|
|
This is a game
I started to analyze right after it was played. (1983.)
(I think everyone in the whole world did as well!!) My initial opinion of most
games normally is very accurate, but as concerns this game ...
I WAS
DEAD WRONG!! (I felt that eventually an adequate defense to this sacrifice
would be found. But TWENTY YEARS of analysis -
much
of it assisted by very powerful chess programs - has completely failed to
find a refutation to this grand game of chess!)
I found some
analysis in one of my old spiral-bound notebooks.
(A lot of it was done shortly after this game was played. I also continued to
look at this game sporadically throughout the late 80's and 90's. I don't
claim
this to be the definitive analysis of this game. If it is any good, it is mostly
because of the extreme excellence of the annotators who preceded me.)
Many of you
have written me to ask my opinion of this game.
(I have had close to 50 e-mails, {more or less - I have not kept an exact
account}; in
the last 5 years, all asking me to analyze this game, and post my analysis.)
I have tried
to do my own work here, much of this analysis is completely new, and it was
generated by me.
(Where I did quote a line from another source, this is clearly
indicated!!) I have not gone to extreme lengths here. My analysis of this
game, with only a small number of diagrams, now runs more than 25 pages.
I am sure I will not publish all of that here ... it is simply too lengthy.
(Too
much work!)
(In the final analysis, I WENT FOR A
GREATLY SHORTENED
VERSION!!)
This game was
left out of a few books, like GM A. Soltis's book: "The
100 Best."
(This is regrettable, as I greatly value his opinion. He placed a high emphasis on
originality.)
But this game has appeared in so many books and magazines over the years, that
there is certainly no lack of reference material as concerns this game. It has
been featured and annotated an almost countless number of times. (In both books and magazines.)
Many have stated that this game - maybe even including the sack on Black's KN2 - was worked out in advance. So what? Does this make this game any less brilliant? I don't think so. (Click here to see another game - with heavy sacrifices - that much of it may have been worked out in advance.) Masters have been preparing lines for literally hundreds of years. Why this alone should be a qualifier {alone} for brilliance seems a little superficial to me.
For an explanation of the symbols that I use, please click here.
This is mostly a text-based page, with only one diagram. Therefore, you will probably need a chess board. (Re-play this game here.)
***
(The ratings would be at least 50 points higher today ... this would balance out nearly 20 years of inflation.)
*****************************************************************************************************
One of the most brilliant games of chess ever played ... it almost certainly belongs in: "THE 100 BEST" of all time!!
Many GM's have told me they were
very shocked and surprised by the sacrifice that Garry plays here.
(Some GM's have told me this is one of the most complicated and brilliant sacrifices ever played.)
Some have suggested that this line was worked out in advance. I don't know if anyone has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt, and it really does not matter anyway.
(This is my extremely short version of this game.)
***********************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************
The game starts off as a relatively
routine QP opening.
1.d4 Nf6; 2.c4 e6; 3.Nf3, {Diagram?}
This was probably played to
avoid a Nimzo-Indian.
(move-order)
[ More usual is: 3.Nc3, "+/=" ]
3...b6;
Black uses the Queen's Indian
Defense. This was fashioned
into a respectable opening by
A. Nimzovich and was all the
rage in Master-level chess for
at least a decade back in the
period, from the late 70's into
the early 90's.
[ By playing 3...d5;
{Diagram?}
Black transposes back into
a Queen's Gambit. ]
4.Nc3!?,
This was a little unusual, but
nothing out of the ordinary. (good development)
[ At that time, the main line
was considered to be:
4.g3,
{Diagram?}
which was patented by the
great Rubinstein, and played
at the master-level for 50-75
years.
[See any good opening book.] ]
Now play transposes into the
Petrosian System. Both sides
continue
to develop in pretty
much a standard way.
4...Bb7; 5.a3 d5!?;
Black fights for the center
in this particular line.
[ 5...Be7!? ]
6.cxd5 Nxd5!?;
7.e3 Nxc3!?; 8.bxc3 Be7; 9.Bb5+!,
This forces things, and is
probably superior to the
older line of Bd3.
[ 9.Bd3!? ]
9...c6;
This is probably positionally
forced.
[ The move: 9...Nd7!?;
{Diagram?}
places the steed on a less active
square than the game. ]
Both sides continue to develop
from this position.
10.Bd3 c5; 11.0-0 Nc6; 12.Bb2!? Rc8; 13.Qe2 0-0;
14.Rad1, {Diagram?}
While this is the main line -
and considered to be a virtual
obligation at the master level,
this (obviously) is not the only
(reasonable) move for White in this particular position.
[ 14.e4!?, "+/=" or 14.Rfd1!?, "+/=" ]
14...Qc7!?;
Portisch had played this many times
before ... and had done very well with this line.
[ Black could play the modern
main line - by transposition -
with the continuation of:
14...cxd4;
15.cxd4 Bf6; 16.e4 Na5; "<=>" {Diagram?}
Black is thought to have good
play in this line ... see any
good
opening book on the Q.I.D.
[ See also MCO-14; page # 558,
column # 1, & also mainly note (c.). ]
]
15.c4!!
