|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-11-05 | | dragon40: <darklight> You are correct!! It made all the headlines and was the "talk of the Town" at that time!! |
|
| Apr-11-05 | | you vs yourself: Chess life claims that the use of sicilian dragon from the middle of the match made it a one sided affair. How could just one opening change the entire match? I mean, can't the GMs prepare against that opening the next day? I'm aware of the berlin defense by kramnik, but still it was used only for draws. |
|
| Apr-12-05 | | dragon40: <you vs yourself> Yes but given the fact that Kasparov had NEVER played the Dragon before, and Anand had probably prepared the last 9 months by going through Kaspy's games and being ready with the Najdorf...it was a HUGE mental blow and a chess blow as well. Anand was totally unprepared for his and reacted unsure, and really let it get to his state of mind which did indeed cost him the match! This can be proven by looking at the games he had versus Kasparov's Najdorf +1-0 and the Dragon he was -3=3, that's most of your diference right there !
Chess can be a very psychological game and Anand was simply totally unprepared for this entire change in Kasparov's repetoire, and reacted just as Kasparov knew he would. Excellent plan by his camp and it worked to perfection :) |
|
Apr-12-05
 | | offramp: Anand took one hell of a beating in this match. |
|
| Apr-12-05 | | RookFile: Well, 18. Bh5 is not principle chess.
I'm not even sure black needs to
worry about 19. Nxe6. |
|
| Apr-12-05 | | shortsight: And that's the same strategy Kramnik used to beat Kasparov himself! Kasparov felt the need to not only beat Kramnik convincingly, but also crashed Kramnik's Berlin as well. But we all know about the result, Kasparov failed, for he fell into Kramnik's trap. To beat Berlin, Kasparov needs to believe in himself, not the computers, where he relied heavily on preparation. I always look at Kramnik's beating of Kasparov as the same way Botvinnik beat Tal in the return match, where Botvinnik used quiet positional games to catch Tal offguard. Blow for blow, Kramnik knew he can't match Kasparov, but he managed to see Kasparov weak point as the defending champion. |
|
| Apr-12-05 | | shortsight: Ability-wise, Kasparov is king, but he lost to a brilliant strategy by Kramnik. |
|
| Apr-12-05 | | dragon40: <offramp> Yes, Anand was really pounded in the 2nd half of the match! Kasparov's strategy of totally switching his opening from the Sicilian/Najdorf to the Dragon was a very shrewd strategy and totally casued Anand to have a collapse of his confidence...all or at least most of his preparation had been against Kasparov's Najdorf sicilian.
Anand lost what edge he had in matching Kasparov's famed home preparation and was thrown, mid-match, onto his own resources...quite a psychological blow!
As far as Kramnik, UGH but I do grudgingly give him credit for a great strategy...too bad it won him the match.
<rookfile> <I'm not even sure black needs to worry about 19. Nxe6.>
OK lets look at the principle variation that was given in the match book:
<18.Bh5, Nf6; 19.Nxe6, fxe6; 20.Bxb6, Qc8; 21.Bxd8, Rxd8; 22.Bf3. Even though White has a Rook and 2 pawns for a bishop and knight, Black may not be worse, but it is hardly worth chancing.>
Agreed, the match was just starting and no reason to lose or suffer through an adjournment or 2 due to unnecessary risk-taking or "gambling". 18...Rf8 was the simplest, and put an end to any tricks that Whte might try involving the f7 square. |
|
| Jan-21-06 | | Aseem: Whats the point of 18.Bh5, is it wise to play Nxe6 and give up two minors for a rook and pawn |
|
| Apr-23-08 | | VaselineTopLove: Game 1: Apparently Rudy Giuliani, the then Mayor of NYC, was invited to inaugurate the match and play the first move. He played the first move on behalf of Anand, and to Anand's shock played 1.c4...after the cameras were switched off, Anand quietly put the c-pawn back and played 1.e4. <How could just one opening change the entire match? I mean, can't the GMs prepare against that opening the next day?> Because the Sicilian Dragon was not a popular opening choice among top GMs, given white's better record against black in this opening, and no top GM would even think of using it in a WC match. If Kasparov was using it, it would mean he had heavily analyzed it and that caught Anand off-guard. |
|
| Nov-10-08 | | DoubleCheck: I did abit searching and found out this...
In games One, Three, Five, Seven and Nine where Kasparov with black pieces played on all those occasions the <Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen. Classical Variation (B84)> The first 11 moves of those games are a complete match. It become clear that Kasparov had one clear objective when playing black in this match - to get to that 11th move, and then trick Anand or aim for positional advantage Consider the position in Game 5 and 7 AFTER black(Kasparov) has played his 20th move: 1) We first note that the first 15 moves are same
2) Anand aims for a locked dark-square bishop at Bb6 in both games
3) In game 5 variation is 16. Qe2, 17. Bb6
4) In game 7 variation is 16. Bb6, 17. e5
So after taking into account this, it should be fair to say that after blacks 20th, Anand has clear centre advantage with 16. Qe2 in game 5 whereas in game 7 where he played e5 has lost centre majority.
