ErictheRed wrote on 09/01/18 at 14:57:43:

Good thing too that they're in the book! I for one would never have thought of checking the Torre subforum, of all places, for material on the Sämisch King's Indian. Can't recall noticing this thread earlier.

Thanks for posting that game. 
Completely agree EricTR. See the plans in action, in glorious Technicolor. It is deliciously Irving Chernev.

That looks pretty thematic, right there.
Comparable to Petrosian-Camara, Nice olympiad 1974, which ECO used as the reference game for the none-too-impressive-looking 6...Nbd7 and 7...e5.  That one took longer.

kylemeister wrote on 02/06/14 at 18:41:36:


I think that Black's already nearly lost or lost at that point, and I disagree that 24...Rxf5 is a substantial error.  24...Be8 25.Bxg5! improves I think, when Black shouldn't win the d5-pawn unless I've missed something.  White's winning.

Also, it's hard for me to say that 17...Qxd2 is equal.  Black's passive and doesn't have any counterplay, though I agree that White's advantage is small because Black gets the dark-squared bishop into the game in time.  Something like 18.Nxd2 b5 19.Nf2 Rfc8 20.0-0 Bf8 21.Rfc1 Be7 22.b4 must be a little better for White, but certainly well within the "Kasparov isn't going to lose this" margin.  Black is the one that needs to be careful though, not White, for instance 22.b4 axb3 23.axb3 Kf8 24.Kf1 Bd8? 25.Rxa8 Rxa8 26.Bxc5 dxc5 27.Nd3.

kylemeister wrote on 02/06/14 at 16:26:26:


I don't know the Informant notes to which you're referring, and I may be exaggerating a bit about how desperate Black's position was, as Bareev does indicate that Black was probably OK (though White still for choice) without the piece sac.  Some hyperbole on my part perhaps, but I meant later in the game.

Reading between the lines a bit, Bareev seems to indicate that 26...Bb5? should have been the losing mistake.  His annotations were more conversational than anything else, however, and I don't have the book with me.  The feeling I got from his annotations were more that "Black would be okay after 17...Qxd2 because he's Kasparov" more than Black is objectively fully equal.  But I do think that Black can hold without too many problems in that ending because he has time to route his bad bishop outside of the pawn chain, i.e. ...Bg7-f8-e7-d8, etc.  

I didn't mean to suggest that White was winning or anything after 17...Qxd2, but I think the game does demonstrate how desperate Black's position can be in these structures.  If he weren't able to get his king's bishop outside of the pawn chain and advance his pawns to a4 and b5, for instance, I think he's strategically lost.  I meant that this game was instructive because it shows how Black should defend actively if he ends up in this kind of kingside bind.  It's unlikely that Hicetnunc's opponent could have managed getting his pawns off of a5, b6, and c7, which would have meant complete disaster as he could never activate his king's bishop, as Kasparov could.  

I can say that I recently spent many hours analyzing this game (with the aid of an engine), and that I personally think that Bareev underestimated his advantage at times.  FWIW, I think that Black was lost after 23...f5? (my annotation), which Bareev makes no comment on.  My analysis indicates that Kasparov could have held/had full counterplay/unclearness/whatever after 23...Be8!, the point being that 24.Nf2 f5! 25.gxf5 Bxh5+ gets the White h-pawn off of the board and gives Black connected passed pawns and a lot of counterplay.  One very fun line (not at all forced) goes 26.Kd2 Rxf5 27.Nfxe4 Rfxd5!? 28.Nxd5 Rxd5+ 29.Ke1! Re5! 30.Ng3 Rxe3+ 31.Kd2 Rxg3! 32.Rxg3 Be5! and I don't know how to evaluate that position.

In the game, Bareev's 26.Rh1! should have won, depriving Black of connected passed pawns.  Bareev says that his 29.Rd1? was the mistake that let victory slip.  

I don't want to post more of my analysis at this time, sorry.

Interesting idea for a thread although for many of us the normal answer to 'what didn't I understand about this game' is nearly everything

I hadn't fully realised the centre was still flexible when black went a5. I don't want to believe that black was planning a queenside pawn storm that undeveloped but you never know

Perhaps rather kinder to credit him with the plausible enough idea of Ba6 to swap those bishops. White's d5/Bb5+ combination then rather forestalled that plan, at the cost of shutting the center etc.

Many thanks not just to everyone who has chimed in on this game but also to hicetnunc for posting it for comment. I've learned a lot. I'd love to see a weekly "What didn't I understand about this game?" thread. Maybe I'll start the next one...

IMJohnCox wrote on 02/06/14 at 01:04:50:


Thanks for taking the time to share your views : this is really appreciated !

I've gone over this game two more times with friends, and things start to become clearer. As you say, this game is a great learning experience. I won't drop the opening, just wondering about the choice of Nc3 vs. a Nd2/c3 set-up as it opens the door to a wide range of different positions.

I now fully appreciate the big advantage for white after 15.h5 g5, but in our analysis,  15...Bg5+ proved quite resilient, so I now wonder about the value of the h4/g4 approach as a whole. Still ploughing...