|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-21-06 | | crptone: I don't understand what's so good about Kh1, he could easily have played Kg2 as well. there's not much you can do with a check I think moves like a4! or Qf4! deserve praise though, as always Kasparov follows with the strongest moves available |
|
| Aug-21-06 | | kevin86: I very exciting,if not tactically effective game. I still think black has some play at the end-but I'm no expert,much less a planet. |
|
Aug-21-06
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <crptone: I don't understand what's so good about Kh1, he could easily have played Kg2 as well. there's not much you can do with a check> I don't remember the analysis, but I recall that 35. Kh1 is, paradoxically, the only move that wins. The seemingly more active 35. Kg2 would have allowed Black to draw. (I remember that this was the conclusion of some analysis I read awhile ago, but I cannot remember the details.) I would suggest that interested kibitzers consult annotations of this game, for example, by Igor Stohl (either in Kaparov's Best Games, vol. 2, or in Modern Chess Masterpieces). |
|
| Aug-21-06 | | briscola: GrandMasters dominate these World Matches, exhibited here by Chessgames.com's GAME of the Day against the backdrop of the coming The World v. Nikel match Big differences between the two are Nikel is obviously not Kasparov, and The World has changed a lot since '99, (maturing as all World's mature). CG's database results:
1. The World vs Karpov 1996 0-1
2. Kasparov vs The World 1999 1-0
3. The World vs Hao Yin 2000 ½-½
4. Kouatly vs The World 2001 1-0
5. The World vs S Yuldashev 2004 ½-½
6. The World vs Kosteniuk 2004 0-1
7. The World vs A Nickel 2006 ?
The World team MUST avoid the play it attempted here as Black against Kasparov! (remind anyone who disagrees to take look at the final score card!) It may make some feel cool by choosing controversial moves in these matches, but whats the point of playing "pretty chess", and losing the match?! I'd take the ugly win any & EVERY DAY.
I say we CHRUSH this Nickel! |
|
| Aug-21-06 | | Chess Classics: <briscola> The world team played very well up to about move 40, according to Kasparov himself in his book Kasparov vs. The World Regards,
CC |
|
| Aug-21-06 | | Chess Classics: From page 1: <AgentRgent: 51...Ka1 was a Draw. We had extensive analysis that proved the draw. It's a shame that such a truely beautiful game was destroyed because Microsoft couldn't control their security holes (What a surprise!).> True. But was it not a little out of the spirit of the event to do such thorough analysis? After all, this isn't Kasparov vs. Smart Chess! The only reason that Kasparov didn't cream the world was that they had been following the moves that Irina and the other analysts had recommended-so were they really playing? Regards,
CC |
|
| Aug-22-06 | | avidfan: <Honza Cervenka> Your analysis after 67.Qxd4 seems to indicate Black's king is badly positioned. What is the best square/area for the king? "Chess Endings for the practical player" by Pachman page 66 favours a1, the corner diagonally opposite from the white g7 pawn. That position did not include a pawn on d4. The reason for this seems to be fewest possible cross-checks by White and minimal interference to Black's queen mobility for checks and pins.
click for larger view32...f3 keeping the white king and rook from early activity seems good for Black. The ♗/e5 would help to keep the king from emerging at h2 for a while and maybe e1 from c3. It also controls a1 and h8, White's promotion square. 33...Nd4 34.Rc1 is punished by the fork 34...Ne2+ winning the rook. 34.Ra1 is also bad because Ne2+ discovers an attack on the rook. 34.Re1 Ne2+ 35.Kf1 when deeper analysis is needed, since f3 is weak. 33...Kf5 attacking ♗/g5, moving nearer to h5,g4 and f3, is another line to be considered. 34.Bf4 Bc3 35.Rc1 b4 36.Rd1 Nd4 prepares ...d5,e5. 32...Kf5 33.gxf4 Bxf4 34.Bxf4 Kxf4 35.h6 Ne5 36.h7 Ng6 favors White. |
|
| Aug-22-06 | | AgentRgent: <Chess Classics: But was it not a little out of the spirit of the event to do such thorough analysis?> Not at all. Khalifman, Krush, and anyone else (save Garry himself) were equally allowed to contribute. As I was personally involved in the analysis (even if somewhat peripherally) I can attest that any and all analysis was accepted, welcomed, and investigated (even my own meager contributions). This was "Kasparov vs the World", not "Kasparov vs the World (with restrictions)". |
|
| Sep-02-06 | | Nikita Smirnov: All Players has hosted such tournament even Kramnik att ICC. |
|