Which has now created tension and is fought over.
Plus after game 9 playing with the black pieces, Kasparov then tried the <Sicilian Defense: Dragon Variation. Yugoslav Attack (B77-B78)> until the end of the match where he won twice with this variation.
(Game 11 and Game 13)
I'm very suprised that Anand didn't aim for a
<Queen's Gambit Declined: Three Knights Variation. General (D55)>
or
(QGD)<Tarrasch Defense: Classical. Carlsbad Variation (D34)> Considering Kasparov lost in these varaitions to Karpov in the 1984 WWC Not once was a Queen Gambit's Declined played in this match, proving that either Anand was not prepared to play it or Anand knew Kasparov has strong in QGD. So when Anand was white, Kasparov aimed for <(B84)>.. but when Kasparov was white, he tried a host of different openings Spanish game was tried 3 times
---(Kasparov winning once with spanish - Game 10, two draws)
English was experimented once (result - draw)
and even Nimzo-Indian (result - draw)
Also, regarding that 1984 WWC with Karpov and Kasparov -
Interesting facts:
Out of the 48 games the QGD was tried 19 times
Out of those 19 QGD games there was 15 draws with Karpov scoring higher 3 to 1 over Kasparov So it wasnt just Kasparov playing very well to win, but also Anand lack of different openings (with white pieces) that possibly could of costed him a World Chess Championship Anand might have stood a better chance had he atleast tried one QGD
but i guess we'll never know now.
I hope you learnt something from that, I certainty did |
|
| Jun-14-09 | | ChessDaZaster: So, what is the purpose of 11)Kh1? |
|
| Jul-02-09 | | Knight13: <ChessDaZaster: So, what is the purpose of 11)Kh1?> It's kind of a book move where White gets out of possible potential checks from the g1-h7 diagonal. It's also a waiting move, and at the same time gets the king to safety. |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | Dredge Rivers: Not a great start to a long-awaited matchup.
BTW, six years later, to the day, the game venue was destroyed by a terrorist attack. Coincidence, or CONSPIRACY?! :) |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | I play the Fred: <Game 1: Apparently Rudy Giuliani, the then Mayor of NYC, was invited to inaugurate the match and play the first move. He played the first move on behalf of Anand, and to Anand's shock played 1.c4...after the cameras were switched off, Anand quietly put the c-pawn back and played 1.e4.> So Kasparov takes a move back and everyone is outraged, but the popular and likeable Anand takes a move back and nobody cares!? ;p |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | Petrosianic: Taking your own move back is one thing, taking somebody else's back is another. It's like throwing out the first pitch. It's not REALLY a pitch, as there's no batter standing there ready to take a swing that counts at it. But they call it that even though it doesn't count and it's more often a lob or a bounce than a pitch. |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | I play the Fred: Please note the little smiley-thing at the end of my last post. |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | Petrosianic: I know, but the whole comparison of throwing out the first pawn to throwing out the first pitch struck me as cute. But maybe not. |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | I play the Fred: I wish the people who made the ceremonial First Move were as inept as those making the ceremonial First Pitch. I'd love to see someone toss out 1 Rg3. |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | Petrosianic: Paris Hilton: "I think I'll move this horsie here. Tee hee." |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | I play the Fred: I wonder what she thinks bishops are. |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | Dredge Rivers: I don't know, Fred. What DOES she think bishops are? |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | I play the Fred: Hey, I just asked the question. If P. Hilton is ever in that, erm, position to answer the question, please pose it to her. :D |
|
| Aug-08-10 | | Dredge Rivers: Yeah, Freddy. I'll ask her the next time I go out with her! |
|
Aug-28-18
 | | Sally Simpson: "He [ Rudy Giuliani], the Mayor of New York]played the first move on behalf of Anand, and to Anand's shock played 1.c4..." Danny King who was there reports Rudy Giuliani asked Anand what his first move was and Anand pointed to the c-pawn. Giuliani played 1.c4 and it appeared on the monitors in the gallery. "The well informed audience literally gasped with amazement." Anand, a 1.e4 player had had his wee joke, said, “Jadoube” moved the c-pawn back to c2 and played 1.e4. Those few seconds would not have done Gary's nerves any good. All his opening prep was tossed out the window. It was possibly a gag based on Fischer playing 1.c4 in game 6 in 1972. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
