Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 06:35:08 01/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 14:30:32, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >>Kasparov played the move Rxd4. He won the game. But it is _not_ clear that >>Rxd4 is winning. If you go back to the beginning of this thread, there were >>moves suggested for black that could well have not lost the game. So, as I >>said originally, Kasparov's opponent may well have blundered and lost, just >>as Kasparov's opponent two days made a mistake and lost quickly. Yes it is >>possible Kasparov could have won both games. But clearly the opponent's (both) >>did not find the best possible moves. And in that light, at least for Rxd4, >>if the suggested rook move really does hold on, then it would seem that Rxd4 >>_was_ a mistake. And if the rook move does better than hold on, as some >>analysis suggested, then Rxd4 _may_ have been a losing move (blunder) and not >>a brilliant move. >> >>I said no more, no less, than the above. Until I see something that convinces >>me that there was no better resistance along the way, I'm always suspicious of >>such deep sacrifices that are not completely forced for 20 moves or so. This >>one certainly wasn't absolutely forced at every move. > >Any other move than Rxd4 leaves Black with a clearly superior position. >So Kasparov must have seen this sac even earlier. I don't care that AT >HOME I found an improvement for Black. Games are lost because of mistakes. > >The whole concept was brilliant, nobody saw Rxd4, nobody would have >played Rxd4, nobody was able to refute Rxd4 that day. Kasparov played it >and created a masterpiece. > >It's useless to discuss topics like 'but there was an improvement for >Black, so Rxd4 is NOT so brilliant at all'. The move is just so stunning, >a bolt from the blue and I stated that nobody besides Gary is capable >of such wonderful tactics. > >I just want to end with a comment made by Vishy Anand (taken from a >Dutch newspaper): "This is the most beautiful combination in all the >history of the Hoogovens tournament". He is absolutely right. > >Jeroen Fully agreed with you and Anand. But how far must Kasparov compute the moves? After 24. Rxd4 cxd4 25. Re7 Kb6 26. Qxd4 Kxa5 27. b4 Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5 white could have played instead of 29. Ra7 29. Qc7 which is a clear draw because black is forced to give perpetual check. So it was enough to compute up to 29. Qc7 and after black's 28. Qxd5 Kasparov could look for getting something more. Though if you have a forced draw at hand you don't take too much risk in sacrificing material. Anyway a great game. Kind regards Bernhard
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.