|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-26-09 | | kevin86: What a massacre! Kaspy with an extra queen-wow! |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | Jim Bartle: Not that I don't make the same mistake myself at times, but kevin, you should take a more careful look. |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | YetAnotherAmateur: <tivrfoa>: 21. ... Rxa7 seems reasonably good. It allows white to capture the d pawn, but not much more than that. After some more material is traded off the board, you're looking at black with a rook and a pair of passed pawns versus 2 minor pieces, which tilts in black's favor. |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | kilv: 4. a3 (Nf6?) then 5. b4 would have solved a lot....
It would have freed up the Queens Knight for a start. |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | WhiteRook48: 5 d4 would have been better... |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | Elrathia Kingi: 23.Bg6 looks like it balances material after ...Qxf1 24.Qxf1 hxg6 25.Qxb5. I guess Kasparov thought he saw a better attack. Incidentally, didn't Kasparov demonstrate that the Evan's gambit is winning for white? Was that some time after this game, or did he just feel like doing something different? |
|
Oct-26-09
 | | Jimfromprovidence: 20 Qe4 looks very playable, threatening 21 Qh7#, as well as covering c2. 
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | tivrfoa: <YetAnotherAmateur>Thanks. But it would not be so easy for black as 21. Rxa8 :] |
|
| Aug-31-10 | | garrykasparov: What an interesting game. |
|
| Nov-04-10 | | kilv: I argue yet with myself...
Not better "a3," rather to say 'mobility for the Bishop? Further, I contest;
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. d4/a3... my original 4.a3
...then Nf6
5. b4 Bd4
6. Ra2 Ng4
7. O-O Bxf2+
8. Kh1 ...etc. |
|
| Jan-04-12 | | Nemesistic: I don't think iv ever seen Kasparov play this bad!
Did he not see the possibilities for Black after his 15th and 16th moves?? 4 passed pawns for a knight,means you have to give material back at some point! I thought this must have been some 5 minute blitz game,but no! ... Its the greatest player ever playing like me!! Hide this game from <ShachMatov> he'l be distraught |
|
Feb-17-12
 | | Penguincw: Why not something like 23.Bg5? |
|
| Dec-30-14 | | Meleagru: After 23.Bg5 Qfg6 24.Qxb5 (threatening Qb8+) Kg8 25.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 26.Kh2 Qxb3 27.Nd4 Qc4 28.Be3 Qxb5 29.Nxb5 Nd5 30.Bd2 c5 31.Nc3 Nb4, and White is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel for half a point. |
|
| Sep-05-15 | | NeverAgain: Lautier's annotations (with contributions from Ftacnik and Blatny) from CBM 40 should answer some of the questions raised in this thread. <TalEl: 15.d4 was premature... the more methodical 15.Bb2 was worth considering> <Oliphaunt: <TalEl> 15.Bb2 still looks to be pretty grim for white after ...d4. Pb4 is very weak.> Lautier agrees with TalEl. ;)
