| |
Main
Date: 21 Oct 2004 20:16:46
From: Max Murray
Subject: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
[email protected]
Kramnik-Leko
World Chess Championship, 2004, Game 14.
Caro-Kann Defense
Kramnik must win to tie the match and retain his World Champion title.
1 e4 �
As is well known and generally accepted, the king's pawn opening gives
White the best practical chance of winning (because it typically leads
to more active positions for White). Kramnik needs an opening that
gives him such active chances, and this is the best first move for
achieving that goal.
1 � c6
Poor Leko will be criticized forever for choosing the Caro-Kann for a
whole boatload of reasons. Two of the more important reasons: (1) Leko
doesn't habitually play the Caro-Kann, so despite whatever book
knowledge he has on the Caro-Kann � and we can be sure he was booked
up to the eyeballs for this game � he lacks actual experience for the
types of positions that arise. (2) Leko unvailed the Caro-Kann when he
surprised Kramnik with it for Game 3 on September 28 (a 34-move draw).
This final game was played on October 18. That means Kramnik and his
crack seconds had about three weeks to prepare a line against the CK.
2 d4 �
Establishing the classic central pawn duo. Kramnik has no reason to
stray from this classical approach and try an offbeat line like 2 c4,
or 2 Nc3, as he might have contemplated trying against a true
Caro-Kann player (to steer the game away from standard Caro-Kann
positions). See criticism of Leko number (1) above.
2 � d5
Black must challenge the classic center immediately. Everything else
is known to be bad. Leko hopes the ultra-solid positions that
typically arise from the CK will compliment his genius for making
draws.
3 e5 �
The advance variation has a reputation for avoiding draws.
Essentially, the advance locks the central pawn chain so that fewer
pieces are in danger of being exchanged, and therefore Kramnik will
have more pieces on the board during the middle-game to work with and
to create active chances for himself with. Almost certainly, Kramnik
was keeping the Advance Variation in the front of his mind for exactly
this match situation. See criticism of Leko number (2) above.
3 � Bf5
All us woodshifters know, just like all the proverbial Russian
schoolboys know, that the Caro-Kann allows Black to play a solid
French Defense setup [1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5] without locking in the
dark-squared bishop. The whole point is to deploy the dark-squared
bishop outside the pawn chain, and that is exactly what Leko does with
the text move.
4 h4 �
4 Nf3 or 4 Nc3 are more commonly seen. The text is not a patzer move,
despite appearances to the contrary. It is based on a peculiar
necessity of the Advance Variation: that the pawn structure e4-d5
virtually compels White to attack on the kingside (in the direction
those two pawns "point"). That is a drawback to the Advance Variation:
White declared an intention to attack on the kingside before he has
sufficient justification, so Black has a chance to arrange his
defensive setup. The text move grabs more space on the kingside to
facilitate that attack.
4 � h6?!
This is Leko's first mistake, albeit a tiny-weeny one. The creeping
text move opens an escape hatch for the dark-squared bishop, for whom
Black has structured his whole opening to painstakingly deploy outside
the pawn chain. But it doesn't deal with the problem of space on the
Kingside. Even more, if Black can get in h4-h5, the White kingside
pawns will become bound and weak. 4 � h5 is better because it
addresses all these issues (and not incidentally because it also stops
White's next move�)
(I'll probably get arguments about 4 � h6 versus 4 � h5. Let me just
say this: apart from my comments above, and apart from my own
experience as a regular Caro-Kann player telling me intuitively to
push the h-pawn two squares in this position, I wonder if Leko got
mixed up with the Main Line [1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 dxe4 Nxd4 4 Bf5 Ng3 Bg6
5 h4] where the one-square push 5 � h6 is now correct and good. See
Leko criticism number (1) above. And, before anyone thinks that h-pawn
affairs aren't really that important in the Caro-Kann, be advised that
Kasparov lost his match with Deep Blue because he moved that lowly
pawn at the wrong moment during the opening.)
5 g4 �
Move five, and still Kramnik has moved only pawns! The policy is
sound, as I intimated earlier, because he needs kingside space for the
attack. Besides, the text move doesn't lose time because it "biffs"
the bishop, as the Australian chess writer Cecil Purdy likes to call
it.
5 � Bd7
5 � Bh7 is playable, but not advisable: On the h7-square the bishop
will become a target for White's advancing kingside pawns. 5 � Be4 6
f3 Bh7 has the same drawbacks, without accomplishing anything
significant. So Leko withdraws the bishop. What was once a Caro-Kann
bishop now becomes a French Defense bishop!?
6 Nd2(N) �
Black's forth move was offbeat. This sixth move is new to master
praxis. That is to say, Never Before Played. The most celebrated game
from the immediately previous position is Tal-Pachman, Bled, 1961. In
that game, Tal played the thematic 6 h5 and won in 41 moves. Kramnik's
move is less thematic; yet that is its strength (said with
Nimzowitschian-like logic). The novelty develops solidly, and so can
not be bad, and gets Leko entirely out of any book knowledge right in
the first moves of the opening. Now Leko, who doesn't play the
Caro-Kann, must make good opening moves entirely on his own wits.
(Playing such innocuous but solid moves against computers early in the
opening is also good, for the same reasons.)
6 � c5
Probably best, at least from the practical standpoint. 6 � Qb6 trying
to hinder the development of White's dark-squared bishop by menacing
the b2-pawn and attacking the undefended e4-pawn is nothing. White can
defend with 7 c3, which he was bound to anyway in this type of
position, and then continue developing with an eventual Nd2-Nb3, etc.
6 � Qc8 has been suggested by some, but that just looks and feels
artificial. White can respond 7 Be2, or even 7 f3, and is just fine.
The text-move is a time-honored method for attaining counterplay
against Cara-Kann and French Defense advanced pawn centers.
7 dxc5 �
The reflex is to defend the pawn with 7 Nb3 or 7 c3. The text move has
stragetic advantages over that reflex: the semi-open c-file will make
the queenside unsafe for Black king to castle. And he can't go
kingside either, because that's where White's attack is building.
7 �. e6
7 � Qc7 is playable. Probably, Leko did not want his queen cavorting
after pawns with his kingside pieces sitting at home. For example: 8
f4 Qxc5 9 Bg2 e6 10 Nb3 Qb6 11 Ne2, and Black's development lags
significantly. The text move obviously seeks to recover the pawn with
the f8-bishop.
