kept making small errors, line above points out one next move (19...h6 instead of 19...f6). Kasparov seemed to have some unsual difficulty staying accurate against Kramnik, I do not think it was because Kasparov predicted him to become WC but I do think there was some mental thing with Kasparov involved. In any case, Kramnik's statement about game was incorrect about sac being unsound and about having won game, computer revealed truth about both items.

Nov-13-11  bronkenstein: <DrMAL> , TY for the effort.

Speaking about <the truth> , it would be interesting to compare the meaning of <-0.53> , or , I would dare to say , even <-0.34> to the meaning of the words `won` or `lost` =)

Nov-13-11  DrMAL: <bronkenstein> Thanx. Personally, I would like to see Kramnik quote, it does not sound like it came from him. He was (still is) modest guy to begin with and it does not seem at all in character for him to say such a thing (maybe that he thought sac was poor or something like that).
Nov-14-11  Olavi: DrMAL, 18...Qd7 was not the sacrifice, it was 15...g5. After that it makes no sense to deviate. And the above analysis doesn't necessarily refute Kramnik's statement - he was obviously referring to an endgame 60 ply on, if he can defend against the black initiative.
Nov-17-11  DrMAL: <Olavi> I was wondering how to interpret statement, literally or logically. Sac was literally on move 18 but logically it was on move 15, it was reason for going g5. On move 15, yes of course Kasparov had other good moves to make, such as simply 15...Nh5 or 15...Bd7 but if one looks at computer score after sac it is easy to see that making sac did not ruin position of game, it merely changed game character into sharper one, especially for black who took on task to prove it.

Regarding whether Kramnik was "obviously" referring to endgame 60 plies later, well, it is not at all "obvious" to me nor is it to computer. It was clearly not "obvious" to WC Kasparov either, or he would not have made the sac. What I DO see is that sac was made to sharpen position, perhaps you missed this. Using "obvious" does not make you look like genius, it does opposite. You do not seem like bad player (I certainly am not either), so try more suitable wording, cheers.

Nov-17-11  DrMAL: Here is eval on move 15 for black.

Houdini_20_x64: 28/66 31:12 19,926,452,746
-0.31 15. ... Nh5 16.h3 Bd7 17.Nf3 f5 18.Bd3 fxe4

And here is score from above after sac,

Houdini_20_x64: 29/82 2:09:15 84,161,164,637
-0.34 18. ... Qd7 19.a5 f6 20.f3 g4 21.Nd1

Sac was NOT UNSOUND and Kramnik's game was NOT WON, only effect of sac was to sharpen game.

Nov-17-11  Olavi: Let's put it this way: Kramnik judged that the black attack wasn't too dangerous. Then, as his experience told him, in the normal run of things white should win the possible endgames: pawn up, good minor pieces, play down the b-file etc. Kasparov's judgement was different, but of course we never got to see an endgame, Kasparov wouldn't allow one.

This is certainly a case where Houdini is of little help, unless it can provide a concrete variation in blacks favour.

Nov-18-11  DrMAL: <Olavi> Houdini performed desired task perfectly in showing sac was sound and game was not won, these were exactly the points to be shown. It demonstrated example of how statements from past are often refuted by computer today, this was basis of post. Whatever point you are now trying to make is simply irrelevant to what was shown.

<Game here is good example, it is easy to see today with Houdini engine truth behind statement <hickchess99: <acirce> kramnik felt that the sac was not sound and that he had a won position from that point.> many analyses and commentaries before very strong engines were incorrect.>

Nov-18-11  Olavi: Well, what can I say. Houdini naturally manages very well for a long time. But then there's the endgame; people still overestimate the computer's capabilities, as witness that top level correspondence chess is nowhere near death.
Nov-18-11  DrMAL: Well, <Olavi> no one is using computer to predict entire game LOL. Position here is around move 15-18 early middlegame, and sufficiently deep computer eval indicates well how game is proceeding. Your argument about endgame being different, now trying to invalidate use of computer is just silly.

<Well, what can I say.> Apparently, it is not going to be an admission of anything productive regarding my post, LOL.

Nov-18-11  AnalyzeThis: Somewhere around here Kasparov started to sour on the King's Indian.

Who knows? When the fianchetto defenses first came out, Rubinstein wrote that they were basically unsound because you could arrage the trade off of the fianchettoed piece and exploit the holes, or play h4, h5, etc.

Rubinstein thought the fianchetto was ok with white but not for black.

Nov-18-11  DrMAL: As <BobbyFissure> pointed above (serving as impetus for my post), Kasparov admitted KID simply acquired too much theory in years that followed this game to present, computers have taken over and things he discovered, basically most of KID theory in 1990s, have been either refuted by computer or had various new lines from computer showing no advantage. Chess is completely different game today than it was in 1990s, analyses and statements made before computer era (last 5-10 years) were often wrong. One example of this is Kramnik's statement about game here, shown to be wrong by computer in my post, it is just one example of many, cheers.
May-05-12  Everett: Why did Kasparov lose? Seems to me the complete misuse of his queen's rook for most of the game didn't help.
Jun-11-12  LoveThatJoker: "31. ?" White to play and win, would make a good Friday/Saturday puzzle.

LTJ

Sep-01-12  Albanius: 26...Nh4 27 Ng5+! or
26...h5 27 Ng5+ Kh6 28 f3
with W staying on top in either case.
26...Ne5? fails: 27 Nxe5 hits Qd7.
Sep-01-12  Albanius: 31...Qxc7?
32 Qxh6+!!
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Kasparov on Kasparov: Part I
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
KID Bayonet
by soma
Game 144
from Guess-the-Move Chess: 1990-1999 (Part 3) by Anatoly21
King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation. Bayonet Attack Sokol
from adichess' Indian by adichess
Classic Kramnik
by amadeus
kramnik 2
from emilio's favorite games, 2 by emilio martinez
game 38
from Kings Indian Defense - Mar Del Plata - Gligoric by SafeNorSound
Kramnik the KID Slayer
by Shadout Mapes
Kasparov vs World Champions Decisive Games
by visayanbraindoctor
kibitz games
by eigis
Book of Samurai's favorite games 8
by Book of Samurai
The King's Indian Defence
by MadBishop
K.I.D. W wins E97
by ABD.Brixton
Mil y Una Partidas 1975-1999
by K9Empress
JSYantiss' favorite games
by JSYantiss
Round Five, Game #15
from Novgorod 1997 by suenteus po 147
Vladimir Kramnik
by capybara
Take your time to think
from Kramnik - In his own games by vsadek
Sacrifice and Initiative (Sokolov)
by Friedeggsof
Bayoneted! (Kasparov)
from Kramnik on a King Hunt & vs the World Champions by visayanbraindoctor
Chess Informant Best Games 4
by koinonia
plus 7 more collections (not shown)


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies