| Dec-09-04 | | Bobak Zahmat: Great endgame with Rook+King vs King 2 Bishops. |
|
| Apr-09-05 | | Dionyseus: Here's a possible winning line for white that me and my Shredder 8 found:
22. Ra1 Bb7 23. Kf2 Ke7 24. h4 f5 25. exf5 Be5 26. Ra7 Bc8 27. g4 Kd8 28. gxh5 Bxc3 29. Ra8 Bg7 30. Ke3 Bh6+ 31. Kd4 Bg7+ 32. Ke3 Bh6+ 33. Ke4 Kd7 34. Kd3 f6 35. b4 c6 36. Ke4 Kc7 37. Ra2 Bb7 38. Rg2 c5+ 39. Kd3 Bc8 40. Kc4 Bxf5 41. Kxc5 Kd7 42. b5 Kc7 43. Rg6 Bxg6 44. hxg6 Bg7 45. b6+ Kd7 46. b7 Kc7 47. b8=Q+ Kxb8 48. Kd5 Bh8 49. h5 Bg7 50. Ke6 Kc7 51. Kf7 Bh6 52. g7 Kb7 53. g8=Q Bc1 54. Kxf6 Be3 55. Qd5+ Ka7 56. Qd7+ Kb6 57. Qe6+ Kc7 58. Qxe3 Kc6 59. h6 Kb5 60. h7 Kc6 61. h8=Q Kb5 62. Qd4 Ka5 63. Qb2 Ka4 64. Qa8# 1-0 |
|
| Apr-24-05 | | acirce: After the game Kasparov said he should have played 23.Ra1 and that it was winning. Kramnik replied that he had analyzed it to a draw at home beforehand. |
|
| Apr-24-05 | | aw1988: Whether it is a win or not is difficult to say. Shredder gives a win, but I'm not so sure. I think Kramnik might just be correct. |
|
| Apr-25-05 | | aw1988: Actually, on a practical level, it might very well be a draw. Kramnik with two bishops is better than a Kasparov with a rook-- it's just a matter of personality. If you for example had Morozevich-- hmm. I don't know, honestly. |
|
| Nov-08-05 | | Hesam7: <acirce: After the game Kasparov said he should have played 23.Ra1 and that it was winning. Kramnik replied that he had analyzed it to a draw at home beforehand.> For the first 21 moves (up to 21... h5 which was a novelty) Kramnik just used 5 minutes on his clock. |
|
| Nov-08-05 | | Hesam7: <aw1988: Whether it is a win or not is difficult to say. Shredder gives a win> very intersting. Here are two comments from Eric Schiller: <Eric Schiller: the reason he lost the match, as I told the Sunday Times, was that he spent too much time prepping with computers and forgot about the human element. He assumed that any position judged favorably by the computer was one he could win> <Eric Schiller: He placed too much faith in the computers giving him an advantage in lines where the advantage could not be exploited, as Kramnik realized.> <acirce> Did Kasparov gave any concrete lines? Or he just said 13. Ra1 would have won? Believe it or not this is one of my favorite games of the match. I like the arising material imbalance in the ending. |
|
| Nov-09-05 | | Hesam7: I gave the position after 22... Ke7 to Fruit. Here is its analysis and it does not look winning for white: 23. Ra1 Bb7 24. Kf2 f5 25. exf5 Be5 26. Ra7 Bc6 27. Ke3 Bg3 28. Ra6 Kd7 29. c4 Bxh4 30. b4 Be7 31. b5 Bb7 32. Ra1 c6 33. Kd3 cxb5 34. cxb5 Kc7 35. Kc4 Kb6 36. Rd1 (eval: +0.62) Depth: 26
13000M nodes
1M nodes/sec |
|
| Sep-11-08 | | Karpova: According to Evgeny Bareev not 23.Ra1 but 24.Ra1 (instead of Kasparov's 24.c4) was thought to be better. It's more dangerous for Black but not losing. He gives 24...Bc8 and 24...f5!? holding the game.
