Mar-16-04 Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985 
| |
| Omar1: A Super game by Kasparov!! |
|
|
|
Sep-17-03 Kasparov vs Fedorowicz, 1981
| |
| Omar1: Black's timing is all wrong in this game.He should have played d6 on move 5!
This is a critical square in this game.Garry just had way too much centre control early on.The game got worse for black when he played 25.Qb6?.Better was 25.Bf6.(Black had to defend critical dark squares ... |
|
|
|
Sep-16-03 Fischer vs Larsen, 1971
| |
| Omar1: JGD ,I totally agree with you! |
|
|
|
Sep-11-03 Robert James Fischer
| |
| Omar1: <Fischer certainly didn't win through "superior tactical strength"> I agree with your analysis,but to really see what I mean by superior tactical
strength,take a look at Byrne-Fischer 1956 ,New York. Examine the moves deeply. Tactical strength in my opinion is measured by one's |
|
|
|
Sep-09-03 Mikhail Tal
| |
| Omar1: Tal was a super player. The purest example of genius. He had the ability to refute variations over the board.Modern day players have to study a game thoroughly at home and create their novelties when there is no pressure from the clock.There are hardly any "beautiful" games anymore ... |
|
|
|
Sep-09-03 J Klavins vs Tal, 1958
| |
| Omar1: White should not have accepted the sacrifice on move 17. By doing so he wasted a tempo and his position overextended a bit.This allowed Tal the time and space to build up a dangerous attack in the centre. |
|
|
|
Sep-08-03 Anand vs Kasparov, 1995
| |
| Omar1: A pretty boring game really.Just a mass of exchanges in the centre.Bishops of opposite color almost always equates to a draw! |
|
|
|
Sep-08-03 Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1936
| |
| Omar1: The game is a positional classic but its still very hard to tell why Capablanca wins.Material is even( 17-17).The position is closed(technically)because the queenside pawns lock the game.Capa's pieces have more maneuvrability.Alekhine's rooks need more space to be effective.A win for ... |
|
|
|
| indicates a reply to the comment. |
|
Kibitzing
