|Aug-06-04|| ||alexandrovm: black rook can't let white king enter the fight, that's why is a drawn position. Kramnik monitors black king movements. Plus the pawns are all on the same side. |
|Sep-25-04|| ||BradMajors: <Garry Kasparov>
The worst night, in fact, wasn’t after game fifteen, but after game fourteen. I mean, this position wasn’t for Kramnik to save, but for me to win…after this game, I wouldn’t say I was ruined, but I was not pleased.
I cannot agree with Garry game fourteen. I don’t think I was losing that game. The result was not accidental.
Yes, I’d like to call on him to share with us his analysis of the final position [of game 14]. The only position that was not lost was the final position!
|Oct-15-05|| ||csmath: What a magnificent effort of Kasparov that plays a creative game to get a pawn more against an opponent who plays everything he can just to make a draw with whites.|
What Kasparov is talking about is
56. ... Ke6!
57. Re8 ... Kf6!
and this is not certain. It might have a win in it, it might not, I don't know Kasparov's analyses but I cannot find that win (if there is any), I tried:
58. Rf8 ... Ke7
59. Rf5 ... Ke6
60. fxg4 ... hxg4
61. Rg5 ... Ra4
62. Kf2 ... Kf6
63. Rg8 ... Kf5
64. Ke3 ... Ra3
65. Kf2 ... Ra2
66. Kg1! (Ke3? ... Rg2! ) ... Re2
67. Kf1 ... Rc2
68. Kg1 ... Ke4
69. Rxg4 ... Kf3
70. Rg6 ... e4
71. Rf6 ... Ke2
72. g4 ... e3
73. g5 ... Kd1
74. Rd6 ... Rd2
75. Ra6 ... Rd5
I don't see a win here.
This game was probably the most bitter game he ever played. He had to swallow this pill with very little hope that he can overcome Kramnik in the last two games.
Boy, did he have some good barrel of poison ready for Kramnik. :-)
|Dec-29-05|| ||Conde de Montecristo: A nice game that i think Kasparov could have won.|
|Dec-29-05|| ||PARACONT1: <csmath> great analysis. Now it seems settled for almost certain (except to Kramnik haters) that Kasparov had NO chance of winning.|
|Jan-27-06|| ||Badmojo: 28. Qa8, one hell of a move.
I don't recall what the threat was, but it caused Kramnik to immediately give a pawn and go into the endgame down material. It was also an endgame that he had zero winning chances in. Lose or draw, that was it.
Retreating moves, man, are hard to find.
|Apr-19-06|| ||positionalbrilliancy: What's the idea behind 28...Qa8.|
|Apr-19-06|| ||pawn to QB4: I guess threat of 29...Rc5 winning the knight (30.Qf4 Rf5; 30.Nh7+ Kg8 31.Nf6+ Kh8); the queen has to be on a8 to protect R on d8 against Nh7+; there's a second threat to double rooks on c file and target the isolated c pawn.|
|Nov-26-06|| ||Karpova: <Conde de Montecristo: A nice game that i think Kasparov could have won.>
Doubtful that Kaspy had a win, but this game alone easily refutes the silly Sloan-article our dear <Conde> loves to post a link to (like here: Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000)|
|Dec-16-15|| ||piltdown man: Clever pun - though I suspect my friend Morfshine may not agree.|
|Dec-16-15|| ||mruknowwho: I think the idea of 28...Qa8 was to play 29...a5 and eventually ...Qa6. Defending the pawn on c4 is an impossible task for White. It would have been incorrect to play the immediate 28...Qa4 because that move allows the white knight to do something. 28...Qa8 keeps the white knight at bay and keeps the white queen tied to the white knight.|
|Dec-17-15|| ||kevin86: Pawns on the same side with an extra pawn will almost never end in a win without having an outside pawn or a passed pawn. This is very similar to bishops of opposite colors.|
|Jan-29-17|| ||plang: 13 b3 had been played a number of times, most rcently in Yermolinsky-Ehlvest Stratton Mountain 2000 (not in this database - White won); Kramnik's 13 Ne1 was new. 18 Ned5?! was quite sharp allowing the weakening of White's queenside pawns in exchange for an open b-file; 18 Ncd5 was probably stronger and certainly safer. 20..Nxd5 21 Nxd5..f6? 22 Bh6..g5? 23 Qe4..Nc5 24 Qg6..e6 25 Nxf6+ would have been winning for White. Kramnik sacrificed a pawn with 29 c5!? as he was not comfortable with 29 Qf4..Rc5 30 Nh7+..Kg8 31 Ng5..Rf5 32 Qe3 (or 32 Qd2). Kramnik was confident ge could draw the rook ending after his 34 Qf3 but perhaps 34 Qc3 was objectively stronger. |
Kramnik thought that Black's best chance was 37..Kf8:
"Black's main idea is after 38 Kg2..Ke7 39 Rd1 to achieve the set-up Ke6, Ra4 and pawn e5. During this time White will succeed in placing his king at e2 and his rook at d2 or c2, but, despite material being equal, this ending remains very dangerous for him: the f3 pawn is weak, and the enemy king is all the time threatening to break through via d5 and c5."
51 Rf7 would have been more accurate not allowing ..g5. After 55..Kf5?! the game ended in a repetition; exhaustive analysis after the game showed that 66..Kf6, while likely leading to a draw with best play, would have allowed Black significant practical chances.
For enthusiasts of rook endings Kramnik's analysis in the Informant is great but even better was Illescas's article in NIC showing numerous fascinating possibilities.
|Jan-29-17|| ||perfidious: <plang>, the day of Yermo-Ehlvest or the next round, I got one helluva shock watching a lower board at Stratton which featured Browne as White vs Alexander Ivanov; could not believe my eyes when Browne opened 1.e4 and almost fell over at the response 1....c6, an opening I had never seen in Ivanov's praxis over a dozen years of playing tournaments with him.|
|Jan-29-17|| ||plang: It was interesting watching Ivanov play - he is quite a character|
|Jun-09-17|| ||Plaskett: csmath: at move 66 of your analysis you diss 66 Ke3? as losing to 66...Rg2.
It does not lose: white may then check on f8, drawing.|
Also, in the final line you give of white rook and g pawn vs black rook and e pawn there are echoes of what happened in Nunn Vs Smejkal, Lucerne Olympiad 1982.