|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-10-09 | | thom: My engine says: 11.. ♖a3! 12.♗d4 ♕d4 13.c3 ♕a5 14.♘xa3 ♕xa3 15.♕b3  . What do you think? |
|
| Apr-17-09 | | WhiteRook48: ends with Q vs 2 Bs |
|
| Mar-11-11 | | YourNickname: One of the games that i never shall understand. |
|
| May-19-11 | | MumbaiIndians: Anand never had a gud record against Kasparov , bt dis game displays d power of d vintage Anand....simply gr8...!!! |
|
| Jun-15-11 | | DrMAL: 10.Ndxb5 was a great sac by Vishy, very creative opening preparation. Evidently, Kasparov did not prepare for this move since 11...Ra5 was a mistake. The odd move, 11...Ra3 was probably best among several good ones where the continuation afterwards is also odd, 12.Rb1 Qxa2!
After 11...Ra5 both play extremely accurately until 21...e5 a second mistake. |
|
| Jun-15-11 | | BobCrisp: What was the novelty in this game? |
|
| Jun-15-11 | | I play the Fred: <What was the novelty in this game?> Anand beating Kasparov. |
|
| Jun-15-11 | | DrMAL: LOL. I think the sac was novel but it was perhaps even more novel that Kasparov did not seem to be prepared for it. |
|
| Jun-16-11 | | BobCrisp: If you want something done, do it yourself, <Delboy>. The position after 9...Qxb2 occurred, by transposition, in the game DeFirmian vs Gheorghiu, 1980. <DeFirmian> chose 10.Ncb5 and after 10...axb5 11.Nxb5, <Gheorghiu> went with 11...Qb4. Fritz thinks Black has a choice of 9 playable 11th moves: ...Ra3, ...d5, ...Ra6, ...Qb4, ...Nxe4, ...h5, ...Ke7, ...Kd8, ...Ra5. |
|
| Jun-16-11 | | DrMAL: This is the sac's beauty, it's response has many candidate moves with each requiring a lot of time to calculate, forcing black to burn up the clock and probably resulting in the wrong move chosen anyway, as what happened. On move 11 black has to counter the fork 12.Nc7+ and the choice requires pondering. An immediate thought is to simply get the rook on a8 out of the way but the many choices along the a-file require deeper calculation. But then there are other pieces and pawns that can also move. This points out the basic reason why computers, given enough chess knowledge ultimately beat humans: calculation crisis! Some GMs, particularly Tal, made this fact a central strategy. The stranger the position the more likely it is for our intuition based on insufficiently complete calculation to fail. Because of the many possibilities and their complexity here, it is interesting to see specific engine output so here they are for Rybka 4.1 (the lines are truncated to two moves for brevity): [+0.24] d=19 11...Ra3 12.Rb1 Qxa2 13.Bd4 (1:37:34) 668247kN [+0.38] d=19 11...Qb4 12.Nc7+ Ke7 13.Nxa8 (1:50:49) 776971kN [+0.49] d=19 11...d5 12.e5 Ne4 13.Nc7+(1:59:00) 841251kN [+0.71] d=19 11...Kd8 12.a3 Ra5 13.Rb1 (2:02:44) 867874kN [+1.00] d=19 11...Nxe4 12.Nc7+ Kd8 13.Nxa8 (2:03:43) 874424kN [+1.10] d=19 11...Ra6 12.a3 Ra5 13.Rb1 (2:04:23) 878977kN [+1.17] d=19 11...Ra5 12.Rb1 Rxb5 13.Rxb2 (2:04:31) 879822kN [+1.27] d=19 11...h5 12.Qe1 d5 13.Nc7+ (2:06:13) 891814kN [+1.62] d=19 11...Be7 12.Nc7+ Kf8 13.Nxa8 (2:09:51) 913382kN It seems clear that Kasparov was not at all prepared for this sac and his choice is almost embarrassingly poor. It also shows the breath and flexibility of Anand's style a strong indication of why he is WC. I think this is one of his best games and an overall classic! |
|
Sep-25-11
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <From page 1 of this thread, March 2003>: <refutor: is 12. ... Rxb5 forced?> <mdorothy: I believe so.. black's queen is trapped, and it looks like that gets the most back for it.> <<Honza Cervenka>: I think that 12...Qxa2 13.Nc3 Qa3 14.Rb3 Qxb3 15.cxb3 would not have been much better.> Fritz thinks Black should have played <11. … Ra3> to cover the c3-square so that after <12. Rb1> the reply <12. … Qxa2> would have been possible without allowing the Black Queen to be trapped (as in the variation given by <Honza Cervenka>). |
|
| Sep-25-11 | | Everett: Jun-15-11
premium
member <I play the Fred: <What was the novelty in this game?>
Anand beating Kasparov.>
That's pretty funny.
