chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing


register now - it's free!
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov vs Gata Kamsky
Mtel Masters (2007)  ·  Slav Defense: General (D10)  ·  1-0
To move:
Last move:

explore this opening
find similar games 22 more Mamedyarov/Kamsky games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can learn a lot about this site (and chess in general) by reading the Chessgames Help Page. If you need help with premium features, please see the Premium Membership Help Page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with the default chess viewer, please see the Pgn4web Quickstart Guide.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-14-07  newton296: even topalov I felt lost like a beginer to mamed! Mamed must be putting some kind of whammy on his opponents. I mean, how does he get 2 world class players to crack this easy!
May-15-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  ganstaman: <MrMelad: <If you actually have good compensation for the piece and push to complicate things for the win, then that's fighting spirit. If you are simply down material with no hopes for a win excpet an outright blunder, you're just being stubborn> Thats simply not true, fighting until the end is the defenition of fighting spirit. If you say the position is so lost then just prove it!>

Yes, the point is that it is simple to prove that a position is lost. So simple that you KNOW a GM can do it blindfolded while standing on his head. What gain is there in actually making him go through the motions? Do you support playing on in a K+Q v K endgame hoping for a mistake that leads to stalemate or a repetition? Isn't that not giving up until the fat lady sings, and therefore fighting spirit in your eyes?

<<If you didn't notice, this is chess, not basketball> OK, you seem to have fighting spirit for fighting a losing argument, so be it :)

And please don't say that boxing is not like chess because I can find a milion diffrent sports to suggest my point.>

No, you just don't get it. You can make all the analogies you want, but you're still wrong. Chess is chess is chess is chess. It is unique in the very way that we are discussing it. It is common practice to resign a losing position. You don't do that in basketball, or baseball, or soccer, or whatever. So making analogies to those sports when discussing such a resignation shows that you don't know the purpose of making analogies.

Please, this is a simple concept -- argumentation by analogy is only good if the things being compared are similar enough in the respect being discussed.

<<<Greater players then me said that GM blunder as anyone else.> They blunder, but nowhere near as often as the rest of us. Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or joking.> Don't argue with me, as I said Greater players then me said it.>

Oh, sure. Just say that someone greater than us claimed this and therefore it's right. Well guess what -- I don't care if Fischer himself said this, it's simply wrong. Look at my games, then look at any GM's games (even Topalov). I HAVE MORE BLUNDERS. PERIOD.

<<<Morphy is the perfect example.> This is still utterly ridiculous. Morphy gave piece odds because he knew he was that much better than his opponents. Are you saying that Kamsky thinks he is that much better than Mamedyarov? THAT, my friend, is arrogance.> Morphy never demanded anyone to resign from a game. He allways had the "courage" to finish his games with a mate. He never raised his voice against an opponent and never acted ungentelmenly towards anyone. He, what stupid he is, thought that if you wanted people to know that you are a good chess player you should mate them.>

Of course he didn't demand resignation -- he was the one down a piece!! Let's review the train of thought: I think that if you are down a piece against a GM and don't get compensation, resigning is often the right thing to do. You told me that Morphy often played down a piece because he gave piece-odds. You then concluded that I should believe that Morphy should have resigned those games because he was down a piece for no compensation at all. But this is stupid because he was able to play down a piece because he was that much better than his opponents.

So, for you to be correct, you would have to say that Kamsky thinks that he (like Morphy) is able to beat Mamedyarov (like Morphy's opponents) at piece odds. And then you have to tell me that Kamsky wouldn't be arrogant to believe this.

May-15-07  vagrantlike: Mamedyarov's chess skill is good.This guy might be a future world champ.I remembered in an interview with Kasparov held by ICC,the then world champ said that a new generation of young players wiould change the face of chess world.(I don't quite get what he meant though.)He picked Carlsen,Karjakin and Nakamura as representives.

