"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message ...
Actually, it looked like the challenger was better for most of that game,
and the Champ got out by a bit of error on Leko`s part. Not sure how much
of a beating that was, I think Leko was doing more beating overall. ;-)
Too bad it turned out how it did. Kramnik took care of the inaccurate play
from Leko in harsh style with the fine 34...Qc2! I wonder how Leko could
have proceeded differently. The commentators on ICC and chess.fm seemed to
think 32.Rad7 was a decisive mistake.

Has anyone seen analysis showing exactly where Leko could have
improved and maintained an advantage? Just curious --- during the game
it always seemed to me that once Kramnik got his pawn to e3, he had
lasting compensation.

LT



(2) Leko(GM) (2722) - Kramnik(GM) (2777) [B33]
Linares Linares, Spain (11), 02.03.2004


1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5
9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Qh5 e4 15.Be2
Bg7 16.c3 Rc8 17.Nc2 Rc5 18.Ne3 f4 19.Nf5 0-0 20.a4 Nxf5 21.Qxf5 Qe7 22.axb5
axb5 23.Qxf4 Rxd5 24.Rfd1 Re5 25.Qe3 f5 26.Qb6 f4 27.Qxd6 Qg5 28.f3 e3
29.Ra7 Kh8 30.Qd7 Rg8 31.Qh3 Qg6 32.Rad7 Rh5 33.R7d6 Bf6 34.Rxf6 Qc2 35.Qxh5
Qxe2 36.g4 Qf2+ 0-1



"KRCH" wrote in message
om...
More on http://Kramnikchess.narod.ru

"Linares__Lulls" wrote in message
news:TC51c.669505$X%5.461401@pd7tw2no...
I'll tell you.....I have never seen Leko blunder so badly and so
blatantly.
I think that Leko had good winning prospects that game, and certainly no
possibility of losing......in the absence of a blunder.

Come now. This was no blatant blunder. Leko didn't leave a queen en prise.
He was faulty in his defense. Kasparov, in his match with Kramnik, always
had what looked like winning prospects against Kramnik's Berlin Defense.
Prospects don't win games. Kramnik is willing to take on inferor positons
as long as they are not lost positions. He himself has written so in his
summary of the match with Kasparov.


Perhaps there is something to Fischer's claims about pre-arrangement. And
interesting thing to note......the odds on Kramnik to win that game were
11-1 on Betsson. Someone got a nice payday.

Nonsense.
--
Ian Burton
[Please Reply to Newsgroup]

"ian burton" wrote in message
news:LHS1c.773$BA.117@fed1read03...

"Linares__Lulls" wrote in message
news:TC51c.669505$X%5.461401@pd7tw2no...
I'll tell you.....I have never seen Leko blunder so badly and so
blatantly.
I think that Leko had good winning prospects that game, and certainly no
possibility of losing......in the absence of a blunder.

Come now. This was no blatant blunder. Leko didn't leave a queen en
prise.
He was faulty in his defense. Kasparov, in his match with Kramnik, always
had what looked like winning prospects against Kramnik's Berlin Defense.
Prospects don't win games. Kramnik is willing to take on inferor positons
as long as they are not lost positions.

You're an idiot with no knowledge of chess whatsoever. That much is clear.
Leko has never made a mistake like this in his entire adult career, and
kramnik never "is willing to take on inferiour positions" you moron. Kramnik
tries to create the best position he can every single game. He is not always
able to do that. That is part of the reason he got his ass kicked, losing 3
games in Corus 2004. Learn a little about the game before you rant like an
idiot.

Jason Repa

(Larry Tapper) wrote in message . com...
"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message ...
Actually, it looked like the challenger was better for most of that game,
and the Champ got out by a bit of error on Leko`s part. Not sure how much
of a beating that was, I think Leko was doing more beating overall. ;-)
Too bad it turned out how it did. Kramnik took care of the inaccurate play
from Leko in harsh style with the fine 34...Qc2! I wonder how Leko could
have proceeded differently. The commentators on ICC and chess.fm seemed to
think 32.Rad7 was a decisive mistake.

Has anyone seen analysis showing exactly where Leko could have
improved and maintained an advantage? Just curious --- during the game
it always seemed to me that once Kramnik got his pawn to e3, he had
lasting compensation.

LT

P.S. While I still haven't come across detailed analysis of this game,
I notice that on the Ruschess site:

http://www.ruschess.com/Java/2004/Lin11/on.html

Taimanov notes briefly that he prefers _Black's_ chances after move
28.

So far it doesn't seem to me accurate to say that Leko blundered away
a large advantage. During the game I thought Kramnik was doing OK all
along.

P.P.S. Note to Dan Scoones: this is the page with the "habitual board"
someone was asking about in the "Fractured translation" thread.




