|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-04-03 | | patzer2: This is a really well played game by Kasparov. I understand he was sporting a 3447 performance rating and a 4.0 through the first four rounds of this event, including this notable result. See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... for details. |
|
| Oct-04-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Maybe it was the high expectations of his peers that caused Kasparov to blunder in round six? A 3447 performance brings a lot of pressure to its defender. |
|
| Oct-04-03 | | Diggitydawg: This endgame is fascinating! After Kasparov sacs his pawn 44. h4, black has two passed pawns vs. one for Kasparov. But Kasparov's handling of the two centrally placed bishops combined w/ the exposed nature of the K prevent black from making use of the passed pawns. Question to strong endgame players--if the point of Kasparov's sac was to obtain an attack on the king on h5, wouldn't 48...Be8 be a better move than 48...Bc2? Also, does anyone see where black could have saved his game? |
|
| Oct-07-03 | | rndapology: diggity...I'm not an expert, but putting the bishop on e8 blocks the rooks control as well as doesn't control the b1-h7 diagonal. That allows a mate by the dark bishop. Like this say 48...Be8 49. f4 Rb8 50. Rg5 Bg6 51. f5 Be8 52. Rg7+ Kh6 53. f6. Now white has mate with two bishop checks, Be3 and then Bg4. I don't see an adequate defense. This game looks lost no matter how you look at it... either the rook mates on the edge at h5 or h8 with the bishops blocking escape or the rook blocks escape while the bishops mate. |
|
| Oct-08-03 | | drukenknight: Yeah I dont see the pt of 48...Bc2
Im looking at 48...Re8 as a way of getting the R onto an open file as well as a threat to check on e1. |
|
| Oct-13-03 | | rndapology: drunkenknight... 49. Rd7+ Kh6 50. Be3 + Kh5 51. Bg4# The bishop must block the rook check so 49.Rd7+ Bf7 and then capture with check or with bishop and the mate threat is still there, it's fairly hopeless. |
|
| Oct-13-03 | | drukenknight: okay so what are we looking at 48..Be8? |
|
| Oct-27-03 | | AdrianP: Kasparov's own anaylsis is here:
http://www.worldchessrating.com/533...He, himself, rates this as one of his best: "I regard this game as a big creative achievement. The pithiness and tension of this encounter place it among the best games in my chess career." |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | ughaibu: He certainly goes into detail on a lot of alternative possibilities in this one while not distinguishing any moves with the description "blunder". |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Hmmm, I don't see what you're referring to ughaibu? |
|
| Feb-07-04 | | ughaibu: My thesis is that Kasparov is misrepresenting his loss to Radjabov. If we compare his annotation of that game with his of this, a game he's particularly proud of, we can see a definite difference in the amount of detail he goes into. That he doesn't describe any moves as "blunders" could explain why he goes into more detail or it could be his attempt to add dignity to the game, the opposite strategem to that employed in the Radjabov game. |
|
| Feb-07-04 | | Benjamin Lau: My point is that if your thesis comes down to basically "Kasparov is not completely objective in annotating his games," I don't see what anyone has against it, it's probably true. Kasparov's silence on the matter of blunders could also be because black doesn't commit any obvious errors, like losing a piece as in the Radjabov game. His first major error was in the endgame, where I think the annotations say he could have drawn with some difficulty, but even that error is not very obvious, at least it wasn't to me when I first reviewed the game. |
|
| Feb-07-04 | | ughaibu: Since we started this discussion on the other game's page another member has asked "why didn't Kasparov recapture?", so there is no obvious loss of a piece in the other game. Kasparov explains about all sorts of other moves in annotating other games, the only reason he could have to not explain why he didn't recapture is to suggest it's obvious which it has been demonstrated not to be. He is trying to create the illusion of a blunder to play down the fact that he was outplayed. If a move qualifies as a blunder because it loses material whether obvious or not why doesn't he explain it? and would you say Reti's 24th against Alekhine was a blunder? His annotations are misleading and his position gives him authority such that readers accept his statements. This is deleterious to Radjabov. I dont really care about Kasparov's annotations apart from that one game where his ungentlemanly behaviour is even now effecting appreciation of the play, and the idiot has the cheek to accuse others of damaging chess's image. |
|
| Feb-07-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Ughaibu, I think there are different levels of blunders. Grischuk's endgame blunder (in terms of draw/loss) is much more subtle in my opinion. Whether it is more subtle, such that it deserves a ? instead of a ?? is too subjective to dwell too much upon for me. But I'm willing to bet that whitehat and most of the other members on this site would find the blunder harder to detect then in the Radjabov game if they do not look at the annotations. I agree with you to the extent that Kasparov is not objective, but I don't think you're being completely objective about the Radjabov instance. I have not analyzed the Reti v.s. Alekhine game extensively, so I cannot comment on your use of it as an example. The game is somewhat overrated in my opinion, seeing as how Reti threw away an easy draw by ignoring the three fold repetition. |
|
| May-11-04 | | PinkPanther: A 3447 performance rating? Ahahahahahaha, that's impossible. For that to happen he would have to play nothing but players with an average Elo rating of 3047 and beat every single one of them in every single game. I don't think I need to tell you guys that there is no player in the world rated 3047, much less a whole slew of them. |
|
| May-21-04 | | notyetagm: I just love the final position with those beautiful, centralized, sweeping bishops on d4 and e4. |
|
| May-22-04 | | Everett: Screw rating, this is a well-played game. 'Nuff said. |
|
| May-22-04 | | nutsaboutchess: had kaparov had a bishop ad knight in the endgame like black, would he have resigned because black has 2 pawns? assume they have same color bishops.... |
|
| Nov-13-04 | | alexandrovm: the pair of bishops where too strong! Nice game! |
|
| Feb-02-05 | | aw1988: 3447 performance rating is way exaggerated. Even Fischer did not score that much. |
|
| Feb-02-05 | | iron maiden: According to my calculations, a perfect score against average opposition of 2644 is only something around 2700, but I'm not sure that's right either. |
|
| Feb-02-05 | | ConspTheory06: Guys you cant have a performance rating over 3000. That the highest any rating could ever get real or performance. |
|
| Feb-02-05 | | aw1988: Actually I believe Fischer had a 3100 something performance rating in his matches with Taimanov, Larsen etc (although I am very vague on specific details). |
|
| Feb-03-05 | | iron maiden: Close; his 6-0 against Larsen was 3060. |
|
| Feb-15-05 | | Strategic Joker: when ever u win ur added an extra 50 points to the performance , thats how u make it to 3447 :)- |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