<tivrfoa: after 21.Bxc2 I think white is better. What would be your reply?> <YetAnotherAmateur: <tivrfoa>: 21...Rxa7 seems reasonably good.> 21.Ra8! is the only move, according to Lautier. He gives <21.Bxc2> a question mark because of <21...Rxa7>, pointed out by YAA. <Jimfromprovidence: 20 Qe4 looks very playable, threatening 21 Qh7#, as well as covering c2.> <20.Qe4?> loses by force, according to JL. <WMD: 23.Qxb5 was an error; Kasparov thought that either 23.Nc5 or Bg5 would have given him good practical winning chances.> Lautier examines six replies for Black after 23.Nc5 and demonstrates that this move gives Black  advantage. <Hesam7: 23. Bg5 looks like a major improvement for White:
23. ... Qfg6 24. Qxb5 Kg8 25. Rxb1 Qxb1+ 26. Kh2 Qxb3 27. Nxd4 Qc4 28. Qe8+ Kh7 29. Be3 Bd5 30. f3 (eval: -0.49 @ depth 20 Rybka 2.2n2)> Confirmed in Stockfish 6, which considers the final position even better for Black:
[  -0.67 d=38/56 2360mN]
<Meleagru: After 23.Bg5 Qfg6 24.Qxb5 (threatening Qb8+) Kg8 25.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 26.Kh2 Qxb3 27.Nd4 Qc4 28.Be3 Qxb5 29.Nxb5 Nd5 30.Bd2 c5 31.Nc3 Nb4, and White is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel for half a point.> Until move 31 this is exactly the line SF6 produces in Infinite Analysis mode [ -0.70 d=41/59 5394mN] I'll post the relevant excerpts later after double-checking them in SF6 at a high search depth (>35). Might take a while - there's a LOT of sublines, sub-sub-lines. This guy's walls of analysis are almost as bad as Kasparov's. |
|
Sep-05-15
 | | perfidious: <WhiteRook48: 5 d4 would have been better...> Perhaps, perhaps not: the Moller ultimately offers nothing and 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 is nothing special either. <NeverAgain....(Lautier's) walls of analysis are almost as bad as Kasparov's.> Or Huebner's reams of analyses, a la his salad days of annotating for Informator? |
|
| Sep-06-15 | | NeverAgain: Yeah, I recall the feeling when I got my first copy of the Informator. Kaspy's analysis was the most voluminous. I was in my early 20s and just lapped it up - the thicker the jungle of variations the better. Many years later I read in his Great Predecessors how Botvinnik cautioned him that he would never be an Alekhine if he let the variations control him and not the other way around. These days when I see reams of analysis I get an impression that the annotator is not sure what the position is all about. With age you tend to appreciate clarity better over complications. |
|
| Sep-06-15 | | NeverAgain: OK, here it comes, trimmed down to about 50%. The critical part after 23.Bg5! is given in full, though. BTW, it looks like it's not JL's own analysis: even though the PGN header lists him as Annotator, the text in the movetext section lists Ftacnik and Blatny after 1.e4. There are a couple of Kasparov's lines, too. Note that SF6's evals don't always agree with all of it (whoa, who would've thought!), the evals in those cases are accompanied with an exclamation mark. The differences are generally minor enough, except for what appears to be an oversight in the note to White's 20th. • 11.b4! [too early in the opening for an eval]
• 12...b5!
• 15.d4? [-0.63/37]
◦ 15.Bb2= [-0.49/35!] Δ 15...d4?! 16.Bb3! dxc3 17.Bxc3 Nd4 18.Bxd4 Bxd4 19.Nxd4 exd4 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Nf3! Qxb4 <21...Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Qxb4 23.Qa2!=/∞> 22.Rab1  Δ Qb2 [0.39/40] ◦ 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Bb2 Nf4 17.Qe4 Bd5↑ [-1.79/35!] • 16...dxc3!? [-0.75/35]
16...Nd7?!; 16...Bd7! (GK) [0.00/36!]
• 19...d4! [-1.18/36]
• 20.Rxa7?! [-2.50/35]
◦ 20.Qe4?
