|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-16-05 | | shr0pshire: I am a big Judit fan, but she merely got out played in this game. Once her attack fizzled it seems like Kramnik was just far superior in the knight + rook + pawns endgame. :( |
|
| May-16-05 | | ajile: 12...RF6 just looks wrong. Black is not developed enough to try a K-Side attack. Either 12..A5 or 12...N7F6 looks better. |
|
| May-16-05 | | whatthefat: That's an astounding statistic! What is one to conclude? Either her playing style clashes very badly with his, or else it has become a matter of psychology. Certainly a lot of these games were played prior to 2002, from which time Judit's play has really reached another level. A very nice technical game from Kramnik. |
|
| May-16-05 | | Hesam7: From the official site:
<Kramnik-Polgar: Kramnik refuted a groundless attack, both are tired!1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0–0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.Nf3 Bb7 8.e3 d6 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.0–0 Ne4 11.Qc2 f5 12.b4 Rf6 13.d5 Rg6 14.Nd4 Qg5 TN; 14...exd5 15.f3 Qg5 16.Bd3 dxc4 17.Bxc4+ d5 18.Bb5 c6 19.fxe4 cxb5 Matveeva,S 2478 - Maric, A 2433, 2003, Budva SCG 15.g3 exd5 16.cxd5 Bxd5 17.Bc4 Bxc4 18.Qxc4+ Kh8 19.Qc6 Rd8 20.Qxc7 Ne5 21.Ra2?! Rf8 22.f4 Qg4 23.Qe7 Rg8 24.Rg2 Nd3?! 24...Nc4!?
25.Qxa7 h5 26.Qa6 Nxc1 27.Rxc1 h4 28.Qe2 Qxe2 29.Rxe2 hxg3 30.Nxf5 gxh2+ 31.Kh1 Rg1+ 32.Rxg1 hxg1Q+ 33.Kxg1 Ra8 34.Ra2 Nc3 35.Rh2+ Kg8 36.Rg2 Kf7 37.Nxd6+ Ke6 38.Nc4 b5 39.Na5 Kf6 40.Rd2 g5 41.Rd3 Ne4 42.fxg5+ Kxg5 43.Kg2 Rf8 Time: 00:35:29 - 00:42:12
44.Rd5+ Kg4 45.Rd4 Kf5 46.Nc6 Rg8+ 47.Kf1 Ra8 48.Ne7+ Ke5 49.Nc6+ Kf5 50.Ne7+ Ke5 51.Ng6+ Kf5 52.Nh4+ Ke5 53.Nf3+ Kf5 54.Nh4+ Ke5 55.Nf3+ Kf5 56.Rd5+ Kf6 57.Rd3 Rh8 58.Ke2 Ke7 59.Nd4 Rh2+ 60.Kf3 Nd6 61.Rc3 Rh3+ 62.Kg4 1–0> |
|
| May-17-05 | | RookFile: Well, my two cents on this is:
the opening represented some really
unpretentious play by Kramnik. Polgar's attack looked promising, quite strong, really. I think there
may have been a strong continutation
that was overlooked. |
|
| May-17-05 | | Philidor: Too bad her attack didn't pay off. Still, I want to pay her a tribute on her offensiveness. I like her style, and I admire her courage. One must remember that she's the only woman ever to play on the same level, and under the same conditions, as the top male players in the world. She's really something! |
|
| May-17-05 | | halcyonteam: Polgar sis are very offensive in style. Yeah, too bad the attack didn't work out nice. |
|
| May-17-05 | | humanehuman: I think the attack failed because the Bishop needed to be happy and awake on the long diagonnal. Once V.K. got the wedge pawn in the center, and then pinned (and exchanged) the Bishop, he has a superior position, just had to block off the king side attack. Funny, he played that odd piece sack the other day against Adams and got creamed. I think he's been reading this site, and taking note of how many people complain about his style! |
|
| May-17-05 | | ashalpha: Who would have thought of 29.Rxe2 in advance? I didnt. Inviting the discovered attack to set up his own threats showed a deep understanding of the position. |
|
| May-17-05 | | Ulhumbrus: This game suggests one of the ways to answer or refute this type of terrifying attack (for how many times White has lost such games by the emergence of Black's king rook to f6 and then to g6 or h6) : sacrifice a pawn, even if only temporarily. Kramnik offered a pawn on d5 by the move d5. |
|
| May-17-05 | | acirce: <Well, my two cents on this is:
the opening represented some really
unpretentious play by Kramnik. Polgar's attack looked promising, quite strong, really. I think there may have been a strong continutation
that was overlooked.>
I don't agree with any of this. Seems Kramnik had everything under control. 14..Qg5 was technically a novelty, but it's such a natural move that it has to have been considered before. I actually think much of this, maybe even up to the queen exchange, may have been home preparation by Kramnik. |
|
| May-17-05 | | fenno: What if 15. - Re8? Would white dare to open h1-a8 diagonal (16.Nxe6 Rexe6) or go munching pawns with 16. Qa4? |
|
| May-17-05 | | Lipsome: I think 15...Ne5 was more in the spirit of the position. GM Dreev analyzed it but never came to a firm conclusion...maybe worth looking into more |
|
| May-18-05 | | humanehuman: I think the attack would have worked against some GMs. But she threw everything into it, without realizing that when the center opened up the attack would fail and her pawn structure was ruined. Maybe the way to play Kramnik is to build small adavantages, as v.k. is a counter puncher. |
|
May-20-05
 | | chancho: Poor Judit,Kramnick has her number. |
|
May-20-05
| | chancho: Correction, Kramnik |
|
| May-20-05 | | aw1988: OK, this "look at me I got here first" thing has to stop. |
|
| May-21-05 | | Paul123: I don't know why Kramnik doesn't play closed openings more often. I think they suite his style better. |
|
| May-31-05 | | patzer2: Kramnik's positional pin with 17. Bc4!, forces the Bishop exchange, completely defuses Polgar's try for an attack, and leaves White with a strong and likely winning position. |
|
| Oct-21-05 | | KingG: One of the few 1.d4 games that Kramnik has played in recent years other than simuls, blindfold, and Dortmund 2004, in which he seems to have used nothing else. |
|
| Oct-21-05 | | Kean: I love the way Kramnik plays with few pieces. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | freedpig: Analysis by Fritz 8:
15...Ne5 16.Nxe6 Rxe6 17.dxe6 Qg6 18.Qb3 Ng5 19.e4 fxe4 20.Bxg5
² (0.35) Depth: 15/49
I dont believe this line ; Fritz must be wrong !
|
|
| Sep-26-06 | | positionalgenius: This is one of Kramnik's best games.
"Vladimir kramnik beat Judit polgar 20 to 0,with 16 draws"Wow,thats a whitewashing.Judit isn't in Kramnik's class. |
|
| Feb-08-08 | | rodrigochaves: what do you think about 12. g5!? , with the idea of g4-Qh4-Tf6 or Ng5?
i think it is risk but black has a good attack. |
|
Nov-05-08
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: Kasparov called Kramnik's defensive 21. ♖a2 "splendid" and gave it "!!". |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
