Kasparov's remark (disclaimer: I am not a fan) is brilliant:

Quote:

Tricklev wrote on 12/17/11 at 22:29:54:


Very poor form from Naka this, so now he knows everything about chess and why Kasparov lost a match to Kramnik?? Lost all respect for the guy.

TN wrote on 12/20/11 at 05:42:06:


I agree, nice win by Carlsen and all, but my favorite opposite-colored Bishop endgame has to be Ljubojevic-Karpov, Milan 1975.  Anyway in both games you get the impression that Black completely outclasses White!

I met Nakamura once when he was 13 or 14, and even back then my impression was that he was one of the most rude, arrogant, unpleasant, anti-social a-holes I'd ever met.  I'd hoped that he changed as he grew into an adult, but nothing I've heard leads to believe that he has.

JonathanB wrote on 12/18/11 at 22:27:27:


Nakamura's typical modesty is often misunderstood. He is the greatest!

Oh, from the top of my head:

Larsen-Kasparov, Niksic 1983 (actually his endgame wins vs Seirawin and Petrosian from the same event are in his latest book as well)
Kortchnoi-Kasparov, candidates 1983 game 6
Kasparov-Karpov, Seville 1987 game 24 (not much at stake though)
Kasparov-Grischuk, Rethymon 2003

Actually I think this endgame vs tactitian nonsense is all about marketing, you'd think Karpov never sacced a piece or gambitted a pawn.  In the meantime, Kramnik is noted both for endgame play and deep opening prep (he has set a lot of the fashion for the past 15 years).

Must also confess I thought that Kasparov lost the title mainly because of Kramnik's better preparation.  Garry couldn't make a dent with white because of the souped up Berlin Wall (a sideline at the time, hard though it is to believe now) and had his main black defence destroyed at the first attempt then screwed up the Nimzo game.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/19/11 at 00:01:14:


Just happened to read this thread and this was the first of Kasparov's great endgames that came to my mind. Dunno may look simple to GMs, but to me it made a strong impression when I first saw it.

Another candidate is Kasparov-Huebner, 1985 - a famous N ending. Very strong play and understanding by Kasparov. iirc Kasparov hired(?) Huebner for a mini-match in order to practice for the return WCh with Karpov and he was deliberately striving for endgame positions.

Now a Kasparovian endgame? Was mostly impressed by the one Timman includes in his book "Power chess with pieces": Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow 1984 (Rd 9). Unfortunately for Kasparov's fans - Karpov won it! I suppose this is the one JonathanB was referring to..

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/19/11 at 00:01:14:


I am looking, but that can't answer the question of what other people think are Kasparov's great endgames.  Your post here is the first with any kind of list that I've seen (and thanks for it).

before I go on, talking about queen endings, the Kasaparov against the world game from 1999 featured a very interesting queen ending.

The point I'm trying to raise is that while a lot of people have reacted rather strongly to Nakamura's words I'd not seen anywhere anybody saying " ... but this ending is great" or "what about his game with x in yyyy?".  It's all been "Nakamura is full of shite".

In essence I'm asking, given the well-known saying that you referenced earlier, why isn't there a chapter on Kasparov in Marin?

For most other of the great players - and what follows is the case for me at least - there's an endgame or two that springs to mind instantly.  With Fischer you've got that B v N one against Taimanov and the adjournment against Botvinnik for example.  Alekhine if nothing else you've got the 4 v 3 rook ending against Capablanca.  Korchnoi got a whole book out of his rook endings etc etc.  Not so for Kasparov.

None of this is to say that Kasparov is bad at endings necessarily - although I have tracked down another example of somebody saying it wasn't Gazza's strongest suit.  Maybe he just played fewer of them because of his playing style.  After all, he *did* knock a lot of people over in the middlegame.

JonathanB wrote on 12/18/11 at 23:50:31:

Frankly I don't think Nakamura - from what I know about him - was disdainful on purpose. Like somebody else already wrote this doesn't make it any better.
It shows arrogance. When I already can't stand justified arrogance - as often displayed by Kasparov himself - I certainly dislike arrogance coming from somebody who still has to win a lot of games before he can considered to be the equal of the person he is criticizing.