(TN) {Diagram?}
This is a tremendous new move and one of unbelievable
importance. It could be one of
the most important theoretical novelties of the whole of the
twentieth century.
(It completely overturns some GM analysis and nearly 20 years of master-level praxis.)
White has to be careful, in some lines his whole center could be decimated.
Most annotators only give this one exclamation mark. Because of the complexity, depth, and importance of this new move, I award it two.
[ The older line was: 15.e4,
"+/=" {Diagram?}
but Portisch had a very good
record from this position. ]
15...cxd4!?;
This opens the game ... in
hindsight perhaps Black should
try to keep the game closed.
(Black has decided to play against
White's 'weakened' center ... many GM's who were present when
this
game was played thought that
Black stood better here!)
[ 15...Bd6!? ]
16.exd4 Na5; 17.d5!,
Garry - almost stereotypically -
plays the most aggressive move. And he cares little if he loses a
pawn. (Or two!)
This move clearly gives White a very powerful initiative.
[ Possibly Portisch expected Garry
to play the move:
17.Ne5!?,
"+/= {Diagram?} with a slight advantage.
]
17...exd5;
This is probably best.
(After the game, Garry said that if Black had captured on c4, he had worked out a line all the way to mate!!!)
[ A line that was simply too risky
for the second player was:
</= 17...Nxc4?!;
18.Qe4! g6; 19.Bxc4! Qxc4; 20.Qe5! f6[];
21.Qxe6+ Rf7;
22.Rc1, "+/=" {Diagram?}
and White clearly has an
advantage here. (Maybe - '±')
]
18.cxd5 Bxd5;
Black has won a pawn, but
White has a simple method
of regaining it.
[ Black should not play: 18...Bd6?!; ('?')
19.Qe4, "+/=" {Diag?}
White has a strong attack. ]
19.Bxh7+ Kxh7; 20.Rxd5 Kg8;
{See the diagram just below.}
The King retreat was nearly
forced.
Now some GM's thought Black was better, mainly because in the ending the second player will have a distant, passed-pawn on the Queen-side.
*******
|
|
*******
[ 20...Nc4!? ]
Now comes one of the most shocking moves ... ever played in Master chess.
21.Bxg7!!
(Probably - '!!!' ...
Maybe even - !!!!')
{Diagram?}
White logically continues the
process of tearing away the
pawn cover in front of the Black
King.
The players present could almost be heard to gasp ... in unison, nearly as one person!
GM A. Soltis calls this move astonishing and totally unexpected. (As does GM John Emms.)
[ Possibly Portisch expected: 21.Ne5!? "+/=" ]
21...Kxg7;
Black has no choice but to accept.
(If he did not, White's attack would
continue unabated; and the first player would not even be penalized
materially for his idea.)
[ 21...Rfe8?;
22.Ne5!, "/\" {Diagram?}
White probably has a winning
attack from this position. ]
22.Ne5!,
(Maybe - '!!')
Amazingly, White does not
hurry here.
"An astounding quiet move ... for a man who has just sacrificed a piece," wrote one columnist.
(Most of my students want to play Nd4, with the idea of Nf5+.)
[ 22.Ng5; or 22.Re1; or 22.Nd4 ]
22...Rfd8;
(Maybe - '!')
This is forced or best.
(The main idea is that Black
gets the f8-square as a flight route for his King.)
[ All of Black's other moves lose here ... and some do so extremely quickly:
Variation # B22-A.)
22...f5;
23.Rd7 Qc5; 24.Nd3, "+/-" {Diagram?}
White regains a piece ...
with a virulent attack.
***
Variation # B22-B.)
22...Rh8!?;
23.Qg4+ Kf8; {Diagram?}
This is forced.
(23...Kh6??; 24.Nxf7+ Kh7; 25.Rh5#)
24.Qf5 f6; 25.Re1,
{Diagram?}
with a {probably} winning
attack ("+/-") from this position.
(25.Re1, if 25...Nc6!?; then 26.Nd7+
Kf7; 27.Rxe7+! {D?}
and White wins.)
***
Variation # B22-C.)
22...Qc2?!;
23.Qg4+! Kh7; 24.Rd3, "+/-" {Diagram?}
and Black has to give up the
Queen in order to prevent
a checkmate. (On the edge
of the board.)
***
Variation # B22-D.)
22...Rcd8!?;
23.Nd7!, '±' (Maybe "+/-") {Diagram?}
and White probably has an
overwhelming attack here. ]
23.Qg4+ Kf8; 24.Qf5!,
This is much better than any
immediate attempt to try and
regain the material.
[ 24.Nd7+!? ]
24...f6;
{Box?}
This is probably best.
[ </= 24...Bd6!?; 25.Qf6!!, "--->" - GM G. Kasparov. ]
25.Nd7+,
(Maybe - '!')
This is also clearly the best.
[ 25.Ng6+!? Kf7!; "~" ]
25...Rxd7; 26.Rxd7 Qc5;
27.Qh7, {Diagram?}
I like this, but Garry was to
later claim that Qh3 is better.
(I am not so sure. Computer
analysis does not show a clear win for White.)