(2) Leko(GM) (2722) - Kramnik(GM) (2777) [B33]
Linares Linares, Spain (11), 02.03.2004


1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5
9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Qh5 e4 15.Be2
Bg7 16.c3 Rc8 17.Nc2 Rc5 18.Ne3 f4 19.Nf5 0-0 20.a4 Nxf5 21.Qxf5 Qe7 22.axb5
axb5 23.Qxf4 Rxd5 24.Rfd1 Re5 25.Qe3 f5 26.Qb6 f4 27.Qxd6 Qg5 28.f3 e3
29.Ra7 Kh8 30.Qd7 Rg8 31.Qh3 Qg6 32.Rad7 Rh5 33.R7d6 Bf6 34.Rxf6 Qc2 35.Qxh5
Qxe2 36.g4 Qf2+ 0-1



"KRCH" wrote in message
om...
More on http://Kramnikchess.narod.ru

On 4 Mar 2004 04:48:46 -0800, (Larry Tapper)
wrote:

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message ...
Actually, it looked like the challenger was better for most of that game,
and the Champ got out by a bit of error on Leko`s part. Not sure how much
of a beating that was, I think Leko was doing more beating overall. ;-)
Too bad it turned out how it did. Kramnik took care of the inaccurate play
from Leko in harsh style with the fine 34...Qc2! I wonder how Leko could
have proceeded differently. The commentators on ICC and chess.fm seemed to
think 32.Rad7 was a decisive mistake.

Has anyone seen analysis showing exactly where Leko could have
improved and maintained an advantage? Just curious --- during the game
it always seemed to me that once Kramnik got his pawn to e3, he had
lasting compensation.

LT



(2) Leko(GM) (2722) - Kramnik(GM) (2777) [B33]
Linares Linares, Spain (11), 02.03.2004


1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5
9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Qh5 e4 15.Be2
Bg7 16.c3 Rc8 17.Nc2 Rc5 18.Ne3 f4 19.Nf5 0-0 20.a4 Nxf5 21.Qxf5 Qe7 22.axb5
axb5 23.Qxf4 Rxd5 24.Rfd1 Re5 25.Qe3 f5 26.Qb6 f4 27.Qxd6 Qg5 28.f3 e3
29.Ra7 Kh8 30.Qd7 Rg8 31.Qh3 Qg6 32.Rad7 Rh5 33.R7d6 Bf6 34.Rxf6 Qc2 35.Qxh5
Qxe2 36.g4 Qf2+ 0-1



"KRCH" wrote in message
om...
More on http://Kramnikchess.narod.ru

Fritz offered som suggestions:

a) instead of 25.Qe3 playing 25.Ra6 and then after either 25...d5 or
25...Rd8 playing 26.Rb6 which wins the b-pawn. However, given the
bishops of opposite colors it is not clear if this enough advantage
for White to win.

b) instead of 28.f3 playing 28.Kh1 If Black plays f3 right away we
get: 28...f3 29.gxf3 exf3 30.Rg1 Qf6 32.Qxf6 Rxf6 33.Ra8+ Kf7 34.Ra7+
Ke6 35.Bd1 Bf8 36.Rxh7 Bc5 37.Rh3 and White will be able to maintain
at least a pawn plus. If Black defers f3 and plays 28...Kh8 29.Qc7
Rg8 30.Rd7 Re6 31.g3 f3 32.Bf1 I think that White can defend his king
sufficiently and still pressure the Black pawns at b5 and e4 winning
one or both.

c) instead of 31.Qh3: 31.Kh1 Qg6 32.Qd3 Qg6 33.Qd6 Re6 34.Qd7 Rg6
35.Rda1 Qg5 36.Qh3 and it looks like White can hold because of the
indirect threat on the h6-pawn as well as Ra8 and trading off a pair
of rooks.

What an objectionable prat you are.


"chess_newsgroup" wrote in message
news:BUS1c.695623$X%5.667737@pd7tw2no...

"ian burton" wrote in message
news:LHS1c.773$BA.117@fed1read03...

"Linares__Lulls" wrote in message
news:TC51c.669505$X%5.461401@pd7tw2no...
I'll tell you.....I have never seen Leko blunder so badly and so
blatantly.
I think that Leko had good winning prospects that game, and certainly
no
possibility of losing......in the absence of a blunder.

Come now. This was no blatant blunder. Leko didn't leave a queen en
prise.
He was faulty in his defense. Kasparov, in his match with Kramnik,
always
had what looked like winning prospects against Kramnik's Berlin Defense.
Prospects don't win games. Kramnik is willing to take on inferor
positons
as long as they are not lost positions.

You're an idiot with no knowledge of chess whatsoever. That much is clear.
Leko has never made a mistake like this in his entire adult career, and
kramnik never "is willing to take on inferiour positions" you moron.
Kramnik
tries to create the best position he can every single game. He is not
always
able to do that. That is part of the reason he got his ass kicked, losing
3
games in Corus 2004. Learn a little about the game before you rant like an
idiot.

Jason Repa

What a worthless idiot you are!

LOL

"Linares__Lulls" wrote in message
news:%fp2c.724341$ts4.141591@pd7tw3no...
What a worthless idiot you are!

ROFL!