|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-12-03 | | ZScore: Why did Karpov select the move 18..Nb4? This allows white to exchange his bishop for the black's knight and pawn. Does Karpov have compensation for the loss of his pawn? |
|
| Sep-12-03 | | Brian Watson: Black's a-pawn can't be defended anyway, e.g.
18...Ne5 19.Nxe5 Bxe5 20.Nc4 etc.
I think 18..Nb4 drops the pawn in a way that leaves black's pieces more active than the above or any other knight move. (e.g. it draws the white queen to the b-file, so black gains tempo when he moves his rook to the b-file (which he would play anyway)) |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | BeautyInChess: This is a constant theme in Kasparov's winning games against Karpov. Kasparov wins the a-pawn and then pushes the a or b pawn to promotion yada yada yada. |
|
Oct-30-05
 | | wwall: If 42.Nc7, then 42...Rxe4 43.Qd3 Qe7 44.Nb5 Qe6 45.Nxd6 Rbxb4 46.Nxe4 Bxe4 47.Qc3 Rc4 48.Qe5 Qxe5 49.fxe5 Bd5, and Black may have chances to draw. 42...Bxd5?? 43.exd5+. If 42...Kg8, then 43.Nc7.
43...Bb5 44.Qb1 Kg8 45.R1c7 looks strong. 43...Rc8 44.Nb6 Bxe4 45.Rxc8 Qxc8 46.Qxe4 Rxe4 47.Nxc8 Rxb4 48.Nxd6 Rxf4 49.Nxf7 should win. If 45...Qe8, then 46.Rxf7 Qe2 47.Rxg7+! Kxg7 48.Rc7+, leading to mate. After 47.Qd7, White threatens 48.Rc8.
If 52...g5, then 53.g4 Rxf4 54.Rxf4 gxf4 55.Kg2 Ke7 56.Kf3 and 57.Kxf4. Perhaps 52...Ke7 is better. After 53.b5 Kd7 54.b6 Kc8 55.g4 Rf6 56.Rb4 Kb7 57.Kg3 h5 and Black may have some chances for a draw. After 57.Rc4, if 57...Rh6+, then 58.Kg2 Rh8 (58...Rh4 59.Rc7+ Kd8 60.Rxf7 Rxg4+ 61.Kh3 Rg1 62.Rf8+ Kd7 63.b7, winning) 59.Rc7+ Kd8 60.Ra7 Kc8 61.Ra8+ Kb7 62.Rxh8, winning. |
|
| Jun-24-06 | | spirit: i personally love the moves from 35.Ra5 |
|
| Jul-03-06 | | DutchDunce: Per Seirawan in 'Five Crowns', the first 20 moves were all within Karpov's home prep. His team believed the pawn sac to be sound and had thought of every possible reply...EXCEPT Kasparov's 21st move. The stunning oversight was said to bring one of Karpov's seconds to tears. As a paehtzer I don't quite understand how this busts Black. CM9 lists it as the best move, but it's still no better than  at 12 ply - pretty slim for being a pawn up. Perhaps the answer lies a few plies deeper...or beyond the understanding of a computer. |
|
| Jul-12-06 | | spirit: in some positions ply depth dont count much...and me thinks most computers dont yet grasp this |
|
| Mar-28-07 | | Everett: By 1990, Karpov had no seconds in the top 10 at least, perhaps none in the top 50. Not surprising they miss something. I'm sure they are excellent players, but Karpov was known to complain about the lack of help he received from other GMs during his later years. Perhaps he is responsible for this, considering his sparkling personality... |
|
| Mar-28-07 | | Jim Bartle: "...Karpov was known to complain about the lack of help he received from other GMs during his later years." Maybe players resented the overwhelming support he received from the Soviet establishment when he was on top. And that Karpov refused to recognize that support as relevant. |
|
| Mar-29-07 | | Everett: <Jim Bartle> So Karpov <refused to recognize that support">? I did not know that, but I'm not surprised if that was the case, just dissappointed (sp?). Furman, of course, Karpov very much recognized. |
|
| Apr-02-08 | | seeminor: Take a look at this (if its not already posted somewhere). http://video.google.com.au/videopla.... Nearly 3 hours of kasparov and karpov analysing games from the match, plus footage from the games. |
|
| Apr-02-08 | | Shams: <Maybe players resented the overwhelming support he received from the Soviet establishment when he was on top. And that Karpov refused to recognize that support as relevant.> I'd call that within the realm of probability. ;) Wasn't it Korchnoi who founded the "400 Club", joinable only by players who had beaten Karpov in a tournament game, with membership inaugurated by a $400 payment made out of Korchnoi's pocket? |
|
| Sep-07-08 | | talisman: <seeminor> that was one great video! |
|