8 Nb3 �
Kramnik could have used the time Black needs to expend recovering the
pawn to develop with 8 Ngf3. That is reasonable and good on principle.
But the text move is better than 8 Ngf3 for a specific reason, as we
shall see, and moves that are good for specific reasons are usually
better than moves that are good on general principle only�
8 � Bxc5
Playing into White's "point", which is attainment of the two bishops.
8 � Qc7 might be a slightly better choice than the text move, although
Black still gets his two bishops. For example: 8 � Qc7 9 f4 Bxc5 10
Nxc5 Qxc5, etc.
9 Nxc5 Qxa5+
10 c3 �
Black needs to play this anyway. 10 Bd2?! Qxc5 and then the threat 11
� Qd4, attacking the e5-pawn and the b2-pawn forces c2-c3.
10 � Qxc5
11 Nf3 �
White has a significant spacial advantage on the kingside, the two
bishops, and a grand d4-square for the knight (or bishop as it turns
out!). Black is clearly worse. 11 Be3 is playable, but it drives the
Black Queen to a good square (Qc5-Qc7) where she eyes the potentially
over-extended e5-pawn (the e3-bishop also blocks defense of the
e5-pawn down the e-file.) Kramnik prefers to wait before deploying his
dark-squared bishop.
11 � Ne7
More flexible than 11 � Qc7, which tips Black's hand. White then
responds 12 Bd3 Ne7 [or 12 � Nc6] 13 Qe2, and the e5-pawn is safe.
12 Bd3 �
Again, Kramnik prefers waiting to deploying the dark-squared bishop.
12 � Nbc6
The point of all Kramnik's waiting: Black had to develop the king's
knight, and by doing so deprived the Black queen access to the good
c7-square. Leko could have played 12 � Qc7, but he has another square
planned for her majesty�
13 Be3 Qa5
The threat is 14 � d4 and then 15 Bxd4 Nxd4 16 Nxd4 Qxe5+, or 15 Nxd4
Nxe5 16 Be4 Nd5, establishes at least equality for Black. Kramnik
blocks that threat with the following expedient�
14 Qd2 �
14 Qe2 was the alternative. It may have been better. The text move
allows Black to try and free himself�
14 � Ng6?!
�But this is not the freeing move. Leko needed to play 14 � d4. The
central idea is 15 cxd4 Nb4 [threat NxB] 16 0-0 Qd5 [threat QxN]17 Be2
Bb5, with active play for Black. Leko reportedly rejected 14 � d4 as
"unclear," which is certainly true. After all, the game is for the
World Championship, so why risk an unclear position with its
lottery-like outcome (Leko's thinking?).
15 Bd4 �
Perhaps Leko failed to fully appreciate this move. 15 Bxg6 fxg6
doubles Black's pawns, but generates active chances for him down the
f-file after 0-0. Is that where Leko expected to get his activity?
15 � Nxd4
16 cxd4 Qxd2+
17 Kxd2 �
The dust settles from the piece exchanges, and White is only slightly
better for the endgame because of his space advantage on the kingside.
Leko must have thought his position more defendable than it actually
turns out to be. Such differences in evaluation are the essense of
chess played between Grandmasters that can see pretty much everything
equally well. But what is most rekable about this game is not that
Kramnik proceeded to win, but that Kramnik made it look easy to win
against one of the best defenders in the world!
17 � Nf4
Black must avoid NOT the doubling of his g-pawns after Bxg6. He must
avoid the exchange of minor pieces leaving him with a bad bishop
against knight. For example: 17 � Rc8 18 Rac1 Bc6 19 Bxg6 fxg6 20 Rc3
0-0 21 Ke3, and Black's bishop is bad: 21 Ke3 Rf7 22 Nd2 Rcf8 23 f3
Rf4 doesn't help Black change the bad bishop dynamic, despite
appearances that Black is making progress.
18 Rac1 �
White now has a lead in development.
18 � h5
Again, 18 � Nxd3 19 Kxd3 Bb5+ 20 Ke3 Kd7 appears to be making progress
for Black but doesn't address White's underlying advantages in this
endgame position: namely, White's kingside space advantage and play
against a bad bishop. So Leko seeks to redress the space advantage
issue with the text move. Ironically, Leko seeks to accomplish this by
putting the h-pawn on the exact h5-square he should have played his
h-pawn to on move four.
19 Rhg1 �
A standard maneuver to open a file advantageously for the rook after
gxh5. Why then did Leko invite this obvious manuever upon himself by
playing 18 � h5? Obviously, Leko understands that opening lines are
bad for the side behind in development. He must have felt that White's
kingside space advantage (as defined by the advanced pawns) was the
worse of the two evils. He probably also wanted to develop his h8-rook
down the h-file, since connecting the rooks more conventionally with
0-0 or 0-0-0 is not feasible. His rook on the h-file at least
partially offsets the White rook on the g-file.
19 � Bc6
White threatened decisive penetration with his rook: 20 gxh5 Nxd3 Kxd3
Bb5+ 22 Ke3 Kf8 23 Rc7.
20 gxh5 Nxh5
21 b4 �
"Kramnik plays the position with the energy it requires to exploit his
lead in development and the awkward black pieces. Leko never
recovers." � Chessbase.com
21 � a6
To stop White expanding further with b4-b5. The alternative, 21 � Kd8
22 b5 Be8, allows the pawn push but limits the queenside weakening of
a7-a6. Still, the text move is better because White can induce the
a7-a6 weakening anyway. For example: 23 Rc3 Rc8 24 Ra3 Ra8 25 b6 a6,
etc.
22 a4 Kd8
22 � Bxa4 23 Rc7 is too scary for Black to contemplate. He has to lose
time moving his king to cover the c7-square.
23 Ng5 �
Threating the fork: 24 Nxf7+.
23 � Be8
Leko is like a battered heavyweight boxer backpeddling desperately.
24 b5 �
The threat is 25 b6. Black has no defense to this threat. 24 � axb5 25
Bxb5 Rf8 appears plausible for Black at first, but then simply 26 Rc2
(or 26 Rc3) threating to double rooks on the c-file is decisive. Black
can't afford to tie a whole rook down to defense of the f7-pawn.
