|Oct-27-04|| ||clocked: In his annotations to Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999 Kasparov writes,|
"From the professional point of view, I believe that my game with Svidler is even better, but chess amateurs do not care about the Grunfeld defense! Chess amateurs do not care about a Pawn sacrifice in a famous position, or about a piece counter-sacrifice. They donít care about the few possible moves with centralization of pieces or about the transfer of the Queen, when one can enjoy the combination and see the romantic appeal of a modern chess game with a good opening and an interesting fight, when there is a certain romanticism that seemed to have fallen into oblivion."
|Mar-13-05|| ||Minor Piece Activity: Very beautiful. This comes across as an equally profound game but of a different type. There is no distinct combination, but a struggle of plans with both players finding themselves on the offensive and defensive at the same time. |
|Nov-24-05|| ||KingG: What a game! I can see why Kasparov rates it so highly. I don't understand what he means by <chess amateurs do not care about the Grunfeld defense> though. Was there some amazing novelty in this game? Because plenty of famous games were Grunfeld's(Fischer's 'game of the century' for example).|
|Nov-25-05|| ||malakaboy: it s an ok game but dont go crazy over it,your man kasparov was good but i know you favor kramnik now mainly cause you have closely related styles so kingG give up trying to become kasparov when you are kramnik|
|Nov-25-05|| ||KingG: <malakaboy> What are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that i favour Kramnik over Kasparov?|
|Nov-25-05|| ||alicefujimori: <KingG> You are right. There was actually a completely new novelty in this game and the move was 10.e6! This move seems very natural now but it was a completely new plan then.|
To a certain extent I do agree with Kasparov's remarks. A lot of people nowadays only rate games according to the "surface beauty" of the game (ie. How many sacrifices and what piece sacrificed happened in the game). People tend to forget the fact that other factors such as a completely new plan in a position, a positional sacrifice,etc could also create a "beautiful" game. I mean just look at the posts in Byrne-Fischer and you will know what I meant.
|Nov-25-05|| ||KingG: <alicefujimori> Personally i find pawn sacrifices just as beautiful as piece sacrifices. It's not about what you sacrifice, it's about the idea behind the sac. To be honest i prefer positional sacs to king-hunt style sacs(although i enjoy both of course, and you could also argue that king safety is a positional consideration, but i'm sure you know what i mean).|
|Nov-25-05|| ||Whitehat1963: Call me an amatuer (of course!) because I don't see where this game is much more than just interesting.|
|Oct-13-06|| ||Kingsider: so why resign?|
|Oct-13-06|| ||keypusher: White threatens 32. Rxh6+ Bxh6 33. Qxh6+ Nh7 34. Bxh7 Qxh7 35. Qf8+ Qg8 36. Rh1+ Rh5 37. Rxh5#.|
Against ...Rd5 or ...Ng8 32. Rh1 looks like a winner.
But I don't have a board or a machine so others may know better.
|Mar-15-07|| ||keypusher: Oops, after 31....Rd5 32. Rh1?? allowing ...Qxg6 is definitely not a winner. |
But 32. Rxh6+ Bxh6 33. Qxh6+ Nh7 (or 33...Qh7 34. Qf8+ Ng8 35. Nf4) 34. Rh1 Kg8 35. Nf4 Rd6 36. Rg1+ Kh8 37. Ng6+ looks good enough.
