I thought the the duel with the Queens was very nice.. Then the swing via d7 -->..take a4 and a few moves later the forced Q-exchange and all the hard work was done.. But as you said 63...a2 was wrong -- 63...f3 would have initiated an effective combination..

Position after 63.Rg8

click for larger view

Here <63...f3>! 64 Rg1 f2 65 Ra1 Kb8! 66 Kg3/e5 and both pawns will be on the second row and Rg7 --> Rg1 is undefendable.

But to me this would be hard to spot quickly.. Time and tiredness will also have played a part in it. These endgames can be SO exhausting..

You'll get deported before you arrive, for decadent westernerizing without license.

I imagine you'll be busy shifting coordinates for a while, so I'll follow Niels' advice (in your place) and NOT send an email just now. But, be warned: I will, later.

Funny that in some instances engine aided analysis is vital, but sometimes it is less than useless, even counterproductive.

Probably you are right that a2 was good enough to win.. But that is if you not reflect it against perfect opposition, possibly. Which is human.

I do have to say that "execution Kasparov style" was quite merciless and with very few "errors".

Thank Goodness not all is solved yet.

That's how you tell who wins.

I think.

It's like algebra but with no letters.

except a-h.

Here is my theory (with calculations!!):

well I find the main thing about math is to use the numbers as opposed to the letters. Example:

If x is 10, and y is the square root of then, then y is the square root of xxy squared.

And loggarhythms are even easier.

say you have "log six."

That means the sixth log on the green chain is about to be sawed into planks.

cosines are also easy. If you don't have any credit, and need a loan, just get someone who knows about <cosigning> and you will get money, which of course uses pictures of numbers.

get it??

HAHAHAHAH

all about Maths, don't you know.

I read it twice I loved it.

Bone setters are good at retriveing bones.

get it?

I got me Dvoretsky a few days ago, and am thoroughly enjoying it. Cheers for that advertorial a while back, and the more recent nudge too. I had a look over on the Dvoretsky page here -- Mark Dvoretzky -- and noticed that <acirce> had posted an interesting review by John Watson. I don't know what to think about it, if I'm honest. Watson continually stresses that it's an advanced work that might not hold much value for those who aren't already very strong players. He ends thus:

<I don't want to be blamed, in praising this book, for your purchasing something that you find intimidating, relatively dull, or otherwise unsatisfying.>

I don't find any of it unsatisfying nor 'dull', and yet I surely am not the sort of player Watson believes will most benefit from it. It's intimidating in size only - the ideas are, if I'm honest, quite easy to understand as Dvoretsky presents them, and one can feel oneself improving with each page turned.