< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Mar-17-09|| ||just a kid: Quit whining that 51...Ka1 didn't go through!52...Kc1 also draws,and Smart Chess and Irina Krush blew the world's last chance with 54...b4?? 54...Qd5!<bacrot' s suggestion> would have drawn.You dug your own grave and you were buried in it.|
|Mar-17-09|| ||just a kid: 43.Rg1 with a winning position for White, my bad.|
|Mar-17-09|| ||just a kid: <Ironically they followed Krush's suggestion of 54...b4 which lost, as opposed to Qd5 and Qd3 which both could've drawn.>54...Qd3 loses although it takes a thin line to win.54...Qd3 55.g6 Qc3+ 56.Kf7 Qc7 57.Kf8<the best move>57...Qb8+ 58.Kg7 b4 59.Kh7 b3 60.Qa4+!<not 60.g7 Qa7 61.Kh8 b2 62.g8(Q) b1(Q) when,even though there is two queens on the board,there is no mating attack.>60...Kb2 61.g7 Qb7 62.Qh4! Ka3 63.Kh8 b2 64.Qg3+ Ka4 65.Qf4+ Ka5 66.Qf5+Ka4<66...d5 67.g8(Q) when the Queening square is covered>67.g8Q Qh1+ 68.Kg7 Qg2+ 69.Kf7 Qb7+ 70.Kf6 b1Q 71.Qc4+ Q1b4 72.Qfc2+ then mate afterwards.|
|Jul-13-09|| ||rwbean: With the help of Rybka 3 (verified with Glaurung 2.2), I found another variation that was misevaluated by Kasparov (in his 2000 book about the game) and Krush (in her analysis during the game):|
29 ... b4 30. h6 Qc2 31. Bxf4 Nd8 32. Qh5 Bxf4 33. h7 Be5 34. Qxe5 dxe5 35. h8=Q Nc6 36. Qh3+ and now 36 ... e6 37. Qe3 Nd4 draws:
if 38. Re1 Qf5, or 38. Qxe5 Ne2+ 39. Kh1 b3.
Computers are so much faster now, they change everything...
|Oct-24-09|| ||Cercatore: Omg.
Who voted for: 11. ... Qxe4? °_°
|Oct-26-09|| ||Qb6: Would 54. ... ♕d3 be OK for a draw?|
|Feb-21-10|| ||soothsayer8: 11...Qxe4 is not a bad move. dubious, but not bad, Black wins a Knight and two pawns and gives up a rook,that's technically 5 points for 5.|
|Jun-01-10|| ||rwbean: With the help of Rybka 4, we can now see Kasparov made a big error on move 27: Rybka's PV is 27. h4 Qf5 28. Qb1 Qf7 29. Qe4 Be5 30. Rb1 Kc7 31. Qa4 Bd4 32. Rc1 Bb2 33. Rxc6 bxc6 34. Qa7+ Kc8 35. Qxb6 Be5 36. Qc6+ (+117). 27. Qf7 allows the drawing variation with 29... b4 mentioned above.|
|Jul-06-10|| ||Kinghunt: Can someone explain 35. Kh1 to me? I've heard it referred to as a brilliant move, but I just don't get it.|
|Jul-06-10|| ||zanshin: <rwbean: With the help of Rybka 4, we can now see Kasparov made a big error on move 27:>|
It might be a little strong to say that <27.Qf7> was a 'big error'. Many engines (except Houdini) had it as the top move at lower plies. Although the engines seem to agree that <27.h4> had a higher evaluation at deeper plies, it's quite likely Kasparov saw h4 but decided to play his Queen for some reason.
