Hi all, let’s have a look at one of the more heartbreaking games of the recent St.

Louis rapid events.

I was rooting for Garry Kasparov and for me in fact this is one of the most heartbreaking

games I’ve seen this year.

Well even this year and last year I really wanted Kasparov return to be triumphant.

Let's see what happens in this game.

E4f from Kasparov and David Navara played the CARICOM, a reputation this opening has

a reputation of being very solid, reliable and it's also something Anatoly Karpov would

use against Kasparov.

It fits that kind of way of combating someone with a dynamic aggressive creative style to

try and keep things solid.

We see d4, d5 and we see the advanced variation, e5.

This has been popularized in recent years this variation.

Because of the idea of Nf3, which wasn't played here followed by Be2, which is the short variation

Nigel Short.

Which is one of Kasparovs’ British victims on many occasions.

So the Nigel Short variation was Kasparov going to borrow from Nigel Shorts.

No actually had a more aggressive, well somewhat more aggressive intent with Nc3.

Then it keeps open this diagonal.

So potentially there's a forcing move g4 to try and embarrass this Bishop for advantageously

use this Bishop.

We see after e6, g4, Bg6.

Now Ng2.

So there's two ideas can be combined, h4 and Nf4 to try and harass this Bishop and anytime

h6 you know to take on g6.

That's the basic idea of this system.

C5, Be3, Ne7 and we see that f4 very very aggressive play from Kasparov.

H5, now if white is prompted in to g5 that strategically suspect.

Because if g5 Nf5 with tempo and this looks like a French defense with an upgrade.

The bishop here instead of on c8.

It looks like a wonderful position in fact for black.

You can imagine this scenario. It is all in blacks favour.

It starts falling apart really this position.

If we take it further, it's just very very nasty for example.

Even tactically as well as positioning.

So it's to be avoided this g5 and what's more logical is f5, the pawn structure according

to Michael Stean in simple chess. It is the fundamental constraints on the pieces.

So it's like the straitjacket potentially, hopefully of the opponent's pieces and the

liberator of your pieces.

That's the dream and here the dream is fulfilled in a way with f5.

Because after he takes, we can see the bishops blocked in and it's also liberated the Knight.

So it's liberation and containment after g5 in particular.

We have Nf4 on the cards.

So that's on the cards and perhaps one of black’s best moves is to counter sack a

pawn, which he didn't do to get that Square and it should be about even this position

if white wins d5, this should be fine for black.

But the way Navara played it was actually Nbc6 and he's provoking this, basically this

statement you know that this pawn sack you know is making a statement here.

This bishop’s hand in, its dynamic its, aggressive d5 is under great pressure.

In fact this Fianchetti could add more weight to the d5 pressure pretty soon.

So this is a pleasant pawn sacrifice and conception to pleasing conception.

It should be rewarded this conception.

A6, Bg2, d5 is under great fire.

Black is actually in a way wrecked his pawn structure with this as well and also you see

this pawn is liberated as well potentially for e6.

We see c takes, Bishop takes, Knight takes, perhaps better is to keep the tension with

Qa5.

But Knight takes, Queen takes Knight c6, Queen drops back.

With d5 under Fire, yeah this looks like a very very pleasant

position indeed for white.

If black played, let's say d4, white can just castle here and pin that pawn.

This is pretty nice with Nd5 perhaps to follow.

Nd5 looks pleasant enough and there's lots of options here for white.

So good compensation for the pawn.

We see Bb4.

Now black is intending to do damage it seems to the pawn structure and this is welcomed.

We see white just castling.

Bishop takes, B takes.

So another kind of dynamic example of this game is to the pawn sack is accepting the

seemingly wretched pawns.

But this is often the sign of a dynamic plan to compromise pawn structure to maximize peace

activity.

Botvanik did that in several games, accepted double pawns, but had great pieces.

Botvinik as we know was you know the Soviet chess school which Kasparov and Karpov attended.

So he's also played dynamic aggressive games like this.

Qa5, now perhaps here Kasparov play Rxd5, there might be stronger in e6.

This is dangerous.

Because this can't ever be taken to the bishop as a liability.