Of note, Kasparov as champion seemed to be slightly vulnerable to new and young talents. Besides this loss, there is the loss to Radjabov and Lautier when they were mere pups in comparison. |
|
| May-29-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Elegant game by Anand!
LTJ |
|
| Jun-02-12 | | nirajkmr: What a game! Liked the knight sac and then Rxd6!! |
|
| Oct-26-13 | | shepi13: <DrMAL> - you actually have it completely wrong. A book on the sveshnikov by Kasparov the position after 0-0 Qb6 Be3 Qxb2 Ncb5 axb5 Nxb5 Ra5 as interesting for analysis. Meanwhile, Anand says in his book of his best games that he found everything after 8. 0-0 over the board. Also, white does seem to be better after Ra3 Rb1 Qxa2 Bd4 e5 Ra1 exd4 Rxa2 Rxa2 c3 Be7 cxd4 0-0 e5, and has other options as well (such as Re1 instead of c3). Frequently engines do not understand these imbalanced positions, so it is wrong to trust the engine when it claims Kasparov's move is worse. Also, this was played in 1991, before deep computer preparation became the norm. |
|
| Nov-08-13 | | Abusm: Ndb5... is very intelligent as soon as I read that Q×b2 is not a good choice, that because it will waste time and give the opponent the initiative to develop his piece rapidly. |
|
| Mar-21-15 | | ramakg: Is there a video analysis of this game? If so, could someone post a link? I searched youtube and came back blank. |
|
| Jul-08-15 | | RookFile: What a deep game. Played this over, and couldn't find a move of Kasparov's that I disagreed with, right up until he resigned. |
|
| Jul-08-15 | | LucB: One word: Wow! |
|
| Jul-08-15 | | LucB: .. and I thought <I> was a tactical genius! ;) |
|
Jul-08-15
 | | kevin86: ouch! Kasparov gets his queen trapped in pp variation. |
|
| Jul-08-15 | | RookFile: Well, yes, but he got a boatload of material for the queen. Lasker did something like that once, capturing on a2 and even winning the game. Why wasn't it ok this time? Truth be told, I have no idea. |
|
| Jul-09-15 | | Moszkowski012273: Qxb2 is fine; missing Ra3 wasn't. |
|
| Jul-19-16 | | clma55: Why dont 14.......rb5 ¿.. |
|
| Aug-20-20 | | Gaito: Compare this game with another very old game Morphy vs. Paulsen, New York, 1857:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qb6 6.Nc3 Qxb2 7.Ndb5, reaching the following position:
click for larger view
There followed 7....Bxe3 8.Rb1 Qxb1 9.Nxb1 Bf4 10.g3 a6 11.gxf4 axb5 12.Nc3 Ne7 13.Nxb5 O-O 14.Nd6 Nbc6 15.Rg1 Rxa2 16.f5 f6 17.Bc4 Ra4 18.f4 b6 19.fxe6 dxe6 20.Nxc8 Nxc8 21.Bxe6+ Kh8 22.Bxc8 Rxc8 23.Qd7 Ne7 24.Qxe7 Ra1+ 25.Kf2 Rxc2+ 26.Ke3 1-0.
The game can be seen in this link:
Morphy vs Paulsen, 1857
In both cases, notice that after Black's queen got trapped in her attempt to capture White's poisoned pawn at b2, Black obtained material that was almost equivalent for the queen, but at the end it proved to be insufficient. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 10.Ndb5