| Sep-07-06 | | patzer2: At first glance 11...Qxe4!? looks weak, offering up the exchange as a positional sacrifice. However, on second glance, the two pawns Black gains and the strong center provides enough compensation to make it a worthwhile investment. If nothing else, playing this opening line offers valuable experience in playing an early positional exchange sacrifice with the Black pieces. |
|
| Sep-07-06 | | patzer2: According to the analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar..., looks to me like this was largely a correspondence game between Irina Krush 2447 and Gary Kasparov 2851. The world took her suggestions from move 10 to 50, but messed up and didn't take her suggested 51...Ka1! which Kasparov agreed would have led to a draw. Looks like a clear case of "too many cooks spoil the broth," and "you got to Dance with the one that brought you." |
|
| Sep-07-06 | | euripides: <patzer> Except that according to the wikipedia, Bacrot recommended 54..Qd5, which they say would have drawn; Krush's 54...b4 was chosen. |
|
| Sep-07-06 | | patzer2: <euripides> Yes indeed. However, the World also ignored Krush's 52...Kc1! which was also sufficient for the draw. Looks like a clear case of too much flirting around by the World before dancing with the one that brought them. They ignored Krush's two solid draw recommendations and all they got was a loss when they finally decided to come back to her for the last dance. Appears to me that this World versus whoever game contest is like playing a chess game against multiple opponents taking turns moving at random. One player gets a plan going, but the other goes his own way with a different plan or strategy. Seems to me its hard to get any contiuity going and that the game as a result will nearly always favor the GM playing alone with his or her own consistent plan(s). |
|
| Oct-31-06 | | TrueFiendish: I remember this game too. We should have drawn but too many wanted to go for the win, and we lost. |
|
| Nov-01-06 | | Bufon: <However, the World also ignored Krush's 52...Kc1! which was also sufficient for the draw> Im not a 2800 GM, but i dont see the draw for black, i keep analizing the game, and i think Kasparov would have won it anyway, can someone post a computer analisis?? |
|
| Nov-01-06 | | TrueFiendish: Might be hard to dig that analysis up, Bufon, it was a while ago. I remember there was a lot of it around at the time. I have a vague recollection it was Ka1 not Kc1 that led to the draw. |
|
| Nov-01-06 | | Bufon: <TrueFiendish> you´re right, it was long ago, and probably no one is interested in such analysis. I studied the chance of the mentioned Kc1 and i see winning chances for Kasparov; anyway, if i get to a good engine, i will post the analysis here. |
|
| Nov-02-06 | | TrueFiendish: Yeah, if Kc1 white checks on c7 at takes a pawn because ...Qc2+ is no good. |
|
| Nov-11-06 | | ivoivanov: Why not 37...e5 instead of e6
but I see some misses the both sides did.Anyway, I am not an expert and I do not possess a powerful computer program. ;) |
|
| Nov-14-06 | | Zebra: A question about the opening. I always see 3 ...Nd7 described as "logical", to get the two bishops, but in practice 3 ...Bd7 seems much more popular. Could anybody fill me in on the advantages of Bd7 over Nd7? |
|
| Apr-10-07 | | BadTemper: <randomvisitor> how did you tablebase the position at 54..b4?! do you have the 7 piece Q+2p+K vs Q+P+K tablebase? |
|
| Apr-10-07 | | micartouse: It was a great game. I wasn't involved in voting, but my father and I would casually analyze the moves as the game progressed. No computer analysis - we just moved pieces around the board for hours and didn't have a clue. What a memory! |
|
| Apr-12-07 | | aazqua: This game is miles better than the karpov game not so long ago. |
|
| Apr-13-07 | | android21: Hmm.. i am not quite sure about the end game here, can anyone provide the continuation winning line by Garry pls? |
|
| Apr-13-07 | | AgentRgent: <patzer2: According to the analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar..., looks to me like this was largely a correspondence game between Irina Krush 2447 and Gary Kasparov 2851.> Rather insulting to those of us who spent considerable time analyzing this game. Ms. Krush was an active analyst, but most of her recommendations were based on the extensive analysis of a large group of participants. <The world took her suggestions from move 10 to 50, but messed up and didn't take her suggested 51...Ka1! which Kasparov agreed would have led to a draw.> This unfortuately was due to voting fraud. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 