|Feb-02-03|| ||Bears092: I watched up to about move 30 live. This is one of those games which makes me understand why the general public isn't that interested in chess. |
|Feb-02-03|| ||mdorothy: I know what your talking about, even though I watched it all. It was just boring, and I couldn't understand why some of the moves were necessary. |
|Feb-02-03|| ||Spitecheck: I found the game interesting in parts, particularly those parts I could not easily predict, but overall it's ashame that Kasparov's Gambit (as played against Karpov) wasn't able to kill this "bind" opening system altogether. I speak with a semi-false tongue however, I play it consistently as white given an opportunity :). |
|Feb-02-03|| ||Kenneth Sterling: Kasparov played well for a long period in a highly dangerous position against an unerring machine. |
|Feb-02-03|| ||Sneaky: 45. ...R5c7 was a very fancy move but made more work for Black to demonstrate the draw. Had he played 45...Rb8 I think it would have been much more clear. |
|Feb-03-03|| ||Spitecheck: R5c7 I was impressed with, it was one of the moves I had not predicted after a long run of successful "guesses".........However I thought also Rb8 was superior I think this was Kasparov playing for the benefit of the audience, something the emotionless computer can't do! |
|Feb-03-03|| ||JustAFish: Bears,
I'm actually delighted with the game. The more I look at it, the more subtle and beautiful it appears to be. Of course, there are a lot of moves that I can't quite comprehend (and chalk up to simple "jockeying for position", or, in other words, Kasparov's waiting for a slight imablance to arise that he can pounce on.)
All in all, I've found these games fascinating. Each one of the four has been very different. One reason has been the results- each possible result has been accounted for: Kasparov wins with white, Junior Wins with White, and one draw for each seating arrangement.
Also, the "flavor" of each game has been very different. Game one featured a tactical flourish that led to an overwhelming initiatave for Kasparov. Game two Kasparov deflected an Junior's apparent initiative to make a brilliant and subtle "waiting move/exchange sac" that led to a beautiful attacking position- which was quietly let slip. Game three, Kasparov attacks like mad, and Junior deflects, only to put Kasparov in time pressure that led him not to see a nice combination on Junior's part. Game four was a quiet, but intricate, Petrosian-like struggle for minute positional advantages.
Compare these games to those in the Bareev-Hiarcs match, which all kind of felt the same.
I think this Man Vs. Machine match will long be remembered for the rich, varied and delightful chess that they produced. I'd like to thank Kasparov for being such a passionate and interesting chessplayer and reminding us of how interesting this game really is.
|Feb-03-03|| ||Fool on the Hill: It just shows how little I know. After 12)...0-0 Kasparov's opening looks strong, and then by 16) f3-Qc7, whites king side appears very weak. I think Junior, (or his handlers), did a good job here. |
|Feb-03-03|| ||AirForceOne: Well,
At least I learned from Kasparov how to defend an Rs and Ps ending when down a pawn.
Thank you, sir, for a free lesson.
Good luck with games 5 and 6.
Just wonder, why did white not go for a K-side attack and let black have the Q-side attack early in the game?
Maybe that differentiates the human and conputer GMs from an amateur like me, they rarely loose, and I rarely win (or draw either.)
|Feb-03-03|| ||Fool on the Hill: <AirForceOne> I'm with you here, f4, g3, & h4 are all vulnerable, from my perspective, after move 16. |
|Feb-04-03|| ||Moonlit Knight: Any thoughts on 41...a5? |
|Feb-04-03|| ||Spitecheck: I analysed a5 for quite sometime expecting it to be the move, but as I kept looking it didn't look right. For a start it's only defender for the moment the Rc5 is rather exposed to the two bishops, so it's postion is precarious. Also the pawn on a5 can be targeted by white's black squared bishop. And further to that, he gives away the b5 square for the less useful b4 square, a square that white may find useful. |
After a5 I thought 42. Bf2 the Rook has no good square if it stays on the rank hence defending the pawn, white has a number of ways to chase it and if it plays on the file the rook will be lost for a bishop..........eventually in my calculations with a5 I was actually trying to figure out how to sac the exchange conveniently LOL, after all white's bishops are very powerful, maybe he wouldn't mind parting with a rook to bring both of his bishops to life. But it's hardly a safe option compared to the game.
So I think white either plays plays Bf2 or Bb5, the point is the pawn is weaker on a5 anyhow if you recall earlier in the game black had another pawn on a5 via the exchange xa5, I think it's brother although not quite as weak would meet the same eventual fate.
Kasparov defends the pawn on a6 temporarily through tactics and the vulnerability of the b6 pawn. As black in a game like this you can't ask for more than that possibility.
|Feb-18-03|| ||Malacha: With live coverage of this game,I wish Kasparov would have played for a go for broke win! I agree with Bearo92 and mdorothy,this was a big chance for chess to be seen in the same exciting light that captured the public in 72' with Fischer/Spassky,but it ended with a whimper.Boring!! |
|Feb-18-03|| ||Bears092: I think that there could be a rather bright future for quickplay games on TV (G/30ish). Intel was going to sponsor a series of those for TV, but it never happened. |
|Feb-18-03|| ||Malacha: Quickplay probably would do well on TV.Say, get the top 8-10 grandmasters in the world together.Now that should spark the general public's interest in chess!! |
|Feb-05-06|| ||offramp: I bet Kasparov was pulling some annoyed faces for the last 10 moves.|
|Aug-14-16|| ||j4jishnu: A good draw to study today.|