< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Sep-27-08|| ||Cactus: <Woody> I would, seeing as Acirce showed Kramnik saying he found it in '98-99.|
|Mar-14-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 39...Ke7??|
|Apr-01-09|| ||freeman8201: Why let White grab the Pawns? A bit Odd for Kasparov to let Kramnik do so, but then again Kasparov kept playing the Berlin. Following to much theory?|
|Aug-31-09|| ||ycbaywtb: you should notice in this game the damage Kramnik's white square bishop accomplishes. it is the same piece that destroyed Kasparov in his other loss of this match, along the very same diagonal!!! that is significant, i've been beaten by the nasty long range bishop, who hasn't, but how could Garry allow it twice? also, the match was fairly short, and we've all had some noticeable heart-searching after a 'disgusting' or whatever, loss, and Garry was no different. Give Kramnik credit for using the venom at the right time, but it's still amazing that Garry was beaten overall. i almost think the Russians plotted it was time for Garry to give it over to Kramnik or something, nothing like a conspiracy theory...lol|
|Apr-17-10|| ||rapidcitychess: <drnoo> If super GMs' didn't study openings, we wouldn't get to the ending. There would be no Pirc,no Sicilian,no French, no Caro-Kann, and every one would be scared if they were black, because of the Scotch and Italian!Studying endings is important, but look at Capablanca's games. He blunders too!! Even in the ending.|
|Oct-15-10|| ||morphy2010: Im soooo Vlad!|
|Mar-19-11|| ||sergeidave: Any chances for Kaspy besides blundering with 39...Ke7??|
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: The following analysis is from Bridgeburner chessforum, and part of a project to determine and compare the error rates of key World Championship matches. So far, analysis has been completed for all the games of Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008) and Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910).|
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: PART 1
Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000 is the second game of the Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship Match (2000).
Quantitative mapping of this game between these players follows. Figures in brackets immediately after each move are the corrected engine evaluations generated on the forward slide that followed the initial reverse slide originating from the last move of the game after all moves had been inputted into the engine. Some evaluations are bolstered by analysis, while some are the result of further –occasionally multiple - slides in one or both directions. This smoothed out nearly all fluctuations in the engine’s evaluations, apart from in the opening.
General methods used are described in the bio at the top of this page.
Engine preferences are included throughout the game where they differ from players preferences except in the well trodden opening, where evaluation values are included for completeness rather than in the interests of complete accuracy which is not knowable in the opening.
Some analysis is included to provide some idea of the reason for the engine preferences where they didn’t coincide with the moves played.
<Important Note>: All evaluations outside the opening are subject to at least two 20 ply engine evaluations. Where engine evaluations do not correlate in consecutive moves where the later move played is the engine’s first preference, the evaluation process is “goosed” to enable the moves in question to be subject to additional and sometimes repeated sliding analysis in both directions, and to have their evaluations augmented by deep ply variation analysis.
The entire mapping process occurs with the engine running non-stop to preserve all the hash files that add information to the engine’s evaluation process.
This was a carefully played game by both players, with no errors until Kasparov cracked under time pressure, fatally weakening his h-pawn with 36…h5, the only error of the game as <39…Ke7> merely hastened the end. This was a fateful game as Kramnik showed in the first game that he could hold his own against Kasparov playing the solid Berlin Defence, and then won this game, arguably the turning point in the match when Kasparov realized that his former student was now not only his match, but had possibly surpassed him.
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: PART 2
Commentary for this game is extracted from Karsten Müller’s online publication <Kasparov-Kramnik 2000): http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kvsk2...
