Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 05:39:25 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 08:15:57, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 20:54:11, Ronnie Cole wrote: > >>HOW COULD A ELO 2847 blunder two games in a row like that?? >> >>there is a lot of suspense surrounding the match now >>at first it was thought he would crush junior now no one knows, VERY EXCITING. >>KASPAROV IS SMART > >Maybe you should read and use your common sense before making such unfounded >accusations: > >[snipped from chessbase] > >At the time we thought Kasparov was trying to play for a win. After the game he >said he thought the rook move was the easiest way to force a draw. After the >apparently forced 32...Qxd4 33.Rxh7+ Kxh7 34.Qxf5+ is a perpetual check draw. >Unfortunately for humanity, in the diagram 32...Nxd4!! is a winner. > >This seems impossible because of 33.Ng6+ Kg8 34.Ne7+ and it looks like black has >to take a repetition. But 34...Kf8! and now if 35.Rxh7 Nb3+!! ouch, it's mate! >This is what Kasparov missed with 10 minutes on his clock. 36.Kc2 (36.axb3 Qd1#) >36...Na1+ 37.Kc3 Qd2+ 38.Kc4 b5+ 39.Kc5 Qd6#) > >Kasparov tried to bail out with 35.Nd5 but resigned after 35...Qg7 36.Qxd4 Rxd5 >0-1. > >[snip over] > >Being rated 2847 does not guarantee that you don't overlook these tactics >especially with only 10 min and 8 moves to go... > >Game 2 was not a blunder: > >[snipped from chessbase] > >The second game started ten minutes late, with Garry Kasparov entering the room >with a forceful stride. After shaking hands with Shay Bushinsky, who was >operating the computer today, Kasparov played the aggressive Sicilian Defence >which went down unorthodox lines. Slowly he built up a good position, securing >(and then to everybody's surprise abandoning) a commanding square for his knight >(d4). But he clearly had the upper hand. Just when it became clear he was >winning the champion was lured into giving a long check with his queen. It >looked like a very normal move that could do no harm, but as it turned out the >computer had a dramatic defence. Kasparov saw the entire line immediately after >he had played the move. He sat there shaking his head in disbelief, while the >computer found the drawing line and sacrificed its queen to achieve it. > >During his stage interview after the match Kasparov said he had seen the move >25...f4 thought that it was winning, but he decided that the queen check on a1 >did not change anything. "It was a human move," he said. "You see a check like >that and you simply play it. But I immediately realised that I had let it off >the hook." Later on Kasparov and his seconds discovered that the move 25...f4 >was not so clear after all and that White could probably draw after 26.h3. > >[snip over] > >I suggest you read all 3 articles and use your common sense... > >http://www.chessbase.com > >Game 2 report: >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=762 > >Game 3 report: >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=766 > >Jonas I suggest: Dont take everything serious what MIG or others write on chessbase.com! This is advertising and not always the truth. Qa1+ was a blunder for 2800+. Nb3+ is a simple tactic for Kasparov. 10 minutes for 8 moves is no time trouble. of course Kasparov didnt lost on purpose. there exist surley better ways to lose on purpose :) Michael
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.