|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 50 OF 50 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-23-11 | | acirce: Kasparov was 2804 and Topalov 2757 at the time of this game. I <think> the games between Kasparov and Kramnik in the 2001 Botvinnik Memorial (like Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2001) should be those with the highest combined rating -- 2838 and 2809 respectively. |
|
Dec-23-11
 | | Domdaniel: <acirce> Tack. That just about pips Carlsen vs the current 2800 crop, I think. Though it's manifestly just a matter of time before two players reach the 2830-2840 zone at once. Within a year, maybe. |
|
| Jul-14-12 | | master of defence: I don´t understand two things about this game. First, what happens after 19...dxc3? Second, what happens after 20...Qf2 21.Kh1 Qxb2? |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | GilesFarnaby: <master of defence: I don´t understand two things about this game. First, what happens after 19...dxc3? Second, what happens after 20...Qf2 21.Kh1 Qxb2?> Rb1, Rxb7+, and the black K will be cut in the 8th rank. Qg4 will maybe appear as well. |
|
| Nov-05-13 | | Cemoblanca: <plogdin> I can't see any winning plan for Black after 20...Qf2+, for example: 21.Kh1 Nc6 (21...Rf6 22.Qb3 Kc8 23.Qb5 Nc6 24.Nxc6 Qf3+ 25.Kg1 Qf2+ 26.Kh1 Qf3+) 22.Qb3 Nxd4 23.Qxb7+ Ke8 24.cxd4 Qf3+ 25.Kg1 Qf2+ 26.Kh1 Qf3+, etc. |
|
Aug-05-15
 | | whiteshark: "It is really surprising that Kasparov took the risk of entering such a complicated pawn ending, when there were several continuations available to him in which he could prove sufficient compensation for his pawn minus. To be fair to Kasparov though, we should be aware of the <special psychological situation> surrounding this game. Before the tournament Kasparov had already decided to declare his retirement from professional chess after this game and he was therefore under <tremendous pressure>, all the more so as a draw in this game would have secured <a convincing tournament victory>. As he himself said in subsequent interviews, he wanted to escape from the unbearable pressure as quickly as possible and so he took the decision to enter the pawn ending. Like Kasparov himself, we are certain that under other circumstances Garry would never have made this mistake." - Müller/Pajeken 'How to play chess endgames' |
|
| Mar-06-17 | | iking: <whiteshark: "It is really surprising that Kasparov took the risk of entering such a complicated pawn ending, when there were several continuations available to him in which he could prove sufficient compensation for his pawn minus.> .. it is because Kasporov loved complicated pawn endings, and happily, Topalov loved it too. |
|
Jul-10-17
 | | Cooleyhigh: I feel Kasparov in coming back from his retirement from Chess will defeat Topalov this time in a rematch. |
|
| Jul-10-17 | | amateur05: Stockfish evaluates the position after 24. cd4 as lost for black: +1.7 at a depth of 37. |
|
| Sep-20-17 | | ZackyMuhammad: 50 pages? Wow! |
|
Jan-02-18
 | | Clement Fraud: I'm a huge fan of VA Topalov, and this game should be classed as one of his greatest. Having just sifted my way through a whole fifty pages of Kibitzing analysis, however, I am left feeling perplexed: Far from this being Topalov's finest hour, it has got to be one of Kasparov's worst performances ever. In fifty Kibitz pages there is ZERO computer analysis that offers any justification for 7.Nh4 (a move that should've cost Topalov material and the game). |
|
Jan-02-18
 | | Retireborn: <Clement> My engine (Houdini 1.5a x64) finds 7.Nh4!? to be quite a reasonable move. Presumably you're referring to the possibility of 7...Nxe4 8.dxe4 Bxh4, but then 9.f4! (planning 10.f5) seems to give White adequate compensation. If 9...exf4 10.Bxf4 White is already better and threating pawn d6;if 10...Be7 11.Nd5! On the other hand if 9...0-0 10.f5! and with moves like Qg4, Bh6, Nd5 to come White has reasonable attacking chances for the pawn. |
|
