Kasparov KO’s Short in 24-moves
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Featured is the game between Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short from the 2001 Korchnoi Birthday KO Tournament. After Short signals his intention to trade light-squared bishops in the French Defense, Tarrasch, Kasparov follows with an instructive plan that significantly hampers the mobility of black’s minor pieces. While Short maneuvers his knights on ranks 7 and 8, Kasparov’s queen knight becomes an MVP on h5. Short’s big blunder on move 17 allows Kasparov a memorable bolt-from-the-blue tactic, leading to Short’s submission in just 24-moves.
Image of Garry Kasparov courtesy of Lennart Ootes
lennartootes.com
I'm a self-taught National Master in chess out of Pennsylvania, USA who was introduced to the game by my father in 1988 at the age of 8. The purpose of this channel is to share my knowledge of chess to help others improve their game. I enjoy continuing to improve my understanding of this great game, albeit slowly. Consider subscribing here on RUclips for frequent content, and/or connecting via any or all the below social medias. Your support is greatly appreciated. Take care, bye. :)
★ CHESS.COM www.chess.com/... (affiliate link)
★ LICHESS.ORG lichess.org/@/...
★ TWITCH / chessnetwork
★ TWITTER / chessnetwork
★ FACEBOOK / chessnetwork
★ PATREON / chessnetwork
★ DONATE www.paypal.com...
Oh sure, when kasparov sacrifices a piece, it's genius. But when I do it, it's an embarrassing blunder.
😂😂
As Ben Finegold said: the difference between a sacrifice and a blunder is whether you win or lose
😂😂😂
I really enjoy the way your game analyses cohere. They're not just move-by-move breakdowns, but rather they give a narration, showing the way the board develops and how the big ideas are executed. I don't know of anyone on RUclips that explains these games as well as you do.
You mean you don't like Levy's "BOOM!" style? Geared for youngsters and patzers? lol Agad* is another YT narrator geared for beginners, tho he's a step up from some others. Remember, the most commercially successful instructional materials are geared for unrated to Class C players, that's the sweet spot for views/subs.
@@raylopez99 I mean, I can't play chess for dick and I have the attention span of a sparrow, but Jerry's analyses are the only ones that make me feel like I'm actually learning something. Agad's videos feel too clinical: he runs through the moves and explains some of the ideas, but the ideas are usually explained in isolation, and so I never take away any "morals" from the games he presents.
@@ExplosiveBrohoof You are right. Agad makes some pretty basic comments. He's roughly expert level from what I gather about what I am, and some of his commentary sounds like what I would say...after looking at the engine evaluation. LOL By contrast, I don't know Jerry's rating but he speaks more like a real master would, of which I've had the privilege of meeting and training under in person.
EB~
You are correct. Jerry is the best. I also like the colored lines to guide us.
My dream, when I was young was to be a professional chess player. Meaning, not to be the best, but to travel to different tournaments and win enough money to make a living.
Well, I guess we can always dream.
"I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody. I'm just a bum. That's what I am."
That pawn on b5 really clamped down on black's ability to get any mobility/space. Very instructive. Thanks Jerry!
Nice game! Thanks for the nice calm and instructive way you present games! 😊
👍
Yikes. What a positional gem. Kasparov throttled him like a boa constrictor, and Short was a pretty damned good GM.
wondering if sacking the bishop because it hadn't moved yet is a sunk cost fallacy, if it were the exact same position but the bishop had somehow moved 10 moves it wouldn't have changed which move is the best
Agree
I agree. I think Kasparov chose to sack the bishop because he could see he needed both nights to coordinate on the attack with the queen
Exactly. The number of moves to get there aren't relevant once it is there in that position. You could spend just as many moves getting it to the same square, but in a board state where it isn't presenting any threat at all. It wouldn't magically be valuable just due to the investment.
Interesting point. Cold animal logic
Yeah I wanna defend Jerry’s thinking here but I don’t get the attachment to that horsey just for working so hard to get to h5.😂
Maybe he’s just saying that knight was worth the trip.
But if it was objectively better to off the horse rather than the bishop, than Kasparov would have had no reservation putting him down.
keep up the excellent work
it's amazing how casparov crushed the French defense
By an Englishman with a French first name.
Casparov the friendly ghost
seeing bh6 just saved my day! :o
Extremely instructive. All the creative ways of winning used by Garry
Best video ever, very instructive
What tf with the evil people in the comments?? Jerry is always amazing!
