|Jul-12-02|| ||bishop: The spectacular looking move 11.Ng5! was first played by Karpov in his 1978 world title match with Korchnoi. The following is quoted from Raymond Keene's book THE EVOLUTION OF CHESS OPENING THEOTY-"korchnoi described Karpov's 11th move as "the kind you find once in a century", and Harry Golombek was bold enough to declare "it is not a move you see readily. It can easily be overlooked." If now 11...Qxg5 12.Qf3 Kd7 13.Bd5! or 12...Bd7 13.Bxf7+ Ke7 14.Bd5 Nxe5 15.Qe2 with horrible threats. Korchnoi in fact, played 11...dxc3 and hung on with difficulty." Keene goes on to write that it was later established that the best line for Black are the moves played in the above game up to 17...dxc3 and he states that Black has compensation for the piece.
Well, it looks like Kasparov has established that this compensation is not good enough. |
|Jul-14-02|| ||Sneaky: I looked up some other games with this gambit. Here's some examples of the gambit winning, losing, and drawing.|
Anand vs Ivan Sokolov, 1994 (0-1)
Kasparov vs Anand, 1995 (1-0)
Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978 (1/2-1/2)
|Mar-20-03|| ||refutor: i think shirov is far too brave |
|Oct-29-03|| ||Open Defence: Hehehehehe the debate continues, though I feel Shirov played very riskily in this game by advancing king side pawns, the interesting thing is that despite Anand having faced Sokolov's 11..Bd5 he did not use it in the match with Kasparov and instead used 11..dxc3 |
|Oct-30-03|| ||Drstrangelove: It's odd that a player as good as Shirov has never scored a point against Kasparov (at least not in this database) |
|Nov-22-03|| ||seoulmama: Dr, Shirov has, like Anand, some kind of psychological block when it comes to playing Gazza and win. |
|Nov-22-03|| ||Eggman: I don't find it odd that a player as good as Shirov would fail to ever score a point against a player as great as Kasparov. After all, how often does Kasparov ever lose? |
|Nov-22-03|| ||PinkPanther: <It's odd that a player as good as Shirov has never scored a point against Kasparov (at least not in this database)>|
Well no, he's never scored a full point against him in any given game, but he's drawn him plenty of times.
|Nov-20-04|| ||comcicomca: Black got good play for his piece, and came within a hair of equalizing.
Probably, in time pressure, he missed the sting at the end of all the exchanges. |
|Nov-20-04|| ||MoonlitKnight: Morozevich vs Ponomariov, 2004 is the newest contribution to this line. |
|Jan-15-05|| ||SimonBrazil: <MoonlitKnight> The newest one: Grischuk vs Anand, 2005 , Wijk aan Zee, 2005 |
|Jan-30-08|| ||mistreaver: This variation was refuted by GM Gyimesi in Delchev-Gyimesi, Nova Gorica 2004 ( no game in database). that game went
21... d3!! 22 axb5 d2 23 bxa6 c2 24 Bxd2 Bxa1 25 Rxa1 Rhe8 26 a7 Kb7 27 a8=Q+ Rxa8 28 Rc1 1/2- 1/2
This is the variation that diverted ppl from 9 Nbd2 to 9Be3
Gyimesi is the founder of that novelty.
Seems like sometimes lower rated GMs can have great effect on opening theory.
|Apr-06-08|| ||mistreaver: I don't get why no1 ever played 12 ... Ke7 on black side. Is there any forced refutation? Cause i tryed that move few times and it worked well ( altought it happened on playchess against weaker opponents|
|Aug-09-08|| ||alexrawlings: Can someone explain why Kasparov retreats the bishop with 28 Bb4 instead of playing 28 Bxc7 please?|
|Apr-06-09|| ||alanelbaum: alexrawlings, I think it's because he wants to keep his c-pawn. If black takes it after 28. Bb4, then 29. Rxd4 seems strong. But if 28. Bxc7 Rxc6, then 29. Rxd4 doesn't work.|
|Apr-22-09|| ||aazqua: Moves 30 and on are really quite comical. The problem with Shirov playing Kasparov is that Shirov likes to play a lot of speculative calculation intensive chess and Kasparov is the greatest player in history at aggressive, calculation intensive chess. Shirov throws a bunch of spagghetti on the wall and most of his opponents have trouble sorting it out. The problem with Kasparov is that he's just much better at it than Shirov so Shirov always ends up in a variant that is unfavorable to him. This game is an excellent case in point. It's hard to believe Kasparov wouldn't be extremely familiar with the "Karpov" Gambit and the last thing in the world that you want to do is to give Kasparov a piece for a couple pawns in a dynamic position. Kd7 looks like it can't possibly be right and sure enough, by the time Shirov gets his king sorted out Kasparov controls the files he needs to and has his pieces in the right place. G5 G4?? That cheeky pawn should be slapped back into position.|
|Apr-22-09|| ||returnoftheking: Kasparov's score against Shirov can't be explained by just being better at calculating or tactics. More probably it's psychology that plays a big (additional) role.|
|Apr-04-12|| ||Hesam7: According to theory 21. ... d3! is best and after 22. axb5 d2 Black has scored very well indeed. However a later improvement over Shirov's game is still possible: |
24. ... Rd5 25. Ba5 (25. c6!? , Δ Rd3 & Re1) 25. ... Ra8 26. Rd3 Rxa5 27. Nxa5 Rxc5 28. Kf1 b4 29. Nb3 Kd5!! 30. Nxc5 Kxc5
click for larger view
<it [is] not clear how White [can] hold 4 Black passed pawns> - Khalifman in vol. 2 of his Anand series.
|Apr-04-12|| ||pawnofdeath: spectacular game by kasparov...what calculation, just brilliant!|
|Sep-01-17|| ||plang: I believe this was the 1st time that Shirov played the Open variation; sort of a strange choice as Kasparov had prepared this line for the Anand match and could be expected to have improvements ready. played at Linares 2001; Kasparov won this 6 player double round robin with +5 a full 3 points ahead of the other 5 players who tied for 2nd-6th with -1. In this highly theoretical line it is considered necessary for Black to sacrifice a piece with 15..Qd5 because 15..dxc 16 bxc..cxd 17 Qxa6+..Kd7 18 Bxd2 is strong for White. Through 22..axb the game followed Shirov-Timman Wijk aan Zee 1996 where White played 23 Rad1 and went on to win; Kasparov chose 23 Rfd1 which had been played recently in Van den Doel-Timmerman Deizisau 1999. In that game Black played 24..Rd5. In his preparation Shirov had missed that White could respond 25 Rd3 (rather that 25 Ba5 as Van den Doel played) so he played 24..Rhe8 instead with a clear disadvantage. 31..c2 32 R1d2..Bh6 33 f3+ would have led to the loss of the c-pawn.|