lichess.org
Donate

Kasparov's Immortal Game

The picture is from another game, where Kasparov played black.

Why do you label 1...d6 as dubious? Is it more or less dubious than 1...c6, 1...g6, 1...Nf6, 1...Nc6?
In this game the great Kasparov did not achieve any advantage against Topalov. Black was even better after 24 Rxd4 if black had found 24...Kb6 instead of the losing move 24...cxd4??

"This position is extremely similar to the King's Indian, but White has yet to push their c-pawn—a detail that completely changes the position. "
Is this better or worse than the Sämisch King's Indian Defense? The Sämisch King's Indian Defense has a bad reputation nowadays. So it seems black is better without the move c4.

https://lichess.org/MsYs8o8u#10

The picture is from another game, where Kasparov played black. Why do you label 1...d6 as dubious? Is it more or less dubious than 1...c6, 1...g6, 1...Nf6, 1...Nc6? In this game the great Kasparov did not achieve any advantage against Topalov. Black was even better after 24 Rxd4 if black had found 24...Kb6 instead of the losing move 24...cxd4?? "This position is extremely similar to the King's Indian, but White has yet to push their c-pawn—a detail that completely changes the position. " Is this better or worse than the Sämisch King's Indian Defense? The Sämisch King's Indian Defense has a bad reputation nowadays. So it seems black is better without the move c4. https://lichess.org/MsYs8o8u#10

@tpr said in #2:

Why do you label 1...d6 as dubious? Is it more or less dubious than 1...c6, 1...g6, 1...Nf6, 1...Nc6?

Regarding 1... d6, I agree with you, as the Pirc is not that dubious, but I used to play Modern/Pirc against 1. e4 and found myself in tough positions, which probably motivated the decision to put the dubious label on the move. I'll put an interesting on it instead.

In this game, the great Kasparov did not achieve any advantage against Topalov. Black was even better after 24 Rxd4 if black had found 24...Kb6 instead of the losing move 24...cxd4??

Having an "Immortal Game" doesn't necessarily mean attaining a perfect advantage throughout the position, at least in my view. (Black was indeed better after Kb6.) However, Kasparov's attack after and exploitation of Topalov's blunder was amazing, which is what made this game immortal in my view.

Kasparov has had better games, but this was arguably one of his best attacking displays.

"This position is extremely similar to the King's Indian, but White has yet to push their c-pawn—a detail that completely changes the position. "
Is this better or worse than the Sämisch King's Indian Defense? The Sämisch King's Indian Defense has a bad reputation nowadays. So it seems black is better without the move c4.

The Samisch is normally played after White plays c4. This f3 move leads to a position similar to the Samisch, but White has, very importantly, not pushed c4 yet.

This prevents (in a sense) Black's main idea against the Samisch of pushing c5 and entering a Benoni because dxc5 is significantly better for White compared to if White has played c4, as d4 hasn't been conceded as an outpost (White has c3 in the future).

Had Topalov entered this Benoni line, which I believe was popular at the time, this game would have been completely different.

@tpr said in #2: > Why do you label 1...d6 as dubious? Is it more or less dubious than 1...c6, 1...g6, 1...Nf6, 1...Nc6? Regarding 1... d6, I agree with you, as the Pirc is not that dubious, but I used to play Modern/Pirc against 1. e4 and found myself in tough positions, which probably motivated the decision to put the dubious label on the move. I'll put an interesting on it instead. > In this game, the great Kasparov did not achieve any advantage against Topalov. Black was even better after 24 Rxd4 if black had found 24...Kb6 instead of the losing move 24...cxd4?? Having an "Immortal Game" doesn't necessarily mean attaining a perfect advantage throughout the position, at least in my view. (Black was indeed better after Kb6.) However, Kasparov's attack after and exploitation of Topalov's blunder was amazing, which is what made this game immortal in my view. Kasparov has had better games, but this was arguably one of his best attacking displays. > "This position is extremely similar to the King's Indian, but White has yet to push their c-pawn—a detail that completely changes the position. " > Is this better or worse than the Sämisch King's Indian Defense? The Sämisch King's Indian Defense has a bad reputation nowadays. So it seems black is better without the move c4. The Samisch is normally played after White plays c4. This f3 move leads to a position similar to the Samisch, but White has, very importantly, not pushed c4 yet. This prevents (in a sense) Black's main idea against the Samisch of pushing c5 and entering a Benoni because dxc5 is significantly better for White compared to if White has played c4, as d4 hasn't been conceded as an outpost (White has c3 in the future). Had Topalov entered this Benoni line, which I believe was popular at the time, this game would have been completely different.

Also, I've seen you in the comments of my blog posts before. Do you do a lot of work in forums?

Also, I've seen you in the comments of my blog posts before. Do you do a lot of work in forums?

"Having an "Immortal Game" doesn't necessarily mean attaining a perfect advantage throughout the position" * No, of course not.

"Black was indeed better after Kb6" * So either the Pirc is a very good defense, or Kasparov did not play optimally before 24...cxd4?

"Kasparov's attack after and exploitation of Topalov's blunder was amazing" * Yes, by all means.

"what made this game immortal in my view" * Yes, agree fully.

"this was arguably one of his best attacking displays" * Yes, agreed.

"This f3 move leads to a position similar to the Samisch, but White has, very importantly, not pushed c4 yet."

  • Yes, but is this difference good for white or good for black? In this game Kasparov got no advantage out of the opening, and black even was better until the mistake 24...cxd4? In the ICCF correspondence game I showed with the Sämisch attack of the King's Indian Defense, white got a perfect advantage throughout the position. So I am inclined to conclude that either the Pirc is more solid than the King's Indian Defense, or the way Kasparov handled the Pirc up to move 24...cxd4? was not optimal.

"Had Topalov entered this Benoni line, which I believe was popular at the time, this game would have been completely different." * Yes, of course.

"Having an "Immortal Game" doesn't necessarily mean attaining a perfect advantage throughout the position" * No, of course not. "Black was indeed better after Kb6" * So either the Pirc is a very good defense, or Kasparov did not play optimally before 24...cxd4? "Kasparov's attack after and exploitation of Topalov's blunder was amazing" * Yes, by all means. "what made this game immortal in my view" * Yes, agree fully. "this was arguably one of his best attacking displays" * Yes, agreed. "This f3 move leads to a position similar to the Samisch, but White has, very importantly, not pushed c4 yet." * Yes, but is this difference good for white or good for black? In this game Kasparov got no advantage out of the opening, and black even was better until the mistake 24...cxd4? In the ICCF correspondence game I showed with the Sämisch attack of the King's Indian Defense, white got a perfect advantage throughout the position. So I am inclined to conclude that either the Pirc is more solid than the King's Indian Defense, or the way Kasparov handled the Pirc up to move 24...cxd4? was not optimal. "Had Topalov entered this Benoni line, which I believe was popular at the time, this game would have been completely different." * Yes, of course.

The term "Immortal Game" is very ambiguous. I believe games are "immortalized" because of their attacking brilliance or creativity, especially when it comes to sacrifices. I won't argue further on this due to the aforementioned ambiguity of the term.

I do agree that Kasparov didn't play perfectly; however, he played very solidly until he made two inaccuracies (Nb3!? and Bh3?!), which threw away an advantage he'd been building from the rest of the opening. Afterwards, he played pretty much perfect attacking chess.

The term "Immortal Game" is very ambiguous. I believe games are "immortalized" because of their attacking brilliance or creativity, especially when it comes to sacrifices. I won't argue further on this due to the aforementioned ambiguity of the term. I do agree that Kasparov didn't play perfectly; however, he played very solidly until he made two inaccuracies (Nb3!? and Bh3?!), which threw away an advantage he'd been building from the rest of the opening. Afterwards, he played pretty much perfect attacking chess.