But it isn't a double bishop sacrifice, because Kasparov picked up Portisch's bishop on d5 after he played Bxh7+. It's a single-bishop sacrifice. In fact after 20....Kg8 it looks like you're in the middle of a double-bishop sac. When I first saw this game I immediately focused on 21.Bxg7 for just that reason. I'm sure lots of other rotten players did the same. And it appears from the commentary here that 21.Rh5 may have been stronger than the sacrifice anyway, and Portisch certainly missed some better defenses.

<A common double bishop sac works like this:

It starts off with Bxh7+ (conceivably Bxh2+ but this is much more rare, so I'll describe it from White's point of view here.) After ...Kxh7 (usually forced) comes Qh5+ and ...Kh8. Then the second bishop is given up: Bxg7, and in light of Qh8# it must be captured, so ...Kxg7, and then usually comes a check to get the king over to the h-file, and finally a rook lift to threaten Rh(something)+ which brings down the house.

That is your garden variety double bishop sac, seen in countless games starting with Lasker vs J Bauer, 1889 but also see Koltanowski vs Defosse, 1936 and G Kuzmin vs Sveshnikov, 1973 for more examples of the common form this sacrifice takes.

This game on the other hand does not fit that mold at all.>

I can't believe that any and all chess players wouldn't have envied Kasparov a little at some point.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

In favor of Karpov +13 -2 =27

<CG> is reporting 42 games, whereas <MillBase> only had 17 games.

Here's the <MillBase> breakdown (from SCID's Player Info window):

This is definitely from Karpov's pov (point of view):

<

Results for all games:
White: 61.76% + 5 = 11 - 1 10.5 / 17

Black: 58.33% + 4 = 13 - 1 10.5 / 18

Total: 60.00% + 9 = 24 - 2 21.0 / 35

>

I admit, I haven't used the Player Report before, and easily could have the pov backwards.

It actually makes more sense, though I would have programmed it from the player's pov whose generating the report.

OK, Portisch is better than Smyslov, about equal to Larsen and Gligoric, slightly worst than Korchnoi and Petrosian, and so on.

I think I should delete the post - partially to erase my mistake, but mostly because it's a misleading post.

I'll leave this one as a mea culpa - and thank <siggemannen> for the correction.

I restricted the selection to just Portisch's games before 1990, so that we have the stats for his best years.

The percentages are from the opponent's pov:

Portisch as White:

<

1: 37 1959-1988 51% 2690 Spassky, Boris V
2: 33 1969-1989 47% 2660 Timman, Jan H
3: 27 1963-1983 28% 2660 Larsen, B
4: 25 1971-1989 36% 2645 Ljubojevic, Ljubomir
5: 22 1961-1983 43% 2640 Petrosian, T
6: 22 1960-1986 45% 2600 Gligoric, Svetozar
7: 20 1961-1989 40% 2705 Tal, Mikhail
8: 17 1972-1989 56% 2755 Karpov, A
9: 17 1970-1989 35% 2640 Andersson, Ulf
10: 16 1961-1989 47% 2655 Korchnoi, Viktor

>

Portisch as Black

<

1: 31 1957-1986 61% 2640 Spassky, Boris V
2: 26 1964-1986 52% 2660 Larsen, B
3: 21 1960-1978 52% 2600 Gligoric, Svetozar
4: 20 1971-1989 73% 2675 Timman, Jan H
5: 19 1969-1989 58% 2640 Andersson, Ulf
6: 18 1965-1986 58% 2645 Petrosian, T
7: 17 1975-1989 62% 2755 Karpov, A
8: 17 1959-1987 44% 2620 Smyslov, Vasily
9: 16 1965-1988 47% 2665 Korchnoi, Viktor
10: 14 1967-1985 46% 2620 Hort, Vlastimil

>

Well, the basic conclusion still stands, a formidable player he was during the 70's/80's (and beyond).

Although Timman seems to have his number when Portisch was Black.