|Jul-18-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Really close. Too bad, Kasparov is ahead by two pawns. |
|Mar-29-04|| ||ConLaMismaMano: The game didn't continue because Kasparov was in zeitnot? |
|Mar-29-04|| ||Vischer: Bishops of opposite color endgame maybe, those can be drawn even with 2 pawns difference. |
|Mar-29-04|| ||Vischer: Shredder8 seems to think its winning for black though. |
|Mar-29-04|| ||Vischer: Maybe zeitnot is right. |
|Mar-29-04|| ||Bobsterman3000: I'm just happy that Vladimir made it past 20 moves before the inevitable draw... |
|Mar-29-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Bobsterman3000> You seem to be confusing tournament play with match play. The 2000 World Championship match had very few short draws (I count only two definitive GM draws in the match), and Kasparov still was unable to win a single game. |
|Mar-30-04|| ||Bobsterman3000: Good point, Kenkaku. That's the second time you've corrected me lately, and rightfully so. Vlad has had a rash of short draws recently in tourney play (i.e. Linares 2004) but not necessarily in match play, where he seems to really embrace the challenge... |
|Mar-30-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: This endgame is a dead draw. For example 38...Kg6 39.Kd4 Kf5 40.Bc7 Kg4 41.Ke3 Bd5 42.Bd6 Kh3 43.Kf2 etc. Black pawns cannot surpass b8-h2 diagonal. |
|Mar-30-04|| ||ruylopez900: Still, a pretty good match between the two. Definitely could have been worse. |
|Apr-07-05|| ||vonKrolock: the eight Game in the London 2000 WC match; <16...Nc7> was a novelty, with a fine tactical point <18...f5>!! The struggle that follows with black always near, but not arriving to a favorable decision, makes this a highly recomended Game for deep ponderations |
|Sep-19-05|| ||csmath: This is the draw for Kramnik's collection of successful draws. This game might have been the crucial game of this match. Kasparov has been ready for a sharp NID and Kramnik somehow allowed it to happen. Later in the match, in game #10 he would deviate and surprise Kasparov in a variation Kasparov did not study. But here Kasparov gained equality easily and then proceeded with central attack 18. f5! with ingenuity. Kramnik played stereotypical, in particular his 22. 0-0 is dubious though he was definitely looking for simplifications as fast as possible. He Leko-ed the game eventually and Gazza did not find the way to avoid theoretical drawn ending. A good recipe how to avoid Kasparov tactical rampage. It is interesting how Leko plays similar in his meetings with Kasparov. Kramnik survived and the rest is history.|
|Sep-19-05|| ||you vs yourself: <I'm just happy that Vladimir made it past 20 moves before the inevitable draw... > If it's an innocent comment, then lol!|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Queens Gambit: Kasparov should have tried to go here for a win,in case of having won this game. history would have been so different now....|
|Jan-21-06|| ||Hesam7: Kasparov on 16... Nc7!
<No ten Gelfands would find such a move>
|Jan-21-06|| ||Steppenwolf: Wow, what a draw from Kramnik! He is really the super-GM of drawn games. I guess his highest hope in life is to draw every game just like this one. Draw after draw, he will remain on top!|
|Jun-14-06|| ||Runemaster: I was at this game. There was no real time trouble on either side.|
I remember that one of the commentators we were listening to on the headsets, GM Speelman, described Kramnik's 25.Ra2 as "ridiculous". But it worked - Kasparov caught Kramnik in a dangerous prepared variation and Kramnik did well to neutralise the initiative and get a draw.
|Jul-29-08|| ||ketchuplover: This isn't a win?|
|Sep-11-08|| ||Karpova: Vladimir Kramnik: <Game 8 was probably the hardest of the match. On that day I was very tightly wound, I had a bad premonition. Nothing really jelled - I made the wrong choice of variation and I stepped into a powerful novelty. During the game I understood that everything was going according to the scenario of a losing game - a bad mood, I tripped up in the opening, pressure during play. I pulled myself together and decided that I had to stand my ground at all costs. This was the first really difficult game, and for me it was important on principle not to lose.>|
Bareev, Evgeny & Levitov, Ilya: "From London to Elista", Alkmaar, 2007, page 105
|Sep-11-08|| ||Woody Wood Pusher: During this game, Drawnik decided 'if I win, I will run with the title forever...no rematch for this guy, he plays too well!'|
|Sep-11-08|| ||Cactus: I hate responding to all your lies, but I don't want anyone reading them, and not knowing any better, believing them. |
So here it is. Kasparov <insisted> on a no-rematch clause so that he would have the appearance of having to work for the world championship like everybody else. However, he then declined to play in the qualifier so we never saw Kramnik-Kasparov 2.
Please stop lying.
|Nov-22-16|| ||plang: Adams had played 15..N5f6 in his loss to Kramnik at Linares 1999; Kasparov varied with 15..Rfd8. 16..Ne7 had been played in a few blitz games; 16..Nc7! was Kasparov's improvement taking advantage of the clear lead in development that Black usually has in the Classical Nimzo Indian. Although Kasparov had an initiative Kramnik's careful defense with 25 Ra2 exchanging Black's active rook and then 25 Nc3 sacrificing a pawn for active piece play led to an endgame where White had good drawing chances. 35..Rd2+?! led to the exhange of rooks and a dead draw despite Black's two extra pawns; Kasparov could have tried 35..Kg6 36 Ke2..Rb3 37 Be3..Bd5 38 Rxg5+..Kf6 39 Bd2..Bc4+ 40 Kd1..e5 41 Rh5 though White still would likely be able to draw.|