|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-27-03 | | drukenknight: Benj. Chess is straightforward but its not childish.
It's the reasoning here, that is simplistic: "strong pawn center = too much". Relying on a summary like that is too simplistic. |
|
| Oct-27-03 | | Pawnographer: Well, certainly the strong pawn center is too much for Kasparov in this game. Can you tell me how it isn't?? Can you answer Kasparov's dilemma of activating his dark squared bishop. Certainly he couldn't..why? Because Karpov's central pawn dominance and subsequent temporary pawn sac prevented Kaspy from getting anything going. (the passed a-pawn was hardly anything to sweat about) By the time he did..it was too late... Indeed it was "too much" in this game. The strong advanced pawn center gave White not only the dominance in space but limited Black from any active play. Black fianchetto formations such as the Gruenfeld or KID center around making the dark-squared bishop your best piece. This game certainly doesn't illustrate that. So if you were Black, you would be comfortable? I surmise that you think White's center is not too much after all. Prove it. find me a solution that gives Black the BETTER GAME. |
|
Oct-28-03
 | | Open Defence: I may be naive, but the knight on d3 protects the entry point b2 on the second rank of the b file, thus Rcb8 would not aid much in giving black serious counterplay...
having said that... 14..Rfc8 followed by Bf8 and a re-grouping on the f8-a3 diagonal makes sense to me, and I think Murray Chandler used a simmilar plan in a few games but in a different variation of the Grunfeld.
What do you think? |
|
| Mar-23-04 | | Lawrence: Karpov says that Black's a pawn was never dangerous so Black should have played 20...Rcb8 in order to dominate the b file. (At that stage of the game White had not yet managed to get his Knight onto d3.) Junior 8 reckons that 25...g5 was a bad mistake, Gazza should have played 25...Kf7. |
|
Dec-15-05
 | | offramp: One of the strangest games between these two greats. Kasparov plays an opening that does not look good at all. Karpov plays exclusively to support the pawn on e5.
Then he goes and picks up the far-advanced a-pawn and Kasparov resigns. |
|
| Dec-12-06 | | kevin86: An odd game (beside the fact it was game five-lol). Karpov storms the opponent with a pawn storm. Kasparov replies with a rapid advance by a lone foot soldier-the a-pawn. Karpov was able to corral the lone soldier,pen him in,and finally capture the capricious man before he could reach his maximum. |
|
| Jan-20-07 | | Octavia: Karpov'll be 2 pawns up & catch the c pawn as well!
Another game (23) explained in detail by Mcdonald in <Chess:the art of logical thinking> |
|
| Jan-20-07 | | Octavia: Th game follows Petrosian-Fischer 71 1-0) until 10bxc3 - i wonder if either of them knew this other game? |
|
| May-29-07 | | bvwp: I happened to be in London that day, and went along. Tony Miles was leading the kibitzing, well and amiably. By move 22, he'd had enough, and asked for help. Nobody could give him any. It was too hard for all of us. He finally said "If Karpov plays Rhe1, he thinks he's winning." |
|
Jun-14-07
 | | Troller: The line was, strangely, prepared by Kasparov. His team had presumably had the position after 19.-,h6 on the board during preparation and quickly concluded that after the only reasonable answer 20.Nf3, Black could play Bc6 and have sufficient counterplay with the a-pawn. When Karpov played Nh3, it was suddenly obvious that White could win the c-pawn by playing Nf2-Nd3 and Be3. |
|
| Jul-05-07 | | 2Towers: When this game was played and Karpov won, my friend had joked that, "...so Kasparov thought he was better than Fischer by playing 10...♕xd2+ instead of 10....♕a5 <versus Petrosian who also won the game> Petrosian vs Fischer, 1971. This game was another demonstration of Karpov's "boa-constrictor" style. He locked out all other possible routes for counter attack leaving Black with nothing else to play but the a-♙ push. Another instructive play by Karpov. Elegant maneuvering of the ♘. |
|
| Jun-16-08 | | notyetagm: A masterful game by Karpov. |
|
| Jun-16-08 | | notyetagm: Karpov vs Kasparov, 1986 White to play after 8 ... ♘e4x♘c3:
click for larger viewKasparov (Black) has just captured the <PINNED> White c3-knight with 8 ... ♘e4x♘c3. To a beginner it would appear that Black has just won material. But Karpov (White) has a neat and thematic resource in this position. When Black played 8 ... ♘e4x♘c3 with the support of his <UNDEFENDED> Black a5-queen, he <LINED UP> his Black knight with his <UNDEFENDED> Black a5-queen. <<<Whenever you see two pieces of the same color on a file or a diagonal, you should be thinking <PIN(!)> (Weteschnik).>>> So Karpov (White) plays 9 ♕d1-d2!, <PINNING> the Black c3-kight to the <UNDEFENDED> Black a5-queen, not losing any material at all. Position after 9 ♕d1-d2!