GAME MOVE 1:
<1. d4> (+0.20)
Müller: <”!? Kramnik wants to go for it. He has prepared a plan against Kasparov’s Grünfeld!”>
GAME MOVES 1-3:
<2. c4> (+0.16) <2. ..g6> (+0.24)
<3. Nc3> (+0.22) <3…d5> (+0.24)
Müller: <” Kasparov accepts the challenge.”>
GAME MOVEs: 4-9
<4. cxd5> (+0.24) <4…Nxd5> (+0.24)
<5. e4> (+0.24) <5…Nxc3> (+0.24)
<6. bxc3> (+0.15) <6…Bg7> (+0.29)
<7. Nf3> (+0.15) <7…c5> (+0.13)
<8. Be3> (+0.00) <8…Qa5> (+0.15)
<9. Qd2> (0.00) <9…Bg4> (0.50)
1. <9…0-0> (0.00): <10.Rb1>
2. <9…Nc6> (+0.08): <10.Rb1 a6 11.Bc4 O-O 12.O-O cxd4 13.Nxd4 Ne5 14.Be2 Qc7 15.f4 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Qxc4 17.e5 Qc7 18.Qc2 b5 19.a4 bxa4 20.Qxa4 Bb7>
3. <9…b6> (+0.24): <10.Bc4 Nc6 11.Rc1 Ba6 12.Qd3 b5 13.Bd5 Rc8 14.Qd2 O-O 15.Bh6 cxd4 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.cxd4 Qxd2+ 18.Kxd2>
The Game Mapping Projects doesn’t recognize evaluation variations of less the 0.60 as constituting an error. This move is a QED in respect of this method, as <9…Bg4> is well trodden theory: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches......, with positive results achieved at elite levels even after this loss by Black.
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: PART 3:
GAME MOVES 10-11:
<10. Rb1> (0.50) <10…a6> (0.50)
<11. Rxb7 > (0.50)
Müller:<”Ivanchuk and Levin give this natural move a “?!” in Chess Informant. Kramnik apparently sees it differently. 11.Rb3?! b5 with counterplay, as in [ Timman vs Ivanchuk, 1992 Linares ] (Informant 54/42).”>
GAME MOVES 11-12:
<12. gxf3> (0.63) <12…Nc6> (0.63)
Müller: <” Ivanchuk and Levin give this variation in Informant without an evaluation.”>
GAME MOVE 13:
<13. Bc4> (0.58)
<Engine preference>: <13. Bg2> (+0.63): <13…Rd8 14.O-O cxd4 15.cxd4 Qxd2 16.Bxd2 Nxd4 17.Bb4 Bf6 18.e5 Bg5 19.Re1 Nc2 20.f4 Bh4 21.Ba5 Nxe1 22.Bxd8 O-O 23.Bxe7 Bxe7 24.Rxe7 Nd3>
GAME MOVE 13:
Müller: <” 13...e6 14.Bxe6 (Skripchenko) (14.0-0!?) 14...Nd8 15.Bd5 Nxb7 16.Bxb7 Rb8 17.Bc6+–; 13...cxd4 14.cxd4 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 Nxd4 16.f4 .”>
<Engine preference>: <13…Rc8> (+0.58): <14.Bd5 cxd4>
GAME MOVE 14:
<14. 0-0> (0.51)
1. <14. Bd5> (+0.79): <14…Rfb8 15.Bxc6 Rxb7 16.Bxb7 Rb8 17.O-O cxd4 18.cxd4 Qxd2 19.Bxd2 Rxb7 20.Be3 f5 21.Rc1 Rb2 22.Rc7 f4 23.Bxf4 Bxd4 24.Rxe7 Bxf2+ 25.Kh1>
2. <14. Ke2> (+0.56): <14…Rfd8 15.Rd1 cxd4 16.cxd4 Bxd4 17.Bd5 Rxd5 18.exd5 Qxd5 19.Rc1 Rd8 20.Rb3 f5 21.Ke1 Qxf3 22.Qc2 Qh1+ 23.Ke2 Bxe3 24.Qc4+ Qd5 25.Qxd5+ Rxd5 26.Rxc6 Bf4 27.Rxa6>
GAME MOVE 14:
Müller: < (“14...Rfd8!?”)>
GAME MOVE 15:
<15. cxd4> (0.51) <15…Bxd4> (0.51)
Müller: <”After 15...Qxd2 16.Bxd2 Nxd4 17.Kg2, the pair of bishops gives White a small but permanent advantage. The weak a-pawn in particular may cause Black some headaches.”>
GAME MOVE 16:
<16. Bd5> (+0.51) <16…Bc3> (+0.62)
Müller: <”16...Qxd2 17.Bxd2 Rfc8 .”>
Engine preference: <16…Qxd2> (+0.51): <17.Bxd2 Rfc8 18.Kg2 e6 19.Bb3 Ra7 20.Rxa7 Nxa7 21.a4 Rc5 22.Rc1 Rxc1 23.Bxc1 Kg7 24.Bc4 a5 25.Bd2 Nc6 26.Bb5 Nb4 27.h4>
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: PART 4:
GAME MOVE 17:
<17. Qc1> (+0.+0.52)
Engine preference: <17.Qc2> (+0.62): <17…Rac8 18.Rc1 Ne5 19.Qb3 Nxf3+ 20.Kg2 e6 21.Kxf3 exd5 22.Qxd5 Qxd5 23.exd5 Be5 24.Rxc8 Rxc8 25.Rb6 Bxh2>
GAME MOVE 17:
Müller: <”Kasparov gives up a pawn in order to get one of the white bishops off the board, going into an endgame with opposite-colored bishops.”>
Note: Kramnik has won the opening battle and the only winning chances would be with White. Kasparov acknowledges this and plays for the draw.
