Can anyone proffer an opinion as to why Kamsky lost this game? I think, black has a real problem with the pin on the f6 knight, he doesn't want his pawn structure wrecked around his king and it appears to me that this hampers his development because he cannot move the d7 knight and get the queens bishop out, his problem piece and he suffers, because the position opens and white is simply better developed and thus the position favors him.
I don't know what sort of answer you expect here Robbie, but the fact is that Kramnik simply outplayed Kamsky in this game. If you want to find out where Kamsky went wrong, plug the game into an engine. To me the game seemed to turn when Kramnik played 16. f4, with the intention of saccing his e3 pawn. It's not something I would have considered even if I had a month to analyse the position.
It may seem a silly thing to say about someone who beat the best player ever in a world championship match and who has been one of the top ten players in the world for over ten years in an era where there are more outrageously strong players than ever before, but I don't think Kramnik ever quite fulfilled his potential. At his best he could make other top players look like inept monkeys, especially if the queens got swapped off early, but he seemed to lose interest once he became World Champion and he never quite made it to the mythical status that Morphy, Alekhine, Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov have. He was just the guy who beat Kasparov when the big K was past it.
Originally posted by Fat Ladyyes, this is good, if you look what transpires after 16.f4 some strange things start to happen, but eventually Kramnik gets absolute control of the center by move 22, Kamsky has three pieces on the back rank and can hardly move! its astonishing. It seems to me that Kamsky is induced somehow to bring all of Kramniks pieces into the game and by the end Kramnik has a dominating position. Its interesting what you say, it happens to lots of chess players, once they reach what they perceive to be the pinnacle of their achievement, they simply lose hunger.
I don't know what sort of answer you expect here Robbie, but the fact is that Kramnik simply outplayed Kamsky in this game. If you want to find out where Kamsky went wrong, plug the game into an engine. To me the game seemed to turn when Kramnik played 16. f4, with the intention of saccing his e3 pawn. It's not something I would have considered even if I ha ...[text shortened]... her, Karpov and Kasparov have. He was just the guy who beat Kasparov when the big K was past it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe f6 knight is more important than just getting doubled pawns. Immediately following the pin black insures he maintains that knight by moving ...Nbd7 and then removing the pin before he castles.
Can anyone proffer an opinion as to why Kamsky lost this game? I think, black has a real problem with the pin on the f6 knight, he doesn't want his pawn structure wrecked around his king and it appears to me that this hampers his development because he cannot move the d7 knight and get the queens bishop out, his problem piece and he suffers, because ...[text shortened]... 44.Kxg3 Nf6 45.b4 Kd5 46.Rh6 Ne4+ 47.Kg2 h4 48.Kf3 Nd2+ 49.Kg4 Ne4 50.b5 Nf2+ 51.Kf5 1-0[/pgn]
Notice the placement of whites bishop and queen putting pressure on the light squared diagonals? White combines this with tension on the f6 knight and later he is able to sacrifice the e3 pawn in order to put pressure on the d7 knight with a battery of rooks on the d file. The game pivots around white trying to undermine the most useful defender black has for his king. White is able to combine ideas in a barage while black is stuck. This leads me to believe his error is the innocent looking ...exd4. And ...e5 was probably I'll advised combined with ...dxc4
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20004
To add my two cents, I must first say that I don't see why white would be bad after 16. f4.
Let's look at a rather quite position a little further, after black's move 22. Materially, white has a rook for a knight and two pawns. Pure counting makes it more or less even, but it depends on the position. Here, I see black's undeveloped rook and actually an undeveloped knight as well, whereas white's pieces are all good. Even white's king is better placed, it's more centralised and not in immediate danger.
I would say white is better here, but he has to make play before black coordinates and improves his pieces and gets his pawns running.
Question 1) Am i right, or am i wrong? If so, please tell me how?
To conclude, I don't understand white's next move from here: 23. Rd8. He wants to swap his own active rook for a passive one? I would prefer to move up the kingside pawns, e.g. g4 to chase away the bishop, followed by g5 to attack the knight. He needs to break open black's pawn wall and use his better pieces to get to the king, before black can unfold his own plan.
That white went for another plan, may already prove that I'm misjudging this position.
Question 2) But can anyone explain why?
Originally posted by tvochessyes white has total domination in the center after about move 22, after Kramnik swaps rook, look at how dominant his remaining rook becomes (I suspect that here is an endgame principle which might come into play although i cannot say what it is) however the consequence is that Kramniks remaining rook is really active whereas the knight on the back rank is immobilized for some time. Moving flank pawns in an open center is not a good plan I think, it doesn't benefit the attacker for he can accomplish very little on the flanks with his pawns, nor the defender for he simply creates further weakness.