click for larger view<WETESCHNIK ON PINS> -- Every undefended piece (<UNDEFENDED> Black a5-queen) is a potential candidate for a pin -- Two pieces of the same color (Black c3-knight, <UNDEFENDED> Black a5-queen) on a file or diagonal (a5-e1 diagonal) should be considered as pinned -- Every attacked piece of yours (Black c3-knight by White b2-pawn) standing in front of another of your pieces (<UNDEFENDED> Black a5-queen) must be regarded as pinned |
|
| Jun-16-08 | | notyetagm: 
click for larger viewPosition after 8 ... ♘e4x♘c3 9 ♕d1-d2!
click for larger viewI wanted to annotate this 8 ... ♘e4x♘c3 9 ♕d1-d2! <PINS AGAINST UNDEFENDED PIECES> tactical motif because I overlook it way too much. I see the Black a5-queen as <DEFENDING> the Black c3-knight. I overlook that the Black a5-queen is <UNDEFENDED> and <LINED UP> with the Black c3-knight, provoking the creation of a <PIN> (9 ♕d1-d2!). Just like Weteschnik wrote, <EVERY UNDEFENDED PIECE IS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR A PIN>. By annotating and studying this excellent example I hope to avoid such problems in the future. |
|
| Nov-06-08 | | Andrijadj: 18...c5 is a strategic mistake bu kasparov...he should have played 18...g5! with only slight advantage for white... |
|
| Jun-29-09 | | Knight13: 18...g5! 19. Bxg5 Bxe5 20. c5 and Black can move his bishop to g7, play Re8 and start rolling. And at the same time push the a-pawn so White has two things to worry about. Very good, <Andrijadj>. |
|
| May-01-10 | | SpiritedReposte: Favorite Karpov game!! Just swallows him up. Definately going into the collection. |
|
| Nov-25-10 | | Eyal: One of the most dramatic cases of failed preparation. Kasparov played the rare 10...Qxd2+ (instead of the usual ...Qa5) and confidently followed his home analysis, until suddenly realizing that he walked straight into a lost endgame. Here are some comments from his book on the match: <18...c5? A serious mistake in our home analysis! It seemed very important to activate the light-squared bishop, especially since after the possible 19.Nf3 (at home such a move is made automatically; it is also the move that a modern computer first "thinks" about) h6 20.h4 Bc6 no successful regrouping of White’s forces is apparent (he is tied down by the constant threat to his e5 pawn: his knight cannot move from f3 because of ...g5), whereas Black threatens to transfer his king to d7 and then pushes forward his a-pawn. However, in fact I should have had a serious think at the board and released my "dead" dark-squared bishop – 18...g5! 19.Bxg5 Bxe5 20.c5 Bg7! (with the threat of ...e5 [all played in Timman vs P Popovic, 1989 ]) [...] It would appear that 18...g5! gives sufficient counterplay. However, Black’s crushing defeat in this game created such a strong impression that the variation with 10...Qxd2+ did not in fact become established in practice. [...]