Engine preference: <17…Rac8> (+0.52): <18. Bb6 Qb4 19.a3 Qb2 20.Qxb2 Bxb2 21.a4 Ba3>
GAME MOVES 18-21:
<18. Bxd4> (+0.93) <18…Bxd4> (0.93)
<19. Rxe7> (+0.93) <19…Ra7> (+0.97)
<Engine preference>: <19...Bc5> (+0.93): <20.Rb7 Ra7 21.Rxa7 Bxa7>
<20. Rxa7> (0.97) <20…Bxa7> (0.97)
<21. f4> (+0.75)
Müller: <”Kramnik wants to contest the dark squares and start a kingside attack in the long run. 21.Qg5 allows 21...Qc3.”>
1. <21. Kg2> (+0.97): <21…Qb6 22.h4 Bb8 23.Rd1 Qf6 24.Qg5 Qxg5+ 25.hxg5 Bf4 26.Rd4 a5 27.Ra4 Bd2 28.Kg3 Rc8 29.f4 Rc1 30.Rd4 Bc3 31.Rd3>
2. <21. h4> (+0.90): < 21…Qd8 22.Qg5 Qd6 23.h5 Bb8 24.Qh4 Qf4 25.Qxf4 Bxf4 26.hxg6 hxg6 27.Bb7 a5 28.Rd1 Kg7 29.Rd7 Kh6 30.Bd5>
3. <21. Qg5> (+0.88): <21.Qg5>
GAME MOVES 21-22:
<22. Qc3> (+0.75)
Müller: <”Kramnik maintains his strategy not to leave the dark squares to Kasparov’s queen and bishop.”>
GAME MOVES 22-25:
<23. Qf3> (+0.75) <23…Qh4> (+0.75)
<24. e5> (+0.75) <24…g5> (+0.75)
<25. Re1> (+0.75)
Müller: <”Kramnik goes into an endgame with rooks, opposite-colored bishops, and an extra pawn. 25.e6!? (Skripchenko).”>
Note: Kramnik sees a chance to transform his Kingside pawn advantage to a passed pawn on the Queenside in this middlegame to endgame transition. Now the game hinges on Black’s ability to stop White’s passed a-pawn.
