< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Aug-26-10|| ||HeMateMe: The person giving up the Queen can lose these games, too. There is a game Kasparov/Anand, where GK swaps his Queen for 3 minors and loses. Its in Anand's "Best Games" book.|
|Aug-26-10|| ||gmalino: just wondering why <rapidcitychess>is using <once's> old avatar.....|
from my point of view the "sac" only works in a blitz game. move 13, c'mon, that can't resist analysis, even it's kasparov.
but very, very impressive and maybe not so unusal for blitzing....
I, personally, am just a patzer and therefore hate games under 15 min time per player. just needing this time to play halfway patzer-free.
|Aug-26-10|| ||perfidious: <Hedgehog> In 1988, I got to play a set of games with Tal at 5:2 and managed to score 5/11. This was just after he'd won the world blitz championship.|
|Aug-26-10|| ||Jim Bartle: Perfidious: Take a look at these games: Game Collection: Kasparov's super simuls|
Kasparov had a fourth to a sixth as much as time as players generally rated over 2400, yet scored decisive victories in every match.
|Aug-26-10|| ||Julian713: <Rookey>: The key to winning a game when your opponent has sacrificed his queen in such a manner (or any positional/tactical sacrifice like that, such as a rook for a knight/bishop) is to immediately bring your new strengths into play. That is, if your opponent gives up his queen for two minors and a pawn, the way Kasparov did, you ought to immediately bring your queen to a centrally developed position. Without a queen, your opponent will be forced to set up longer chains of defense for individual pieces, rather than having a queen that can immediately protect any piece that needs it. And in a good position like that, your queen is poised for a counterattack that your opponent may not be able to stop because it is costing him too much tactical planning to develop an attack.|
The queen's advantage is maneuverability and speed; so if your opponent sacrifices that for initiative, you now have that advantage over him during the process of defending against whatever attack he's planning. In the case of sacrificing a rook for a minor piece, you ought to link up your rooks ASAP, since that is the major advantage you gain against a player who only has one rook left when you still have two. If he sacrifices a minor piece for a pawn, you ought to bring a minor piece into instant defense of whatever file/square he just opened up. That way if he starts to bring his own non-pawn pieces into play, you can (theoretically) maintain an advantage in army size at the point of attack.
To me, that is what makes Kasparov's sacrifice in this game so brilliant... not necessarily brilliant in conception, but certainly brilliant in execution. He may or may not have known exactly what he was doing, but by God he made it work. He was willing to sacrifice his queen for minor pieces/pawns AND the placement of his knights in the front center...because by doing so, he negated the maneuverability advantage of Kramnik's queen. The key to the sacrifice, and any sacrifice, is being able to use your tactical advantage to overcome your strategical disadvantage. In this case, Kasparov's tactically placed knights overcame the strategical disadvantage of not having the speedy, maneuverable queen.
For any fellow Civil War buffs, this game reminds me a great deal of the Battle of Chancellorsville :D
|Aug-26-10|| ||Julian713: <Perfidious: In 1988, I got to play a set of games with Tal at 5:2 and managed to score 5/11. This was just after he'd won the world blitz championship.>|
It seems hypocritical to demand proof of numerical facts (like game outcomes) while at the same time providing mere anecdotes in return.
|Aug-26-10|| ||SuperPatzer77: After 39...Nf4+!, White resigns in lieu of 40. Kf1 g2+, 41. Kf2 Re1! |
|Aug-26-10|| ||thegoodanarchist: <gmalino: just wondering why <rapidcitychess>is using <once's> old avatar....>|
you have too much time on your hands! :)
|Aug-26-10|| ||rapidcitychess: <just wondering why <rapidcitychess>is using <once's> old avatar.....> I was because I was imitating him but I changed because I doesn't fit. Unless 5 people like it and say so on my forum that this is my avatar.
