|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-29-05 | | Cowwithgun: Shams line doesn't appear to work but
31. Nd1 Nxf4
32. gxf4 Qg6 looks like it should do it |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | rubbermeetsroad: Badmojo meant 32 Qxf4, and not
32 Qxd4, Shams. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | rubbermeetsroad: My goodness, the actual win after
31...Nxf4! IS rather simple, but
of course Gazz found all the prior
difficult moves leading up to this.
Kaspy is only human! |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | rubbermeetsroad: Let's catch the real issues here, and
not be distracted by the distractions (the exchange sac in this game - in other words, the move 16 Be7? is simply a lemon). Forgot about the exchange sac. Is Yusupov's 13 b3
superior to Gulko's 12 Kh1 (and later b3, where of course Gazz could have
stuck him with ...a4! had he so desired - apparently Yusupov was
concerned about this possibility, so
played 13 b3 which HOWEVER underguarded the c3-knight, making it
impossible for him to play the important f4! later, as Tal, Petrosian,
and Reshevsky all did!
Round and around the mulberry bush?
Where's Keene when you need him? |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | rubbermeetsroad: OK, so finally the answer is that
Tal, Petrosian, and Resshevsky didn't
ever have to worry about playing
b3 at all, since Bobby's incorrect
placement of the QN on d7 wasn't
compelling White to worry about Black
playing ...a4! One more look at the
latest game ('95 Gulko-Gazz) since
instead of finally playing ...a4!
(Gulko had still delayed, and played f3,) Gazz instead played ...Bf6!
allowing Gulko to finally play b3,
yet maybe he WANTED Gulko to invest
this TIME, since that's the whole
issue in the KID.
For heaven's sake, why can't computers play this opening, then?
Pawn chains - forgot. Nevermind. |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | thebriarpatch: I remember this game being extensively annotated in Inside Chess right after the game was played. They said the exchange sacrifice was deliberate, and that 34... Bb6??? was the losing move. Wish I remembered the rest of the analysis... |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | morpstau: i dont know but kasparov played off and on here. |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | Boomie: I'm not convinced that 16. Be7 is a mistake. White stumbled with 21. Bf4. After 21. f4 white is probably OK. Here's a line to stimulate the discussion. 21. f4 exf3 22. Rxf3 Nb4 23. axb4 axb4 24. Ndb1 bxc3 25. Nxc3 Ng5 26. Rff1 Bd4+ 27. Kh1 Ne4 28. Nxe4 Bxa1 29. Rxa1 fxe4 30. Qxe4 Qf5 31. Qe2 |
|
| Feb-19-06 | | Badmojo: definitely a botched masterpiece. a damn shame in my opinion. |
|
| Apr-26-06 | | Sydro: Garry also missed 34...Qh4 which wins too. |
|
Jan-10-07
 | | ToTheDeath: Yes a great exchange sacrifice for bishops and a dynamic center. Both 31... Nxf4 and 34...Qh4 win. By move 31 Kasparov only had a minute left to reach move 40. The game is well annotated in Keene and Jacobs The Complete King's Indian. |
|
| Jan-12-08 | | aazqua: I can imagine how Kaspy must have been desolute after this loss. He really just gave it away. 31 N*f4 (what about 31 Be5?) is a win. 27 n*r 28 be5 looks at least playable. One thing that irks me about this game is that it is a "notable" game for Yusopov. Notable? He was outplayed and got lucky. Is this really his best game against Kaspy? |
|
| Mar-08-08 | | hedgeh0g: <AdrianP> "<Benjamin Lau> cites this as an example of where Kasparov clearly "lost" rather than "sacrificed" the exchange (discussion on Beliavsky v Kasparov)." It's also interesting to note how both games end with the move Ng4. Just a small curiosity. |
|
| Mar-10-08 | | AdrianP: Stohl gives 14 ...gxf5 a "!" with the comment "However, Kasparov's surprising novelty is more enterprising and shows that he is willing to make material sacrifices to keep his central pawns mobile with this positionally desirable recapture." |
|
| Mar-10-08 | | AdrianP: ...and Kasparov's own notes for Chess Informant also gives "14. ...gxf5!N" |
|
| Mar-10-08 | | AdrianP: As well as 31 Nxf4 winning, both Garry and Stohl give 32 Qxf3! as winning. |
|
Apr-08-08
| | ToTheDeath: <hedgeh0g> It was an intentional sacrifice- Mr. Lau is mistaken. |
|
| Nov-06-08 | | Alphastar: Yes, the exchange sacrifice is excellent and I think Kasparov had prepared it beforehand. |
|
| Nov-06-08 | | 5hrsolver: How was kasparov doing on time from move 30. Maybe he didnt have much time left. |
|
| Apr-27-09 | | whiteshark: Acccording to the bulletin Kasparov had only four minutes left after <30...Qh5>.
click for larger view |
|
| May-22-11 | | hedgeh0g: Looking back on this game, it's clear to me that Kasparov intended to sacrifice the exchange, especially considering the fact that he shunned winning it back on move 27. What could have been another brilliant Kasparov victory in the King's Indian ended up a tragic loss. For the record, Fritz 11 evaluates the exchange sac as perfectly sound, which should give some indication of its strength. |
|
| May-22-11 | | hedgeh0g: <One thing that irks me about this game is that it is a "notable" game for Yusopov. Notable? He was outplayed and got lucky. Is this really his best game against Kaspy?> The same could be asked about his famous win over Ivanchuk, where Ivanchuk was winning but played the wrong knight move and ended up lost. In that game, however, Yusupov had counterchances, whereas in this game, he simply defended stubbornly until Kasparov missed the winning continuation in time trouble. |
|
| May-22-11 | | Shams: Not to mention this is Yusupov's only win against Garry. |
|
Sep-13-15
 | | perfidious: <aazqua....One thing that irks me about this game is that it is a "notable" game for (Yusupov). Notable? He was outplayed and got lucky....> The criterion for notability is the number of collections in which a game appears at CG, when the player does not lose. |
|
| Sep-13-15 | | Howard: Stohl was thoughtful enough to include this game in his collection in his two-volume work on Kasparov's best games, even though Kasparov may have "disagreed" with that decision. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