Thanks Jerry
thought about Ng7, didn't even consider Bh6. Makes total sense after you see it because it's almost setting up the lobster pinster mate.
not tooting my own horn but I saw bh6 XD
three check FINALLY pays off :)
This was a great crush by the beast of Baku. Thanks Jerry.
Garry is such a dynamic player.
Thx Jerry 😊
6:54: the sunk cost fallacy doesn't apply to chess? 🤪
I was thinking the same thing: it doesn't matter how many moves it took to get the knight where it is; the only thing that matters is, what's the best next move? The past history of the pieces does not come into that calculation.
That's exactly what I thought. But yes, the knight was too valuable to sacrifice.
Piece values change over time and the position itself can be worth more even if the other side has more pieces overall
It's always good to see Nigel Short lose.
7:04 is this not the sunk cost fallacy?
The sunk cost fallacy involves sticking with a plan even when it's failing. It's not failing here and there's no reason to win a 2 point-pawn by sacrificing a 4-point knight.
I partly agree with this, actually. I am not a huge fan of the reasoning being "look at how many moves it took my knight to get here -- better not give it up." In this position, I think a better line of reasoning is that the knight is simply on an excellent square (4-point knight, sure) and observes g7. Giving up the knight takes away a best piece and leaves you with no good way to coordinate an attack on g7 with the queen because it's not observed (to utilize a weakness, you first need to observe it is something Jerry has said). Add some concrete calculation and, yeah, Bh6 is better than Nxg7. Chess is for the most part not path-dependent, so even if you have "invested" a lot of time in that knight, giving it up may very well be good. However, if you are going to give it up, you may also want to wonder spending that much time beforehand was really necessary, and thinking about that can improve your game.
Yeah. I think the real reason is that the knight was a best piece (and a lot of effort was put into making it a best piece) while the undeveloped bishop was a worst piece.
@@Davey101_ No, sunk cost fallacy has nothing to do with a plan failing. It's simply the faulty belief that your past investment should influence your current decision, as though you can retroactively justify the path you took. I thought the same thing as OP and was looking for a comment like this. The moves made up to this point are irrelevant. A chess engine would look at the position as though it just appeared there and the past moves wouldn't be accounted for at all.
Nice vid. A knight on the brim isn’t always dim!
Did Kasparov and Short play any games longer than 24 moves?
It was Short and it was short.
(Kasparov's joke!).
LOL good one, I recall something along those lines in the 1990s.
u r chess master.
Great play from kasparove
Too bad he didn't come up with a bolt into the Deep Blue.
Kasparov really bullied his peers I mean, this was such a blunt attack
What if black would've played 7..a6?
Would you go Ba4, and look at Bc2 if they continue with b5?
8 Qa4 is a spicy reply there.
7…a6 would be a welcome move for white, as that’s the square black wants to put his bishop on to force bad bishop for good bishop trade. Probably white just retreats bishop to d3 or e2, now he has a good unopposed bishop, a positional advantage.
👍👍👍
hi jerry
What if black plays Bf6 after white captured the rook???
What if black would not take the bishop but the pawn on b5?
i think White can just crash with Bxg7 then follow up with Qd2 or Bf6. The synergy with the knight on h5 is too overpowered.
Was this a blitz game?
@0:10
😺
nigel short is a bad guy
Aside from his off-the-board faux paus, Short's a good player OTB but Kasparov made him look like a fool. Playing a higher rated player will do that.
He is only autistic
@@TymexComputing lol if by 'only autistic' you also mean 'a pedophilic thatcher-obsessed cretin'
what did he do I can't find anything online
On move 13 black played really badly by moving unnecessarly the knight. What he should have played instead is capturing d4 pawn forcing white to make a decision on how to capture d4 pawn. If he captures with a pawn he ends up with undefended weak doubled pawns on b5 and b2. Next after that exchange regardless of how the pawn on d was exchanged follow with f6 pawn exchange pawn e5 now asking white again what to do if he captures pawn f6 knight captures and gets a good knight placement on f6 if he doesnt and does something else black captures pawn e5 with pawn f6 now white ands up with another isolated e5 pawn and now black has a hole on c5 for knight. And game continues.
Once again, I don't mean to be rude but seriously...how can you write so many essays on Nigel Short's chess here, and yet come up with such an absurd bit of analysis? 💀
To provide some obvious counterarguments to your analysis...
1. You mentioned cxd4 and how that forces white to either play cxd4 or Nxd4. Funnily enough, cxd4 is perfectly playable (in fact, it's the best move imo) and the space advantage is fantastic. The doubled pawns you speak of are irrelevant because the pawn on b5 serves the purpose of making the queen knight look like shit.
