| Mar-16-05 |
| Backward Development: Wow! What a game! They'd only fight like this in blitz. Incredible. |
 |
Mar-16-05
 |
| keypusher: <backward development> . . . or at an Olympiad. Korchnoi vs Kasparov, 1982 |
|
| Mar-16-05 |
| Backward Development: oh yeah, I forgot about that game. Nevertheless, this game is exceedingly complicated and fighting, no doubt about that. |
|
Mar-16-05
 |
| acirce: I assume White lost on time if the game score and result is correct? |
|
| Mar-16-05 |
| aw1988: No, black is winning. |
|
| Mar-17-05 |
| beatgiant: <aw1988: No, black is winning.> I don't see the win. What if White plays to double rooks on the a-file? For example, 28. Re6 a4 29. R6e7 Qb2 30. Ra7 a3 31. Rf4 Qd2 32. Rfa4. |
|
| Mar-17-05 |
| aw1988: I am not really talking about variations, more ideas... black can surely promote the a-pawn eventually without reaching the 50-move-rule. |
|
Mar-17-05
|
| acirce: <I am not really talking about variations, more ideas...> So what is the idea if White plays like <beatgiant> suggested to stop the promotion plan? "Black can surely..." is no argument, not that you pretended it was, of course. The final position clearly looks drawn to me, but even if there is a black win hidden somehow it wouldn't exactly be the kind of situation where you resign in blitz. That was what I meant as well. |
|
| Mar-18-05 |
| aw1988: I'm sorry, that was stupidity on my fault... I should have analyzed a variation without question. Now, after 28. Re6, instead of your a4 let me alter this: 28...Qd1+ 29. Kf2 Qd2+, and black should have a clear edge, if not winning. But instead of 24...Rc7, black could have played 24...Qxe2!, winning. |
|
| Mar-18-05 |
| beatgiant: <aw1988>
<I am not really talking about variations, more ideas>But I also was talking about ideas. There's an obvious idea for Black: <promote the a-pawn>. But White has a counter-idea: <double rooks on the a-file>, which wins the a-pawn and thus prevents Black's idea. I also haven't analyzed much, so I don't claim best play for the line I posted. But given that we have two different ideas, you are right that only an analysis can settle it. On the suggested 28. Re6 Qd1+ 29. Kf2 Qd2+, White must reply 30. Kg1. Then Black can try 30...Qc1+ 31. Rf1 Qb2 32. Rf7 a4 33. Ra6, but I still don't see a way to prevent White from doubling rooks on the a-file and winning the a-pawn. Could you explain why you think <black should have a clear edge, if not winning>? |
|
| Mar-19-05 |
| aw1988: I will get back to you tomorrow, I am very tired right now. |
|
| Mar-19-05 |
| eyalbd: Looks like a loss on time. No one would resign in this posision especially in blitz |
|
| Mar-29-05 |
| Backward Development: The ending is drawn.
I say that after analyzing it with Fritz for 2<!> hrs. It was very instructive. Unfortunatly, it was also hideously long; far too long for this page. If I ever get a webpage, maybe I'll post the analysis for study. Basically, I did it by a straight line from the position with multiple variations. Then I did it positionally<the g and h-pawn ending, the g and h-pawns with the 2 rooks and queen, the 2 rooks and queen w g-pawns, the 2 rooks and queen w h-pawns, etc.> I would suggest someone to do it themselves for a very instructive experience. I am so burned out now though. I almost fell asleep<!!> doing it. ugh... |
|
Nov-04-09
 |
| holy tramp: This game is sadly beyond my capacity to comprehend; a) I don't understand why white resigns, and b) I just played this game on guess-the-move and took my worse beating ever (scoring a 25 against a par score of 34). Jesus I hate being such a patzer. Leaving Kasparov's mystifying queenside maneuvers alone for the moment, can someone PLEASE explain the white loss?! Thank you in advance. |
|
sac: 19...Rxe3