[ Possibly: 27.Qh3!? ]
Many annotators give Black's
next move an exclam.
27...Rc7!; 28.Qh8+!
This is the best and is given
an exclam by Kasparov himself.
[ An insidious trap was: 28.Rd3!? Qxf2+!!;
29.Kxf2, {D?}
White has no choice here.
(29.Rxf2?? Rc1+; 30.Rd1 Rxd1+; 31.Rf1 Bc5+;
32.Kh1 Rxf1#.)
29...Bc5+; 30.Kg3 Rxh7;
"/+" {Diagram?}
and Black has the advantage. ]
28...Kf7;
29.Rd3 Nc4!?;
Logically, for Black to have a
chance at defending, this Knight must be brought back into the game.
[ 29...Qc2?; 30.Qh5+!, ("+/-") ]
30.Rfd1!,
The doubling of the Rooks
looks pointless ... at least
upon a superficial inspection.
---> But it is decisive. (Exchanging here kills the attack.)
[ 30.Qh7+!? ]
30...Ne5!?;
Probably - '?!' (Maybe - '?')
This is not the best defense.
But analysis has proven that Black was lost in any case. (So it probably did not matter what move Black played.)
[ Much better was:
>/= 30...Bd6!; 31.Rd5!? Qc6[];
32.h4!,
"~" {Diagram?}
when White's h-pawn may
just sail down the board.
(GM J. Nunn later improved with 31.Rh3!±, maybe "+/-".)
***
A bad line is: </= 30...a5?; 31.Qh7+ Ke8?!;
{Diagram?}
Ugly ... but played to demonstrate
White's main threat.
( Better was: >/= 31...Ke6; but White plays 32.Qg8+,
("+/-")
and mates in less than 10
moves from this position. )
32.Qg8+ Bf8; 33.Qe6+, "+/-"
{Diagram?}
with Rd8# mate next move. ]
White now finishes off in a
quick and ruthlessly efficient
manner.
31.Qh7+ Ke6; 32.Qg8+ Kf5; 33.g4+! Kf4; 34.Rd4+ Kf3; 35.Qb3+, Black resigns.
(After ...Qc3; Qd5+,
and mates
very shortly.)
One of Kasparov's very best games.
*****
(The following excerpts come from the long version of this game.)
One of the greatest and most spectacular games played in the 20th century. It is also certainly one of the most brilliant games ever played. It is certainly one of the more shocking and stunning King attacks of all time. And other than Black's flawed 30th move, it is almost perfectly played by BOTH parties!
A game for the ages. As long as chess is played, it will certainly be remembered as one of the greatest brilliancies of all time.
This game won the brilliancy prize for this event, I believe. It was also picked as the best game with a nearly perfect score by a distinguished panel of judges for that issue of the Informant. It was also picked as the game of the year by dozens of chess magazines. (Most notably '64.') It was listed in the Mammoth Book for the 100 greatest chess games ever played.
(See the bibliography.)
*****
This game was played at an international tournament in Niksic, Yugoslavia. It was dedicated to the 60th birthday of the great veteran player, GM Svetozar Gligoric. Kasparov - really just an unproven talent, (at that time); - dominated this event, winning with 11 points. (TWO full points ahead of the next player!) Bent Larsen was in second, (9); and Portisch and Spassky finished tied for 3-4 places. (8 points.)
***
1 - 0
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003 & 2004.
*******
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I consulted dozens and dozens of books and
magazines over the years while I studied this great game, but my main sources to
annotate this game (here) were the following books:
#1.)
'Chess Brilliancy, ' 250 historic games; by NM
Iakov Damsky.
Published by EVERYMAN
Chess, formerly Cadogan Books. Translated by K. Neat.
(Copyright 2002.) Game # 78, page # 105.
#
2.) [The Mammoth Book Of]
"The World's Greatest Chess Games," by Dr. (&
GM) John Nunn, GM John Emms, and FM Graham Burgess.
Published by
Carroll & Graf books. Copyrighted by the authors, 1998. (Game # 76, page #
422.)
#
3.) "Chess Highlights of The 20th Century," ('The
Best Chess 1900-1999 In Historical Context') by
FM Graham Burgess. (The year 1983.)
Published by Gambit
Books, Copyright G. Burgess, © 1999.
#
4.) Several different books by the one and only Garry Kasparov. Mainly "The
Test Of Time," by GM Garry Kasparov.
Published by Pergamon
Press. Copyright (c) the author, 1986. (Translated by K.
Neat.) {See also "Fighting
Chess" by Kasparov.}
# 5.) Several issues of the INFORMANT. Mainly 1983. (Published in Yugoslavia.)
***
(Code Initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
There is no site map, but you can click here.
Click here to go to - or return to - my page of: ANNOTATED GAMES, (Angel-Fire 2) Page #2.
Click here to go to my (main) "Recent GM Games" page.
Click here to go to, (or return to) my "Best Games Page" on my {formerly} Geo-cities web site.
(Or use the "back" button on your web browser.)
(To contact me concerning this analysis, click here.)
This page was last updated on 06/09/13 .
Copyright (©) LM A.J. Goldsby, 2013.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 20
13. All rights reserved.|
|
