|Nov-02-04|| ||lostemperor: An annotation mistake from the world champion (to be)?! This is the fighting game prior to the WC 2000 match where Kramnik won the title. In the German magazine "Schach" Kramnik annotates and gave 24. Nxc6 an "!" no comment added to it. But doesn't this move throw away the win?! Does not 24. hxg5 give white a big advantage? 24. hxg5 hxg5 25. Bxg5 Bxg2 26. Kxg2 (Rdb1 Be4) Rc8 27 Ncb5 or here 26. ...Qb6 27.Rab1 Qc5 28. Rb5! for instances. |
|Nov-02-04|| ||ray keene: <lost e> i have posted my analysis of your idea on my site |
|Nov-10-04|| ||lostemperor: Thanks Ray Keene. A Linares game is always heavily analysed by GMs, press and engines especially when the worldchampion plays his potential challenger, even before the ink is dry or the move is played. I was then wondering why the continuation 24. hxg5 hxg5 25. Bxg5 Bxg2 Kxg2 and now the possibilities Rc8, Rg8?! or Qb6. was not played. If you are a GM and have your own magazine, like John van der Wiel, you can publish it. And he did in "schaaknieuws".|
It seems that GM Keene has improved on that analysis: Now 26 ... Rc8 27 Na4 (not 27 Ncb5 (which is given a ! by John van der Wiel)) just traps the black queen - .
And also 26 ... Qb6 27 Rab1 Qc5 28 Ncb5! (not 28 Rb5 Qc8 which is =) is very strong. The best is 28 ... 0-0 29 Nf3 (other moves also look good) 29 ... Ne4 30 Bxe7 Qxe7 31 Qc7 which is terrible for Black (Keene). This looks convincing indeed although 28. Rb5 Qc8 and now Qf3 or Rc1 also still gives white a lot of pressure it seems. The question remains why has Kramnik given 24, Nxc6, as played, an exclamation mark annotating his own game. It looks Ok when he played it I agree.
|Dec-22-04|| ||quXa: May I ask what the adress of your site is GM Keene ? |
|Dec-23-04|| ||Lawrence: <quXa>, Mr. Keene's site is right here on Chessgames. Raymond Keene |
|Oct-14-05|| ||BabyJ: What an amazing game! Kramnik is like
some kind of super-computer. Just
treating Gazza like a BUM!
|Jan-11-06|| ||alexandrovm: this is an incredible draw by Kasparov, 30. ...Nd5! is really a great move? It would be nice to calculate with a computer, because after 10 moves both players draw this game, incredible!|
|Aug-08-06|| ||positionalgenius: I just saw this for the first time,what a gem.A great game,Kramnik plays very forcefully.|
|Sep-13-07|| ||Karpova: This one won the prize for the most beautiful game.|
|Oct-31-13|| ||7he5haman: 26.Rdb1 looks good to me
Any thoughts? Maybe someone would be kind enough to run it through a computer for me - please :)
|May-06-15|| ||plang: 4 d4 is a perfectly reasonable move that is rarely allowing Kramnik to theoretical positions. Kasparov, after a long think, played the innovation 6..Bc6 sacrificing the c-pawn; 6..cxd had been payed previously. 15 Qg5?..Nbd7 16 Qxg7?..Rg8 17 Qh6..Bxf2+ would have been bad for White. Perhaps 15..Nbd7 was more precise so as to answer 16 Rd1 with 16..Qb6. 18 g4!? led to interesting complications; Kasparov was more concerned about 18 Rac1. 18..0-0? 19 g5..Ne8 20 Nd5..Qxd5 21 Bb4 would have cost Black material. 22 a3! and 23..g5! led to fascinating complications. White could have tried 24 hxg..hxg 25 Bxg5..Bxg2 26 Kxg2 (26 Rdb1?..Be4! wins for Black)..Qb6 27 Ncb5 with a slight edge for White. |
<lostemperor: ...... I was then wondering why the continuation 24. hxg5 hxg5 25. Bxg5 Bxg2 Kxg2 and now the possibilities Rc8, Rg8?! or Qb6. was not played. > Stohl gives this line with a slight edge for White.
<7he5haman: 26.Rdb1 looks good to me > Stohl gives 26 Rdb1..Ne5 27 Qd4..Qc2 27 Qxe5..0-0 and he says White must fight for equality.
|Sep-19-16|| ||7he5haman: <plang> Thanks! :-)|