Here's another nice endgame by Kasparov. However, it seems like the exceptions to what I stated above consist in endgames that have a very concrete calculation/tactics aspect to them. It's almost like Kasparov's approach to chess was very computer-like, especially as shown in his great predecessors series, which has a head-spinning number of variations.
Where Kasparov ranks among the greatest endgame players
Sort:
Oldest
May 14, 2015
0
#3
Fiveofswords wrote:
any world champ is going to be good at endgames but it wasnt kasparovs strength. In fact the last game he played before retiring was a pretty bad loss in a king and pawn endgame vs topolov that he didnt have to lose.
kramnik who you rmember beat kasparov in the wc match was actually very strong in endgames and this was a big factor in their match.
Ironically kasparov was probably better at endgames than say, capablanca...because he simply stayed up to date on latest knowledge about it and so had more information than capablanca. But as far as his peers he probably wasnt quite as good as karpov or kramnik
it may be rather irrelevant but he did seem pretty good at pawnless endgames. For example i believe it was him that beat polgar in a n+R vs R pawnless endgame.
Well, that's interesting. I do remember reviewing that game, but that was before I had any interest in anything that didn't involve tactics and combinations :) I do think Kramnik's endgame prowess, especially in defending the Berlin, was a decisive factor in Kasparov's capitulation in 2000. At first, I had the naive idea that the Berlin was unbreakable, but others have won against the Berlin Wall, so it's possible that Kasparov could have won at least once. He won in Astana 2001, but that was a game in which he was clearly better in the middlegame, and Kramnik blundered.
However, I don't think the information alone would make him as good or better than Capa in the endgame. I think the approach to the endings is just as important as the pure knowledge. That's why Akiba is probably the greatest of them all :) After all, knowledge of specific positions certainly is greater, but these positions may not occur in practice!
Well obviously he's great at endgames. You don't get to be World Champ without being beyond great at everything.
But I don't think he was one of the absolute elite endgame players. From what I gather, Karpov, Carlsen, Capablanca, Smyslov, Fischer, were all better at the endgame.
So probably you could say that relative to his total strength, endgames did not stand out as one of Kasparov's strengths.
He also was not so good in positions in which he did not have the initiative. But there was probably never a more technically accurate player with initiative, this is what Kasparov will always be known for.
May 14, 2015
0
#5
Fiveofswords wrote:
well ive jsut seen strange examples of capablanca endgames where he made errors that no modern gm who ever bothers to study endgames would make. For example theres a sort of comedy of errors r+p vs r endgame that you can see in dvoreskys endgame manual and anyone who studies it would know when capablanca messed up and what he should do intead (if you have to move the king from blockade square, go to the shorter side). But this was long before such theory was actually known. Now you can just learn it and have great examples from say capablanca :P
Well, yes, that is true. Capablanca, as pointed out by Fischer, had some astoundingly bad endgames, but you also can't trust a Capa who probably lost concentration as he aged. He was famously lazy :) Kasparov's loss against Topalov in the pawn endgame is also kind of astounding. In that 102 move endgame against Karpov cited above, Karpov said Kasparov played very badly! I think other GMs have had their share of not so well played endings. Carlsen's game against Caruana from Tal Memorial 2013 apparently had some errors other GMs were surprised at. Not that I've actually analyzed, though:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1721334
May 14, 2015
0
#6
Blunt_Force_Trauma wrote:
Well obviously he's great at endgames. You don't get to be World Champ without being beyond great at everything.
But I don't think he was one of the absolute elite endgame players. From what I gather, Karpov, Carlsen, Capablanca, Smyslov, Fischer, were all better at the endgame.
So probably you could say that relative to his total strength, endgames did not stand out as one of Kasparov's strengths.
He also was not so good in positions in which he did not have the initiative. But there was probably never a more technically accurate player with initiative, this is what Kasparov will always be known for.
Yes, I've also heard that about Fischer, Carlsen etc. That's interesting about his play in positions without the initiative. Karpov also said something along the lines of "Kasparov doesn't like it when you mess with his king."
I do like this game where Kasparov finds some nice moves to ice Beliavsky's attack:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070317
Oct 10, 2018
0
#7
I did a search on chessbase with piece endgames with pawns (ie. excluding Queens).....Kasparov came top 71%, Fischer 69%...most World Champions 65% approx. Paul Keres scored high 68%....Anand low....54% a proper drawmeister from what I can see.
Both Fischer and Kasparov were excellent endgames players and score high in rook and pawn endgames too. Rubinstein was similarly very strong.
Dear all,
Garry Kasparov is often noted as one of the greatest (possibly the greatest) chess players and champions in all of chess history. When reviewing his best and most well-known games, one is often astounded by his tactical brilliance and at times daunting positional subltety, especially against Karpov. However, there's one distinction I don't often hear attached to him: master of the endgame. People often applaud Karpov for his abilities in the endgame, people have often applauded other champions not necessarily well-known for their endgame play (such as Alekhine and Tal). Obviously, Kasparov was a virtuoso, who could play any position at Super-GM strength, but I don't hear him even so much as mentioned when discussions of the greatest endgame players in history pop up. So, my questions are:
1. Where would Kasparov rank when it comes to an ability to win drawish endgames or draw worse endgames?
2. What are some of Kasparov's best endgame wins? It seems like a lot of his endgame wins against Karpov were a result of being much better in the middlegame and coasting. Examples:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067186
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067288
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067278
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067211
I guess this is an example that doesn't fit with this idea:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067242
Can you give examples of more?
Another nice endgame win was one against Korchnoi:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070041
And yet, when the top ten endgame players of all time discussion comes up, Kasparov is almost never mentioned! Why is that? Dvoretsky did say he lost patience in defending worse positions. Is there anything else?
Thanks,
chessman