<you have too much time>
Nonsense! Worrying about me is important. :)|
|Aug-26-10|| ||rapidcitychess: <I have little doubt that a player like Nakamura could beat a 2200 player 9 times out of 10 with a 1:10 time ratio.>
< Nobody can beat me 1 0 OTB> |
He apparently has no doubts.
|Aug-26-10|| ||falso contacto: great explanation, julian.|
|Aug-27-10|| ||perfidious: <Julian713> 'Demand'? Really? I did state that I was curious, yet you turn things round to fit your need to put down someone else. As to what you term a 'mere anecdote', you're just jealous and would likely have killed to have that opportunity.|
Have a nice life.
|Jan-28-11|| ||TheOutsider: Doesn't Ndb2 or even f3 refute black's entire plans at once? Oh right,Kramnik actually thought he would get to keep his rook :)|
|May-22-11|| ||SMCB1997: Wow! What a game! I was not expecting that queen sack from Kasparov. I'm not highly rated enough to say why he did it, but I'm sure it was for the best :-) hehe.|
|Jul-17-11|| ||Rook e2: bubuli55: 14.Bxc7 would have been my move. Just saying :)|
That's what I was thinking. But it's not as good anymore after ..Nxd1 Raxd1 Ra6
|Sep-29-11|| ||DrMAL: <hedgeh0g: I have little doubt that a player like Nakamura could beat a 2200 player 9 times out of 10 with a 1:10 time ratio.> I can personally vouch for that regarding H-bomb and I am not a 2200 player (and he would not to cheat LOL). Note ELO is based on Gaussian curve and a 2700 player is several standard deviation multiples away from 2200, each is a true anomaly. It makes watching their play all the more fascinating, how they think, we are lucky today there are so many of them. This simple population fact is one that Chessmetrics refuses to admit with its "rating inflation" BS, fact is that because of much larger population seriously playing the "inflation" comes right out of population growth. Knowledge growth is another key factor.|
Also, real (FIDE) 2200 is much stronger than USCF 2200 the latter uses logistics curve instead of correct Gaussian curve and it has a bias due to "rating floor" garbage. "Life master" is nonsense one must keep up with chess to prove it over lifetime, ability wanes with age. In his "My Story" video super-genius Kasparov pulls rank on mere genius Plaskett by saying no-one but he and Karpov fully knew what was going on in their match. Although arrogant he is at least partially correct and Plaskett cedes his point. Brilliant people realize there are others above them and show humility to it, whereas average people are often clueless or jealous.
<Marmot PFL: Was this a one shot sac or does it actually hold up to analysis?> Back to this fabulous game, it's a provocative sac in that it evaluates objectively to about half a pawn in white's favor and as such is not 100% sound. However, it is easy to make inaccuracies, 15.Rc1 being the first, that quickly add up for black. After 15...Nxa2 black evaluates about half a pawn ahead (think it's the right half). Wish I had seen this game live! That was a long post, hope it was entertaining LOL.
|Sep-30-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
The discussion about the numbers of players and "inflation" reminded me of something I read a while ago on <chessbase> by Jeff Sonas. Have you seen it?
Apropos humility, our "Great Dane" Peter Heine Nielsen is a first class example. Here is a man who seconds Anand, is in the 2650-2700 ELO bracket and just scored a terrific result at the recent FIDE World Cup (beating Adams and some others before losing out to Gashimov). A wonderful CV. When he talks about the 2700+ GMs, he says they can see and can more than he! This is the strongest Dane since Bent Larsen, don't forget; I always think this puts the achievements and ability of elite GMs in perspective.
|Sep-30-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I think the phenomenon of inflation does exist. In this era's quasi-equilibrium group, a 2700 player can see more than a 2600- he can usually calculate more variations faster. So GM Nielsen is correct, on the condition he is speaking of the masters of his own era.|
GM Bent Larsen may have been a 2600s player in his era in the late 1960s, but I have no doubt he would be 2700s in this era; his games indicate he was calculating more variations faster than even many of today's 2700s.