For example Ne7, Bxd5 and white should have a pleasant enough position here.

Say castles, King could secure a3, c3 could be just given actually if the bishops on b3

and white has fantastic prospects here in this position.

I'll give you an example.

The Queen could come to the center with menacing threats on g7 and with this pawn for example

like this, bang boom, end of game nearly.

This position, Nf4, this position it starts to get really nasty.

So there are all sorts of things that can occur if the bishop might clunk itself on

b3.

With that maneuver Bxd5 to b3.

So this Rd5 is interesting as well.

Well it's fine here and Kasparov doesn't mind the exchange of Queens and he's got a lot

of pressure on the position now.

He takes on c6, so we head into this ending where this pawn is signifying its intent already

that it could be dangerous later.

Rd6.

Now this pawn saying to this pawn is more significant now.

Keep track of the pass pawns here.

This pawn could be dangerous in the future.

More simplification, a5 not to give that pawn with this one as well.

But that's chaste and give up.

The black rook comes in, c5, this pawns only steps away from queening.

Re1, check, check.

Now Nd3 holding that e5 pawn and attacking the rook.

Blacks game is on his last legs surely.

Because this pawn is only steps away from queening whereas blacks pass pawns.

This one seemed more theoretical and this one needs that one removed.

We see Rh3, c6 and here is a key point after Rxh2++ where I’ve mentioned recently about

the Tarrasch rule if you remember.

One of Tarraschs' most golden rules which should be really respected and interpreted

in all rook and pawn endings is the idea of rooks behind pawns for the defender.

It's ideal to have usually the rook behind a pass pawn to keep it under lock and key

as Aron Nimzovich might create the metaphor for, but yeah it is the Tarrasch rule.

Rooks behind pawns and Kasparov didn't really do that.

He could have played Kc3 and the Knights also guarding this square.

So the King is guarding this one, the Knight is guarding this one.

Why wasn't this played? Kasparov may have had some sort of blackout here.

Because this looks absolutely winning.

It doesn't seem to matter what black does.

Example Kd8, let's say h3, Kd8++, we have this with the idea of combining the rook and

Knight for a mate, not just queening the pawn.

If Knight ends up on b6, it is checkmate.

For example like this threatening mate as well as protecting the pawn and it's all over.

Black would have to give up the rook, it’s just a rook down.

Yeah, I mean on h3 instead, again c7++ and there's two ways it would end, a4, N6, Na4

to threaten mate is probably stronger and there's nothing that backs doing.

This is an absolutely winning position after Kc3.

Tarrasch rule is echoed.

But instead Kasparov seems to black out with Ke3.

The rook goes behind the pawn.

But it still seems really dangerous.

White should play, he's still winning with Knight before in any case getting a tempo.

He didn't play this with the idea of check, c7 and the tactical idea that f takes, Nd5++

and if h3, weaken Queen and we have time to get behind this pawn.

Rh8 might be sufficient. So it's, yeah, it's unfortunate.

But in this position even, even with the Tarrasch rule violated.

Nb4 is still promising here.

Whatever black does.

The check is a nice distraction idea to try and maximize this pawn.

White can actually play; it seems the strongest might actually be not to take care allowing

check and takes.

Because there's always in this position that Kd7 for example coming up.

But the strongest might actually be here after Nb4, f4, Kd4 would stop losing

the Knight.

With the rook hit, check this position is winning for white.

Here g6 to stop to threaten this and if fg, e6 and there's ideas of weaving mating this,

it's just really dangerous give an example like this c7.

What is black doing?

So yeah, it's all pretty winning.

Unfortunately e6.

Now things are starting to get difficult after h3.

We've got two potentially dangerous candidates here, pass pawns.

It looks as though White's candidates should be more important still.

But Nb4, we see now already in this position.

Black could push his candidate with h2 and be okay.

Yeah blacks okay here.

Because if we try and get behind the pawn here, blacks actually okay now.

Rc4 and yeah if anyone's Better, it's slightly better as black.

So already things have slipped here.

But black played f4++ and we have Kd4.

Yeah if King takes, h2 is much better for black.

