I say this line appears to be hold. IF no winning line exists than the game has to still be a draw.>

Hi! I do not think that your line holds. After 25...Rxd8 26.Qxd8+ Ng8 White has 27.a4! and Black will not be able to hold everything together. for example, 27...h6 28.Re8 Qb3 29.Qa8! and if 29...a5 then 30.Qe4! and White is in command, or if 29...a6 30.Qe4! b5 31.axb5 axb5 (only move, as 31...Qxb5 loses to 32. Qe6) 32.Rb8 and the b-pawn will fall in a few moves.

Kamalakanta

"As you may recall Vladimir was Kasparov's hand-picked successor, and Kasparov played him even though Shirov beat Kramnik fair and square for that right. One of the more shameful blots on Kasparov's record as champion in my humble opinion."

Yes, I think we all understand what you mean. But to be fair there were extenuating circumstances. Kasparov was in negotiation with Anand, the number two rated, for a match. Apparently (although I can't judge the details), they fell through. Then, luckily for Kramnik, Kramnik surpassed Anand in ratings at this moment. So a match was arranged between the No. 1 and No. 2 in the world. Which is not so bad. And certainly better than Alekhine picking Bogoljubow a couple of times as punching bag. As for Shirov, the question was, alas, money. Nobody wanted to host and pay money for a shirov-Kasparov match, which looked to be worse than Short-Kasparov. (In that there was Patriotic England payed for the pleasure.)

I don't think it had to do with the honor of Kasparov - as if Kasparov refused a match with Shirov out of fear! Kasparov said that breaking with FIDE was the 'worst mistake of his life'. But to be fair there, look how FIDE acted in the 90s and 00s. Kasparov might have choosen Kramnik, but this match was far more legitimate than FIDEs sad travesties, to say the least. So I think in the end we should be thankful the match ended up being Kasparov-Kramnik, rather than a Kasparov-Shirov match, for a jackpot of 50,000.

I'll add fuel to the fire:

Vladimir Kramnik: <- Yes, sure. It is always difficult to talk about Kasparov. First of all, we are in the same era, I have played a lot of games against him. Secondly, he is a chess player who does not seem to have weak spots. At least, I don't know which weak point he had in his better days. Many books can be written about him.

He is an incredible workaholic; he works even harder than Fischer. Kasparov is a combination of lucky circumstances: a good coach in his childhood, convenient conditions for studies, an incredibly strong will.

As for his strong will, Kasparov could be compared to Botvinnik but he surpasses his teacher because he is much more flexible. As I have already said, Botvinnik's rigidity was his strong point. At the same time it had its drawbacks. Though rigid, Kasparov is open to any changes. He is able to change his outlook on chess in six months. Kasparov absorbs things like a sponge; he soaks up all changes, everything he sees he processes quickly and makes it part of his arsenal. I think this is the main quality that makes Kasparov different from the other chess players.>

<Kasparov definitely has a great talent. There is nothing in chess he has been unable to deal with. The other world champions had something 'missing'. I can't say the same about Kasparov: he can do everything. If he wishes to play some type of positions brilliantly, he will do it. Nothing is impossible for him in chess.>

<Kasparov always talks about the responsibility of the world champion- yet he blamed everyone else for why he didn't play the rightful challenger in 2000. The argument that a match is pointless when one player has a big plus score is equally pathetic- Matches aren't played on paper. Fischer lost 5 games to Spassky over the course of a decade before he could win one. And how long did it take Kasparov to get his first over Karpov?

After <15.Bxe6 Rc7 16.Bc4 Bxf3 17.gxf3>

click for larger view

Black has enough for the pawn, especially with White's pawn structure in ribbons. Of course not <17...Qxd4?? 18.Nb5>.

kremnik is the best active player in my oponion.

1. Gives the king an escape route from a back-row mate by the queen or rook 2. Swings the battle line to an area where the defending knight actually has some influence (and yet is still defended by the g-pawn) 3. Keeps the rook in a defensive position without offering it up as a free piece. Unless I'm missing an obvious mate somewhere, Rf8 was useless.

24.Nxh6+ wins a pawn, but 24...Kh7 forces White to spend a move by either retreating the knight or defending it.