| Apr-06-24 | | mk volkov: A million dollar question: What prevented Kasparov to play 4.d3 against Kramnik in 2000 match? |
|
| Apr-06-24 | | MrMelad: Crazy game! Ian plays an aggressive middle game with the king a the center of the board, and somehow this is completely sound. Half the time I had no idea what’s going on but engines approve. You need balls of steel to play this at a candidates game against Alireza |
|
Apr-06-24
 | | FSR: <mk volkov: A million dollar question: What prevented Kasparov to play 4.d3 against Kramnik in 2000 match?> Excellent question, to which I don't know the answer. Kasparov faced the Berlin four times in the Kasparov - Kramnik Classical World Championship Match (2000) - in games 1, 3, 9 and 13. Each time he went for the Berlin Wall endgame and got nowhere. The 13th game lasted all of 14 moves! He must have thought that Kramnik would easily handle 4.d3, but it can't have been worse than pounding his head into the Berlin Wall again and again. Easy to say in hindsight, of course. |
|
Apr-06-24
 | | perfidious: Head-spinning complications, and hardly what one has come to expect in these Berlin middlegames once White eschews the quieter 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 etc. |
|
Apr-06-24
 | | beatgiant: People tend to overstate the idea that "opening prep is destiny." You can fight for a win with 4. d3 or with 4. 0-0, but not if you're ready to accept a draw after 14 moves as Kasparov did. If I'm not mistaken, 4. 0-0 was the mainline and 4. d3 was considered a less ambitious sideline in the opening fashions until 2000. |
|
Apr-06-24
| | perfidious: <beatgiant....You can fight for a win with 4. d3 or with 4. 0-0, but not if you're ready to accept a draw after 14 moves as Kasparov did....> It has always been something of a psychological puzzle to me why Kasparov barely tried in so many of his games with White in that match. <,....If I'm not mistaken, 4. 0-0 was the mainline and 4. d3 was considered a less ambitious sideline in the opening fashions until 2000.> True; after the early 20th century, the Berlin was scarcely seen in high-level praxis until Kramnik revived it. Art Bisguier was the only GM to employ it with any regularity, and that in his mature career. |
|
| Apr-06-24 | | Messiah: <True; after the early 20th century, the Berlin was scarcely seen in high-level praxis until Kramnik revived it. Art Bisguier was the only GM to employ it with any regularity, and that in his mature career.> This is not factually correct. |
|
Apr-06-24
| | perfidious: <antichrist>, if you are going to make such a claim, present some facts, rather than a bald statement trying to refute my remarks, while offering no evidence to the contrary. |
|
Apr-06-24
| | beatgiant: Black didn't seem to get enough for the piece sac with 29...Qg6, so that's the first place I'd look for an improvement. How about 29...g4 instead? This threatens 30...g3 busting open the kingside. If White takes it, 29...g4 30. Bxg4 Nh2+ and Black gets a lot of play on the kingside, without giving up a piece for it. |
|
Apr-07-24
| | beatgiant: Taking a quick look at 29...g4, I find the following options for White. 29...g4 30. Bxg4 Nh2+ just looks too good for Black. White shouldn't spend any time thinking about this. 29...g4 30. c4. This opens the diagonal from b2 to e5 so White has some pressure there, for example now 30...g3 <31. Ke2> for the advantage. But it also blocks the diagonal from e6 to b3 and allows 29...g4 30. c4 Nb3, with messy complications. 29...g4 30. Qxc7 <g3>. Now if 31. Qxa5 g2+ 32. Kxg2 Qh5, White's king is in a net and he will have to find some computer moves to get out of it. 29...g4 30. Qxe8 Raxe8. White has the bishop pair in an open ending, but too many pawns will come off so it's hard to see any realistic winning chances here. Still, this seems like the most practical solution. |
|
Apr-07-24
 | | Teyss: Why did White play 29...Qg6_? Was it a speculative sac going for 4 Pawns vs minor piece with a potential attack? Risky considering Nepo's level. Or did he miss a reply but then which one? The threat after 30.Qxe7 Qxh6 is 31...Rae8 winning back the piece with a strong attack. Did White miss the simple defence 31.Bf7_? Or the blocking 38.Ng3!_? Either he was too optimistic, either he missed something but in any case he needs to change gear if he wants to be able to win. TBH regardless of what Carlsen said, I'm not confident considering his latest results in high-level classical tournaments, notably Sinquefield and Wijk aan Zee. And this tournament is even of a higher standard with top GMs at the best of their form, highly prepared and motivated. Maybe Firouzja has been doing too many side activities and tournaments that did not prepare him properly for the Candidates (the Chartres setup, the Rouen setup, "Freestyle Chess", blitz, rapid, online). |
|
Apr-08-24
 | | Honza Cervenka: <True; after the early 20th century, the Berlin was scarcely seen in high-level praxis until Kramnik revived it. Art Bisguier was the only GM to employ it with any regularity, and that in his mature career.> Well, the Berlin was less common but not completely ommitted at top level in the second half of the 20th century. Bronstein used it twice during his candidate match against Boleslavsky. Ludek Pachman and Boris Spassky played Berlin quite frequently, Nikola Karaklajic was another regular Berliner, though he was just an IM. Also Miroslav Filip, Jan Smejkal, Oleg Romanishin, Oleg Neikirch or Nikolay Minev among others were using Berlin occasionally. And of course, Vasily Smyslov, though he was more often trying 3...g6 against RL. |
|
| Apr-08-24 | | cormier: depth=38 | Stockfish 16
+3.28 30. Qxe7 Qxh6 31. Bd5 c6 32. Bf7 Rxf7 33. Qxf7 Qh1+ 34. Ke2 Ng1+ 35. Rxg1 Qxe4+ 36. Kf1 Qd3+ 37. Kg2 Qd5+ 38. Qxd5 cxd5 39. Rad1 Kg7 40. Rxd5 Nc4 4 |
|
| Apr-08-24 | | cormier: depth=37 | Stockfish 16
+0.26 29... g4 30. c4 Nb3 31. Kg2 Nfd4 32. Rxd4 f3+ 33. Kg1 Nxd4 |
|
| Apr-10-24 | | Voice without Words: What a monster attack by Ian. |
|
Jul-23-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Perfidious,
<True; after the early 20th century, the Berlin was scarcely seen in high-level praxis until Kramnik revived it. Art Bisguier was the only GM to employ it with any regularity, and that in his mature career.> I was looking for something else in 'The Art of Bisguier' (a really good book btw) and happened upon game 42. Karpov vs A Bisguier, 1970 Bisguier mentions he was virtually the only GM who played it and adds when Kramnik used it as a surprise weapon v Kasparov a few commentators were suggesting Garry should look at Bisguier's games because it appears that Kramnik had. |
|
Kibitzing
