< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Jan-02-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: Hello everyone. I'm wondering if a winning line in the final position is as follows:|
43. Rxa7 Kb8 44. Rgb7+ Kc8 45. Rxb6
Is this the win?
|Jan-02-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Whitehat1963> I think Polgar would have avoided perpetual check in the following way: |
43. Rxa7 Kb8 44. Rgb7+ Kc8 45. Rxb6 Rhxf2 46. Rbb7 R2f3+ 47. Ke4 R3f4+ 48. Kd3 Rf3+ 49. Kc2 Rf2+ 50. Kb3 R5f3+ 51. Ka4
|Jan-02-12|| ||Sastre: I think 43.Rxa7 Kb8 44.Raf7 Rxf7 45.Rxf7 Rh4 46.f4 would be a simpler win for White. Allowing Black to keep two rooks on the board would give Black more counterplay.|
|Jan-02-12|| ||WannaBe: <<<ANNOUNCEMENT>>> The Annual Caissar Award is now open for Nominee submission (boy, that don't sound very 'family oriented'... =)
Here are the categories, you don't have to nominate in every category: |
<Best Avatar>, <Best Profile>, <Best Game Collection>, <Best Historian>, < Best Username/Handle>, <Best Written Post>, <Funniest Kibitzer>, <Most Constructive>, <Best Informed>, <Most Helpful>, <Best Analysis>, <Best/Worst Pun for Game of the Day>.
Please, <<Post your nomination(s) in my forum, Click on the Wabbit Avatar>>. For I am too lazy to run all over the place to collect them.
Nomination will end on Sunday, Jan. 8th, 11:59PM, Eastern Time Zone.
|Jan-02-12|| ||rilkefan: Can I ask a (dumb) question about the game? I don't play 1.e4, or go out of my way to look at Ruy games, but isn't this one of the most notoriously drawing lines in the game? And if so, why did Kasparov play it?|
|Jan-02-12|| ||King Death: <rilkefan> Until Kramnik used it in his match with Kasparov, the only player who played this for a long time was Arthur Bisguier. After that everybody seemed to try it, even players like Kasparov and Nakamura. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
|Jan-02-12|| ||Once: GMs sometimes reach for less usual openings if they want to surprise a particular opponent or avoid some of the opponent's favourite lines. Remember Fischer playing 1. c4 against Spassky in 72?|
Sometimes they choose a defensive opening if they want a quiet life - say to avoid a young buck's favourite aggressive lines.
As to this game, I honestly don't know. 2002 was when Kasparov was very strong. He may have thought that he could win with anything. Or he may have had a particular piece of home preparation he wanted to spring on Judit.
|Jan-02-12|| ||King Death: <Once> There was a famous caricature on the cover of Chess Life & Review just before the match with Spassky being asked, "But Boris, what if he doesn't play 1.e4?".|
Fischer had some big problems to deal with preparing for that match. Spassky had beaten him twice in the Grunfeld and liked the Samisch against the King's Indian. Even in the match, after Spassky had no problems against 6.Bc4 in one Sicilian Fischer played the Rauzer late. Then there's what happened to the Poisoned Pawn.
|Jan-02-12|| ||drpoundsign: sounds like boxying the WBA and WBC or whatever|
|Jan-02-12|| ||drpoundsign: those of us dudes who are sexist compare chess to say..Tennis when only old dudes (King Riggs) can lose. But the Polgar sisters are Tough!|
|Jan-02-12|| ||bischopper: it is very risk the rooks on second rank or seventh like here...|
|Jan-02-12|| ||kamalakanta: Polgar beat Kasparov fair and square. How about that?|
I read somewhere that Kasparov said the Polgar sisters were "trained dogs." Maybe he is a sore loser. Korchnoi also....
|Jan-02-12|| ||King Death: < kamalakanta: ...I read somewhere that Kasparov said the Polgar sisters were "trained dogs."...>|
And what would that make him? It's not like he didn't have every resource in the Soviet system behind him on his way up. This is really funny.
< Maybe he is a sore loser. Korchnoi also....>
Somehow I don't see any maybe about it.
|Jan-02-12|| ||NewLine: I wish I could see their faces when they'll read <Once>'s post:|
-"Hey! There is someone here that knew all about us!"
-"Yes, and how did he even know my name???" says Quarlg.
