|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-30-07 | | suenteus po 147: Most impressive game from Kamsky. After a cursory review of the game, it's amazing how Gata is able to direct the game into a position where his queen's bishop would be most effective and then manages to exchange down to a rook and a bishop each. |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | whiskeyrebel: If I wasn't already a Kamsky fan I would be after this strategic gem. |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | OneArmedScissor: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Nice game by Kamsky. |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | GBKnight: Its not often you see a bishop as bad as that at this level |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | cotdt: strategical genius! is the old kamsky back? |
|
Nov-30-07
 | | keypusher: Wow, great game, made greater because this is the kind of game that Kiril Georgiev frequently wins himself. |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | hitman84: Very refreshing game! Brilliant play by Kamsky.
Intitially black uses the DSB as a defensive piece but as the pieces come off the board white's advantage increases due to the bad bishop. Black decides to play f6 and make white b2 ♗ bite the granite but it backfired. Kamsky's h4-h5 plan was brilliant. Multiple ideas.. if black doesn't capture the pawn then white launches an attack with Kf2-Rh1-Ng4. Black captures on h5 and a whole on f5 is created and the pawn structure is destroyed. Has Kamsky adopted the Ruy exchange as his pet or is he avoiding theory ? His openings are a bit dodgy these days. |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | suenteus po 147: <hitman84> Based on the last year or so of games, it seems to me that Kamsky is trying to avoid conventional opening theory. As to why, I'm not sure. It has certainly hurt him as much as it has helped in key games. |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | nescio: <suenteus po 147: it seems to me that Kamsky is trying to avoid conventional opening theory. As to why, I'm not sure.> Perhaps I shouldn't comment on modern players I know little about, but Kamsky isn't completely unknowm to me. I saw his games in the late 1980's and already then he didn't seem to pay much attention to established lines. I don't have access to the repertoire explorer, but I remember he often played a development system with 1.d4, 2.Nf3 and 3.Bg5 or 3.Bf4.
However, he may have changed his preferences when he faced the world's top players in the 1990's. |
|
| Dec-13-07 | | Eyal: Very impressive positional play by Kamsky indeed. 23...Bxc4, trading the LSB for the knight and leaving Black with a bad DSB, seems like a strategic misjudgment by Georgiev (perhaps he was tempted by the opportunity of doubling White's pawns after 23.Rcd1, since once White plays this move he can't recapture on c4 with the knight that has to defend c2). Later, 29...Re6 followed by 30...Rd6 was possibly the decisive mistake – it's natural for Black to try and prevent a rook penetration to d7, but the resulting rook exchange weakens his position beyond repair; an example that undoubling one's pawns isn't always a good idea. Black had his last chance to put more of a fight with 37...d5, but after 37...Be7 38.Rh4 it's already too late for that: 38...d5? 39.cxd5 Rxd5 40.Rg4! followed by Bh6-g7xf6. |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | CapablancaFan: In the endgame, black was theoretically down a whole piece! Black's dark squared bishop was so bad, it may as well not even been there. |
|
Dec-17-07
 | | al wazir: It's interesting that white's doubled ♙s allowed his ♔ to penetrate the enemy position. Doubled ♙s can be an advantage! |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | piever: wow, what a game... At move 20 black's queenside is completely tied and he can't do anything to prevent white's plan on the kingside! I was too young to appreciate Kamsky's games before he retired in 1996, but now he is becoming my favourite player.. |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | kevin86: I heard of the "bad" bishop-does black's bishop qualify as an "ugly" bishop? Strange,that the one pawn that the bishop cannot protect must be lost and the white pawn soon marches through. Black's bishop finally sees the light of day,but has no where to go! |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | xrt999: it appears that 47...Rc7+ first is slightly better than immediately playing 47...Rf7. It kicks the white king off of c6, and prevents the retreat of the white bishop on move 49.Bd6 after the same exact move order. The game is drawish for black, which is better than losing. for example: 47.Rc7+ Kd6 48.Rf7 Rh6+ 49.Kg8 Rxh5 50.Rxf8 Kd7 51.Kg7 Rh3 |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | scholes: A true gem , Kamsky shows his positional understanding . Its just not a matter of bad bishops in this game .Its more than