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: PART 5:
GAME MOVES 25-29:
<26. Qxf4> (+0.75) <26…gxf4> (+0.75)
<27. e6> (+0.75) <27…fxe6> (+0.75)
<28. Rxe6> (+0.75) <28…Kg7> (+0.75)
<29. Rxa6> (+0.75) <29…Rf5> (+0.88)
1. <29…Rd8> (+0.75): <30.Ra5 Bc7 31.Rc5 Bd6 32.Rb5>
2. <29…Rf6> (+0.80)
GAME MOVE 30:
<30. Be4> (+0.83)
<Engine preference>: <30. Bf3> (+0.88): < 30…Rc5 31.Kg2 Rc2 32.Be4 Rd2 33.Ra5 h6 34.a4 Ra2 35.Kf3 Kf6 36.Bd5 Rc2 37.h4 Bd6 38.Bb7 Rc5>
GAME MOVES 30-31:
<31. f3> (+0.75)
<Engine preference>: <31. Bf3> (+0.83): <31…Re7 32.Ra8 Bd6 33.Kg2 Kf6 34.Ra6 Ke5 35.Ra5+ Kf6 36.Bd5>
GAME MOVES 31-34:
<32. a4> (+0.75) <32…Ra7> (+0.75)
<33. Rb6> (+0.75) <33…Be5> (+0.75)
<34. Rb4> (+0.75)
Müller: <”This endgame is very unpleasant for Kasparov because the rooks are still on the board. And, in time trouble, all problems are compounded.”>
GAME MOVE 34:
Müller: <”? Allowing the a-pawn to advance farther. But activating the rook also weakens the h-pawn considerably.”>
1. <34…Bc3> (+0.75): <35.Rc4 Bd2 36.Kg2 Be3 37.Bc2 h5 38.Rc6 Ra5 39.h4 Kf7 40.Bb3+ Kg7 41.Kf1 Re5 42.Bc2 Rd5>
2. <34…Bd6> (+0.80): <34...Bd6 35.Rc4 Ra5 36.Kg2 Rg5+ 37.Kh3 Kf7 38.Rc6 Ke7 39.Kh4 h6 40.Bd3 Kd7 41.Bb5 Ke6 42.Rc2 Bb4 43.Be8 Ke7 44.Bb5 Be1+ 45.Kh3 Kf6>
3. <24…Ra5> (+0.80): <35.Rc4 Bd6 36.Kg2 Rg5+ 37.Kh3 Kf7 38.Rc6 Ke7 39.Kh4 h6 40.Bd3 Kd7 41.Bb5 Ke6 42.Rc2 Bb4 43.Be8 Ke7 44.Bb5 Be1+ 45.Kh3 Kf6>
GAME MOVE 35:
<35. Kg2> (+0.98) <35…Rd2+> (+1.11)
Engine preference: <35…Ra7> (+0.98): <36.Kh3 Kf6 37.Bc2 Rc7 38.Bd3 Ra7 39.Kg4 Bd6 40.Rd4 Be5 41.Rc4 Bd6 42.h4 Ke5 43.Bc2 Ke6 44.Be4 Rg7+ 45.Kh5 Ra7>
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: PART 6:
GAME MOVE 36:
<36. Kh3> (+1.11) <36…h5> (+1.67)
The losing move, weakening the h-pawn fatally, and leading inexorably to the loss of the game, and ultimately the match and the crown, creating chess history. This move is classified as a <blunder> under project methodology, after which the game is a loss in all variations.
1. <36…Ra2> (+1.11): <37.Bd5 Rd2 (if 37…Rb2 38. Rxb2 Bxb2 39. Kg4 wins, eg: 39…Bc1 40. a5 Be3 41. Kf5 Bg1 42. a6 Kf8 43. Ke6 Ke8 44. Kd6 Kd8 45. Be6 ) 38. Rb7+ Kf6 39. Rf7+ Kg6 40. Rd7 Kg5 41. a5 Bc7 42. a6 Bb6 seems to hold>
This analysis was tested to 20-28 ply on each move through to the last move displayed here and beyond.
2. <36…h6> (+1.35)
GAME MOVES 37-38:
<37. Rb5> (+1.67) <37…Kf6> (+1.67)
<38. a5> (+1.67)
Müller: <”38.Rb6+!? was an alternative (Fritz 6).”>
GAME MOVES 38-39:
<39. Rb6+> (+1.64)
<Engine preference>: <39. Rc5> (+1.67)
GAME MOVE 39:
As the game was already lost, this does not count as a blunder under Project methodology, even though it leads to an immediate rather than gradual loss. The Project is unconcerned about evaluation jumps that maintain a game within the won/lost zone. The engine’s preference is as per Müller’s analysis.