|Mar-16-07|| ||abcpokerboy: <keypusher>, I've been waiting 5 months now for you to correct that variation. Thanks for getting around to it.|
|Jun-10-07|| ||sanyas: Just take a look at the 'packing density' of either side's pieces ... such beautiful centralisation of force ... a very elegant game.|
|Oct-01-07|| ||beginner64: White's moves 18 and 20 just seem sub optimal. Did Kasparov miss something in his "best" game, or was that the plan?|
|Oct-18-07|| ||ounos: What's the continuation after 15. ... Nxf3+ 16. Ke2 Nd4+ 17. BxN BxB ?|
|Oct-11-08|| ||arsen387: Later that year in Linares Anand played 10.h4!? against Svidler in this same variation of Gruenfeld and scored a fascinating victory Anand vs Svidler, 1999|
|Mar-21-09|| ||WhiteRook48: what next|
|Jul-28-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 10 e6?!?!?!|
|Jan-30-10|| ||Gilmoy: <beginner64: White's moves 18 and 20 just seem sub optimal.> Well, it looks like Black would very much enjoy 18..Nd5 (as any simplification fixes Black's pawns) and Qc7-Rc8-Bf5 or so. So White's plan hangs on preventing that. Hence <18.Rh5?!> offers two (eventual) tempi and the g6-pawn just to clamp d5.|
Then Black must struggle to find a Plan B (that unpins his d-pawn). <18..Qe8> looks superficially good -- but for a few deeply-hidden costs:
1. Black abandons the d5-as-focal-point theme. By the time he finally hops thereto, it's irrelevant -- White ignores it, and flows right around it.
2. <19..Qxg6> is a poisoned pawn. Black just <took the material> to give White a free <bowling alley>. That's rarely a wise trade -- White promptly runs rampant on half-open g+h. Why did Black auto-decline <17..hxg6> in the first place? "Surely it weakens my K-side too much." Bingo!
3. <20.Rh1!> looks like two wasted tempi -- but it promptly wins one back because Black's Q isn't safe. Also, Kasparov must offer some exceptionally tempting bait to overcome Svidler's already-heightened wariness, <because> he's Kasparov.
4. Remember that Black's KN <ran a full lap 9..Nfd7 11..Nb6 22..Nd5 25..Nf6>. Compared to that, White is still ahead in tempi! No wonder he eventually outnumbers Black at h6-h7.
5. The boggling idea behind <10.e6!> is a <congestion sac> -- Kasparov ignores the material, and leaves his Qb3 quietly sitting on the pin, <just to immobilize the Bc8>. Black's QB never takes the powerful and natural Bb7 outpost, and never gets into the game. Given White's K-side attack plan, Black is more than a piece down!
6. <12.h4 13.h5> is Yugoslav-like: <It's All About the Queen Entry> at h6/h7. Which spawns the subtask: <Hie Thee h-Ence>. Doing this from the Grun/Cata <9.Qb3> outpost involves some fresh planning. <23.Qd3! 24.Qe4> with a free tempo against Ra8 is reminiscent of Fischer's stalking-cat <15.Qg3! 16.Qg4! 17.Qh5!> in Fischer vs Benko, 1963 -- quiet moves to <establish a threat>, justifying later fireworks.
|Jul-07-11|| ||plang: Played in the 12th round; despite Kasparov's 7 game winning streak earlier in the tournament Anand was only half a point behind entering this round. This win essentially clinched first place. This was the first game that Kasparov had ever played the White side of the Russian system (5 Qb3). 11 Be3 was prepared by Kasparov for the ill-fated match with Shirov. The move had actually been played in the little-noticed game Levtchouk-Duoung Quebec 1992 but Kasparov had worked out some important intricacies in the follow-up. It has since been found that Svidler's response 11..Nb6 is inferior to 11..Nf6 providing better defense against a kingside attack. Kasparov's response to 13..Nxd4?! would have been 14 Nxd4..Bxd4 15 0-0-0..Bxe3+ 16 fxe..Qe8 17 hxg..hxg 18 Qb4 with a powerful attack. 15 Rd1 was part of Kasparov's preparation found bt his computer.|
<ounos: What's the continuation after 15. ... Nxf3+ 16. Ke2 Nd4+ 17. BxN BxB ?>
Kasparov gives 18 hxg..Qd6 (if 18..hxg 19 Qc2 winning) 19 Ne4..Qe7 20 Qf3..hxg 21 Rg1 with a winning attack.
Dokhoian after 17..h6!:
"Black chooses the best alternative. The night before the game Garry expressed his doubts regarding this position. We mainly analysed 17..hxg (Black restores approximate material equality). In this case after 18 Qc2 Black is probably lost on account of the weakness in his king's defenses. After 27..h6! White's task no longer looks so simple, and what becomes important is not the number of pawns, but the coordination of the pieces. If Black should be able to achieve this, he will have sufficient play even with just one pawn for the exchange."