24 � Nf4
Leko wants to play 25 � Nxd3 26 Kxd3 axb5 27 axb5 Bxb5+ except that
it's one move too late for that. So the best he can do is uncover the
rook attack against White's h-pawn.
25 b6 Nxd3
25 � Rc8 26 Rxc8+ Kxc8 27 Rc1+ Bc6 28 Rxc6+! Bxc6 29 Bxa6+ and 30 Nxf7
gives White a winning exchange-sacrifice. So, Leko must exchange off
White's light-squared bishop first, before trying to close the c-file
(incidentally leaving himself with that bad bishop against a good
knight).
26 Kxd3 Rc8
Under no circumstances must White be allowed to plunk down a rook on
the c7-square.
27 Rxc8+ Kxc8
28 Rc1+ Bc6
Black has no choice but to abandon the defense of the f7-pawn and
block the rook from the c7-square.
29 Nxf7 Rxh4
30 Nd6+ �
An "octupus" knight, as they like to say. Leko is stone cold, dead
lost here, although the winning procedure for White is not yet
entirely clear.
30 �. Kd8
31 Rg1 �
Better than trying to finesse the position with 31 f3. For example: 31
� g5 32 Rg1 Rh5 33 a5 Kd7 Ke3, and progress for White will be slower
than the text move.
31 � Rh3+
31 � Rh7 would ultimately bring Black close to helpless zugswang. Here
is a long variation, not necessarily with the absolute best moves, to
illustrate what I mean: 32 a5 Kd7 33 f3 Kd8 34 Rg6 Kd7 35 Ke3 Ke7 36
Kf4 Kd7 37 Kg5 Ke7 38 f4 Kd7 39 f5 exf5 40 Nxf5, etc. Unplayable is 31
� Bxa4 because 32 Nxb7+ Kc8 30 Rxg7, and Black's position quickly
disintegrates.
32 Ke2 Ra3
33 Rxg7 Rxa4
34 f4!! �
The woodshifter move 34 Nxb7+ gives Black good drawing chances. For
example: 34 � Bxb7 35 Rxb7 Rxd4 36 Ra7 Kc8 37 b7+ Kb8 38 Rxa6 Re4+ 39
Kd3 Rxe5=
The woodshifters watching the game on the Internet (I was one of them)
irrupted into a frenzy of admiration and awe when after they saw
Kramnik's text move appear on their monitors, and its brilliance began
to sink in with them.
The exquisite point is that Black is PLAYING FOR MATE.
34 � Ra2+
Kramnik has given us an endgame for the anthologies. Surely,
comparisons will be made to Capablanca-Tartakower, New York, 1924,
when Capablanca maneuvered his rook to the seventh rank, his king to
the sixth, and delivered the denouement despite having lost pawn after
pawn in the meantime.
34 � Rxd4 35 f5 exf5 36 e6 [threating 37 e7+ Kd7 38 e8(Q)+ Kxd6 39
Qe7#] Re4+ 37 Nxe4 fxe4 38 Rc7, and Black can't stop one of White's
two remaining pawns from queening.
35 Kf3 Ra3+
35 � Ra1, threatening a series of checks, is more stubborn. Perhaps
Leko should have opted for this course to get to the control and gain
more time to figure if he can find another Houdini-like escape, as he
did in an earlier match game.
36 Kg4 �
Black can not stop f4-f5.
36 � Rd3
37 f5 Rxd4
37 � exf5+ 38 Kxf5 Rxd4 39 e6, and it's mate in seven [!]
38 Kg5 exf5
39 Kf6 �
39 Kxf5 also wins.
39 � Rg4
40 Rc7 Rh4
41 Nf7+
It's mate in two: 41 � Ke8 42 Rc8+ Kd7 43 Rd8#.
1-0
Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
[email protected]
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2004 22:44:47
From: Mark S. Hathaway
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
Max Murray wrote:
> Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
> [email protected]
>
> Kramnik-Leko
> World Chess Championship, 2004, Game 14.
>
> Caro-Kann Defense
>
> Kramnik must win to tie the match and retain his World Champion title.
>
> 1 e4 �
>
> As is well known and generally accepted, the king's pawn opening gives
> White the best practical chance of winning (because it typically leads
> to more active positions for White). Kramnik needs an opening that
> gives him such active chances, and this is the best first move for
> achieving that goal.
Kramnik is desperate.
> 1 � c6
>
> Poor Leko will be criticized forever for choosing the Caro-Kann for a
> whole boatload of reasons. Two of the more important reasons: (1) Leko
> doesn't habitually play the Caro-Kann, so despite whatever book
> knowledge he has on the Caro-Kann � and we can be sure he was booked
> up to the eyeballs for this game � he lacks actual experience for the
> types of positions that arise. (2) Leko unvailed the Caro-Kann when he
> surprised Kramnik with it for Game 3 on September 28 (a 34-move draw).
> This final game was played on October 18. That means Kramnik and his
> crack seconds had about three weeks to prepare a line against the CK.
Leko should've played what he knew best.
> 2 d4 �
>
> Establishing the classic central pawn duo. Kramnik has no reason to
> stray from this classical approach and try an offbeat line like 2 c4,
> or 2 Nc3, as he might have contemplated trying against a true
> Caro-Kann player (to steer the game away from standard Caro-Kann
> positions). See criticism of Leko number (1) above.
>
> 2 � d5
>
> Black must challenge the classic center immediately. Everything else
> is known to be bad. Leko hopes the ultra-solid positions that
> typically arise from the CK will compliment his genius for making
> draws.
2...g6 might be o.k., but in general I agree that 2...d5 is best.
> 3 e5 �
>
> The advance variation has a reputation for avoiding draws.
> Essentially, the advance locks the central pawn chain so that fewer
> pieces are in danger of being exchanged, and therefore Kramnik will
> have more pieces on the board during the middle-game to work with and
> to create active chances for himself with. Almost certainly, Kramnik
> was keeping the Advance Variation in the front of his mind for exactly
> this match situation. See criticism of Leko number (2) above.
>
> 3 � Bf5
>
> All us woodshifters know, just like all the proverbial Russian
> schoolboys know, that the Caro-Kann allows Black to play a solid
> French Defense setup [1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5] without locking in the
> dark-squared bishop. The whole point is to deploy the dark-squared
> bishop outside the pawn chain, and that is exactly what Leko does with
> the text move.
