|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-25-10 | | nelech: In his book Kasparov gives this winning variation : 33 Qb5! Kh7 34 Nc6 Qa8 35 Qd3+ f5 36 Qd8 Nc5 37 Qe8! f4 38 Kg2 Qb7 39 Bh5 Ne7 40 Kg1! Qd7 (?) 41 Nxe7 but what happen if 40 ...Qxc6 ? I don't see a win there |
|
| Sep-02-10 | | AVRO38: This game is a Reti/Neo-Catalan not an English. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <nelech>
If 40...Qxc6, then Bg6+! snags black's queen. |
|
Feb-17-11
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <KingG: <Sularus> Thanks for that. It's amazing that they started analysing the game immediately afterwards. I doubt Karpov was really in the mood, poor guy. He took it quite calmly though. *** > I am sure Karpov would have taken great satisfaction if he had regained the world championship in this match, but his disappointment was no doubt mitigated by the reflection that he had already had a distinguished ten-year reign as world champion from 1975-1985. |
|
Feb-17-11
| | Peligroso Patzer: BTW, why do the captions for so many important games in this database have incorrect dates. This game was played December 17-18, 1987 (not January 25th). |
|
| Jun-25-12 | | Akshay999: Why am I unable to see a win for White in this game at the end? Surely Karpov cannot win it... but why resign? |
|
| Sep-06-12 | | Conrad93: 33. Bh5 was probably the move Kasparov meant to play. After 33...g6 white can sacrifice the bishop with 34. Bxg6!. The pawn can't be taken because of 34...fxg6 Qxg6 when white is forced to lose material after moving the king. |
|
| Sep-06-12 | | Conrad93: Conrad93: Karpov is forced to the defense of both his pawn and knight, while the white queen and bishop are free to roam all over the board with numerous threats.
Karpov would have no choice but eventually lose as he has no way to defend all of his pieces at once. It would just be slow torture for Karpov, and I'm sure he was already exhausted by this point. |
|
| Aug-09-13 | | landogriffin: @Akshay999: Bd1-f3-e4-xg6 |
|
Mar-17-15
 | | offramp: I could never bear to play through this game more than once. I was rooting for Karpov, and I had predicted to Martin Barkwill that Karpov would win game 23 and then win the title back. KARPOV was do close to proving me right. |
|
| Sep-03-15 | | RookFile: If Karpov could have been prepared to play 1....e5 instead of 1...e6, I think he may have at least drawn this game. |
|
| Sep-03-15 | | Howard: So, where was the point of no return in this very crucial game? In other words, at one point did Karpov throw away the draw for good ? |
|
| Sep-03-15 | | Jim Bartle: <If Karpov could have been prepared to play 1....e5 instead of 1...e6, I think he may have at least drawn this game.> He had already played it five times in 11 games (2 wins, 2 losses, 1 draw) in this match, so I suspect he was "prepared." |
|
| Sep-03-15 | | Everett: <Sep-03-15 Howard: So, where was the point of no return in this very crucial game? In other words, at one point did Karpov throw away the draw for good ?> Karpov missed an equalizing improvement before the time control (see previous posts) and then it seems 42..g6 is roundly condemned by most. Perhaps trying to defend Black without the g6-h5 pawn formation is a good place for investigation. |
|
| Sep-03-15 | | RookFile: Sure Jim. I remember some of those games. Evidently Karpov wasn't mentally prepared. Somehow Kasparov knew going into this game it was going to be a long siege, and Karpov was coorperative. As it was, Karpov almost did what he needed to do. |
|
| Sep-03-15 | | Jim Bartle: Maybe Karpov thought it would be easier to draw playing the Queens Gambit than the English. But Kasparov played into the Reti. |
|
| Sep-04-15 | | Everett: <Sep-03-15 RookFile: Sure Jim. I remember some of those games. <Evidently Karpov wasn't mentally prepared.> Somehow Kasparov knew going into this game it was going to be a long siege, and Karpov was coorperative. As it was, Karpov almost did what he needed to do.> Interesting that you think Karpov's choice of opening came from such a negative place when you have the option many explanations. |
|
Sep-04-15
 | | perfidious: Kasparov's task in this most crucial game was not at all simple, his redoubtable challenger having held the balance against both 1.e4 and 1.d4. |
|
| Dec-14-16 | | RookFile: I'm starting to do a study of the English in some depth. It seems to me that the 1. c4 c5 systems give black good play and are tough to beat. I guess Karpov hoped it would be a Queen's Gambit. |
|
| Jan-04-17 | | Goldesel: Did Kasparow have engine access back in 1987 for the adjourned game?
The position was not too tricky for the computers back in the days?? |
|
Jan-04-17
 | | tamar: Garry defeated Deep Thought 2-0 in 1989, so it is doubtful a 1987 engine could be used for anything more than a blunder check. |
|
| Jul-24-18 | | Howard: So, exactly where was the point of no return--that is, where did Karpov throw out the draw for good ? 45...h5 seems to be universally labeled as a mistake. But, did Karpov still have a draw before playing that? |
|
| Nov-09-18 | | ajile: <Kasparov: It was without question the loudest and longest standing ovation I had ever received outside my native country. The theater thundered as Spanish television cut from futbol to broadcast the conclusion of the match.> I just received "thunderous applause" from my family after I read this and didn't roll my eyes in disgust. |
|
| Jan-06-19 | | m.okun: 33. ... Ne7? To draw led 33. ... Nc5! |
|
| Aug-29-19 | | nelech: I am frustrated that no extensive analysis of this truly historic endgame has been published. Kasparov just wrote that for him the chances of a win and a draw seemed ruoghly equal and that Karpov assessed his chances more pessimistically, 30% for a draw against 70% for a win. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 