Bareev, Evgeny & Levitov, Ilya: "From London to Elista", Alkmaar, 2007, pages 136-138 |
|
| Apr-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: 41 g5 Kd5 42 gxf6 Be4+ 43 Kg5 Be3+ 44 Kh5 Bxh6 45 Kxh6 Ke6 |
|
| Sep-02-09 | | Hesam7: <Karpova: According to Evgeny Bareev not 23.Ra1 but 24.Ra1 (instead of Kasparov's 24.c4) was thought to be better. It's more dangerous for Black but not losing. He gives 24...Bc8 and 24...f5!? holding the game.> Could you reproduce their analysis showing 24.Ra1 f5 holds the game? I don't see the point of the pawn sacrifice. What happens if White just plays 25.exf5: 
click for larger viewRybka gives the following as the main line:
25. ... Be5 26.Ra7 Bc6 27.g4 hxg4 28.fxg4 Kd7 29.h5 Bxc3 30.Ke2 Bb5+ 31.Kd1 Bd4 32.Ra5 (eval: +1.07 @ depth 23) |
|
| Sep-07-09 | | Karpova: Evgeny Bareev: <Upon 24...f5?! 25.exf5 Be5 the rook is forced to go over to a passive position, and Black will win back one of the pawns very soon: 26.Rc1 (26.Ra7?! Bc8 27.g4 Kd7 28.Ke3 Bxc3) 26...Bf6 27.Kg3 Be5+ (inferior is 27...Bc8 28.Kf4 Bxh4 29.g3 Bf6 30.g4 hxg4 fxg4 Kd6  ).>From page 136. |
|
| Dec-13-10 | | Kinghunt: Anyone know why Kramnik played a Spanish instead of his Berlin in this game? |
|
| Dec-13-10 | | Albertan: < <Kinghunt: Anyone know why Kramnik> <played a Spanish instead of his >
<Berlin in this game?> It was psychological. Kramnik knew that Kasparov was spending huge amounts of time between games looking for some variation against the Berlin, and by playing this variation, he forced Kasparov and his seconds to spend some time preparing something against variation also. |
|
| Jul-24-14 | | AsosLight: No way for white to make progress here. Not even close to "some chances". |
|
Jul-24-14
 | | Sally Simpson: "Not even close to "some chances"
Maybe not for White. But....
click for larger view42. Rh7 Be4+ 43. Kxf6 Kd6
click for larger view44. Rf7 Bd4 Checkmate.
click for larger viewAnother lucky escape for Gary. Surprised Krmanik did not play on. |
|
| Jul-25-14 | | Ulhumbrus: Instead of 7 a4 7 c3 prepares 8 d4.
Even when Kramnik chose an eccentric looking defence to the Ruy Lopez Kasparov did not find a way to win. Kramnik had probably prepared it but in an opening such as the Ruy Lopez closed one can imagine one of the great classical players e.g. Lasker, Capablanca or Fischer finding the right moves over the board. |
|
| Jul-25-14 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<ulhumbrus>
are you paid to write such dishwater? The Moeller and Arkhangel are not the least bit excentric and have had vogue at the highest levels since the 1990s! |
|
Jul-25-14
 | | perfidious: <Simon> Had to render <u>'s ah, contributions invisible--too much 1200-level horsebleep which he insists on parroting at every turn, in the face of stronger players' ideas and praxis. The classic was from Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984, a thread you may remember. |
|
Apr-19-15
 | | MissScarlett: <Arriving for the 11th game, I was tuned up for a 'battle of the Berlin', but after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Kramnik made a wise move - he was the first to deviate, choosing the fashionable variation 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5. Within 15 minutes we reached an endgame somewhat favourable for White with rook and two pawns against two bishops, known from the game Kupreichik-Malaniuk (Munster 1995) and tested by me in a training game with Adams. But Kramnik defended more strongly and set up a fortress. The dismal outcome was another toothless draw with White.> (GKOGK III)
<21...h5!?
Kramnik had probably prepared this novelty, which makes the white expansion on the kingside more difficult. 21...Bc6 22.Kf2 Ke7 23.Ra1 Be5! 24.Ke3 Bd7 25.Rc1 Bxh2!, with drawing chances in Kupreichik-Malaniuk, Muenster 1995)> (Karsten Mueller; Kramnik-Kasparov, London 2000: Match for the World Chess Championship) |
|
Dec-28-16
 | | plang: 9..Na5 is a known positional gambit that gives Black two bishops and active piece play. Kasparov apparently over-estimated his winning chances in the resulting endgame. |
|
| Dec-29-16 | | RookFile: If he did, he wasn't the only one. Playing over this, it seemed to me that Kasparov must have been better. |
|
| Oct-07-21 | | DouglasGomes: <24...f5?! 25.exf5 Be5 the rook is forced to go over to a passive position, and Black will win back one of the pawns very soon: 26.Rc1 (26.Ra7?! Bc8 27.g4 Kd7 28.Ke3 Bxc3) 26...Bf6 27.Kg3 Be5+ (inferior is 27...Bc8 28.Kf4 Bxh4 29.g3 Bf6 30.g4 hxg4 fxg4 Kd6 ).> After 26. Ra7 Bc8 27. g4 Kd7, just 28. Ra8 Bxc3 29. gxh5 and Black will eventually have give ground to the Rook 24. Ra1 Bc8 is not convincing, the game 24.. Be5 is better. |
|
Kibitzing