I wonder how Kasparov would have evaluated some other youngsters like Mamedyarov (or maybe Radjabov)cause there are more and more candidates competing in professional chess arena and the changing rate of top list becomes high.My idea is that future champs might face fierce chanllenges and it is unlikely that they could hold the title for more than a decade or two as some of their predecessors do.In this respect,the never-stopping arguable debates over who is a stronger chess player becomes more difficult to answer due to lack of any possible sensible measurement of "absolute" chess skill of a player.Any tiny factor may change the result of a game.The probable outcome is that the score between many pairs of top players tends to be"neutral"to both and the intensity level of future games are soaring.

What about Kramnik who is holding the title now?The recent rapid match result between Kramnik and Aronian turns unfavorable to the champ.Kasparov lost a classical game match once during his late career era and he was forced to yield the crown to his opponent.Of course we cannot give as much credit to rapid games as to classicals.However,I believe we are experiencing a trasition time of chess world in which there are a lot of champions and the traditional classical world champ title is only one of many others.In each historical period people need their chess heroes,and in our time there can be quite a lot.I tried not to be nostalgic,but what's weird is that man is always malcontent to the status quo.I still rembered the contraversial mood I had a few years ago:I wanted to see how long Kasparov could hold his title and at the same time I really wished someone beat him in any match...Now we can see how Kramnik would do to defend for himself.

May-15-07  KamikazeAttack: Interesting read, vagrantlike.

The opposition today is much stronger than what past champs faced in their prime.

The jury is locked out in the rain as to which of today’s many super strong youngsters would make the semis of candidates let alone make the finals and win the title.

Would there be another 20-year ratings ruler like Kasparaov? I'd say no, very unlikely.

Then I remember tennis.

No sooner did Sampras break the 13-slam barrier (an achievement which took like forever to come by) than fans and pundits alike were saying there wouldn't be another Sampras or record break. Then immediately, almost by magic, Federer emerged!!

Who knows how these kids or those after would develop?

There may well be another '666 devil' like Kasparov lurking in one of them!

May-15-07  TheHurricane3: <Who knows how these kids or those after would develop?

There may well be another '666 devil' like Kasparov lurking in one of them!>

What do you mean by that?

May-15-07  KamikazeAttack: <<Who knows how these kids or those after would develop? There may well be another '666 devil' like Kasparov lurking in one of them!>

What do you mean by that?
>

Timman refers to Kasparov as 666 because he is just too good...

May-15-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: <Timman refers to Kasparov as 666 because he is just too good...>

Too good? The people who played "lil Garry" would say he was too great.

http://www.canmag.com/images/front/...

May-15-07  Goran: Mamedyarov is great guy
May-15-07  MrMelad: <ganstaman:What gain is there in actually making him go through the motions?> Because if I am going down I don't realy care what my oponent is going to gain and the question I say is what does he have to lose - How about, the game itself with a blunder?

<No, you just don't get it. You can make all the analogies you want, but you're still wrong> Since chess is considered a sport by most people, all sport's analogies hold when it comes to fighting spirit. You seem the think that chess is a game of losers that quit all the time. Things can happen. Lasker won a WC from a position you might resign in. If you can't produce the mate, you didn't finish your oponent, Lasker was worthy for his title and I don't care if you are that blind to what I am saying.

<<Greater players then me said ...> Oh, sure. Just say that someone greater than us claimed this and therefore it's right. Well guess what -- I don't care if Fischer himself said this, it's simply wrong. Look at my games, then look at any GM's games (even Topalov). I HAVE MORE BLUNDERS. PERIOD.> If I was to play soccer and Maradona would have said something to me, I would consider that to be at least worthy of my attention. Since you seem to forget that great players said that for a reason and tend to focus on your literal interpretation of the sentence we can't realy see eye to eye on this.

<I think that if you are down a piece against a GM and don't get compensation, resigning is often the right thing to do> Then don't take it the wrong way, but I think you are a loser if you do it in official tournaments. One time that master can blow up and you can even earn money from this.