◦ ◦ 20...d3 21.Qxb4 c2 22.Bxc2 dxc2 23.Ba3 [-1.53/35] ◦ ◦ 20....c2 21.Bxc2 Nxc2 <21...d3 22.Bxd3 Nxd3 23.Rxa7 Rxa7 24.Qxd3 Bc4 25.Qe3 Ra6 > 22.Qxc2 d3 <22...Bc4 23.Ba3 c5  > 23.Qxd3 <23.Qxc7 Bb8 <<23...Rfc8→; 23...Bxf2+!?>> 24.Qc5!> 23...Bc4! <23...Bxb3 24.Rxa7 > 24.Qc2 <24.Qb1 Bxf1 25.Kxf1 c5 > 24...Bxb3 [-3.23/36] ◦ 20.Ba3! d3 21.Bxd3 Nxd3 22.Bxf8 Nf4! <22...Bxf2+ 23.Rxf2 Rxa1+ 24.Nxa1 Nxf2 25.Bb4!? <<25.Kxf2 Kxf8 26.Qxb5∞>> 25...Nxh3+ 26.gxh3 Bxh3∞> 23.Qxb5 Nxh3+! 24.Kh1 <24.gxh3? Qxf3 Δ ...Bd5> 24...Nxf2+ 25.Rxf2 Rb8 26.Qe2 Bxf2 27.Qxf2 c2! 28.Rc1 Bxb3 29.Bc5 [-2.70/39!] - this is actually won for Black: <29...Rd8 30.Be3 Rd1+ 31.Kh2 Qb2 32.Rxd1 cxd1=N!> (perhaps the annotator[s] overlooked this underpromotion?) <33.Qxb2 Nxb2 > with three extra pawns. [to be continued] |
|
| Sep-06-15 | | NeverAgain: • 20...c2?! [-0.77/35]
20...Rxa7!
◦ 21.Nfxd4? Bc4 22.Qe4 Qg6! 23.Nf5 c5! 24.Nxc5 Bd5 25.Qg4 Qxg4 26.
hxg4 c2 [-3.47/35]
◦ 21.Nbxd4 Ra1! <21...Bc4?! 22.Qe4 g6 <<22...Qg6? 23.Nf5! Δ Ne7 23... c5 24.Ne5→; 22...c2 23.Nxc2 Nxc2 24.Bxc2 >> 23.Ne5! (GK) Bxf1 24.Ng4→> 22.Qe4 Qg6! <22...c2 23.Bxc2 Nxc2 24.Qxc2 Bc4 25.Re1∞> 23.Qxg6 fxg6 24.Nxe6 <24.Bxg6? Bc4 25.Re1 c5 26.Nf5 <<26.Nc2 Nxc2 27.Bxc2 b4 28.Ne5 Re8 >> 26...Rd8 Δ ...Nd3> 24...Rxf3! <24...Rxb1 25.Nxf8 Kxf8 26.Ba3∞> 25.Be4 <25.gxf3 Rxb1 26.Nd4 <<26.Nxc7 Nd3 27.Be3 c2 >> 26...c5 27.Nxb5 Nd3 28.Nxc3 Rxc1 29.Rxc1 Nxc1 > 25...Rf7 26.Nd4 Rd7 [-0.43/38!] • 21.Rxa8!▢ [-0.72/35]
21.Bxc2? Rxa7 22.Nbxd4 <22.Qe4 Nxc2 23.Qxc2 Bc4 24.Rd1 d3 > 22...Bc4 23.Qe4 <23.Qd2 c5 24.Nb3 Ra2 > 23...Nxc2 24.Qxc2 c5 [-2.19/38] <24...Bxf1 > • 23.Qxb5?? [-4.96/35]
◦ 23.Nc5?! [-2.91/37] Qbg6! 24.Ne5! Δ Ncd7 24...Qgf5▢ 25.f4! Qd8! 26.Ba3 Bc4! 27.Qf2 Bxf1 28.Bxb4 Qd5! 29.Qxf1 Qc2 [-2.70/35!] ◦ 23.Bg5!