Next up, you mentioned f6. That, in my book, is a horrible mistake. You mentioned exf6 Nxf6. That hangs a pawn on e6 so that's just a hilarious bit of analysis. The only move that doesn't drop the e6 pawn is Bxf6, but that just runs into a horribly dangerous position in which both of white's knights are ready to harrass the black kingside. And don't forget...the rook, the queen and the dark-squared bishop are also ready to destroy black. So f6 just leads to a completely lost position.
But ofc, I'm sure you'd beat Nigel Short (not!) 💀
Black played so bad. He took no initiative to fight the wedge e advanced pawn early on instead he kept craming the knights near the king. Thats the big mistake.intead he should have pushed f pawn forcing either exchange of e pawn and leaving a whole on the d6 for his knight or e pawn capturing f pawn, knight lands in f6 natural place for the black knight... black played so passively horribly. It wasnt forced for black to watch hands crossed...
ew don't analyze short's games
Short videos are garbage longer videos are way superior
Watch it twice.
George is getting upset!
@@phillipleblanc5867 Serenity NOW!
What’s funny is that Short is certainly good enough to calculate the whole rest of the game after 18.Bh6!. The remaining moves are played out OTB for cosmetic reasons (eg avoiding “miniature” status) (even though 24 moves is still a miniature lol)
That was a pretty short game.
Kasparov doing Kasparov things.
Good, show some more games with Nigel being thrashed. I can't stand him.
@ChessNetwork - You are uploading great videos Jerry. Thank you! Your review of this game shows a great game and the wonderful art that is chess. This was the strongest Kasparov game I have every personally seen. Thank you very much and keep on doing what you're doing. Your videos are superb! :)
Hello Jerry. Thanks to you, I have become really better in chess, but I had a request. Could you post the PGN for the games you analyze in the description? I'm creating a study for myself in lichess and I wanna store all this knowledge in there.
Love the content Jerry!
I was playing good until became TaL fan I started losing every game..
Wow! Great analysis. Thanks for the coverage. All creatures, the low and the high, are one with Nature. If we have the wisdom to learn, all may teach us their virtues. - Master Kan
Kasparov was an Animal, yeah
When I see moves like Bh6, I wonder how Kasparov comes up with that move. Has he played it before or he just finds that move? Also, what was the time limit for this rapid game?
Wow. I like my coffee with cream! Real cream!
First? Thanks, Jerry!
TY GM!
Let's see, Bb5 could be good for keeping the d7 knight stuck with very few moves, if black wants to exchange bishops, if white plays a4, that would be a pawn that will block the b6 pawn and the knight will be stuck even longer. Now let's see what happens ...
Greetings Jerry! Was wondering if you had a favorite of the young Indian GM’s? (Gukesh, Pragg, Nihal Sarin, and Erigasi).
All my homies hate Nigel 'Pedo' Short
That's very nasty and uncalled for, especially behind a person's back. For shame.
Short game
I must find out what kasparov would do in some aggressive opening like Rogozin defence
I could be mistaken but somehow I feel that the aggressive ways of playing the Ragozin are fairly modern trends. Perhaps after Kasparov retired
Nice, but after Bb5, if the black plays a6? Bad situation for white
The point is that ... a6 allows Bb5-a4-c2 which redirects the bishop to the b1-h7 diagonal, the optimal diagonal for the lightsquared bishop in the French. ... a6 would be a strategic mistake.
Also, and I am trying to say this as non offensively as possible, if you think that a move played by Kasparov in the 7th move of a well known opening would lead to a "bad situation for White" then you need to study some Kasparov games. Probably the best player ever, so respect the man
... a6 means black gave up his plan of exchanging the bad bishop, which also benefits Kasparov.
The only lesson from this is black played very bad chess allowed white a great position in the openning and did nothing impressive to eleminate all advanced d & e pawns then later payed the price of moving same piece too many timed enanglingling his position. I can see why hes unconfortable decause he wanted to develop his queen side knight impatiently. 😂
Knight f6 was the first mistake black made to allow for white to advance e pawn with a tempo. Very bad chess from opening for black allowing white knick his knight back from where it came from. Instead he should have deveped queen knight to c6. Pretty bad chess from black that king knight will be the piece that had to move around too many times.
I don't mean to be rude, but you don't understand chess at all so you really should shut tf up lol
I try to play with this type of analysis in my games, but i get 5 cavemen before i get one player that isn't just trying to exchange all pieces right away.
7.00!!