<So, for you to be correct, you would have to say that Kamsky thinks that he (like Morphy) is able to beat Mamedyarov (like Morphy's opponents) at piece odds. And then you have to tell me that Kamsky wouldn't be arrogant to believe this. > Well, judging by the game itself, 38..c5 has drawing chances so I would say that would make Kamsky realistic.

May-15-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  ganstaman: <MrMelad: <No, you just don't get it. You can make all the analogies you want, but you're still wrong> Since chess is considered a sport by most people, all sport's analogies hold when it comes to fighting spirit. You seem the think that chess is a game of losers that quit all the time. Things can happen. Lasker won a WC from a position you might resign in. If you can't produce the mate, you didn't finish your oponent, Lasker was worthy for his title and I don't care if you are that blind to what I am saying.>

Most is not the correct word there. Many people, sure. But I don't think you can just say most. For example, many people think that sports involve physical activity and chess is therefore just a game. Regardless, two activities being classified as sports does not mean that an analogy between the two necessarily holds. I still contend, and you have not refuted yet, that since it IS common to resign a lost position in chess, analogies to activities where it is not common to resign are quite pointless.

I don't think it's right to resign a basketball game because they just don't do that in that sport. I do think it's right to resign when you are facing the losing end of a K+Q v K endgame because people do do that in chess.

<<<Greater players then me said ...> Oh, sure. Just say that someone greater than us claimed this and therefore it's right. Well guess what -- I don't care if Fischer himself said this, it's simply wrong. Look at my games, then look at any GM's games (even Topalov). I HAVE MORE BLUNDERS. PERIOD.> If I was to play soccer and Maradona would have said something to me, I would consider that to be at least worthy of my attention. Since you seem to forget that great players said that for a reason and tend to focus on your literal interpretation of the sentence we can't realy see eye to eye on this.>

Yes, when greats talk we should listen. But we shouldn't blindly believe anyone. Are you really claiming that it's possible for GMs to blunder as much as amateurs? Can that be backed up with any evidence, or just a quote from some unnamed source? This really is a ridiculous belief -- I can go through the games of some 800-rated players and find more blunders than I have fingers, and then I can go through some GM games with Fritz and find the same amount of outright blunders?

May-15-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  ganstaman: <<I think that if you are down a piece against a GM and don't get compensation, resigning is often the right thing to do> Then don't take it the wrong way, but I think you are a loser if you do it in official tournaments. One time that master can blow up and you can even earn money from this.>

This is not what we have been arguing. I will personally play on until I know that I am lost, and even then maybe a bit more. But I am not a GM. I DO gain a lot from playing on in losing positions. I can try to learn to defend, I can see how the GM closes out the game. I can practice trying to generate counterplay and watch how the GM shuts that down. And if I'm playing a player less than a GM, I can still learn the same things. If I'm playing someone rated low enough, I can even have a decent chance of him returning the blunder.

But, Mam. will almost never return the blunder and Kamsky knows a good deal about chess already. You can not compare my games to theirs.

<<So, for you to be correct, you would have to say that Kamsky thinks that he (like Morphy) is able to beat Mamedyarov (like Morphy's opponents) at piece odds. And then you have to tell me that Kamsky wouldn't be arrogant to believe this. > Well, judging by the game itself, 38..c5 has drawing chances so I would say that would make Kamsky realistic.>

To be honest, I didn't analyze the game. But others have said that he sacrificed and didn't get compensation, and so I believed them. If he did have enough compensation, then playing on is ok. But look -- he eventually saw that he had a lost position and resigned. Does this mean he really doesn't have a fighting spirit?

May-15-07  Plato: <ganstaman> Not to get involved, but I just wanted to point out that he didn't resign -- he lost on time. His position was actually *much* better when he lost on time than it was earlier on, as you will see if you analyze the game. Mamedyarov attained a completely winning position as early as move 15, but his play was unconvincing thereafter.