>
> 4 h4 �
>
> 4 Nf3 or 4 Nc3 are more commonly seen. The text is not a patzer move,
> despite appearances to the contrary. It is based on a peculiar
> necessity of the Advance Variation: that the pawn structure e4-d5
> virtually compels White to attack on the kingside (in the direction
> those two pawns "point"). That is a drawback to the Advance Variation:
> White declared an intention to attack on the kingside before he has
> sufficient justification, so Black has a chance to arrange his
> defensive setup. The text move grabs more space on the kingside to
> facilitate that attack.
4. h4 is goofy, but just within the realm of sensible.
> 4 � h6?!
>
> This is Leko's first mistake, albeit a tiny-weeny one. The creeping
> text move opens an escape hatch for the dark-squared bishop, for whom
> Black has structured his whole opening to painstakingly deploy outside
> the pawn chain. But it doesn't deal with the problem of space on the
> Kingside. Even more, if Black can get in h4-h5, the White kingside
> pawns will become bound and weak. 4 � h5 is better because it
> addresses all these issues (and not incidentally because it also stops
> White's next move�)
>
> (I'll probably get arguments about 4 � h6 versus 4 � h5. Let me just
> say this: apart from my comments above, and apart from my own
> experience as a regular Caro-Kann player telling me intuitively to
> push the h-pawn two squares in this position, I wonder if Leko got
> mixed up with the Main Line [1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 dxe4 Nxd4 4 Bf5 Ng3 Bg6
> 5 h4] where the one-square push 5 � h6 is now correct and good. See
> Leko criticism number (1) above. And, before anyone thinks that h-pawn
> affairs aren't really that important in the Caro-Kann, be advised that
> Kasparov lost his match with Deep Blue because he moved that lowly
> pawn at the wrong moment during the opening.)
There's always disagreement about ...h6 and ...h5 unless there's
a real tactical necessity for one of them.
In any event, if he doesn't have time for ...e6 then he should
consider ways to develop while being ready to meet g2-g4 with
...Bf5-d7, a la Botvinnik. That way White's king-side pawn advances
don't hurt much.
For example, ...Na6, ...Qb6, ...O-O prepare ...f6 and any kind of
king-side play Black might want to use.
As for the straight-forward defense, ...h5 leaves g5 weak, but
means Black gets to keep Bf5 on the king-side so there's time
for ...e6. After his game move he doesn't get to keep B on the
king-side without e5-e6 hitting him, but he's also weakened his
king-side a tiny bit - unnecessarily as it turns out.
> 5 g4 �
>
> Move five, and still Kramnik has moved only pawns! The policy is
> sound, as I intimated earlier, because he needs kingside space for the
> attack. Besides, the text move doesn't lose time because it "biffs"
> the bishop, as the Australian chess writer Cecil Purdy likes to call
> it.
>
> 5 � Bd7
>
> 5 � Bh7 is playable, but not advisable: On the h7-square the bishop
> will become a target for White's advancing kingside pawns. 5 � Be4 6
> f3 Bh7 has the same drawbacks, without accomplishing anything
> significant. So Leko withdraws the bishop. What was once a Caro-Kann
> bishop now becomes a French Defense bishop!?
>
> 6 Nd2(N) �
>
> Black's forth move was offbeat. This sixth move is new to master
> praxis. That is to say, Never Before Played. The most celebrated game
> from the immediately previous position is Tal-Pachman, Bled, 1961. In
> that game, Tal played the thematic 6 h5 and won in 41 moves. Kramnik's
> move is less thematic; yet that is its strength (said with
> Nimzowitschian-like logic). The novelty develops solidly, and so can
> not be bad, and gets Leko entirely out of any book knowledge right in
> the first moves of the opening. Now Leko, who doesn't play the
> Caro-Kann, must make good opening moves entirely on his own wits.
> (Playing such innocuous but solid moves against computers early in the
> opening is also good, for the same reasons.)
6. h5 makes sense, to prevent ...h5 from disrupting f2-f4-f5.
6. Nd2 makes sense to ensure his center stays in place.
> 6 � c5
>
> Probably best, at least from the practical standpoint. 6 � Qb6 trying
> to hinder the development of White's dark-squared bishop by menacing
> the b2-pawn and attacking the undefended e4-pawn is nothing. White can
> defend with 7 c3, which he was bound to anyway in this type of
> position, and then continue developing with an eventual Nd2-Nb3, etc.
> 6 � Qc8 has been suggested by some, but that just looks and feels
> artificial. White can respond 7 Be2, or even 7 f3, and is just fine.
> The text-move is a time-honored method for attaining counterplay
> against Cara-Kann and French Defense advanced pawn centers.
6...e6 to prepare ...c5 also makes sense. 7. Nb3 Qc7 8. Be3 b6 and
...c5 is pretty much unstoppable.
> 7 dxc5 �
>
> The reflex is to defend the pawn with 7 Nb3 or 7 c3. The text move has
> stragetic advantages over that reflex: the semi-open c-file will make
> the queenside unsafe for Black king to castle. And he can't go
> kingside either, because that's where White's attack is building.
Not playing dxc5 allows ...c4 and I'm sure Kramnik wanted
the position to stay relatively open. Besides, grabbing the
pawn suits his needs. If Black botches the regaining of the
pawn then White might win. I know it's not real likely, but
it has been known to happen, even to a good GM.
> 7 �. e6
>
> 7 � Qc7 is playable. Probably, Leko did not want his queen cavorting
> after pawns with his kingside pieces sitting at home. For example: 8
> f4 Qxc5 9 Bg2 e6 10 Nb3 Qb6 11 Ne2, and Black's development lags
> significantly. The text move obviously seeks to recover the pawn with
> the f8-bishop.
>
> 8 Nb3 �
>
> Kramnik could have used the time Black needs to expend recovering the
> pawn to develop with 8 Ngf3. That is reasonable and good on principle.
> But the text move is better than 8 Ngf3 for a specific reason, as we
> shall see, and moves that are good for specific reasons are usually
> better than moves that are good on general principle only�
>
> 8 � Bxc5
>
> Playing into White's "point", which is attainment of the two bishops.
> 8 � Qc7 might be a slightly better choice than the text move, although
> Black still gets his two bishops. For example: 8 � Qc7 9 f4 Bxc5 10
> Nxc5 Qxc5, etc.
