Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Karpov-Kasparov King's Indian at Linares 1993

  • NM GreenLaser
  • | Aug 12, 2011
  • | 8697 views
  • | 37 comments

The long competition between the world champions Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov reached game number 162 in round ten at Linares in 1993. Karpov as White opposed Kasparov’s King’s Indian Defense with the Saemisch Variation. In order to not face an attack on his king on the queenside, Karpov did not want to castle on that side. Instead of 9.0-0-0 or 9.d5, Karpov played the move 9.Rd1 which is not better and is actually worse than those choices. On move ten, Kasparov played a theoretical novelty. Karpov’s king never got to castle and he faced an attack with his king in the center and many of his pieces at or near home. The result was a striking win for Kasparov who won the tournament with 10/13, 1.5 points ahead of Karpov and Anand. They were followed by eleven of the world’s best players.

This game has been subjected to analysis for years. First there were commentators at the event making suggestions during the game. Then there was a post mortem by the players. Numerous writers have contributed annotations over the years. Kasparov has published the game with notes that have shown his changing opinions over the years. I have made use of some of what has gone before and tried to add something myself.


As a study method I suggest that players who have a partner to practice with set up key positions and play them out without the notes over the board with a clock. Timed practice, even after playing over the game, is a way to test understanding. It is not important which partner wins. It is a good idea to switch sides and repeat the test. I first used this method with the queen sac game Bobotsov-Tal with White to make move 13 (See http://www.chess.com/article/view/tal-attacks-or-did-i-repeat-myself )


Comments


  • 3 years ago

    nyLsel

    nice games!

  • 3 years ago

    sryiwannadraw

    good games!

  • 3 years ago

    CapaOrsini

    I don't think anyone or any organization could take away Kasparov's contribution to chess or his stature in chess history. The fact that no one was able to really able to give him much of a challenge over the chess board probably speaks to just how strong he really was and probably not to the fact that there were no other strong chess players out there. I wonder to what extent his understanding of chess psychology (ie,able to psyche his opponents out) and not just theoretical chess understanding, also contributed to his remarkable career. They say Tal had that stare...I think Kasparov could be equally intimidating. However, I think the sheer force of his personality became less of a determining factor as time went on, largely due to the fact that his opponents were gaining confidence in their own theoretical understanding of chess due to the advent of chess playing programs. I remember a recent quote from another great( Fischer) saying he didn't play chess anymore because it was a dead game and played out....which I think is total bologne.

  • 3 years ago

    cookie3

    There is no doubt that Kasparov played the best comp he could, but i will take the opposite side of this debate.Tongue out Kramnik and Anand both excellent champions; but Anand did not beat Kasparov for the title.  Someone was destined to take the title from Kasparov, so i believe Kramnik is just the name of the person that destiny smiled on.  Noone could honestly argue on Karpov's greatness, he truly was just that; GREAT!  But after these players, who of note?  Capa's list is much longer, and more storied than Kasparov's (though one could argue that is just because of time.  How will the players of today be measured 20 yrs from now?).  I do wonder how much better Kasparov's place in history would be if he had not had his dispute and seperation w/FIDE.  Kind of funny to say that: like Kasparov's historical position needs to be any better! LOL!  But, i think my point is understood:  his split with FIDE only hurt his reputation; even if his reasoning was sound.  Then again, does it really matter?

  • 3 years ago

    CapaOrsini

    Kasparov had some good competition, no? Kramnik, Anand, Karpov, Blue Deep aren't exactly light weights right? Seeing them play one another in their prime would be ideal but that sort of takes away from the mystique of the game and the debate. I think they called Capablanca the chess machine?

  • 3 years ago

    cookie3

    I had a feeling that was  why Capa was in your username!  I have to agree about the natural talent!  Kind of like: Was Babe Ruth a better homerun hitter than Barry Bonds?   I like to think a good measure of a champion is: How good was the competition that he kept from the title?  I think that question works well in all sports.  Roger Federer and Pete Samprass are great examples.  Today, many speak of Roger's greatness, but, I personally believe that Samprass went through much better competition!  Same debate for Kasparov and Capablanca, I personally believe Capa went through better comp, but saying that, i cannot deny that Kasparov took on all challengers!  There is good evidence for both players to be called the best ever.  Not sure how many others could enter this debate.  I have enjoyed this back and forth; thank you!

  • 3 years ago

    CapaOrsini

    Capablanca was probably the greatest natural chess talent but from what I've heard, he wasn't into serious chess study? it just came naturally to him. Kasparov worked like a dog to get where he went but that just begs the question of how much better Capablanca would have been had he worked like Kasparov. Had Capablanca been able to use computers, I think he would have been even stronger. I adopted his namesake because he was one of the greats but also a nice guy.

  • 3 years ago

    cookie3

    @capaorsini:  I found your comment to be interesting.  i can easily see why anyone would say that Kasparov was the best ever.  I, though, have a different thought.  I believe that Capablanca is a better arguement.  Capa did not have the benefit of computers to analyze games, did not have the databases of today, nor have the ability to attend chess schools or train with partners the way players today do.  Yet, he is still considered as close to a "perfect" player there was.  And, he dominated at a time when many of the greats were active (Alekhine, Nimzovich, Tarrasch, Spielman, and Rubinstein just off the top of my head).  I live in Pittsburgh, and a common debate is:  Who is(was) better: Lemeiux or Crosby?  They didnt play each other, so how is one to know?  However, i will always have a deep respect for Kasparov, because of his competition with Deep Blue.  Like i said, i can easily understand why anyone would say Kasparov is the best.  Makes for fun debate!Smile

  • 3 years ago

    CapaOrsini

    Top level chess is fast becoming a younger man's game; amazing chess software makes this more and more likely. Kasparov in his prime was probably the best there ever was...I don't like to make claims like that but just look at how long he was at the top, and he took on all comers! I think after playing so long and so hard, he might have lost the fighting spirit which is so necessary at the top levels of chess...seeing the likes of Kramnik, Anand and now Carlsen probably made his decision easier...having said that, the great thing about our games that we can continue palying it until we're old men...just look at Korchnoi..that guy is also amazing!

  • 3 years ago

    NM GreenLaser

    lecat, Kasparov chose to leave competitive chess, but not just after losing to Kramnik. He still wanted a championship match, but could not get one after five years. Of course, he is missed. Kamsky and others foresee a time when, as you say, there will be diminishing returns or results and they prepare themselves with other skills. Kamsky expects to quit at forty.

  • 3 years ago

    lecat

    Kasparov was way ahead of his time, and when He lost the match with Kramnik, I guess he believed it was time to leave. I used to admire Gata Kamsky, but when he left chess to concentrate on Medicine, he lost ground and the result is there for all to see. THE law of diminishing return applies in chess too. Kasparov made a wise move. I daresay his best move ever. Quit while the din is loud, not when the room is quiet. No doubt we miss him a lot.
  • 3 years ago

    sjaky

    I don't understand all you chess freaks it's up to the man himself !

    If he wants to stop then just let him...

    I guess he made all the money he needed to enjoy the finer things in life...

  • 3 years ago

    NM GreenLaser

    chessproblemo, He gave us many of those games! Even though he retired, there are so many.

  • 3 years ago

    chessproblemo

    This is one of the games of Gazza I replayed over and over before I go to sleep because of its almost inexhaustible variations. 

  • 3 years ago

    haha1508

    biggest anyslysis i have ever seen

  • 3 years ago

    patoriko

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago

    patoriko

    kasparov is a renowed chess player, the best

  • 3 years ago

    aalekhine68

    @GreenLaser, I hope Kasparov goes back to playing.  There's just a big void ever since he left.

  • 3 years ago

    Seeletse

    Great article, I think Kasparov is a great player. There's a saying quit while you're ahead. Look at F1 great, Michael Shumacher. he quit and came back but he hasn't lit up the scene like he used to. I think Kasparov was right in quitting when he did.
  • 3 years ago

    NimzoRoy

    Great game! I've seen it before but never get tired of playing it over!

Back to Top

Post your reply: