|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-07-05 | | yunis: good attack by kasparov'no kibitzing yet?!! |
|
| Feb-07-05 | | WillC21: Yea, this is a nice game. Kasparov broke through Short's defenses quite well. I like Kasparov's early a4 instead of the commonly played c3 in the Ruy Lopez. |
|
| Feb-07-05 | | CeeFoR: Nice game |
|
| Feb-07-05 | | ThomYorke: Kasparov is God |
|
| Feb-07-05 | | Milo: Kasparov's piece placements on 17 and 18 seem directed at controlling d5 and preventing f5 (eg. 19...f5 20.Bxe6+ :) ). They say that you should respond to action on the wing with action in the center, but I see no potential pawn breaks here for black. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | Clubfoot: WillC21, a4 was just the anti-Marshall. Short tried to get Kasparov into the line more than once this match but Kasparov turned it away each time with a4. One of the best and craziest anti-Marshall games the past few years was Ivanchuk-Adams from Linares (2001 or 2002, forget now), a stunning display of bravado on both sides. |
|
Feb-08-05
 | | Open Defence: <clubfoot> I found only one game in the database with Adams as black in the Marshall Counter Attack Ivanchuk vs Adams, 1991 Is this the game you referred to ? This was played at Therassa though |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | eyalbd: Instead of 35...Bxf6, black could play 35...Nxh6 and then 36. Qg5+ Kh7 37. f6 Bxf2+! 38. Kxf2 Qf5+ 39. Qxf5+ Nxf5 40. Bc2 Kg6 41. g4 Kxf6 42. Bxf5 c5 and with only one pawn it is not clear to me how white wins. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | euripides: <eyballd> Interesting. One possibility is 37...Bxf2+ 38 Kg2 Qc6+ 39 Bd5 Qxd5 40 Qxd5 Bxe1 41 Qe4+ Kh8 42 Qxe1 and I think the discoordinated Black pieces and the bone in the throat on f6 make the position difficult to defend. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | eyalbd: <euripides> Sure, white does not have to take the bishop. But after 38. Kg2 Qc6+ 39. Bd5 Black has 39...Rg8 which make things look harder for White. Crafty suggests 40. Qh5 Qxd5+ 41. Qxd5 Bxe1 42. Qe4+ Rg6 43. Qxe1 Nf5 and White can't defens his King side pawns. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | euripides: <eyballd> yes that looks decidedly sticky. |
|
Feb-08-05
| | Open Defence: <eyeballd> , <euripides> Were there any analysis comments by Kasparov, Short (or both) or anyone else on this game on the lines suggested above ? |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | euripides: <OpenDef> The only thing I have is Dominic Lawson's book in which he reports that Short thought for almost all his seven remaining minutes on move 34 and that his flag fell as he resigned. I have the impression Short never wanted to look at this game again. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | siu02jm: so is 33...♗xd4!? the cause of Neil Short downfall. it seems he has trouble later getting it to back to block the pawn on f file. And was gasparov luring him with that d4 pawn? was it really necessary for him to take it. |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | euripides: On reflection 35...Nxh6 36 Qg5+ Kh7 37 Bc2 may be better. Now if 37...Bxf2+ then simply 38 Kxf2; if 37...Qc6 then 38 f6+ Qxc2 39 Qg7 mate; and if 37...f6 then 37 Qg6+ Kh8 38 Qxh6+ Kg8 39 Bb3+. Best may be 37...Bf6 38 Qxf6 with Re4-h4 to follow. Is there a better defence ? |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | WMD: <Were there any analysis comments by Kasparov, Short (or both) or anyone else on this game on the lines suggested above ?> Naturally. 35...Nxh6 loses to 36.Qg5+ Kh7 37.Bc2! Bf6 38.Qxf6 Re8 39.Re6!. Kasparov criticised his move 27.Nh4, giving the superior 27.Kg2! Qxf5 28.Rh1 with a big advantage. When Short played 34...Bxd4? it appears he missed 35.Ng4 Bf6 was refuted by 36.Qxh6! and the knight fork on f6 decides. Better chances were offered by 34...Bg5 or ...c6 (Fritz). |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | eyalbd: <WMD, euripides> Yes, 35...Nxh6 36 Qg5+ Kh7 37 Bc2! is the clearest way to win. The bishop controls f5 so the Bxf2+, Qf5+ trick doesn't work. Once again, the threat (of f6) is stronger than then the execution (Nimzovitch) Thanks! |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | radu stancu: <Open Defence> I think this is the game in question: Ivanchuk vs Adams, 2002 |
|
| Feb-08-05 | | acirce: Kasparov has never allowed the Marshall Attack in a serious game -- he has shifted between the 8.h3 and 8.a4 anti-Marshalls -- unless you count a game in a simul against computers in 1985. |
|
Feb-08-05
| | Open Defence: <radu stancu> sorry i was searching for a Marshall game instead of Anti Marshall |
|
| Feb-13-05 | | Clubfoot: That's it, that's the Anti-Marshall game from Linares 2002 and sorry to Open Defence for the delay...I think it's one of the most beautiful chess games ever; it was a shock to chess commentators that Ivanchuk-Adams was not chosen as Game of the Tournament later on, but I believe it was another Ivanchuk game that took the prize: his loss to Ponomariov in the first round in a grisly French. |
|
| Feb-13-05 | | Swindler: Taking into account Kasparovs reluctance to accept the Marshall, can it be looked upon as a safe gambit, or does Kasparov never accept gambits as White? |
|
Feb-13-05
 | | samvega: Kasparov may have refused to allow the Marshall just to irritate Short. "I play an hombre move like 7..0-0 and he gives me this quiche" |
|
| Aug-04-05 | | bomb the bishop: Actually many grandmasters consider that accepting the Marshall Attack by playing c3 is an unnecesary risk because it gives too much initiative to black |
|
| Aug-04-05 | | who: <samvega> Kasparov also never played the Marshall as black. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