If gaining the 2 Bs is terribly significant then ...c5 was premature.
The outcome might indicate Black's play was flawed, but maybe not.
> 9 Nxc5 Qxa5+
> 10 c3 �
>
> Black needs to play this anyway. 10 Bd2?! Qxc5 and then the threat 11
> � Qd4, attacking the e5-pawn and the b2-pawn forces c2-c3.
>
> 10 � Qxc5
Now White doesn't have a perfectly safe king if Black can't
bring his pieces to bear. that's Black's comp. for giving up
the 2 Bs. I think someone like Karpov, Bareev, Short or
Radjabov would be feeling pretty good with Black.
> 11 Nf3 �
>
> White has a significant spacial advantage on the kingside, the two
> bishops, and a grand d4-square for the knight (or bishop as it turns
> out!). Black is clearly worse. 11 Be3 is playable, but it drives the
> Black Queen to a good square (Qc5-Qc7) where she eyes the potentially
> over-extended e5-pawn (the e3-bishop also blocks defense of the
> e5-pawn down the e-file.) Kramnik prefers to wait before deploying his
> dark-squared bishop.
>
> 11 � Ne7
>
> More flexible than 11 � Qc7, which tips Black's hand. White then
> responds 12 Bd3 Ne7 [or 12 � Nc6] 13 Qe2, and the e5-pawn is safe.
"More flexible"? Where else would Ng8 have developed? No, I think
he's actually remaining more flexible with ...Ne7 because he
develops a piece to a known square and doesn't show where he
wants his other pieces.
> 12 Bd3 �
>
> Again, Kramnik prefers waiting to deploying the dark-squared bishop.
>
> 12 � Nbc6
>
> The point of all Kramnik's waiting: Black had to develop the king's
> knight, and by doing so deprived the Black queen access to the good
> c7-square. Leko could have played 12 � Qc7, but he has another square
> planned for her majesty�
A big question at this point is whether ...Bb5, ...Nec6, ...Nb8-d7
is a better way to develop. Does Black feel o.k. about trading-off
Bd7?
After the game move Black can't use Ne7 effectively!
> 13 Be3 Qa5
>
> The threat is 14 � d4 and then 15 Bxd4 Nxd4 16 Nxd4 Qxe5+, or 15 Nxd4
> Nxe5 16 Be4 Nd5, establishes at least equality for Black. Kramnik
> blocks that threat with the following expedient�
>
> 14 Qd2 �
>
> 14 Qe2 was the alternative. It may have been better. The text move
> allows Black to try and free himself�
Typical prophylaxis; it avoids having to play Bc2 or somesuch.
> 14 � Ng6?!
>
> �But this is not the freeing move. Leko needed to play 14 � d4. The
> central idea is 15 cxd4 Nb4 [threat NxB] 16 0-0 Qd5 [threat QxN]17 Be2
> Bb5, with active play for Black. Leko reportedly rejected 14 � d4 as
> "unclear," which is certainly true. After all, the game is for the
> World Championship, so why risk an unclear position with its
> lottery-like outcome (Leko's thinking?).
Geez, I'm having trouble remembering who is White and who is Black.
White plays "solidly", but needs to win and Black avoids complications,
but then tries to win how? It's confusing.
Where's Bobby Fischer's "search for the truth of a position" when
we need it most? Oh, right, in a Japanese jail. Sorry.
> 15 Bd4 �
>
> Perhaps Leko failed to fully appreciate this move. 15 Bxg6 fxg6
> doubles Black's pawns, but generates active chances for him down the
> f-file after 0-0. Is that where Leko expected to get his activity?
>
> 15 � Nxd4
> 16 cxd4 Qxd2+
> 17 Kxd2 �
>
> The dust settles from the piece exchanges, and White is only slightly
> better for the endgame because of his space advantage on the kingside.
> Leko must have thought his position more defendable than it actually
> turns out to be. Such differences in evaluation are the essense of
> chess played between Grandmasters that can see pretty much everything
> equally well. But what is most rekable about this game is not that
> Kramnik proceeded to win, but that Kramnik made it look easy to win
> against one of the best defenders in the world!
Leko must've felt pretty good about his chances here.
> 17 � Nf4
>
> Black must avoid NOT the doubling of his g-pawns after Bxg6. He must
> avoid the exchange of minor pieces leaving him with a bad bishop
> against knight. For example: 17 � Rc8 18 Rac1 Bc6 19 Bxg6 fxg6 20 Rc3
> 0-0 21 Ke3, and Black's bishop is bad: 21 Ke3 Rf7 22 Nd2 Rcf8 23 f3
> Rf4 doesn't help Black change the bad bishop dynamic, despite
> appearances that Black is making progress.
Doesn't the knight belong at c6: ...Ng6-e7-c6?
I can't imagine anyone being able to beat Leko after 17...Ne7.
> 18 Rac1 �
>
> White now has a lead in development.
>
> 18 � h5
>
> Again, 18 � Nxd3 19 Kxd3 Bb5+ 20 Ke3 Kd7 appears to be making progress
> for Black but doesn't address White's underlying advantages in this
> endgame position: namely, White's kingside space advantage and play
> against a bad bishop. So Leko seeks to redress the space advantage
> issue with the text move. Ironically, Leko seeks to accomplish this by
> putting the h-pawn on the exact h5-square he should have played his
> h-pawn to on move four.
Look, if he plays ...Nf4 he's got to take Nxd3. What else is Nf4
doing? How many times has Leko, and other GMs, trade off all the
pieces to get a draw? It's rather obvious. I'd guess Leko kinda
freaked-out over being so close to victory.
> 19 Rhg1 �
>
> A standard maneuver to open a file advantageously for the rook after
> gxh5. Why then did Leko invite this obvious manuever upon himself by
> playing 18 � h5? Obviously, Leko understands that opening lines are
> bad for the side behind in development. He must have felt that White's
> kingside space advantage (as defined by the advanced pawns) was the
> worse of the two evils. He probably also wanted to develop his h8-rook
> down the h-file, since connecting the rooks more conventionally with
> 0-0 or 0-0-0 is not feasible. His rook on the h-file at least
> partially offsets the White rook on the g-file.
Weakening g5 and making pawn f7 a real target is stupid.