| Jan-02-18 | | ChessHigherCat: This game isn't particularly awe inspiring but for me, Topalov, Kasparov and Anand are the all time greats and I would to see an "old-timers" rematch. They would at least be sure to make a fortune on it. Who cares if it doesn't really "prove" anything. |
|
Jan-03-18
| | Clement Fraud: <Retireborn> Many thanks for your analysis: I truly hunted through fifty pages and found only the "surface scrating" stuff. Well done to Topalov, and to Houdini. |
|
Jan-03-18
| | Retireborn: <Clement> I'd be interested to know if the game made Informator and if there is analysis of 7...Nxe4 there. My Informator data only goes up to 2004. |
|
| Jan-03-18 | | Howard: It did make the Informant, but I don't think there was much opening analysis for it. But, 50 pages of commentary ?!? That's truly unbelievable! |
|
Jan-03-18
 | | WorstPlayerEver: It always make me smile when I hear of a 'complicated pawn ending.' |
|
| Jan-05-18 | | Howard: Just checked Informant 93 (the last volume of the Kasparov era), and it gave some brief analysis to the alternative move 7...Ne4. |
|
Jan-07-18
| | Clement Fraud: < Topalov vs Kasparov, 2005 > <euripides: 15...e5 16 Nxd4 is interesting.> <SCUBA diver: How about 15. e5 for black.> The white Rook on f4 is exposed (following 15.Nf3); so why indeed did black not try 15... e5 (??) |
|
| Jan-07-18 | | ChessHigherCat: : <Clement Fraud> and <SCUBA>
15...e5 is very dangerous because there are forks all over the place with the 2 knights if white sacs the exchange: 15....e5 16. Nxd4 exf4 17. Qg4+ Ke8 (Kc7?? 18. Ne6!) 18. Ne6 Qd7 19. Nb5 Rc8 (Qxb5?? 20. Nc7!) 20. Nxg7+ Kd8 21. Ne6+ Ke8 22. Nxa7 Ra8 23. Nb5 (again, the Q can't take b5) Rg8 24. 24. Nbc7+ (or Qh5+ Ng6 25. Nbc7+ Ke7 26. Qxh7+ Kf6 27. Nd5+ Kxe6 28. Qh3+ Kf7 29. Qxd7+ Kf8 30. Rf1) Kf7 25. Qh5+ Rg6 26. Qxh7+ Rg7 27. Qxg7# That's all without an engine so I would appreciate any corrections |
|
Jan-07-18
| | Clement Fraud: <ChessHigherCat> A very good evening to you, and thankyou for your analysis. If play had continued 15... e5 16.Nxd4, I was thinking that black would respond with 16... cxd4 - where white is left with two pieces en prise (his Knight on c3 + Rook on f4). In this line black's King is still exposed, but it does appear (from my own amateurish point of view) that black can consolidate his extra material; of course, this is far from certain?! |
|
| Jan-08-18 | | ChessHigherCat: <Clement Fraud: If play had continued 15... e5 16.Nxd4, I was thinking that black would respond with 16... cxd4 - where white is left with two pieces en prise (his Knight on c3 + Rook on f4).> I see, that's interesting. I just woke up "temporarily" since it's only 5am here but what about this?: 15. Nf3 e5 16. Nxd4 cxd4 17. Qg4+ Ke8 18. Nb5 exf4 19. Nxd6+ Kf8 20. Qe6 I think QxN is forced but it may be a continuation of my dream :-) |
|
Jan-08-18
| | Clement Fraud: <ChessHigherCat>
<15. Nf3 e5 16. Nxd4 cxd4 17. Qg4+ Ke8 18. Nb5 exf4 19. Nxd6+ Kf8 20. Qe6>
<I think QxN is forced but it may be a continuation of my dream :-)> QxN is indeed forced in this variation (instead of 19... Kf8). Following 19... Qxd6 black is a Rook and minor piece up on white (unless I'm missing something?), and I still have the impression that black can consolidate. Veselin Topalov demonstrated some inventive and clever ideas in this game - like 7.Nh4 to free up his KBP; but overall it can't have been his finest hour. |
|
| Jan-08-18 | | ChessHigherCat: <Clement Fraud> Sorry, I was half asleep, your line with cxd4 is much better than what I had anticipated,so maybe 15...e5 really would have worked, it's just hard to believe that both Kasparov and Topalov would have missed it in a slow game. |
|
Jan-08-18
| | Clement Fraud: <ChessHigherPower> <so maybe 15...e5 really would have worked, it's just hard to believe that both Kasparov and Topalov would have missed it in a slow game.> Those are my thoughts entirely. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 50 OF 50 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