20.Nh3! A cold shower! This signals the end of the plan with 18...c5; White prevents ...g5, and after f3 (also “killing” the light-squared bishop) he transfers his knight to d3, securely defending his e5-pawn and attacking the c5-pawn. The bishop at g7 remains shut in, and thus for the remainder of the game White will be playing with an extra piece. It is true that the transfer of the knight will take three or four moves, but can Black do anything during this time? [...]
22.Rhe1! An exceptionally important move, killing Black’s counterplay. "Over-protection of the e5-pawn" (Karpov). In the event of 22.Nf2? Black would have had time for 22...g5! 23.hxg5 hxg5 24.Bh2 f4! 25.Nd3 Be8! Activating his bishop; for example: 26.g3 (or 26.Bg1 Bg6 27.Nxc5 Bxe5 - Karpov) 26...fxg3 27.Bxg3 a3 with good counter-chances [...] "I managed to find an almost mathematical solution to the position," Karpov writes in his book "My Best Games." This is indeed a deep plan (19.h4!, 20.Nh3!, 22.Rhe1!), fully in Karpov’s style, irrespective of whether it was found at home or at the board.> However, as Kasparov also points out in his notes, 25...g5? (too late) was an additional blunder, making Karpov’s life much easier compared with 25...Rb8! (with ideas of Rbb3 and Rb2+ in various lines) which would still require great accuracy from White to win. For example, the line given at the time by Karpov and Zaitsev in the Informator as winning for White – 26.Rec1 g5 27.hxg5 hxg5 28.Nxc5 (not 28.Bxg5 Rbb3! 29.Nxc5 Rb2+) 28...Ba4 29.Nxa4 Rxa4 30.Bxg5 Bxe5 31.d7 – is in fact a draw after 31...Bxa1 32.Rxa1 Rxc4 33.Ke3 (33.d8Q+ Rxd8+ 34.Bxd8 Rd4+ and 35...Rxd8) 33...Rc3+ 34.Kd4 Rc2 35.d8Q+ Rxd8+ 36.Bxd8 Rd2+. |
|
Jul-31-11
 | | perfidious: Did Kasparov miss an opportunity here with 25....Rb5 26.Rec1 g5, instead of the immediate attempt to break out with 25....g5? |
|
Nov-09-13
 | | Peligroso Patzer: Compare: Petrosian vs Fischer, 1971 |
|
| Mar-11-14 | | SpiritedReposte: How many other players could render a Kasparov bishop so ineffectual? |
|
| Sep-06-14 | | Ke2: Lol at 20-23... |
|
| Aug-13-17 | | Toribio3: Karpov is also a master of defense. He was able to block that dangerous passed pawn in the a-file! |
|
Sep-05-18
 | | Sally Simpson: 'The book of the World Championship' by Wade, Miles, Bronstein etc...etc... https://media.houseofstaunton.com/m... Miles noting up game 5 after Kasparov's move 27...Kf7. 
click for larger view'This is ridiculous. Resignation would have been more active. In the conclusion he adds:
"Kasparov's handling of the opening must rank as one of the most colossal positional misunderstandings ever by a world champion." The book notes are OK, it's robust (I'm fed up with chess books falling to bits on me) they have a chapter mixed up on page...OOPS! no page numbers! They have a chapter mixed up at the end of game of Game 8. https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo... The bit on the left should be on the right and bit on the right should be on the left. The do a whole game with notes and as an added feature 3-4 pages of nothing but diagrams on every other move. This is possibly some input from Bronstein but the Knights facing the wrong way are doing my nut in. https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo... Of course it is 50+ years of seeing a Knight facing left in practically every diagram or figurine notation I have seen and yet here the Knight faces right. I cannot get used to it all. A scan from the noted up section of the book. It's ugly...no other word for it. https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo... |
|
| Nov-26-19 | | aman11: Garry Kasparov became my favourite player after this game, no doubt a strong pawn center is powerful play. I read many books about Kasparov after that available on https://www.chessbazaar.com/chess-s.... I also buy my chess sets from here.
I am new to chess but i like so many games discussed here. Became an Avid reader of this chessgames.com. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