Despite Kasparov's in depth opening preparation a lot of work was still required to win the game. A key was the clever 18 Rh5! (preventing ..Nd5) which he found at the board.
20..Kh8?! is the first move that appears questionable; in two later games 20..Qf7 and 20..Bb7 were played which both appear to be improvements. Instead of the passive 23..Bd7?! Kasparov recommended 23..e5 24 Nc6..Bb7 25 Qxd5..Qxd5 26 Rxd5..Bxc5 27 Rd3 and White has a clear advantage but still has work to do. 26..Rc5? was the final error losing a tempo; 26..Nd5 at once was better. Voted the 2nd best game in Informant #74 (aclear 2nd but well behind the famous game Kasparov-Topalov from the same event).
|Dec-26-11|| ||Everett: <chessgames.com> months back I added a kibitz to this page and it is no longer here. Any reason as to why?|
|Dec-26-11|| ||Everett: In sum, Kasparov is a complete blowhard. 11.e6 is a well-known idea. Bronstein played it many times, Karpov even played it vs Kasparov in '87. Kasparov playing it in a different position? Whoop de doo.|
"The chess amateur..." tirade is just garbage. Great chess player, but what a cry-baby, even when he wins. He seems to be saying "look at how great I am, and if you don't recognize my greatness you are a stupid amateur." No wonder I never hoped for his success.
|Jan-04-12|| ||Everett: <alicefujimori: <KingG> You are right. There was actually a completely new novelty in this game and the move was 10.e6! This move seems very natural now but it was a completely new plan then.>|
Completely false. Bronstein vs M Pein, 1995
Karpov vs Kamsky, 1996
And here is Bronstein again in a slightly different position. He was the first in this database to play 9.e6 back in '88. Bronstein vs V Tukmakov, 1990
The idea that Kasparov added -< to this quite novel position that was initiated by Bronstein's ideas of an early e6 in both the 7...Na6 and 7..a6 lines of the Russian Grunfeld>- is just sitting on the pin without capturing at e6. Alas, it's not really new, since Bronstein played exactly this way in the 1990 game above. Different position, subtly, but same idea.
As Kasparov says in Secret Notes about Bronstein, pg 9: "His games have enriched chess with numerous original and fresh decisions. In the 1970s and even the 1980s I followed Bronstein's games with interest, and in each of them there could appear a bright, surprising idea, which had not occured to anyone."
Perhaps Kasparov will give proper credit regarding this game in his next book, but I am not holding my breath.
|Feb-22-12|| ||shepi13: <Everett> There's nothing wrong with borrowing moves from other peoples games, I don't believe Kasparov said he invented that move. Also, Kasparov never said that was what made the game so great, other players did, so you shouldn't go raging at him. He claimed that <Chess amateurs do not care about a Pawn sacrifice in a famous position, or about a piece counter-sacrifice. They donít care about the few possible moves with centralization of pieces or about the transfer of the Queen> - obviously if it is a famous position he's seen it before, and he did come up with his attack on his own as well.|
|Mar-06-12|| ||Everett: <shepi13: <Everett> There's nothing wrong with borrowing moves from other peoples games, I don't believe Kasparov said he invented that move. Also, Kasparov never said that was what made the game so great, other players did, so you shouldn't go raging at him. He claimed that <Chess amateurs do not care about a Pawn sacrifice in a famous position, or about a piece counter-sacrifice. They donít care about the few possible moves with centralization of pieces or about the transfer of the Queen> - obviously if it is a famous position he's seen it before, and he did come up with his attack on his own as well.>|
Of course I can do whatever I please. Assuming you, as most kibitzers including myself here, are an amateur chess-player, I find it interesting you do not find something wrong-headed and pompous about his statements. His immodesty has always been chaffing, and his mini-diatribe is yet another example of it.