that ,though i don't know what . Time and again in this wcc he has shown a brand of positional understanding that is so much different than Anand ,Kramnik . Anyone can tell what Kamsky was going to do if Kiril had not played Be7 after 49 Bd6 .Kirl DSB was defending both the pawns alright there at e8 and white rook was not going to invade them any way any time . Well i see the answer . Was he going to bring his g pawn forward after winning the h pawn .Does it seems right? |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | Eyal: <xrt999: it appears that 47...Rc7+ first is slightly better than immediately playing 47...Rf7. It kicks the white king off of c6, and prevents the retreat of the white bishop on move 49.Bd6 after the same exact move order. The game is drawish for black, which is better than losing. for example: 47.Rc7+ Kd6 48.Rf7 Rh6+ 49.Kg8 Rxh5 50.Rxf8 Kd7 51.Kg7 Rh3> White should play 48.Kd5 rather than Kd6, so that after Rh6+ he can place the bishop on d6, as in the game (48...Rd7+ wouldn't help here after 49.Ke6). Then there's a rather straightforward winning plan which was mentioned by <scholes> - picking up Black's h pawn, marching forward the g pawn (combined with placing the king at c6 or e6 if it went earlier to d5), and Black's position completely disintegrates. So the game isn't drawish at all if Black plays 47...Rc7+; by this stage it's totally lost for him, whatever he does. |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | JG27Pyth: They way Kamsky creates the good vs bad bishop is brilliant strategic chess and the way he converts his good vs bad bishop advantage into a win from move 35 on, is brilliant technique. |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | TrueBlue: 39 .. d5 was a the blunder? |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | arnaud1959: <TrueBlue: 39 .. d5 was a the blunder?> Anything else allows 40.♔e4 followed by ♔d5 |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | Comandente: What is the point to move bishop first and then take knight two moves later? |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | cotdt: it's a typical kamsky finish, actually. nothing special! |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | Ezzy: G Kamsky (2714) - Ki Georgiev (2649) [C85]
World Chess Cup Khanty-Mansiysk RUS (3.1), 30.11.20071.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.d3 Qd6 8.b3 Be6 9.Bb2 Nd7 10.Nbd2 c5 11.a4 a5 12.Re1<New move. 12 Qe2 has been played before.> 12...0–0 13.Nf1< One would think 13 Nc4 seems natural, but Kamsky juggles with his knights and it is the f3 knight which is heading for c4.> 13...f6 14.Ne3 g6 15.Nd2 Nb8< After 13...f6 the black knight has to relocate to get in on the action.> 16.Qf3 Nc6 17.Qg3 Nd4 18.h4 Kh8 19.Ndc4 Qd7 20.Rac1 b6 21.f3 <They say Kamsky is a solid player. 21 f3 is as solid as it gets.> 21...Rae8 22.Qh2 Bd8< I thought the reason for this move was to protect the b6 pawn so he could play 23...c6 24...b5 with counter play on the queenside. Strangely enough, Georgiev doesn't have this plan in mind. >23.Rcd1 Bxc4 <Now even the computers like the 24...c6 25...b5 plan.>24.dxc4 <Threatening 25 c3 winning the knight. >24...Qf7 25.h5 gxh5 26.c3 Ne6< [26...Nxb3 And his knight will probably be out of play for a long time. BUT objectively it could be correct to take the b3 pawn as it stops whites bishop from getting into the game via Bc1] >27.Nf5 Ng7 28.Qh3 Nxf5 29.Qxf5 <Blacks bishop is of no more value than a pawn.> 29...Re6?! <Played to stop 30 Rd7, but this restricts blacks queen moves as it is tied to the defence of the e3 rook. 29...Qg6 trying to simplify with exchanges is probably better, but white has a definate strategic advantage.> 30.Kf2 Rd6? <This is an even worse move with the rook, creating a backward pawn on an open file. But what can black do anyway. Perhaps ...Be7 before the ...Rd6 move >31.Rxd6 cxd6 32.Rh1<All the future strategy books on chess will use this game as an example of 'good bishop' v 'bad bishop.'> 32...Qg6 33.Rxh5 Qxf5 34.exf5 Rg8 35.Bc1 Rg7 36.Bh6 Rd7 37.Ke2 Be7? <I think this might of been the time for the 37...d5 break as to stop whites infiltration to the queenside with his king. [37...d5 38.cxd5 Rxd5]> 38.Rh4 <Threatening 39 Rg4 40 Bg7+ 41 Bxf6 etc >38...Rd8 39.Kd3 d5 40.cxd5 Rxd5+ 41.Kc4 Rd7 42.Rg4 Bd8 43.Kb5 Rf7 44.Kc6 <Kamsky threatens 45 Re4 46 f4>44...Ra7 45.Bf8 < also good >45...h5 46.Rg6 Kh7 47.c4 Rf7 48.Rh6+ Kg8 49.Bd6 Be7 50.Bc7 Rg7 51.Rg6 Rxg6 52.fxg6 Kg7 53.Kd7 Bf8 54.Bxb6 Kxg6 1–0 A magnificent strategic game from Kamsky the world cup winner! He’s in peak form at the moment. Let’s hope it continues so we can see a great Topalov v Kamsky match. |
|
| Dec-17-07 | | mrbasso: Ridiculous game. This GM never heard about the concept of good and bad bishops. |
|
Dec-17-07
| | keypusher: <mrbasso: Ridiculous game. This GM never heard about the concept of good and bad bishops.> Are you really that stupid? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