click for larger view
1. Rybka 4 w32:
[+0.95] d=18 27.h4 Ne5 28.Qh3 e6 29.Bf6 b5 30.h5 f3 31.Bxe5 fxg2 32.Rc1 Qxe5 33.Qf3 Bc5 34.Qxb7 Kd8 35.Qf7 Qd4 36.Kxg2 Qg4 37.Kf1 Qe4 38.Qf8 Kd7 39.Qg7 Kd8 40.Qg5 Ke8 41.Qg6 Qxg6 42.hxg6 (0:30:10) 28550kN
[+0.87] d=12 27.Qf7 f3 28.Qxf3 Qxf3 29.gxf3 b5 30.h4 b4 31.Rb1 Bc3 32.Kf1 Ke6 33.Ke2 Kf5 34.f4 d5 35.Kd3 b6 36.Rg1 Bb2 37.h5 (0:00:42) 121kN
[+0.39] d=25 27.h4 Qf5 28.Qb1 Qe5 29.Re1 Qc5 30.Qa2 Qf5 31.Qa8 Kc7 32.Bxe7 Qc2 33.Bxd6 Kxd6 34.Qf8 Kd5 35.Qf7 Kc5 36.Qxf4 Kd5 37.Qg5 Kd6 38.Rf1 Qd3 39.Qf4 Be5 40.Qf8 Kc7 (0:27:32) 2280092kN
3. Fire 1.3_w32_KLO:
[+0.49] d=24 27.h4 Qf5 28.Qb1 Qf7 29.Qd3 Kc7 30.Qf3 e5 31.Qh3 Qg6 32.Qg4 Qf7 33.h5 b5 34.h6 b4 35.Qh3 Qh7 36.Qe6 f3 37.g4 b3 38.Qxb3 Qg6 39.h7 Qxh7 40.Qxf3 e4 41.Qf8 Qd7 42.Qf4 (0:37:35) 1199474kN
[+0.11] d=15 27.Qf7 Be5 28.Qb3 Bd4 (0:00:41) 5330kN
4. Stockfish 1.7:
[+0.44] d=24 27.h4 Qf5 28.Qf3 e5 (0:40:25) 1336663kN
[+0.00] d=21 27.Qf7 Be5 28.h4 b5 29.h5 b4 30.h6 Qd3 31.h7 b3 32.Bxf4 Bd4 33.Be3 Be5 34.Bf4 (0:08:48) 134617kN
|Jul-06-10|| ||zanshin: <Kinghunt: Can someone explain 35. Kh1 to me? I've heard it referred to as a brilliant move, but I just don't get it.>|
I don't either. Here are the top three moves (Rybka 4):
click for larger view
[+1.29] d=20 35.Kg2 b3 36.g4 b2 37.Kf3 Nb4 38.Ke2 Kd5 39.h6 Ke4 40.Kd2 Nd5 41.Bg5 Nc3 42.Rf4 Kd5 43.Rxd4 Kxd4 44.h7 b1Q 45.h8Q e5 46.Be3 Ke4 47.Qh7 Kd5 48.Qf7 Kc6 49.Qc4 Kd7 50.Kxc3 (0:57:49) 286258kN
[+1.00] d=19 35.Kh1 b3 36.g4 Kd5 37.h6 Ke4 38.Bg3 b2 39.g5 Be3 40.h7 Bd4 41.Kh2 Bg7 42.Kh3 d5 43.Kg4 d4 44.g6 d3 45.Re1 Kd4 46.Bf4 Kc3 47.Bh6 Kc2 48.Bxg7 d2 49.h8Q dxe1Q 50.Qh2 (0:40:25) 217101kN
[+0.14] d=19 35.Kh2 b3 36.g4 b2 37.g5 Nb4 38.g6 Nd3 39.h6 b1Q 40.Rxb1 Nxf4 41.g7 Bxg7 42.hxg7 Kf7 43.Rf1 e5 44.Rd1 Kxg7 45.Rxd6 Kf7 46.Kg3 Ke7 47.Rh6 Nd5 48.Kg4 Ne3 49.Kf3 Nf5 50.Rh7 (0:40:45) 218338kN
|Sep-11-10|| ||zarg: <zanshin: <Kinghunt: Can someone explain 35. Kh1 to me? I've heard it referred to as a brilliant move, but I just don't get it.>|
I don't either.>
That was a great psych move by GK! Recall, this was before arrival of strong engines..
None of the experts on the World team could see it coming, and it resulted most likely in total chaos at the World team's message board.
Always play the man! :)
|Oct-11-10|| ||rwbean: Rybka 4 actually changes its mind from 35. Kg2 to 35. Kh1 at 28 ply (with 8-core i7 at 2.8 GHz, after about 12 hours):|
info depth 31 score cp 142 time 75866110 nodes 30655562899 nps 404074 pv g1h1 b4b3
There doesn't seem to be much change in the score.