Müller: <”?? In time trouble Kasparov gives the game away to a two-mover. With 39...Kg7 he could have defended quite tenaciously, but White wins nevertheless as Kramnik demonstrated. I had found this plan as well, and published it in my Endgame Corner column #3 at ChessCafe.com:
40.a6 Bd4 41.Rg6+ Kf8 42.Bb7 Ra5 43.Rd6 Be3 44.Rd5 normally it is not such a good winning idea to trade rooks in this kind of endgame, but here it works because of the weak black h-pawn and White’s far advanced a-pawn: 44...Rxd5 45.Bxd5 Kg7 (45...Ke7 46.Kh4+–) 46.Kg2 Kf6 47.h4! fixing the weak h-pawn on a dark square is very important! 47...Ba7 (47...Ke7 48.Kh3 Kd6 49.Bf7 Kc7 50.Bxh5 Kb6 51.Kg4 Kxa6 52.Bf7 Kb6 53.Kf5 Kc7 54.Ke6 Bd4 55.h5 Bg7 56.Be8 Kd8 57.Ba4 Bh6 58.Kf6 Bf8 59.Kf7 Bh6 60.Kg6 Bf8 61.h6 Bb4 62.h7 Bc3 63.Kf7+–) 48.Be4 Be3 49.Kf1 Ba7 50.Ke2 Bg1 51.Kd3 Bf2 52.Bh7 Kg7 (52...Ke5 53.Ke2 Bg1 54.Bg6+– ) 53.Bf5 Kf6 54.Ke4 Be3 55.Bh3+–.>
GAME MOVE 40:
<40. Bd5> (+9.14) Black resigns
Müller: <”The pawn endgame after 40.Bd5 Rxa5 41.Re6+ Kd7 42.Rxe5 Kd6 43.Rxh5 Rxd5 44.Rxd5+ Kxd5 45.Kg4 is of course hopeless.”>
click for larger view
The only error mapped under Project methodology was a <blunder> by Kasparov when he played <36…h5>. Kramnik’s play was error-free and has been so since game 1.
|Oct-23-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: IMO Kramnik played in a very Karpovian style in this game. He knew that Kasparov had experienced the utmost difficulty against Karpov and his style of play in their epic matches. He out-prepared Kasparov in the opening and entered the middle-game with an advantage. In the manner of Karpov's prophylactic style, Kramnik denied Kasparov control of the dark squares as far as he could do so, and never gave Black any real counter chance throughout the game. Given an opportunity in the middle-game to endgame transition to transform his advantage into something that could concretely and safely win (the passed a-pawn), Kramnik took it.|
Kasparov played true to his active style. The engine was screaming for him to defend against the passed a-pawn by maintaining his Rook in front of it. However, in accordance with his aggressive style <34…Rd7> was the start of a plan to place his Rook on his 7th rank (Kramnik's second rank) and swing it behind the passed a-pawn. This plan severely compromised his defense, as it allowed Kramnik to march his pawn to the 5th rank unimpeded.
Note that in the final position
click for larger view
Kasparov has attained a pseudo-aggressive position, with his Rook behind the passed a-pawn and on Kramnik's second rank, his Bishop and King centralized, and the White king seemingly cornered on the edge of the board. Yet it is also a totally lost position for Black as he does not have enough material to force a direct mate, and he is forced to enter a lost King and pawn ending a pawn down. It is possible that Kasparov was betrayed by his own aggressive style in this game.
This game, following right after the drawish first, must have greatly sapped Kasparov's morale. This can be understood in the context that Kasparov's greatest weapon throughout his career was his unrivaled opening prep. In the 1995 World Championship match with Anand, time and time again Kasparov managed to enter advantageous middle-games out of openings that Anand mishandled. Kramnik, being Kasparov's second in that match, completely understood this and had devised a strategy that would neutralize Kasparov's White opening advantage; and give him chances to win with his own White games.
The first game demonstrated that Kramnik had successfully neutralized Kasparov's opening White advantage with the Berlin, and that Kasparov now had to rely entirely on over the board play to win every White game that could be won, without the opening advantage that he enjoyed in the 1995 match. This second game was won by Kramnik in a Karpovian style that he probably knew was particularly effective against Kasparov. Kasparov went for pseudo-aggressive play when the real essence of the position called for him to hunker down on defense. Yet the skilled Kasparov somehow still managed to avoid committing a decisive mistake. When he did, just a single one, Kramnik immediately KO'd him.
One can just imagine the demoralizing effect of this game on Kasparov. Kramnik on the other hand knew that he had his former mentor teetering on a seat at the edge of a building. Kramnik mercilessly kept him there for the rest of the match, never giving him a single clearly won position; and finally another bad opening in the closing stage of the match allowed the former student to poke the tottering King right off the high chess throne.