| Sep-07-08 | | Woody Wood Pusher: must check that video out. |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | Everett: <Jim Bartle> Do you have a source regarding Karpov's lack of recognizing other's help? Thanks in advance. |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | Jim Bartle: Let me see. I quoted your comment "...Karpov was known to complain about the lack of help he received from other GMs during his later years." Then I suggested that because Karpov was the fair-haired boy of the USSR in his heyday (I think that's accepted as the truth), that maybe players didn't want to help him after he had fallen from the top. I don't have a source, no. But I remember comments by Karpov, understandable for a man in his circumstances, that he had not been aided by the chess authorities in the USSR. |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | slomarko: this clearly shows that Kasparov was in a league of his own. |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | Everett: <Jim Bartle> Thank you for your response. I'm still not sure if he failed to give others credit for helping him. Certainly, your speculation re: others not wanting to help him after years of preferential treatment may be true. <slomarko> I'm not sure in what league Kasparov is in "of his own." Is it that he didn't get enough help, or all that he needed? |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | slomarko: <Everett> could you rephrase your question? coz i don't understand the meaning of what you wrote. |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | Everett: Sorry <slomarko> <WHAT exactly> "clearly shows that Kasparov was in a league of his own?" |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | slomarko: <Everett> if you don't understand what i wrote just ask you don't need to write weird sentences without meaning. so what i meant is that when Kasparov was at his best like in this game Karpov just couldn't stay with him and thats that. |
|
| Oct-12-08 | | Everett: <slomarko> Sorry to hear that you think my sentences are weird. It may be important for you to realize that things in this world may still hold meaning despite your failure to understand them. Also note, I refrained from saying anything derogatory when asking you to clarify your statement, which was rather unclear. |
|
| Apr-08-09 | | ex0duz: What's wrong with black playing 21.Bxb2? Wouldn't that win back his pawn? What's the reason for playing 21.Qc8 instead? Also, Karpov's play after 35.Ra5 seems lost. I know he's already in a bad position, but he does he really need to give Kasparov an extra tempo by playing Qe7 allowing Nd5 etc. Why not just play Qe8 straight away instead of Qe7 so he doesn't lose a tempo to Nd5? What do they see that i'm missing? :( 31.Rg6 also seems suspect to my patzer eyes. Looks like some petty direct threat that is easily countered and after that his rook is out of play and blocking his kingside pawns and is a target for knight forks etc. |
|
| Jul-01-09 | | Knight13: <Kasparov wins the a-pawn and then pushes the a or b pawn to promotion yada yada yada.> Yup. A game Silman would probably include in one of his future books! (if he writes any) |
|
| Dec-06-09 | | Nimzonick: Karpov says in his memoirs that there was a trap associated with the variation up to move 21. He says he put a great deal of hope in this variation, including the pawn sac. "What is there to believe in when your best weapon is smashed to smithereens?" I looked at a few different variation after 21.Bxb2 (which is what I honestly would probably have played in black's position). In general, the c7 pawn was a headache to defend and black's lsb obviously can't occupy the c8-h3 diagonal with any use ... so it was kind of flopping around pointlessly in the a- and b-files. Furthermore, there is an very strong knight outpost at c6. For instance, 21. ...Bxb2 22.Ra2, Bxa3 23. Rxa3, Qc8 24. Nd4 and I don't know what black would do after this, but it looks bad.
Or 21. ...Bxb2, 22.Ra2, Bf6 23.Nb5, Re7 24.Rc1, Rc8 25.Ra7 and white will still be up the pawn back with an even better position. I'm sure these lines aren't best, but just an example of black's possible difficulties. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 48.Qxd8