|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: Amazing play by Garry! |
|
| May-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: You can rarely tell if Kasparov blundered or intentionally sacrificed material in the KID. An interesting thing about Kasparov is that he seems to play exceptionally well in inferior positions. The exchange sacrifices he makes are not always sound, but they inspire him to play very strongly, so their practical effects can not be discounted. I'm not too sure whether this was an error or an intentional sacrifice. Kasparov often makes it look like it was part of his plan all along even when in some cases, it's more clearly an error (i.e. Kasparov quite obviously lost, not gave, the exchange in Yusupov vs Kasparov, 1989 but still manages to come up with a terrific attack, although it falls short in this case.) |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | lopium: Why not 39...e2 ? |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | aw1988: 39...e2 40. Qd2 with a painful end for black. |
|
Feb-15-05
 | | beatgiant: <lopium: Why not 39...e2 ?>
That would win a bishop for the e-pawn, but Black is aiming to maneuver the knight to d3 and win a whole rook for it. |
|
Feb-15-05
| | beatgiant: <aw1988: 39...e2 40. Qd2 with a painful end for black.> That would allow 40...exf1(Q)+ 41. Rxf1 Qxf1#. White probably has to play 40. Bxe2 instead, and Black's ahead, but not by as much as in the game. |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | aw1988: Did I really suggest Qd2??? |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | eyalbd: <Benjamin Lau> According to a commentator in the Israeli Chess Federation Magazine from that time, Kasparov sank into a one hour thought before playing 13..b5! So it is probably a sac to eliminate the weakness at b6. If there was an error, it's probably a move earlier (12...Nxc6 insdead of 12...bxc6) |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | aw1988: Benjamin Lau is no longer a regular member here, sadly. He will not see your message. |
|
Feb-15-05
| | beatgiant: The finish might be 41. Rb1 hxg2+ 42. Bxg2 e2 43. h3 Bd5 44. Qxf2 Nxf2+ 45. Kg1 Nd1! and Black queens. |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | lopium: If 39...e2. Then Qd2 as you said. But instead of eXf1, eXd1. So e pawn eat the tower and become a queen. Then 41.Qxd1. And black has one piece more than white. Isn't it? |
|
| Mar-14-05 | | Saruman: <lopium>, <beatgiant> have already demonstrated the mating line as I hope you observe, whereas it is completly forced. I suggest that you should give it another try. |
|
| Mar-15-05 | | lopium: <saruman>, beatgiant had demonstrated the mating line from the final position, yes. But not if 39...e2
39...e2 wins too. Maybe longer than Kasparov did, but wins. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | Jafar219: 13...b5!.Kasparov pondered over this move for 68 minutes.It is his record. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | AdrianP: It has been clarified here: Yusupov vs Kasparov, 1989 that, contrary to <Ben Lau's> post above Kasparov deliberately sacked the exchange. There may exist examples of Kasparov losing rather than sacrificing exchanges, but neither this game nor Yusupov vs Kasparov, 1989 is one of them. |
|
Jul-12-05
 | | offramp: <Jafar219: 13...b5!.Kasparov pondered over this move for 68 minutes.It is his record.> What is his record? |
|
| Jul-16-06 | | KingG: <What is his record?> Maybe record length of time spent on a move. Out of interest, does anyone know of a someone spending longer than 68 minutes on one move in top class chess? |
|
Jul-16-06
 | | Phony Benoni: In the game L Steiner vs Bogoljubov, 1928, Bogolyubov supposedly spent two huors on his 24th move, coming up with a lemon that lost a piece. |
|
| Dec-22-07 | | SuperPatzer77: White has the only move after 40...Ng4: 41. Rb1 below: 41...hxg2+, 42. Bxg2 e2, 43. Qg1 Qf4! (threatening Nf2+), 44. Bc6 Nf2+, 45. Kg2 Bh3#  After 43...Qf4!, 44. Rf1 exf1=Q, 45. Bxf1 Nf2+! 46. Kg2 Bh3# After 45...Nf2+!, White has to give up the White Queen for the dangerous Black Knight with 46. Qxf2 Qxf2 So, 43. Qg1 leads to the overloading. So, White has a better try of 43. h3 instead of 43. Qg1. |
|
| Dec-22-07 | | SuperPatzer77: Addition to my analysis <SuperPatzer77> - 43...Qf4!: 43...Qf4! (threatening Nf2+), 44. Bf3!? (only move) Qxf3+, 45. Qg2 Nf2+!, 46. Kg1 Qxg2+, 47. Kxg2 Nd1! -> Black e-pawn goes queening . |
|
| Nov-24-08 | | aazqua: The exchange sacs seem almost like a bluff. The other player accepts, then plays some passive moves to try to consolidate only to be overwhelmed by Kasparov's superior piece activity. White's play after achieving the material advantage is down right insipid. |
|
| Sep-20-09 | | Garech: I have done a youtube analysis of this game using Fritz, check out the following link if you are intersted - thanks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZDm... |
|
| Apr-24-10 | | Ulhumbrus: One justification for playing 26 f4 with the bishop still on e3 is that with White's Queen's Bishop on e3 the N on d4 is then attacked twice. Black can't respond with ....e4, as that displaces the e5 pawn which defends the N a second time, and leaves the N on d4 defended only once. |
|
Jul-01-10
 | | Richard Taylor: Deliberate sac or creative blunder!!? |
|
| Jan-04-11 | | SuperPatzer77: We overlooked 41...Bd5!! if White's reply is 41. Rc1 or Rb1. 41. Rc1/Rb1 Bd5!!, 42. Qxf2 (forced) exf2, 43. Rd1 Be4, 44. Rc1 Ne3! (forcing the inevitable mate) SuperPatzer77 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 15...Rb8
icon.