-"This is creepy." says the other guy. "They even knew I will say that!"
|Jan-03-12|| ||FSR: <NewLine> Yes, it could turn out a lot like the book <The Wreck of the Titan>, written in 1898 and describing a disaster that sounds a lot like the sinking of the similarly-named <Titanic> 14 years later:|
<On April 14, 1912, the huge "unsinkable" ship the Titanic was steaming across the Atlantic towards New York. This was the Titanic's maiden voyage, and her captain was encouraged to break the record for speed while making the voyage. As most people know, after striking an iceberg, the unsinkable ship went down in only a matter of hours. Out of the 2,201 passengers, only 711 were saved. Since then, there have been many books and movies about the Titanic.
There was one fictional story written by a merchant seaman by the name of Morgan Robertson. Robertson's book was about an unsinkable passenger liner that sank while carrying the elite people of the time. The ship in Robertson's story was called the Titan and the book was titled <The Wreck of the Titan>. Even though the book is fictitious, the events in the story parallel the events of the Titanic. Both ships were built to be unsinkable. Both ships sank after striking an iceberg. Both ships were on their maiden voyage. The most well to do famous people were on the Titan and Titanic. Only one third of the passengers on each ship survived. Both ships had an inadequate number of lifeboats. Both ships were encouraged to break speed records during their voyage.
Robertson's book <The Wreck of the Titan> was never published. Each time it was rejected by editors, they told him the same thing. The story was unbelievable. Surely the events he wrote of could not possibly happen to an unsinkable ship.
The book, <The Wreck of the Titan> was written in 1898, fourteen years before the Titanic hit an iceberg and settled on the bottom of the northern Atlantic.> http://www.gettysburgghosts.net/tit...
|Jan-03-12|| ||FSR: A very strange choice of opening by Kasparov. Defending a slightly worse endgame in order to hold a draw really isn't his thing. And why do it against Polgar, against whom he had a huge plus score? Of course, it's very easy to criticize such decisions after the fact.|
|Jan-03-12|| ||kevin86: It looks like Kasparov wasn't hung(a)ry enough.|
|Jan-09-12|| ||King Death: <FSR> I agree with you and it makes a funny impression watching Nakamura play it. While the greatest players especially can handle any position, this variation doesn't really seem suited to either Kasparov or Nakamura.|
|Mar-07-12|| ||cristoff: Kasparov was great,but wasn't the best.The best EVER were Alekhine and Capa!!!|
|Mar-19-12|| ||FSR: Judy, Judy, Judy.|
|Sep-02-12|| ||cowing: I think Kasparov was so unnerved by Judit's nailing his queen in 8 that he was sunk. This is a stunning game.|
|Oct-01-12|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this here:
|Oct-23-12|| ||julillo: Hey Judy! :)
43.Rbe7 Rf8(Rh8) 44.Rxa7 Kb8 45.Rgb7+ Kc8 46.Ra8+ Kxb7 47.Rxf8(Rxh8) two pawns more and an easy win for a GM.
|Feb-04-13|| ||csmath: Kasparov trying to imitate Kramnik playing passive defence. Obviously he was studying Berlin Wall long enough to try it but this is really not his style of play. Judit kills him nicely by strangulation. :-)|
|Mar-21-13|| ||jacobjosh14: Possible endgame (going back to 1 [easier to type]):
1. Rxa7 Kb8 2. Rab7+ Kc8 3. Rbe7 Rf8 4. Ra7 Kb8 5. Rgb7+ Kc8 6. Re7 Kb8 7. Rab7+ Kc8 8. Rec7+ Kd8 9. Rg7 Kc8 10. Rbc7+ Kb8 11. Rcf7 Rxf7 12. Rxf7 Rh1 13. Kd2 Kc8 14. b3 Rf1 15. a3 Ra1 16. a4 Rf1 17. Kc2 Kd8 18. Kb2 Kc8 19. Kc3 Rc1+ 20. Kd3 Rd1+ 21. Kc2 Rf1 22. Kb2 Kd8 23. f4 Rh1 24. a5 bxa5 25. Rf5 Rh2+ 26. Ka3 Ke7 27. Rxc5 Rh1 28. Rxa5 Ra1+ 29. Kb4 Rf1 30. f5 Kd6 31. Rd5+ Kc6 32. Rc5+ Kb6 33. Rb5+ Kc6 34. Kc3 Rc1+ 35. Kd4 Rd1+ 36. Ke5 Re1+ 37. Kf6 Kd7 38. b4 Re3 39. Rd5+ Kc6 40. Kf7 Rb3 41. b5+ Kc7 42. f6 Re3 43. c5 Re1 44. Kg7 Rg1+ 45. Kf8 Kb7 46. f7 Rg4 47. Ke7 Re4+ 48. Kd8 Rf4 49. Rd7+ Kb8 50. c6 Rf1 51. b6 Rc1 52. Rb7+ Ka8 53. f8Q Rxc6 54. Qa3+ Kxb7 55. Qa7#|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·