> 19 � Bc6
>
> White threatened decisive penetration with his rook: 20 gxh5 Nxd3 Kxd3
> Bb5+ 22 Ke3 Kf8 23 Rc7.
>
> 20 gxh5 Nxh5
Black is completely passive, but even here he should be able
to hold a draw. Leko is good with simple positions.
> 21 b4 �
>
> "Kramnik plays the position with the energy it requires to exploit his
> lead in development and the awkward black pieces. Leko never
> recovers." � Chessbase.com
>
> 21 � a6
>
> To stop White expanding further with b4-b5. The alternative, 21 � Kd8
> 22 b5 Be8, allows the pawn push but limits the queenside weakening of
> a7-a6. Still, the text move is better because White can induce the
> a7-a6 weakening anyway. For example: 23 Rc3 Rc8 24 Ra3 Ra8 25 b6 a6,
> etc.
>
> 22 a4 Kd8
>
> 22 � Bxa4 23 Rc7 is too scary for Black to contemplate. He has to lose
> time moving his king to cover the c7-square.
I wonder if a computer would play that "scary" variation, take the
pawn and grind out a win.
> 23 Ng5 �
>
> Threating the fork: 24 Nxf7+.
>
> 23 � Be8
>
> Leko is like a battered heavyweight boxer backpeddling desperately.
This kind of attitude can be brought on by one's own mental attitude.
Maybe this game is the best example of why Leko isn't champion material
(at least right now).
> 24 b5 �
>
> The threat is 25 b6. Black has no defense to this threat. 24 � axb5 25
> Bxb5 Rf8 appears plausible for Black at first, but then simply 26 Rc2
> (or 26 Rc3) threating to double rooks on the c-file is decisive. Black
> can't afford to tie a whole rook down to defense of the f7-pawn.
Black is completely tied down and Nh5 can't participate
anywhere except at h5. +/-, maybe even +-
> 24 � Nf4
>
> Leko wants to play 25 � Nxd3 26 Kxd3 axb5 27 axb5 Bxb5+ except that
> it's one move too late for that. So the best he can do is uncover the
> rook attack against White's h-pawn.
>
> 25 b6 Nxd3
This is an interesting trade-off for White.
> 25 � Rc8 26 Rxc8+ Kxc8 27 Rc1+ Bc6 28 Rxc6+! Bxc6 29 Bxa6+ and 30 Nxf7
> gives White a winning exchange-sacrifice. So, Leko must exchange off
> White's light-squared bishop first, before trying to close the c-file
> (incidentally leaving himself with that bad bishop against a good
> knight).
>
> 26 Kxd3 Rc8
>
> Under no circumstances must White be allowed to plunk down a rook on
> the c7-square.
>
> 27 Rxc8+ Kxc8
> 28 Rc1+ Bc6
>
> Black has no choice but to abandon the defense of the f7-pawn and
> block the rook from the c7-square.
After 28...Kb8? 29. Rc7 Rxh4 30. Nxf7 and Nf7-d6 looms large.
and 28...Kb8? 29. Rc7 Rf8 30. a5 Bb5+ 31. Ke3 Be8 32. h5 zugzwang +-
> 29 Nxf7 Rxh4
> 30 Nd6+ �
>
> An "octupus" knight, as they like to say. Leko is stone cold, dead
> lost here, although the winning procedure for White is not yet
> entirely clear.
>
> 30 �. Kd8
> 31 Rg1 �
>
> Better than trying to finesse the position with 31 f3. For example: 31
> � g5 32 Rg1 Rh5 33 a5 Kd7 Ke3, and progress for White will be slower
> than the text move.
>
> 31 � Rh3+
>
> 31 � Rh7 would ultimately bring Black close to helpless zugswang. Here
> is a long variation, not necessarily with the absolute best moves, to
> illustrate what I mean: 32 a5 Kd7 33 f3 Kd8 34 Rg6 Kd7 35 Ke3 Ke7 36
> Kf4 Kd7 37 Kg5 Ke7 38 f4 Kd7 39 f5 exf5 40 Nxf5, etc. Unplayable is 31
> � Bxa4 because 32 Nxb7+ Kc8 30 Rxg7, and Black's position quickly
> disintegrates.
>
> 32 Ke2 Ra3
> 33 Rxg7 Rxa4
Wow, what a position. White has two threats: xb7, b6-b8=Q
and Ke2-e6, Rg8 mating. If Black can prevent the king
maneuver then Nxb7 has to be tried. If Black can xb6 then
the mate won't obviously work.
> 34 f4!! �
>
> The woodshifter move 34 Nxb7+ gives Black good drawing chances. For
> example: 34 � Bxb7 35 Rxb7 Rxd4 36 Ra7 Kc8 37 b7+ Kb8 38 Rxa6 Re4+ 39
> Kd3 Rxe5=
Maybe that's an appropriate variation. Of course, Kramnik
HAD to try something extraordinary to win.
It's said that a person has to play something the opponent
didn't see, to beat a good player. I don't necessarily
believe that, but in this game it appears to be the case.
I sincerely doubt Leko was seeing f2-f4-f5xe6-e7#.
> The woodshifters watching the game on the Internet (I was one of them)
> irrupted into a frenzy of admiration and awe when after they saw
> Kramnik's text move appear on their monitors, and its brilliance began
> to sink in with them.
>
> The exquisite point is that Black is PLAYING FOR MATE.
>
> 34 � Ra2+
>
> Kramnik has given us an endgame for the anthologies. Surely,
> comparisons will be made to Capablanca-Tartakower, New York, 1924,
> when Capablanca maneuvered his rook to the seventh rank, his king to
> the sixth, and delivered the denouement despite having lost pawn after
> pawn in the meantime.
>
> 34 � Rxd4 35 f5 exf5 36 e6 [threating 37 e7+ Kd7 38 e8(Q)+ Kxd6 39
> Qe7#] Re4+ 37 Nxe4 fxe4 38 Rc7, and Black can't stop one of White's
> two remaining pawns from queening.
What happens after ...Ra4-b4xb6? White plays f4-f5xe6-e7#; a
third way. And, ...Bd7 is met by Nxb7+, clearing the way for
pawn b6 to advance.
> 35 Kf3 Ra3+
>
> 35 � Ra1, threatening a series of checks, is more stubborn. Perhaps
> Leko should have opted for this course to get to the control and gain
> more time to figure if he can find another Houdini-like escape, as he
> did in an earlier match game.