To add my two cents, I must first say that I don't see why white would be bad after 16. f4.
Let's look at a rather quite position a little further, after black's move 22. Materially, white has a rook for a knight and two pawns. Pure counting makes it more or less even, but it depends on the position. Here, I see black's undeveloped rook and actually an ...[text shortened]... may already prove that I'm misjudging this position.
Question 2) But can anyone explain why?
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20004
I must add that I misinterpreted Fat Lady's comment. I thought she meant that 16.f4 is a bad move. Misinterpretation because I thought black had won the game. Because I confused the names Kamsky and Kramnik.
Sorry for the confusion.
I'd still like to know why Rd8 is good. Is it just trading pieces to improve the power of the remaining pieces?
Originally posted by tvochessyes i think it must be, i read somewhere that its good if you have two rooks to swap your opponents renaming single rook, but i have no idea under what circumstances it might be advantageous
I must add that I misinterpreted Fat Lady's comment. I thought she meant that 16.f4 is a bad move. Misinterpretation because I thought black had won the game. Because I confused the names Kamsky and Kramnik.
Sorry for the confusion.
I'd still like to know why Rd8 is good. Is it just trading pieces to improve the power of the remaining pieces?
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSactually the idea of . . .dxc and . . .e5 is considered the correct plan for this structure, there are others, but they are much slower and give white ample opportunity. ...dxc is played to avoid an isolated queen pawn and ...e5 is necessary to free the queens bishop. I simply think that Kramnik anticipated the plan much better and Kamsky somehow did not make the correct preparations for it or mistimed it somehow. All his exchanges bring more white pieces to the center.
The f6 knight is more important than just getting doubled pawns. Immediately following the pin black insures he maintains that knight by moving ...Nbd7 and then removing the pin before he castles.
Notice the placement of whites bishop and queen putting pressure on the light squared diagonals? White combines this with tension on the f6 knight and lat ...[text shortened]... error is the innocent looking ...exd4. And ...e5 was probably I'll advised combined with ...dxc4
Originally posted by moon1969yes f5, looks like a multipurpose move, restricts both the knight and the bishop and tempo's the rook on d3, i was interested in why Kamsky sacrificed the exchange, but looking at the rook of d3, where can it go really e8, hardly?
I was kind of curious about 19.f5
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHmm maybe I was looking too far... chess is give and take so I guess black gains more than he loses but failed later. I think he should have advanced his b pawn at some point as well but I still believe ...exd was wrong... the whole plan starting with that move was wrong.
actually the idea of . . .dxc and . . .e5 is considered the correct plan for this structure, there are others, but they are much slower and give white ample opportunity. ...dxc is played to avoid an isolated queen pawn and ...e5 is necessary to free the queens bishop. I simply think that Kramnik anticipated the plan much better and Kamsky somehow d ...[text shortened]... rations for it or mistimed it somehow. All his exchanges bring more white pieces to the center.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not about the rook but once again about that f6 knight but this time the wrecked pawns are more important than light square troubles as white has a rook that can go to the g file and the queen can easily maneuver in to execute the king.
yes f5, looks like a multipurpose move, restricts both the knight and the bishop and tempo's the rook on d3, i was interested in why Kamsky sacrificed the exchange, but looking at the rook of d3, where can it go really e8, hardly?
Edit: to clarify f5 opens the way for the rook to move to the g file and is better to be played first because ...rg3 is met by bh4 which is unavailable if white exchanges on f6 first.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSactually i think you are correct MISTER CHESS, instinctively opening the center with your king still in the middle is just wrong, i dont care if you are Gata Kamsky, its just a bad idea, it would have been better for him to keep the tension until it was advantageous for him to open the center.
Hmm maybe I was looking too far... chess is give and take so I guess black gains more than he loses but failed later. I think he should have advanced his b pawn at some point as well but I still believe ...exd was wrong... the whole plan starting with that move was wrong.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSyes i saw that, its rather obvious, but it still does all the things i said it did, the rook has nowhere to go, thats why Kamsky sacked it. What an incredibly interesting game.
It's not about the rook but once again about that f6 knight but this time the wrecked pawns are more important than light square troubles as white has a rook that can go to the g file and the queen can easily maneuver in to execute the king.
Edit: to clarify f5 opens the way for the rook to move to the g file and is better to be played first because ...rg3 is met by bh4 which is unavailable if white exchanges on f6 first.