When Kamsky lost on time his position was still worse but arguably not lost anymore. In any case, he had made considerable progress after being down a piece for a pawn without compensation.

This makes me think, as some others have also surmised, that if Mamedyarov reacted angrily it may have had more to do with him being upset with his own play than anything else.

May-15-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  ganstaman: <Plato> Well then I guess this game is pretty bad example for me.

Depending on how much time was left, it's possible that Mamedyarov blitzed off the last few moves knowing that Kamsky would soon lose on time regardless of the moves -- but I guess this should be somewhat easy to verify perhaps?

May-15-07  Plato: <ganstaman> I didn't watch this particular game live, so I can't say. Perhaps someone else knows? But according to computer analysis, at least some of those mistakes came relatively early, such as 24.Qd3? instead of 24.dxe5. In terms of quality, it's probably a game that both players would rather forget :)
May-16-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  ahmadov: <MrMelad: Again, demanding resignation from your opponent is arrogant regardless of how good of a person are you.> I repeat that I know Mamed personally and I believe that these claims are false. Moreover, how Shark could demand resignation when players are not permitted to speak to each other?...
May-16-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  Karpova: I think Mamedyarov did indeed blitz out his moveslater on (especially when Kamsky was close to losing on time). I thought that there was even a video with the last moves of the game but maybe i confuse it with another game - at least on youtube (and chessdom) there's just the video showing mamedyarov walking around until 15...Qg3+ was played.

But here's a report confirming Mamedyarov blitzing Kamsky: <The following game provided most of the entertainment. Kamsky likes to play these risky lines but after his 12th move he is objectively lost. Mamedyarov nearly ruined his position by trying to ‘Blitz’ Kamsky, playing quickly in the latter’s time pressure and Kamsky hit back with a nice tactic but then his time ran out with two moves to make.> http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/eve...

May-16-07  malthrope: <Karpova: I think Mamedyarov did indeed blitz out his moves later on (especially when Kamsky was close to losing on time). I thought that there was even a video with the last moves of the game but maybe i confuse it with another game - at least on youtube (and chessdom) there's just the video showing mamedyarov walking around until 15...Qg3+ was played. [...]>

Just to confirm as I was watching this game 'live' too (on both the official MTel website and ICC). Shaki blitzed out his final moves against Gata (he moved instantaneously). Here is the video in question (showing the 1st round game when Gata was about to play 15... Qg3+ while Shaki paced back and forth waiting)...

Q Chessdom 'Mamedyarov marching' // http://videos.chessdom.com/mtel-mas...

Regards, - Mal

May-17-07  MrMelad: <ganstaman:This is not what we have been arguing. I will personally play on until I know that I am lost, and even then maybe a bit more. But I am not a GM. I DO gain a lot from playing on in losing positions. I can try to learn to defend, I can see how the GM closes out the game. I can practice trying to generate counterplay and watch how the GM shuts that down. And if I'm playing a player less than a GM, I can still learn the same things. If I'm playing someone rated low enough, I can even have a decent chance of him returning the blunder.> First I think everyone can learn from their loses even GM's. Secondly, If we were talking about a diffrent game that ended up in a mate you might be more convicing but the truth is that the game ended up in a position that is rather equal so your argument fails. Kamsky proved that he can play on and save the game against a GM a piece down. Now you see that GM's blunder like anyone else, even if your blunders are more obvious.

Besides, if you are a GM, that meens you know everything to know about chess?

< But others have said that he sacrificed and didn't get compensation> They also said Mamedyarov played poorly and that the final position is a draw.

<But look -- he eventually saw that he had a lost position and resigned. Does this mean he really doesn't have a fighting spirit?> He didn't do that. He played on and lost on time. That meens that he has a fighting spirit, or at least had it in that game.