>
> 36 Kg4 �
>
> Black can not stop f4-f5.
>
> 36 � Rd3
> 37 f5 Rxd4
>
> 37 � exf5+ 38 Kxf5 Rxd4 39 e6, and it's mate in seven [!]
>
> 38 Kg5 exf5
> 39 Kf6 �
>
> 39 Kxf5 also wins.
>
> 39 � Rg4
> 40 Rc7 Rh4
> 41 Nf7+
>
> It's mate in two: 41 � Ke8 42 Rc8+ Kd7 43 Rd8#.
>
> 1-0
Amazing. Leko played weakly, for a 2700 and Kramnik
pulled one out of nowhere.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2004 21:06:35
From: Neil Schemenauer
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
k S. Hathaway <[email protected] > wrote:
> Max Murray wrote:
>> 22 - Bxa4 23 Rc7 is too scary for Black to contemplate. He has to lose
>> time moving his king to cover the c7-square.
>
> I wonder if a computer would play that "scary" variation, take the
> pawn and grind out a win.
All my chess engines prefer Bxa4. Don't know if they could win. :-)
Neil
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2004 22:53:58
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
En/na Neil Schemenauer ha escrit:
> k S. Hathaway <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Max Murray wrote:
>>>22 - Bxa4 23 Rc7 is too scary for Black to contemplate. He has to lose
>>>time moving his king to cover the c7-square.
>>
>>I wonder if a computer would play that "scary" variation, take the
>>pawn and grind out a win.
>
> All my chess engines prefer Bxa4. Don't know if they could win. :-)
This 22...Bxa4 is the critical variation, if it not works (as it seems)
black has great problems. Let's see:
22...Bxa4 23.Rc7 Bc6 24.Ng5 0-0 (the problem of 24...Rf8 is Nxf7!
followed by Bg6) and now:
- 25.Ke3! (the menace is Be2 and it's not easy to stop)
- or 25.Bh7! Kh8 26.Bc2 Kg8 27.Ke3! (with the same idea but avoiding
...Bb5 if it works in previous line)
I think black is lost here.
AT
Pd: Curiously many commentators did not pay attention to that move. Some
engines can not write about it (in autoanalysis mode at a certain deph)
if the score of that move is too poor no matter being the critical move.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2004 08:31:00
From: Pierre Boutquin
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> En/na Neil Schemenauer ha escrit:
> This 22...Bxa4 is the critical variation, if it not works (as it seems)
> black has great problems. Let's see:
>
> 22...Bxa4 23.Rc7 Bc6 24.Ng5 0-0 (the problem of 24...Rf8 is Nxf7! followed
> by Bg6) and now:
> - 25.Ke3! (the menace is Be2 and it's not easy to stop)
> - or 25.Bh7! Kh8 26.Bc2 Kg8 27.Ke3! (with the same idea but avoiding
> ...Bb5 if it works in previous line)
> I think black is lost here.
>
> AT
Kasparov suggested 23. ... Bb5 instead of 23. ...Bc6, and demonstrated that
White remains on top after 24. Bb1!.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1961
<Pierre/ >
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2004 21:48:41
From: Tom Barnes
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
[email protected] (Max Murray) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
> [email protected]
I've been wondering... What the heck is the purpose of 4...h6 when
after 5.g4 black doesn't play 5...Bh7 but 5...Bd7???
|
| | |
Date: 24 Oct 2004 00:09:32
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
En/na Tom Barnes ha escrit:
> [email protected] (Max Murray) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
>>[email protected]
>
>
> I've been wondering... What the heck is the purpose of 4...h6 when
> after 5.g4 black doesn't play 5...Bh7 but 5...Bd7???
The purpose of 4.. h6 is to play 5...e6 followed by Ah7 if necessary.
The problem of 4...h6 5.g4 Bh7 is 6.e6!
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2004 21:33:11
From: Tom Barnes
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> En/na Tom Barnes ha escrit:
> > [email protected] (Max Murray) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
> >>[email protected]
> >
> >
> > I've been wondering... What the heck is the purpose of 4...h6 when
> > after 5.g4 black doesn't play 5...Bh7 but 5...Bd7???
>
> The purpose of 4.. h6 is to play 5...e6 followed by Ah7 if necessary.
> The problem of 4...h6 5.g4 Bh7 is 6.e6!
I know, so my question is: why even play 4...h6 when after the natural
5.g4 you can't play 5...Bh7? So obviously the purpose of 4...h6 can't
be to play 5...Bh7. Try again (or not).
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2004 17:40:31
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
En/na Tom Barnes ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>En/na Tom Barnes ha escrit:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Max Murray) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been wondering... What the heck is the purpose of 4...h6 when
>>>after 5.g4 black doesn't play 5...Bh7 but 5...Bd7???
>>
>>The purpose of 4.. h6 is to play 5...e6 followed by Ah7 if necessary.
>>The problem of 4...h6 5.g4 Bh7 is 6.e6!
>
>
> I know, so my question is: why even play 4...h6 when after the natural
> 5.g4 you can't play 5...Bh7? So obviously the purpose of 4...h6 can't
> be to play 5...Bh7. Try again (or not).
The best place for the bishop is out of the chain e6-d5. Black plays
...Bf5 to continue with ...e6.
There is a little tactical problem after 4.h4 e6? 5.g4 - > the Bf5 has no
escape squares. Black plays 4...h6 in order to continue with 5...e6 but
after 4.h4 h5 5.g4 Bh7?! is not good a cause of 6.e6!
The main idea os Caro Kan is to play with the B out of the chain pawn
but I white plays h4 and g4 (weakening moves) he has no option. At least
black has achieved some weakening in white position.
You can not say that the purpose of 1.e4 is to continue with 2.d4 and
3.e5 but in this case white choosed to play those concrete moves. In the
same sense the idea of 3...Bf5 is not to continue with ...h6 and ...Bd7.
AT
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2004 17:20:35
From: Tom Barnes
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> En/na Tom Barnes ha escrit:
>
> > Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>En/na Tom Barnes ha escrit:
> >>
> >>>[email protected] (Max Murray) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
> >>>>[email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I've been wondering... What the heck is the purpose of 4...h6 when
> >>>after 5.g4 black doesn't play 5...Bh7 but 5...Bd7???