Ratings do not measure chess strength. They are mere descriptors and predictors of chess players' performances in the near past and near future in the same quasi-equilibrium group. If all of today's 2700 players were to suddenly play like patzers, but retain their relative strengths to each other and play no one else outside their group, they may retain their 2700 ratings, but they will still be playing like patzers.
The best measure of a player's absolute chess strength is by analysis of his games. If he plays very many games with very little errors, this guy must be a strong chess player.
|Sep-30-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<visayanbraindoctor>|
that reminds me of a tourney in Denmark 20 years ago.
A really old guy was playing; he had an ELO of about 2400-2450. He lost some games, drew some and won a scintillating brilliancy. The 2600 GMs had a reverance for this 2400 "guy", despite their higher ratings and the old guy not being a pro player.
The old guy was David Bronstein.
|Sep-30-11|| ||DrMAL: I agree with your points <visayanbraindoctor> they relate to the knowledge aspect of chess I referred to earlier. However, rating is indeed some (maybe not all) metric of ability, and it should "inflate" with population growth (and has quite closely done so). Yes, <SWT> this is the main article he published. It is amazing to me he calls himself a statistician being as his doctrine rejects simple statistical facts. Regarding the old guy and his low rating, all he need do then is play more games to bring his rating up to performance level (or get a phony floor).|
|Sep-30-11|| ||DrMAL: Jeff Sonas' work is very misleading. For example, in that article he makes the statement:|
<I should point out that there were barely 1,500 active players on the January 1975 list, and that number more than tripled in ten years, to more than 4,600 active players on the January 1985 list. Nevertheless there was no inflation (using my meaning of the term). So the argument that inflation is a natural result of the general advance of chess knowledge would not explain why there was no inflation across those ten years.>
Yes, by itself this neither explains nor differs with the basic premise regarding how a bell curve fills out with increasing population, since the population considered is still quite small and a second factor is also important: Knowledge/dissemination.
During that time dissemination of higher level chess knowledge to the pool of FIDE members (or overall chess population for a better metric) was minimal, it was in fact stymied for political reasons. Moreover, the growth in knowledge has exploded with computers via engines and internet. This also has a primary effect.
The population growth of FIDE members (assuming all are active) from 1500 in 1975 to 4600 in 1985 reflects an annual increase of just under 12% (actually, 11.856%). With the same 12% growth rate this computes (from 1500 in 1975) to 45,000 in 2005 close to the actual number of active FIDE members then.
With 30 times the population the variance of a normal distribution increases by 30 times, or it's standard deviation "sigma" increases by the square root of this which is about 5.5 a large number now.
It is quite easy to fit a bell curve to a population size with a mean rating and standard deviation. To do this "back of the envelope" simply note the following ONE-SIDED probabilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-...
P(2sigma) = 0.02250
P(3sigma) = 0.00135
P(4sigma) = 0.00003
As an (zero-order) approximate example, suppose the mean is 1800 and sigma is 250 so that 2800 is 4 sigmas away.
At a population size of 1500, the number of people above 3 sigma, or rated above 2550 is 2 whereas at population 45,000 it is 60. And at population 45,000 there is, on average, one person above 2800, imagine that! This is crude but it shows the point.
|Sep-30-11|| ||kia0708: Kasparov's Knight play here is just spectacular.|
|Sep-30-11|| ||DrMAL: Sure is. Truly a fabulous game one of my favorite blitz.|
|Dec-26-11|| ||indoknight: i found intersting line if white play 15.Bd1 ... Bf5! 16.Qe3 Bd3 17.Re1 e4! 18.Bg4 (avoiding 18... Nxd5) f5! 19.Bh3 g5 with black very strong attacks!|
|Jan-07-13|| ||LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Kramnik vs Kasparov, 1994.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF KASPAROV.
Your score: 55 (par = 53)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·