| Jun-08-07 | | Karpova: Kamsky didn't play too well and was obviously unprepared for the opening he chose. Spent almost all his time on the first 15 moves and was down to about 9 min.
Barely made the time control with his position completely messed up. Still, good game by Gelfand! |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | erasmusdurer: Gelfand played a very smooth opening, gaining space and putting his pieces on good squares. He emerged from the opening slightly better than Kamsky. Kamsky couldn't make anything out of the positon in the middle game, where he made several questionable moves. Gelfand was impressive in this game. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | micartouse: Black's creativity wasn't really tested in this game. His approach to the London System applies even at the class level: play ... c5 and ... cxd4 and you can get excellent queenside play. I'm sure White can greatly improve at several points. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | mikejaqua: Wow! Kamsky really did not play well at all. Gelfand just played good, steady chess and let Kamsky hang himself. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | djmercury: By following this game it looked like Kamsky wanted to gift Gelfand a point. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | Monoceros: This is the first I've ever heard of the London System, truth to tell. The game reminds me a bit of what Reuben Fine had to say (little of it good) about the Colle System and similar openings where White doesn't answer ...d5 with c4. Fine asserts that, by allowing Black to play ...c5 for free, instead of making him work for it as is usual in Queen's Gambit Declined lines, you've allowed Black easy equality. Whether that's generally true I don't know but it certainly seems true in this game. Kamsky slips into a passive position quickly. I've never seen _White_ assailed with a queenside minority attack before. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | Resignation Trap: Kamsky's line with 5.Bb5 is rare and, in my opinion, rather lame. More in keeping with the spirit of the London System is 5.c3. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | IMDONE4: Once again, you see timid play from Kamsky who doesn't look as if he is out to win this. He really needs to start playing openings he knows and play with more conviction than he is doing now. As Resignation Trap stated, the 5. Bb5 variation is one that is quite uncharacteristic of Kamsky's style, and it is quite unfortunate that he played it. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | Kangaroo: <Similar game was played <95 years ago> ... > Nimzowitsch vs Alekhine, 1912
<with the <same> result (<Black won>)> |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | cotdt: Kamsky's openings are 100 years outdated |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | notyetagm: This is the worst game I have ever watched a GM play: poor opening prep, atrocious time management (10 minutes for 25 moves!), not resigning when down three healthy pawns for absolute zero compensation with the queens off the board so no perpetual, etc. |
|
| Jun-08-07 | | Softpaw: <djmercury: By following this game it looked like Kamsky wanted to gift Gelfand a point.> Bingo! |
|
| Jun-09-07 | | Scarecrow: Worst time management I have ever seen. What the hell was Kamsky thinking here. Using more than half an hour for five moves (to come up with 5. Bb5...), an hour for ten, 1h50 for fifteen, 1h57 for twenty moves. He must have been trying to bore Gelfand to death or something. |
|
| Jun-09-07 | | Knight13: Yeah, this game is messed up. Not funny seeing a good player like Kamsky drop a bunch of pawns and getting beat up like this. |
|
| Jun-09-07 | | Scarecrow: Actually I missed the very beginning of this game, anybody knows how much time Kamsky used for 1. d4 ? :) |
|
| Jun-09-07 | | Monoceros: <Resignation Trap: Kamsky's line with 5.Bb5 is rare and, in my opinion, rather lame.> GM Marin at Chessbase this morning calls it a "pseudo-active move". I've made the same mistake myself, pushing out a bishop to b5 (or equivalent) in an unfamiliar position, figuring it was an active place to develop it, only to be embarrassed later. But I never took twenty minutes to make that mistake. Twenty seconds, maybe. |
|
| Jun-09-07 | | Softpaw: Did Kamsky give any explanation for his bizarre performance in the post-game press conference?? |
|
| Jun-09-07 | | cotdt: <Softpaw: Did Kamsky give any explanation for his bizarre performance in the post-game press conference??> Yes, but he spoke Russian so I do not know what he said. |
|
| Jun-10-07 | | IMDONE4: <Monocerus> and your not a 2700+ rated GM =) |
|
| Jun-10-07 | | notyetagm: Sad to think that this incredibly poor performance from Kamsky is probably going to cost him the match. This game looks like me playing GM Gelfand in a simul. The only difference is that I would have resigned much sooner. ;-) |
|
| Jun-10-07 | | cotdt: Kamsky said that he felt really tired during that game. Perhaps he was drugged? |
|
| Jun-10-07 | | nolanryan: codt's comment got me thinking about conspiracy theories.
But why would the Russians drug Kamsky and not Gelfand? Gelfand emigrated just as Kamsky did.
the Mossad? I don't think it matters enough to involve the Mossad, and really, only Russian intelligence is retarded enough to get involved in chess. |
|
| Jun-14-07 | | Paul123: What the hell happened?
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 [2.Bf4!? d5 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Qb3  this is the modern way of playing the London with white having an opening advantage against 3...c5. 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bf4 c5!? 4.e3 Nc6 5.Bb5?! This does nothing to bolster the pawn at d4 (i.e. the center .... It is very critical in the London to keep the center intact and strong, then start play on the wings...Kamsky new this! what was he doing? 5...cxd4 6.exd4 Qa5+!? 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.0-0 8...e6 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Rc8 11.Rfd1 The pawn is weak and white must defend it 11...Be7 12.Bf1 0-0 and Black has equalizied. Even with 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 e6 10.0-0 Be7 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.Qd3 0-0 13.Rfe1 Qb4 14.Rab1 c5 the pawn at d4 is weak and white must attend to it... 5.Bb5?! clearly isn't a good idea
|
|
| Jun-21-07 | | Cactus: Kamsky's openind was bad, and he didn't show his usual endgame brilliance. |
|
| Apr-23-08 | | DanielBryant: This can also be reached via the Exchange Variation of the Caro-Kann. |
|
Kibitzing
