| May-12-04 | | Whitehat1963: Great game from Kasparov as he demonstrates the opening of the day with some fascinating piece exchanges. |
|
| May-12-04 | | acirce: Who is Behrhorst? |
|
| May-12-04 | | Whitehat1963: Don't know, but I checked his games list and he at least has a draw with Kasparov. He might not be Kramnik, Karpov, Anand or Fischer, but he can't be a total patzer, can he? |
|
| May-12-04 | | acirce: He's an FM with an all-time-high of 2355, it seems, after checking with FIDE and http://www.chessbase.com/ This was a simul thing, I found out, and his draw in 1987 too. http://queen.chessclub.com/philches... |
|
| May-12-04 | | Whitehat1963: Nevertheless, I'm sure you agree that Kasparov's 12...a3 is a fascinating reply to 12. Bc7, don't you? |
|
| May-12-04 | | acirce: Absolutely! |
|
| May-13-04 | | Whitehat1963: Analyzing with a computer last night, I found moves 19-22 to be white's downfall. |
|
| May-13-04 | | Jim Bartle: I assume that's meant to be 12...a6. Dumb/lazy question: What would happen after 15. Ke2? |
|
| May-13-04 | | Whitehat1963: Neither dumb, nor lazy. I want to know to! |
|
| May-13-04 | | acirce: I guess 15...Rxd8 and Black should have more than enough compensation with his active play against White's undeveloped position and the many threats like Bf5 and Rxd5. |
|
| May-15-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Acirce: very good ideas! At first it looked like Kasparov would run out of steam if white played carefully, but after looking deeper, I found that black has very, very good compensation, in fact it looks like a forced win. ...Ba6! is also a very dangerous threat to add to your list in some lines. 15. Ke2!? Rxd8 16. Rd1 Bf5 (...Ba6 also wins) 17. Qc1 [17. Na4? Ng3+] Rxa2+ and black wins. 16. Rb1 Bf5 (the seemingly intuitive 16...Rxd5 is blunted by 17. Nd4! and black still has some compensation, but it's not as clear) 17. Qd1 Rxa2+ and black still wins. It's interesting how much Kasparov and Tal valued concrete piece coordination over abstract piece worth. |
|
| May-15-04 | | Bobsterman3000: <Benjamin Lau: Kasparov and Tal valued concrete piece coordination over abstract piece worth.> I've read in alot of places that Kasparov evalutes positions with piece "quality" in mind, meaning that the absolute ranking/point value of a piece is not its only important characteristic -- placement and the pieces potential for long-term influence are also an important consideration. I think Kasparov's famous sacrifice against Shirov (in which he gave up the exchange very early to gain a deep knight outpust) is a perfect example of this theory in practice. I'm sure you remember the game, but I can't find the link... |
|
| May-15-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Exactly Bobsterman3000. Coordination is an aspect of piece quality and Kasparov, Tal, Petrosian, etc to name a few were quick to change their assessments of positions in favor of piece quality and not just the general worth. The game you are referring to is Kasparov vs Shirov, 1994. It's also a nice example of knights taking advantage of weak colored squares. |
|
| Dec-06-05 | | ramibotros: check out www.behrhorst.de
just look at his face. |
|
| Dec-13-15 | | ToTheDeath: Imagine seeing all this in a simul! Great game. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 12...a6