Here is another sports analogy: What would you think of a marathon runner if he didn't quit the race though he didn't had a chance of winning it.

a. He is stupid, he should have saved his energies.
b. He is brave, winning isn't everything, at least he finished the race.

Again, I would go with (b) and you would go with (a) (according to your argument).

And marathon is like chess in the manner that it allows resignation.

May-17-07  MrMelad: <ganstaman>

about sports with resignation, see my previous example on marathons.

<I do think it's right to resign when you are facing the losing end of a K+Q v K endgame because people do do that in chess.> Yes, K+Q vs K looks natural to resign. But Kamsky on the other hand had a lost knigt and not a lost queen. Everybody has their own diffrent limit.. I would resign also in a K+Q vs K ending, but not a piece down.

<Yes, when greats talk we should listen. But we shouldn't blindly believe anyone. Are you really claiming that it's possible for GMs to blunder as much as amateurs? Can that be backed up with any evidence, or just a quote from some unnamed source? This really is a ridiculous belief -- I can go through the games of some 800-rated players and find more blunders than I have fingers, and then I can go through some GM games with Fritz and find the same amount of outright blunders?> That is exactly what I said about interpreting the sentence literaly instead of understanding the spirit of the sentence.

Here is a little logical thought (in the spirit of Socrates):

Humans commit errors. GMs are humans. So GMs commit errors.

May-17-07  MrMelad: <ahmadov: <MrMelad: Again, demanding resignation from your opponent is arrogant regardless of how good of a person are you.> I repeat that I know Mamed personally and I believe that these claims are false. Moreover, how Shark could demand resignation when players are not permitted to speak to each other?...> OK, you seem convinced enough that he is a good person that those actions can't be attributed to him, so I beleive you. I couldn't find any other source for that so I tend to agree with you. I won't say he is arrogant anymore until there will be evidence to support what was said about him, and I also appologize for hurting him or anyone that knows him. It appears to be a rumor.

However, the discussion in this page became theoretic about the honor imbedded in resigning, so that I hope you don't mind, will continue for now.

Oct-16-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  ahmadov: I especially liked the opening of this game...
Oct-16-07
Premium Chessgames Member
  ahmadov: Some chess commentators said that Kamsky could draw this game if he had some time on his clock, Shark argue that he would still win despite his erronous 35.Bf4. I checked the position with Fritz and the computer said Shark was right...
Oct-23-07  syracrophy: 14...Qc7??
Jul-18-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  HAPERSAUD: very neat mating sequence
Sep-12-09  VishyAnandFan: after 38.c5 it is very difficult for black to lose, he should always try for a perpetual because the white king has not much shelter. i think white with a piece more should have won, but where did he miss the win, it took him to long to consolidate and go for a counter-attack
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 4)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Forgoten Gems
by Yopo
35 ... Re2+! White d3-queen blockades d4-pawn to block a1-h8
from DEPEND on =YOUR= pieces to block critical lines by notyetagm
Great opening by Shark
from Azeri players' masterpieces by ahmadov
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov`s Selected Games
by Jafar219
Tactical Combinations: Decoy/Discovery
by ravel5184
35 ... Re2+! 36 Qd3xRe2?? creates TM=Q for a discovered check
from Decoys: CHESS IS NOT JUST COUNTING by notyetagm
Echoside's favorite games
by Echoside
Game 302
from Guess-the-Move Chess: 2000-2010 (Part 2) by Anatoly21
35 ... Re2+! 36 Qd3xRe2?? creates TM=Q + TL=K
from TM + TL = DISCOVERED ATTACK by notyetagm
35 ... Re2+! since White d3-queen blockades Black d4-pawn
from BLOCKADERS DO *NOT* PROTECT SQUARES! YDNPS! by notyetagm
35 ... Re2+! 36 Qd3xRe2?? creates TM=Q for a discovered check
from DISCOVERED ATTACK! by notyetagm
Complex games
by TheDestruktor


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies