|Jun-25-05|| ||Medusa: Im nothing but a patzer when playing chess, but ive always think that caro-kann its an inferior defense, with this variant white used it puts a very complicated game for black.
Most of the times when white plays this variation of e5 black have serious trouble trying to develop his pieces, kasparov and fischer rarely used caro-kann, and these two are in my opinion the best players ever.|
I cant forget how Anand got demolished by Topalov with ck, also kasparov and deep blue, leko with kramnik in final match, and the caro-kann expert karpov, has loose games in a disastrous ways, even tough he know prety well the lines,
Not only the mortal pawn but also the common horse sacrifice, the problem to develop pieces, to castle, however i like to play it.
|Jun-25-05|| ||ArturoRivera: Dont forget <Medusa> that Karpov has virtually patented that defense, he uses it a lot, and karpov is not a patzer, he gave a hell to Kasparov in both encounters, the caro-kann is a solid and great defense, has a drawish reputation, but solid still.|
|Jun-25-05|| ||RisingChamp: Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?? <Ive always thought the Caro Kann is inferior> as if this game proved it! Karpov was much better player than Fisher and equal of Kasparov the Caro Kann was his main defense. And Kasparov has also "loose games in a disastrous ways" in the Sicilian,so I suppose that sucks too.Come to think of it if we apply that logic all openings suck....|
|Jun-25-05|| ||ajile: Black got greedy with 11....Nfxg4. The computer shouldn't be grabbing pawns with his king still in the middle and behind in development. Shaba delivered the crushing punishment for this transgression.|
|Jun-25-05|| ||MarvinTsai: 37. ... Rd8 let white king, bishop and two pawn a very united troop. Black is hopeless after this move. Maybe Rf8 could guard the bottom the push the pawn and it would be a litte bit closer.|
And if you think computers are always so greedy and easily be punished, please refer to 1997 deepblue's last win against Kasparov. Deepblue's sacrifice made world #1 lose quickly (and very upset).
Sometimes computers can be aware of the danger, but if the danger is very distant from the horizon, computers happily grab pieces and give himeself a high score. This problem can be only slightly improved by S/W, and AI programmers always pray there won't be this kind of danger appearing in the game and so GM will see it and use it...
|Jun-25-05|| ||kevin86: Don't knock the Caro-Kann;it is a good defensive opening-quite capable in many cases,or gaining a draw. It does,however,lack the verve and excitement of a Sicilian or a double king pawn opening. It provides a higher chance for a draw than the others,but can be too passive for some.|
This computer's backers wanted to play a certain mythical figure from the north pole-but were unable-and thus was a Rebel without a Claus.
Only six months till Christmas
|Jun-25-05|| ||alexmagnus: Karpov and Caro-Cann-defence: this couple exist since 1985.. But do you know what did Karpov think of it before 1985?
Here is a quote from his book of 1979 ("Chosen games"): "This defence has always bored me by its, if I can say so, passive exitlessness"...:). So people´s mind is changing in some years...|
|Jun-25-05|| ||tpstar: REBEL REBEL/You've torn your dress/REBEL REBEL/Your endgame's a mess/REBEL REBEL/How could they know?/Hot tramp, they programmed you so|
Exciting game for a computer, then mercy rule at the end.
|Jun-25-05|| ||halcyonteam: i feel rebel has done well, but not as well as humans...|
|Jun-25-05|| ||patzer2: Here is my analysis with Fritz 8
<1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. g4 Bg6 6. Nge2 c5 7. Be3 Nc6 8. dxc5
Nxe5 9. Nf4 a6 10. Qe2 Nf6 11. O-O-O Nfxg4 12. Nfxd5 exd5 13. Rxd5 Qe7 14. Bf4
Rd8 15. f3 Nxf3 16. Qxf3> Tempting but apparently only good for an even game is 16. Rxd8+ Kxd8 17. Qd1+ Ke8 18. Qxf3 Qe1+ 19. Nd1 Qe4
20. Qxe4+ Bxe4 21. Rg1 f5 22. Nc3 Bc6 23. Bd3 g6 24. h3 Nf2 25. Be3 Nxd3+ 26.
cxd3 Bg7 27. d4 = <16... Rxd5 17. Qxd5 Ne3> Black just seems to fail to equalize after 17... Qe1+!? 18. Nd1 Qb4 19. Bc4
Nf6 20. Qe5+ Be7 21. Ne3 Qxc5 22. Qb8+ Bd8 23. Rd1 Qe7 24. Kb1 O-O 25. Bd6 Bb6
26. Qxf8+ Kxf8 27. Bxe7+ Kxe7 28. Nd5+ Nxd5 29. Bxd5 Bc7 30. Bxb7 Bxh2 31. Bxa6
h6 32. b4 Be5 33. a4 h5 34. Bc8 Bg3 35. Kc1 Be4 36. Rd7+ Ke8 37. Rd4 f5 38. Kd2
g5 39. c4 Be5 40. Rxe4 fxe4 41. Bf5 Kd8 42. c5 Kc7 43. Bxe4 Kb8 44. Ke3 Bf4+
45. Kd4 Bd2 46. b5 g4 47. b6 h4 48. c6 Bf4 49. a5 Bg3 50. Kc5 Kc8 51. a6 Bf2+
52. Kd6 Bxb6 53. a7 Bxa7 54. Bf5+ Kd8 55. c7+ Ke8 56. c8=Q+ , when White wins. <18. Qd2 Nxc2
19. Bc4 Qd7 20. Qe2+ Be7?> Black misses a draw with 20... Qe7! 21. Qd2 Qd7 22. Rd1 Qxd2+ 23. Rxd2 Nb4
24. a3 Nc6 25. b4 Nd8 26. Re2+ Be7 27. Bd5 Bh5 28. Re3 Bg4 29. Kd2 Be6 30. Bg2
Nc6 31. Ne4 h6 32. Nd6+ Bxd6 33. Bxd6 Kd7 = <21. Rd1> White missed an apparently decisive attack with 21. Nd5! Nd4 22. Qe5 Ne6 23. Nxe7 Qxe7 24. Bxe6 Qxe6 25. Qb8+ Ke7 26. Qxb7+ [not 26. Qxh8?? Qc4+ 27. Kd1 Qc2+ 28. Ke1 Qe4+ 29. Kd2 Qxf4+ 30. Kc3 Qe3+ 31. Kb4 Qd4+ 32. Kb3 Qd3+ 33. Kb4 Qb5+ 34. Kc3 Qxc5+ 35. Kd2 Qd4+ 36. Ke1 Bh5 37. h4 Qe3+ 38. Kf1 Be2+ 39. Kg2 Bf3+ 40. Kh3 Be4+ 41. Kh2 (41. Kg4 f5+ 42. Kh5 Qh6#) 41... Qf2+ 42. Kh3 Bf5#] 26... Kf6 27. Qb4 Re8 28. Rf1 a5 29. Be5+ Kxe5 30. Re1+ Kd5 31. Qd2+ Kxc5 32. Qxa5+ Kc6 33. Rxe6+ Rxe6 34. b4 Kb7 35. a4 Be4 36. b5 f5 37. Qd8 Rb6 38. Qd7+ Kb8 39. a5 Rb7 40. Qd8+ Ka7 41. Qd4+ Ka8 42. b6 Rf7 43. Qc4 Rf8 44. Qa6+ Kb8 45. Qa7+ Kc8 46. Qc7# <21... Qf5 22. Nd5 Qe4 23. Nc7+ Kf8 24. Qxe4 Bxe4 25. Bd5 Bf5 26. a3 Bxc5 27. Bxb7 Nd4 28. b4 Ne2+ 29. Kb2 Bd4+ 30. Kb3 Nxf4 31. Rxd4
Ne6 32. Nxe6+ Bxe6+ 33. Ka4 Ke7 34. Bxa6 Ra8 35. Kb5 g5 36. Kb6 f5 37. Kb7 Rd8??> The computer could have held and maybe even pushed for a possible advantage after 37... Rc8! 38. Rd2 f4 39. b5 Rc3 40. a4 Ra3 41. b6 Rxa4 42. Bb5 Rb4 43.
Bc6 Rc4 44. Kc7 Bc8 45. Kxc8 Rxc6+ 46. Kb7 Rc3 47. Ra2 g4 48. Ka7 h5 49. b7 Rb3
50. b8=Q Rxb8 51. Kxb8 g3 52. hxg3 fxg3 53. Ra6 Kf7 54. Ra1 h4 55. Rg1 Kg6 56.
Kc7 Kh5 57. Kd6 Kg4 58. Ke5 h3 59. Ke4 h2 60. Rh1 g2 61. Rxh2 g1=Q; Obviously Not 37...Bc8+?? 38. Kxa8 Bxa6 39. a4 <38. Rxd8! Kxd8 39. b5 f4 40. b6 Bd5+ 41. Ka7
Ke7 42. a4 g4 43. b7 Bxb7 44. Kxb7 g3 45. hxg3 fxg3 46. Bf1 Ke6 47. a5 Kf5 48.
a6 Kg4 49. a7 h5 50. a8=Q Kg5 1-0>
|Jun-25-05|| ||patzer2: I don't think this loss can be attributed to Black's opening choice. <MarvinTsai> is correct that the losing blunder is 37...Rd8?? After 37...Rc8!, Black can put up good resistance and has decent chances of holding the position. |
Of course White seems to have missed a chance to force things earlier with the stronger 21. Nd5! to , when he wouldn't have needed as much help from poor computer endgame play. However, Black's program also erred to give White that missed opportunity with the weak 20... Be7?, when 20...Qe7!= offered even chances.
|Jun-25-05|| ||Nezhmetdinov: <RisingChamp> how is Karpov equal with Kasparov when he lost three matches to him and retired from another? Nigel Short is the only other peson to beat him in matchplay though, I think - Karpov's in the top 5 ever...|
|Jun-26-05|| ||RisingChamp: <Nezhmetdinov>Because after 150 games their career score is almost equal(something like +1 for Kasparov) and two of those 3 matches were decided on the final game,and one of those which you call a loss was in fact a draw,which allowed Kasparov to retain his title,he didnt retire from the match you refer to,it was abandoned with him leading 5-3 despite his desire to continue,had the match had a game limit instead of the since abandoned first to 6 games rule,he would have romped home.|
|Mar-20-06|| ||Warrush: <Medusa> You think the Caro-Kann is an inferior defence, i have about a 50%win 30% draw rate with it playing people over 300 rating points higher then me. All openings have had a horrible loss to them. THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM INFERIOR OPENINGS. Please think about what you post before you post it.|
|Jun-19-09|| ||Jason Frost: <RisingChamp> Actually Kasparov is +8 against Karpov with 136 draws.|
And the match you are referring to was called of (so not a draw). The calling off of the match has been been widely excepted as being in Karpov's favor, since the match was called off not after a long series of draws, but after to wins by Kasparov, when it looked like Karpov was crumbling.
Although, to be fair, I agree Karpov was a great player, in my opinion number 2 all time, and the match being called off was in no way his fault, but one of the many mistakes FIDE has made over the years.
|Jun-19-09|| ||WhiteRook48: <Karpov is Kasparov's equal>
What nonsense. Kasparov beat Karpov|