This game marks the beginning of the end of a major chess era.
|Oct-23-11|| ||maelith: Kasparov always have many position in the opening where he is on his own. In the Kasparov vs Topalov brilliant match in 1999, both players were on their own early as both players avoided the main lines of Pirc, instead they went to unfamiliar territory where there are not much theory yet.|
The difference in this Krammnik match is most of the positions are not dynamic, something that Kasparov enjoyed. We all know Kasparov has personal problems going in to the match. Many grand masters noticed that uncharacteristically Kasparov has many miscalculations in their match.
When Krammnik and Kasparov faced each other again in a tournament, Kasparov crushed Krammnik's Berlin.
One of the reason why Kasparov retired in chess, is because of his frustration of Krammnik, not wanting to give him a rematch.
|Mar-08-12|| ||OhioChessFan: Thanks to <visay> for this and other games analysis.|
|Jul-09-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: Instead of 10...a6, 10..Bxf3 makes White's king less secure in the event that White castles on the king side and also removes a defender of the d4 pawn|
|Jul-11-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF KRAMNIK.
Your score: 69 (par = 56)
|Feb-24-13|| ||tivrfoa: <visayanbraindoctor> thanks a lot for your excellent posts.|
|Nov-15-13|| ||Check It Out: <visayanbraindoctor> Nice posts.|
|Oct-30-15|| ||HeMateMe: <One of the reason why Kasparov retired in chess, is because of his frustration of Krammnik, not wanting to give him a rematch.>|
Was there ever money around, for a significant rematch? any offers? FIDE would not have sponsored it. That doesn't matter as the chess world would have considered the winner world champion. I don't think Kramnik ducks anyone, I just don't think there was ever a solid offer on the table for serious money, enough for Kramnik to forgo FIDE events and appearance fees for 6 months.
|Oct-30-15|| ||Petrosianic: He could have had the rematch. Simply play Kasimdzhanov (once Kirsan finally got his act together and arranged it), win it (an easy task), and voila. Kasparov has his rematch. He chose to retire instead.|
|Oct-30-15|| ||HeMateMe: Neither side would have played, without money. You have no evidence that anyone would have sponsored a rematch. I think such money could have been found, but kramnik would not have given a rematch, even if he was potentially getting the loser's share of a $5M prize. He wanted to keep the title, and thought it would be easier to defend it within FIDE, and not against Kasparov.|
I just point out that there were no public offers for a rematch, and no public statements by either player on the subject, or at least nothing indicating they were trying to feel out sponsors.
You would think that such a player as Kasparov could have generated enough interest to get big bucks to commit, but you just never know. His pulling the title out of FIDE control split the chess world in two and damaged chess sponsorship. Vlad perhaps felt his best future was to only play within FIDE boundaries.
Also, such people as Kasparov don't like to play if they aren't number one. There is no real evidence that he tried to find a sponsor for a rematch. Perhaps he realized that his time as world champion had come and gone and he was content to walk away from chess a multimillionaire.
Nothing since has indicated that he would have won a rematch with Kramnik.
|Aug-24-16|| ||plang: Kramnik apparently prepared 8 Be3 for the match as he had little prior experience with it. 9..Nc6 and 9..0-0 are the main lines but Kasparov had played 9..Bg4 against Yermolinsky at Wijk aan Zee 1999 and had won. White cannot protect d4 with 13 e5? due to 13..cxd 14 cxd..Qxd2 15 Kxd2..Bxe5 (16 dxe..0-0-0+).|
Kramnik after 29 Rxa6:
"I should like to disprove the opinion that I effectively won this game in the opening. The new idea 11 Rxb7 was, of course, strong but this move is essentially the only one, since otherwise Black has no problems. Kasparov had a couple of opportunities to go into a slightly inferior ending. I seized the initiative, but no more than that. Of course, the ending reached was extremely unpleasant for Black, but he could have held it."
Kramnik described 34..Rd7? as "perhaps Blacks only serious mistake in the game" (when Black blundered at the end the game was already lost) recommending instead 34..Bd6 35 Rc4..Ra5 though White would still have retained good winning chances.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Kasparov on Kasparov: Part I