VK-DF Game 1 Revisited

http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=419

Here's a link to Karsten Mueller's analysis at Chessvibes (previously Doggers).

J.A. Topfke

Thanks. Yah, the main line is the same but the 43..Be8 he credits to Feist seems weaker than playing 43..h5 immediately, threatening ..h4 in many lines. The king sits on g4 with pawns on f5 and h5 and the bishop can stay on the a4-d8 diagonal. The white king can go all the way to g6 without effect and Black then has the threat of ..Bg1. It looks wrong to lock the pawns like that but it looks unbreakable.

I analysed the 34.Kc3 line with Rybka immediately after game 1 and I posted analysis in game 1 Daily Dirt comments. My conclusion was that 34.Kc3 does NOT win.

You can find my analysis by searching for "34.Kc3"
here:
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/11/kramnikfritz_06_g1.htm

Thanks, I think I remember some of those notes but I left the Bahamas a few days later and never put much together at the time. I see some others came to similar conclusions. Interesting if the ..b4+ line you gave also draws against 34.Kc3. So is Garry's line the only winner? In the next issue of New In Chess Kramnik's second Lutz gives several winning ideas for White but both against inferior defense (not the ..e4, ..b5, king invasion line we are talking about). He never plays ..e4. All of Seirawan's stuff at ChessBase includes ..f6 and king to the center. Interesting.

Well, it looks like White is still close to winning after 30.a4?! Bc5 31.Kf3 (not Kramnik's 31.h3), so it's really not all that critical, I suppose.

Hi Mig, I also did extensive analysis at the time and concluded that Kasparov's Ng2 plan was the only one that seemed to be winning.

Is there any way you can post your analysis as a downloadable pgn. This is a horror getting into Chessbase.

I'm still fiddling with it. Will put up a cbv later. You can copy and paste that into a text file and rename the extension .pgn, btw.

Finding out if White is still winning by force after 31.Kf3 is probably more important. I'm doubting it right now. It does seem clear to me now that 34.Kc3 doesn't win in the 30.e3 line, which is particularly intriguing if 31.Kf3 does win in the game line.

Capto:

I like to use Arena Chess to play thru downloaded games. The look is not quite as good as Fritz/Chessbase but for playing thru games it's much nicer. You can paste games directly from the clipboard and such.

Something I'm not following here: if Kasparov's 34.Nc7! wins, then why fuss about 34.Kc3---?

And why does Black have to play 32...e4?

Mousecopy Mig's PGN, open Notepad, paste, save as mathproof.pgn, already I get a red ChessBase icon and it works perfectly, every subline... Just to confirm, on my Win XP laptop.

1 day to Corus, and still no betting on whether or not Kramnik and Topalov will shake hands?

Re: pgn/cbv etc.

Well, I hate to give away one of my favourite secrets, however....

1. Highlight text of game
2. Right click ->copy
3. At board window in Chessbase/Fritz Edit->Paste->Paste Game or simply ctrl-v

Voila. Job done, including variations and annotation.

Chessbase programmers are clever...

very beautiful line: Ng2, the King walk, a3

Yes, it's remarkable. Garry joked that he was turning into Ulf Andersson in his old age. I'd like to see a computer come up with that one. And if the bishop stays on the a3-f8 diagonal the white king infiltrates to the kingside. If it makes it to g6, then Nh4 mates with f4 exf3 Nxf3#!

Ken, I was trying to debunk 34.Kc3, basically. As for ..e4, everything without it seems to lose fairly quickly and I consider it the best defensive plan. It creates the f3 hole for the black king to infiltrate and appears to force the need for the long Kasparov maneuver of the knight to g2. The main reason to leave the pawn on e4 is to try ..f4 at some point, but it doesn't seem to be sufficient. Lutz spends his time on those lines in the next issue of New In Chess and White does well.

Hi Mig (and Bill---fabulous paper you posted in Jan 2 thread, will comment there when I get time!),

I'd be curious to see Lutz's analysis---I wonder if chess people do "peer-review" like we have to in math before things go to press. Especially since an endgame analysis is much more like a math proof than a game, or even than a middlegame analysis... Then again, I've only had time to do 1 hour of game analysis since November!

Yes it is a sure win and the only one imo. Although the lines may be cleaned up a bit for a 'definite' version. Anyone still believing there is another win?

Briliant copy paste by the way Babson!

KWRegan said:
"I'd be curious to see Lutz's analysis---I wonder if chess people do "peer-review" like we have to in math before things go to press. Especially since an endgame analysis is much more like a math proof than a game, or even than a middlegame analysis... Then again, I've only had time to do 1 hour of game analysis since November!"

Chess analysis is more like political opinion than a math proof, especially in positions that are difficult to assess or are considered equal, unclear, or a slight advantage for either side.

Dear Dr. Regan:

Any regrets about not making a career of chess, or at least spending a few years to become a GM?

I remember a game you played in Atlantic City, NJ, beating World Junior Champ Mark Diesen with your patented opening as white, fianchettoing both bishops and I think it was e3 and Ne2 and d3 and c3 and Na3-c2 and d4, although I could be wrong about where your queen knight was.

Most respectfully,

R

Dear R,
Sorry, I missed your followup comment way back 2 years ago. I found it now on searching for Mark Diesen, who passed away suddenly and much too untimely last month. I just saw the note on the Buffalo Niagara Chess Corner and Susan's blog.
I do have some regrets about not being a GM, though the IM title has sufficed to open the doors that matter to me now. Operationally what happened is I made 2 norms in 1977 right off the bat, but they totaled only 23 of the required 24 games. Then followed a host of near-misses, until I finally got the third in late 1980 or early 1981. By then I had won a scholarship for graduate study at Oxford and was solidly into my mathematical research---and my play in some 1983-4 events was rusty/stale. But I did have the pleasure of being at Merton College (one of 30+ colleges that comprise Oxford) with now-GM William Watson and FM-strength Dugald Macpherson (also a mathematician). If Merton had been able to declare itself a UK sporting entity (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4727), we might have finished solidly in the middle of the table at some Olympiads.

---Ken R.

Yes, Diesen's untimely passing. Someone I barely know (from online blitz) emailed me about that last weekend.

I remember Diesen as a cute (but strong) little kid playing in Washington DC events circa 1970. One time he brought a pet locust with him, and placed it on an empty board between rounds and let it wander around the squares. Definitely an offbeat sight at a chess event. I guess locusts don't have much interest in flying, unless there's grain or other food around; either that or Mark's pet was domesticated for indoors.

That was not a locust. That was Fritz 1.

I was so sad to hear of Mark Diesen's death. Actually, he passed away very unexpectedly last December 9. I didn't hear about it until a couple of weeks later. Believe me, I shed real tears. Mark was a great guy.

If you guys also like to hang out at chessgames.com, Mark has a game collection there. It includes many of his games from the mid-1970s. He beat Walter Brown, Michael Rhodes and Arthur Bisguier, among others. If you were his friends, play out some of his games. That's what Mark would have wanted. He loved the game, and he was a tremendous player.

- Alicia

Thanks, Ken, for taking the time to reply to my question posted a while back.

That is so sad about Mark Diesen. I remember a Chess Life article, by Kavalek, about Diesen winning the World Junior. Kavalek was his second. What an achievement by Diesen. I think now one automatically becomes a GM for winning the World Junior, but not back then.

Not too long ago it seems I was chatting with Diesen on ICC (he didn't know me or anything--I just had the temerity to strike up a conversation). I mentioned to him the same game I mentioned above, his loss to Ken Regan in a US Amateur Team Championship way back. Diesen told me, yes he remembered that game, but then he said that he got revenge soon afterward, and he named the subsequent tournament in which he beat Regan. I thought that was great, Diesen expressing his competitiveness that way.

Here's to great American chessplayers, GMs or not.

That's cool that people can take the loan and it opens new opportunities.