| Jun-01-03 | | ZScore: 31..gxf6 32. Rh5 Qf8
(32..Kg7 33. Qxh6+ Kg8 34. Qh8# or 32..Kg8 33. Qxh6 followed by 34. Qh8#)
33. Rxh6+ Kg8
(33..Kg7 34. Rh7+ Kg8 35. Qg3+ Qg7 36. Qxg7# or 33..Qxh6 34. Qxh6+ Kg8 35. exf6 followed by 36. Qg7#)
34. exf6 |
|
| Jun-01-03 | | Reverser: in the variation given by patzer2 i don't see why Bh7+ is needed... 32. Qh6+ Kg8 33. Qh7+ Kf8 34. Qh8# seems all right :) |
|
| Jun-01-03 | | patzer2: If 33 ...g6, then 34. Bxg6 fxg6 [34...Qa3, 35. Qh7+Kf8, 36. Rxf7+ Ke8 (36...RxR, 37
QxR#)37. Qg8+ Qf8 38.Qxf8#] 35. Rxf6+ Kf7 [35 ...Qg7, 36. RxQ RxR 37. Qf6 is a white end game win] 36. Qh7+ Ke8 37. Rg8+ Kd7 and white can now win with either 38. Rg7 (results in a Queen versus two Rooks end game win) or 38. Qf5+ (results in winning attack in Queen and Rook versus Queen and Rook middle game position). Kasparov's main idea in this position appears to be that after the queen and rook exchanges, that his pawn majority with three passed pawns (two connected) will win. Kasparov's combination calculating ability seens to only be equaled by that of Anand or the best chess computer programs. His board sight and tactical skills are truly amazing! |
|
| Jun-02-03 | | patzer2: Kasparov's 35. Bxg6 is the final crushing blow in a combination which started five moves earlier. Now Black must surrender his queen or get mated sooner. If 35...Qe7, then 36. Qh7+ followed by 37. Qh8#. If 35...Qf8, then 36. Qh7#. And if 35 ...Qb4, then 36. Qh7+ Kf8 37. Rxf7+ Ke8 [if 37... Rxf7, then 38. Qxf7#] 38. Qg8+ Qf8 39. Qxf8#. |
|
| Jun-02-03 | | patzer2: If 32...gxRf6, then 33. Qh6+ Kg8 34. Qh7+ Kf8 35. Qh8#. Reverser, this is a correction to my earlier post. Appreciate your finding a shorter mate, which I incorporated into this corrected analysis. My earlier analysis of if 32...gxf6, then 33. Qh6+ Kg8 34. Bh7+ Kh8 35. Bg6+ Kg8 36. Qh7+ Kf8 37. Qh8# works but gets a little too cute and is not efficient (taking two extra moves to mate). Your shorter solution is better. Thanks for the correction. |
|
| Jun-02-03 | | patzer2: If 28...Qxa2 (instead of 28...Qb4), then 29. Bxe6 fxe6 30. Rf6! wins for Kasparov. The winning continuation is 28...Qxa2, 29. Bxe6 fxe6 30. Rf6! gxf6 [if 30...Rg8, then 31. Rxh6+ gxh6 32. Qxh6 Rh7 33. Qf6+ R(g8)g7 (if 33...R(h7)g7, then 34. Rh4#) 34. Qf8+ Rg8 35. Qxg8#] 31. Qxh6+ Rh7 32. Qxf6+ Rg7 33 Qxg7# Such tactical traps, as Kasparov frequently sets for his oponents, are very subtle and yet very effective. In a position that on the surface appears to have significant material deficit and positional weakness for white, and which some much lower rated players would consider resigning, Kasparov has already prepared a winning attack several moves earlier. |
|
| Jun-02-03 | | drukenknight: what was the pt of 28...Qb4? isnt 28...Qc3 more logical? |
|
| Jun-07-03 | | patzer2: <drukenknight>If 28...Qc3, then 29.Qxc3 Rxe3 30.Bxe6 fxe6 31. Rf7 g5 32.Rf6 Kh7 33. Rxe6 Rb8 34. Rg3Rc2 35. Ra3 a6 36. Kg3 favors Kasparov in the end game (chesslab.com computer analysis). Not only do GMs have to see middle game combinations, but they also have to assess when it is favorable to transition immediately to an end game. This analysis is another tribute to the depth of Kasparov's play even as a young chess protege. |
|
| Jun-10-03 | | drukenknight: yes yes, these GMs are so much smarter than we. Isnt it odd, that chess is an entirely logical game but only half dozen or so of the best players know the right moves? It makes no sense does it?
Chemistry is a logical science, everyone agrees on what the rules are. And yet no one ever claimed that only Pauling and Fermi know everything and whatever they say is unquestionable. There would be no pt. to publishing research if only two people knew the right answers. THere would in fact be no reason to even read the research papers, since Pauling and Fermi know everything! Mathematics is logical, yet every year thousands of people graduate from schools knowing the exact same knowledge. How could that be possible if only say Newton and Euler knew all the answers and no one else knew anything? It would be impossible to teach math, if the average mathematicians could not agree on anything! Physics is logical. Yet no one ever claims that Einstein and Bohr know everything and whatever they say goes. That would make no sense, otherwise how could physics be taught in college and graduate programs if the average people could not agree on what the rules are? NOw if you are talking about something that is not rigorously logical e.g. art, or music or drama then maybe it would be possible that only a half dozen people are the very best. It is impossible to define why we like music exactly, and thus it's possible that no one can equal Eminem. Who can say? the love of music is not entirely logical. It is possible that no one is as good as Jack Nicholson, after all, there is no way to quantify what it is about acting that entertains us. Perhaps there is only one Picasso, after all who can quantify why we like art. But CHESS IS NOT LIKE THAT! It is a totally logical endeavor. All the pieces are out there for both players to see. How can it not be logical? Only in chess is there a logic system where a very small group of masters know everything and no one else can question what they know. It is a curious thing, is it not? |
|
| Jun-14-03 | | patzer2: Talent, genius and games of logic with set rules are not unique to chess. However, even with talent, it takes years of study and practice to achieve GM status. Yet, I do not know of any currently active GMs who claim to know everything about the game. I guess I see chess as a sport, where like in Soccer, Golf, Baseball, Football or Basketball, I admire and appreciate the talent and skill it takes to rise to the level of the very best. If Kasparov would forgive the analogy, he is to Chess what Tiger Woods and Jack Nicholson combined are to golf (with apologies to Fischer and Alekhine). |
|
| Aug-17-06 | | Timothy Glenn Forney: This is exactly why I like the slav,with Bb4 pinning the Knight.Which may have been better in this game.The Barmen variation seems weak to me. |
|
| Aug-17-06 | | Timothy Glenn Forney: This game is begging for a pun. |
|
| Aug-17-06 | | BeautyInChess: Evgeny will win when pigs fly? |
|
| Aug-17-06 | | Timothy Glenn Forney: That's pink floyd reference right? |
|
| Dec-21-06 | | Ch3ckmate: after this game kasparov played in 1977 he didnt lose a single match with the qgd until 1981! |
|
| Oct-28-10 | | goldenbear: 26.h3, really? Bb1 looks stronger to me. |
|
| Sep-11-16 | | MrJafari: Black's 34 move was a mistake or a plan? |
|
May-19-23
 | | Chessical: <32...gxf6> 33. Qh6+ Kg8 34. Qh7+ Kf8 35. Qh8# |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 31.Rxg5