◦ ◦ a) 23...Qff5? 24.Nbxd4 Qbd3 <24...Qbe4 25.Be7+! Kg8 26.Qxe4 Qxe4 27.Re1 Qd3 28.Bxb4∞> 25.Be7+!  Kg8 <25...Kxe7 26.Nxf5+ Qxf5 27.Nd4 > 26.Qxd3 Qxd3 27.Bxb4 Qc4 28.Bd2 c5 29.Rc1 with counterplay [0.00/42] ◦ ◦ b) 23...Qfg6?! 24.Qxb5 Qxf1+ <24...hxg5?? 25.Qb8+ Ke7 26.Qxb4+  ; 24...Kg8 25.Qb8+ <<25.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 26.Kh2 Qxb3 27.Nxd4 Qc4 28.Qxc4 Bxc4 29.Bf4 >> 25...Kh7 26.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 27.Kh2 <<27.Nc1 hxg5 28.Nxg5+ Kg6 29.Nxe6 Qxc1+ >> 27...Na6 28.Qa7 Qxb3 29.Nxd4 Qc4 30.Nxe6 Qxe6 31.Be3 ; 24...Qbf5? 25.Qb8+ Bc8 26.Nh4 Na6 27.Nxg6+ fxg6 28.Qa8 > 25.Kxf1 Qd3+▢ 26.Qxd3 Nxd3 27.Nbxd4 hxg5 28.Nxe6+ fxe6 29.Nxg5= [0.00/40] ◦ ◦ c) 23...Qxf1+ 24.Qxf1 hxg5 25.Qxb5 Nd5 26.Nbxd4!= [0.00/41] <26.Qb8+ Ke7 27.Nbxd4 Bd7 > → = with attack
↑ = with initiative |
|
| Aug-12-16 | | Conrad93: How does Lautier have a plus score if he has only won two games vs Kasparov's three? |
|
| Sep-01-17 | | Toribio3: Kasparov underestimated Lautier, perhaps! |
|
| Apr-12-18 | | carlomix: Kasparov is black, Lautier white, am I wrong? |
|
| Apr-12-18 | | electrocloud: <Conrad93> The only classical game Kasparov won against Lautier is this:
Kasparov vs Lautier, 1994 |
|
Apr-12-18
 | | Troller: <Toribio3: Kasparov underestimated Lautier, perhaps!> This game was played in the ultimate round of the tournament. Already before the game it was clear that Karpov would win outright, and this may also have something to do with Kaspy's play here; prior to the tournament he had declared that the winner could rightfully be considered World Champion of tournaments or something to that effect. |
|
Jan-10-22
 | | ajk68: < 20.Qe4?
◦ ◦ 20...d3 21.Qxb4 c2 22.Bxc2 dxc2 23.Ba3 [-1.53/35]> I put the SF lab computer to work for an hour on 20. Qe4
click for larger view1) -0.88 (53 ply) 20...g6 21.Bxh6 Bd5 22.Qg4 Bxb3 23.Bxf8 Kxf8 24.Rxa7 Rxa7 25.Nxd4 Ra3 26.Nxb5 Ra4 27.Nxc7 Qe5 28.Qd7 Kg8 29.f4 Qc5+ 30.Kh2 c2 31.Qd8+ Qf8 32.Ne8 Nd5 33.Bxc2 Bxc2 34.Rf2 Be4 35.Re2 f5 36.Rxe4 Rxe4 37.Qxd5+ Kh7 38.Nd6 Re7 39.Nc4 Qh6 40.Kg3 Re4 41.Qf7+ Qg7 42.Ne5 Qxf7 43.Nxf7 Kg7 44.Ng5 Ra4 45.Kf3 Ra3+ 46.Kf2 Ra2+ 47.Kf3 Kf6 48.g4 Ke7 49.Kg3 Ra3+ 50.Kg2 Kd6 51.Nf3 Ke6 52.Nh4 Ra2+ 53.Kg3 Kf6 54.Nf3 Ra3 55.Kh4 Rd3 56.Kg3 Rc3 57.Kf2 Ke6 58.Kg2 Kf7 59.g5 Kg7 60.Ne5 Rb3 61.Nf3 Rb4 62.Kg3 Re4 63.Ne5 Re3+ 64.Kh4 Re1 65.Kg3 Rd1 66.Kg2 Rd4 67.Kg3 Rd2 68.Nf3 Ra2 69.Ne5 |
|
Jan-10-22
| | ajk68: <<20.Qe4?> loses by force, according to JL.> That does not appear to be the case. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 16...dxc3