However for 27. h4, it's the difference between an eval of about +125 and 0, because Black can draw with 29 ... b4 in the game. It needs more investigation, I'm writing about it at elvumgar.fea.st.
|Dec-24-10|| ||Tigranny: What was the plan with 54.b4? And couldn't Black perpetually check White after 62.g7?|
|Jan-24-11|| ||karrer: If. 52....Kc1, 53. Qe4 Qf1, 54. Ke7 b4, 55. Qb4 Qf5!, 56. Qc3+ Kb1, 57. Qf6 Qe4+!, 58. Kf7 Qc4+, 59. Kg7 d5!=. Upon 55. g6 Qg1!, 56. Qf4 (56. Qc4+ Kd1, 57. Qd3+ Kc1=)56....Kd1, 57. Kg7 b3=. -Karrer 7-man ending tablebase of late 1999|
|Jan-24-11|| ||Kinghunt: <Tigranny: What was the plan with 54.b4? And couldn't Black perpetually check White after 62.g7?>|
The idea is to divert the white queen from the f file in order to allow black to give checks down it. It turns out to be a mistaken idea that turns an objectively drawn position into a position objectively won for white, but it takes immense amounts of analysis to show this.
And no, black cannot force a perpetual check after 62. g7. One winning line goes 62...Qc6+ 63. Kg5 Qd5+ 64. Qf5 Qg2+ 65. Qg4 Qd5+ 66. Kh4 Qh1+ 67. Kg3 Qg1+ 68. Kf4 Qe3+ 69. Kf5 Qd3+ 70. Kg5 and black has no more checks. It's a very deep win, and few would have resigned here over the board, but this was a correspondence game, and both sides could see the forced win (Kasparov found it first, then announced it).
|Jan-25-11|| ||karrer: after 52....Kc1,
If. 52....Kc1!, 53. Qe4 Qf1+, 54. Ke7 b4!, 55. Qb4 Qf5!, 56. Qc3+ Kb1, 57. Qf6 Qe4+!, 58. Kf7 Qc4+, 59. Kg7 d5!=. Upon 55. g6 Qg1!, 56. Qf4 (56. Qc4+ Kd1, 57. Qd3+ Kc1=)56....Kd1, 57. Kf7 b3=. - citing Peter Karrer's, Swiss programmer, 7-man ending tablebase of November 1999 for K-World at move 52....Some of the above black moves are the only moves possible that lead to draw.
|Jan-27-11|| ||Tigranny: Sorry about my error Kinghunt.|
Let's not underestimate just how good the World played this game. Kasparov was barely able to squeak out a win against us.
We don't even have to consider the possibility of voting fraud or e-mail scandals. Kasparov's own words tell just how great we played.
<"After the game Kasparov shocked many people on the MSN forum, which was kept open after multiple requests, by announcing he had been reading the World Team strategy board during the game">
He admitted he needed to read our analysis in order to compete with us!
|Dec-26-13|| ||alexh0264: @Kinghunt jan-24-11 : I don't understand why black has no more checks after your play 70: why not 70. Kg5 Qd2 ? Or 70. Kg5 Qb5?|
|Jul-24-14|| ||IFNB: Wow, I never knew Kasparov pulled a Bill Belichick in this game. Decreases my appreciation of it just a tad.|
|Aug-04-14|| ||rickycota: <DPLeo> Play yourself against Kasparov and then talk, just don't use Engines|
|Aug-04-14|| ||AylerKupp: <rikycota> What's your point? You don't think that <DPLeo> and the other members of the team should be proud of themselves because they almost held the greatest player of all time to a draw and only lost at the very end? And don't forget, Kasparov was also using both engines and assistants in this game.|
What do you think it would prove if <DPLeo> or anyone else at this site played Kasparov one-on-one without the benefit of engine support? That Kasparov is a better player? Well, duh.
|Aug-05-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <"After the game Kasparov shocked many people on the MSN forum, which was kept open after multiple requests, by announcing he had been reading the World Team strategy board during the game"> |
Yes, an outrageous ethical failure on Kasparov's part. I don't know what to think of the fact he admitted it.
|Oct-22-14|| ||SpiritedReposte: I love a game that is so close instead of it being over when you are promoting a pawn, it is just the beginning of a second act.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·