This is even better.

Because here black can actually pick up this Knight with check and any time c7 happens,

just a rook behind the pawn.

Because this pawn is adding weight yeah to White's worries.

So anyway f4, we see Kd4, h2++, Rh8++, Kc5 and now very good move from black, Be4 is

about play Bb7 on c7.

So this is really unfortunate that this move is played.

But in fact white still okay here after c7, Bb7.

This position, Kasparov played Kb6.

Here it seems white still has an edge.

If a3 is played, things are getting a bit complicated here, what is this about?

Giving an example f3, Kb6, f2, Kxb7, queening, queening this position.

It's good for white this position.

Its tactical, very tactical.

This is a mega tactic.

But technically it's good for white it seems.

We're going far away into fiction land there.

It's only a rapid game.

Okay, so Kb6 was played and we see Bc8, now that's taken.

So white has released the lock and key on this pawn.

H1 queening, check, getting the Queen back with check hopefully, which he does.

Well if he doesn't, if Kd6, then this is nice for white.

So yeah white should take the rook, check, we have Qc7 potentially as well as Nc6.

But unfortunately our knight c6 was played.

Then this position Qc7 should still be drawing.

Giving an example, King takes, check and the check should persist.

Because here there's Qc3++.

So that's too dangerous to lose the rook.

So actually the King might be forced to go back or Rd7 and the checks would persist,

should be a draw.

But in fact Nc6++ is played and black has a mega tactic here.

Black to play and the blacks got potentially dangerous pawn here as well.

This may have originally had the visual intention of distracting the King away from the other

candidate.

But its candidate pass pawn in its own right.

Black here realizes that with this next move.

Black to play, what would you play if I give you five seconds starting from now?

Okay Qxc6++, doesn't matter how that's taken this pawn a massive pass pawn.

If King takes, the Rc2++ and we left with this running pass pawn here and Queen takes

was played.

But this, now Rd6 nasty pin immobility of the Queen and this pawn is queening.

Its end of game.

There's nothing white can do.

His pawn is far too slow.

Yeah just to spell it out a bit more.

F takes, this one we can just go back to stop that pawn and we're just quitting.

Yeah, we're moles ahead on the queening.

Okay so why is this so heartbreaking?

Well I don't really feel upset usually that much personally on other people's games.

But I felt for Kasparov, because he I wanted him to do well and this was now around 7,

he played it this game, this is on a new day.

He wanted to try and play creative.

He did play creatively aggressively and Kasparov you know wonderful pawn sack.

Really dynamic aggressive game, accepting the double pawns.

All these dynamic decisions you think should be rewarded, if there's any justice in the

game.Any justice in Chess.

But unfortunately despite having a winning pass pawn yeah, he broke the Tarrasch rule

lose that is really saddening and he said himself, the fun was taken away after from

the event.

He wanted to have fun, but this game was too much of a disappointment.

Yeah and it was a disappoint for me.

I couldn't bear to video annotate this the day after.

So that's when I switched to another player.

I was too upset by this.

Because yeah when you play a creative game, I feel you should be rewarded for that creativity.

Not punished in some technical at the end for the result to be like stolen from you

in a way.

No, but because I mean stolen back is a harsh word.

But it's Only rapid, but even so yeah, the pass pawn

should have been winning and yeah, it's one thing to lose a game if you're losing all

the way through.

It's another thing to be sort of swindled in a way yeah it was.

Swindle is a bit too harsh word, because it's rapid.

Black was extremely technical resourceful to his credit and David Navara said you know

he's used to having bad positions at openings and being resourceful and obviously he is

a very strong Grandmaster.

Perhaps it's quite objective about himself and he's very very nice guy.

So great credit to Navara for sticking in there and finding that amazing tactic at the

end.

But from a Kasparov perspective I can feel the pain.

It's been a few days since this game, I can still feel the heartbreak of it.

I thought, someone wanted me to cover this, I'm covering it now.

But I have to say for me it's one of the most heartbreaking games I’ve ever seen in real

time and try to report on.

Okay comments questions, like, shares appreciated.

Thanks very much.