> >>
> >>The purpose of 4.. h6 is to play 5...e6 followed by Ah7 if necessary.
> >>The problem of 4...h6 5.g4 Bh7 is 6.e6!
> >
> >
> > I know, so my question is: why even play 4...h6 when after the natural
> > 5.g4 you can't play 5...Bh7? So obviously the purpose of 4...h6 can't
> > be to play 5...Bh7. Try again (or not).
>
> The best place for the bishop is out of the chain e6-d5. Black plays
> ...Bf5 to continue with ...e6.
>
> There is a little tactical problem after 4.h4 e6? 5.g4 -> the Bf5 has no
> escape squares. Black plays 4...h6 in order to continue with 5...e6 but
> after 4.h4 h5 5.g4 Bh7?! is not good a cause of 6.e6!
>
> The main idea os Caro Kan is to play with the B out of the chain pawn
> but I white plays h4 and g4 (weakening moves) he has no option. At least
> black has achieved some weakening in white position.
I agree with all of this. For the record, I'm a fairly competent
player (around 1850 ELO) and I have a good grasp of openings - there's
no need to explain to me that the idea of the Caro is to put the
bishop outside the pawn chain etc etc.
> You can not say that the purpose of 1.e4 is to continue with 2.d4 and
> 3.e5 but in this case white choosed to play those concrete moves. In the
> same sense the idea of 3...Bf5 is not to continue with ...h6 and ...Bd7.
Not sure how this answered my question, what's the idea behind 4...h6?
Think of it this way: After 4.h4 white is threatening 5.g4, kicking
the bishop to a bad square (g6, the normal square isn't a good place
for the bishop since after 6.h5 it will be threatened again).
Black has to decide if he should prevent 5.g4 or allow it. If he
decides to allow it he again has two choices: he could limit the
effectiveness of 5.g4, ie provide a good escape square for the bishop
where he won't get kicked again. Or he could just ignore the "threat"
and make a useful move.
My point is that 4...h6 doesn't fit into any of the categories above.
* 4...h6 doesn't prevent 5.g4
* Wasn't it for 6.e6! then 4...h6 would fit into the second category
since after 5.g4 Bh7 the bishop won't be trapped or kicked again. But
because of 6.e6, black has to play the bishop to d7 (not a good escape
square).
* 4...h6 could fit into the last category except that I can't see how
it is useful
On the other hand, 4...h5 fits into the first category (prevents
5.g4). 4...Qb6 fits into the third category (bishop gets kicked but
black makes a useful move). There's no move that fits into the second
category.
A non-chess analogy: Let's say your drunk friend is about to drive
away to a bar. You hide his car key. He can't find that key but
instead uses his spare key and drives away and gets in an accident.
You knew he had a spare key. You can't really say that the purpose of
hiding his key was to prevent him from driving since you knew it
wouldn't prevent him from driving.
Same with 4...h6 - it doesn't address the threat of g4 at all. A silly
move like 4...a6 is just as efficient (or non-efficient) in addressing
g4.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2004 11:08:29
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
En/na Tom Barnes ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>>>>I've been wondering... What the heck is the purpose of 4...h6 when
>>>>>after 5.g4 black doesn't play 5...Bh7 but 5...Bd7???
>>>>
>>>>The purpose of 4.. h6 is to play 5...e6 followed by Ah7 if necessary.
>>>>The problem of 4...h6 5.g4 Bh7 is 6.e6!
>>>
>> (...)
>>The main idea os Caro Kan is to play with the B out of the chain pawn
>>but I white plays h4 and g4 (weakening moves) he has no option. At least
>>black has achieved some weakening in white position.
>
> I agree with all of this. For the record, I'm a fairly competent
> player (around 1850 ELO) and I have a good grasp of openings - there's
> no need to explain to me that the idea of the Caro is to put the
> bishop outside the pawn chain etc etc.
>
> Not sure how this answered my question, what's the idea behind 4...h6?
>
> Think of it this way: After 4.h4 white is threatening 5.g4, kicking
> the bishop to a bad square (g6, the normal square isn't a good place
> for the bishop since after 6.h5 it will be threatened again).
>
> Black has to decide if he should prevent 5.g4 or allow it. If he
> decides to allow it he again has two choices: he could limit the
> effectiveness of 5.g4, ie provide a good escape square for the bishop
> where he won't get kicked again. Or he could just ignore the "threat"
> and make a useful move.
>
> My point is that 4...h6 doesn't fit into any of the categories above.
In my opinion, 4.h4 only "threat" to avoid 4...e6 because after a later
g4 white weakness can be attacked by ...h5.
Black has many options, one is to "force" white weakness with 4...h6 and
after 5.g4 Bd7 white need to lose another tempo with 6.h5 (in order to
avoid 6...h5). Maybe with other black moves (different to ...e6) white
will not play 5.g4 maintaining this option as answer to ...e6.
Black can consider that (comparing with FRENCH positions after 4...h6
5.g4 Bd7 6.h5) white has wasted 3 tempo in creating weakness in king
wing (0-0 can be hardly considered, black has some break options with
..f6, ..f5 or ..g6), ... whereas black has used those tempo in playing a
useful move ...Bd7 in French type of positions.
AT
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2004 15:07:50
From: Andreas P. Hofmann
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
Max Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
...snip...
> Poor Leko will be criticized forever for choosing the Caro-Kann for a
> whole boatload of reasons. Two of the more important reasons: (1) Leko
> doesn't habitually play the Caro-Kann, so despite whatever book
> knowledge he has on the Caro-Kann ˆ and we can be sure he was booked
> up to the eyeballs for this game ˆ he lacks actual experience for the
> types of positions that arise. (2) Leko unvailed the Caro-Kann when he
> surprised Kramnik with it for Game 3 on September 28 (a 34-move draw).
> This final game was played on October 18. That means Kramnik and his
> crack seconds had about three weeks to prepare a line against the CK.
...snap...
Game 3 was a Petroff, C 42. The very first CK in the match was played in
game 12.
--
regards
Andreas
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2004 12:42:57
From: Stefek Borkowski
Subject: Re: Kramnik-Leko Game 14. Annotation in Plain English, Move-By-Move.
|
Max Murray wrote:
> Questions or comments on the annotation? Please email:
> [email protected]
> ...
Good job, thanks for the nice commentary.
Regards,
Stefek
|
|
