Judit Polgar punishes Karpov in the Queen's Indian Defense

[@Nicks721]

She was really good,I mean really really good. The tactic was great,but at their level kind of elementary. But the conversion was spectacular,to crush Karpov like that is not an easy thing. Viva Judith,I like her because she is also a very happy and smiling person, seems very nice person

[@Qhsjahajw]

Its pretty standard conversion for a top 20 player

[@Nicks721]

@@Qhsjahajw not so standard

[@brant25]

not so standard (2). and judit is just great fun! i always watch the live comentaries that she does. she has a mom vibe + crushing world champions in chess

[@Nicks721]

​@@brant25I totally agree her commentaries are exceptional she sees many great moves instantly and I also agree on the mom vibes. Now especially on her conversion in this game I liked very much her move at 10:42 BB5, to open the way for the rook. Because in that position the worst piece was the knight so the first instinct would have been to improve the knight for example via b6 and d5, after you kick out the enemy queen with let's say Rc6 in order to avoid the queen trade. I haven't thought very much on these moves that I suggest but what I want to say is that her decision to move the bishop again which was great was not obvious. And her next moves were also very clinical and tactically very concrete,she exploited her iniative to the maximum. Maybe they seem obvious when you see them played and explained to you but when you have to decide OTB between these moves and others equally logical at first sight it's not so easy. And she played with 98% accuracy in a very complicated position, that's not standard or easy at all,even on SGM level. Judith was a beast!!!

[@irfanyamashita7184]

This was judith peak though

[@ExplosiveBrohoof]

Your remark about positional/strategic focus leaving one vulnerable to tactical blind spots is such a personal attack on me. I'll spend half my clock time thinking about what move in a position provides good strategic counterplay, optimizes the reach of my pieces, coordinates with my pawn structure, creates holes in my opponent's side of the board, etc. Then I'll play the move without realizing that I just hung my queen.

[@thomasa4749]

Your 'Tale of the Tape' at the end has been a really nice touch. Keep up the good work, Jerry!

[@AndjeiKuna]

When Jerry first described the game, I figured Judit would win a piece or something. Instead she gets equal material and just wins the purely positional game against Karpov of all people. What a legend.

[@Wyllfredd]

hi Jerry, great video just wanted to say I love the moments where you stop and ask the viewer what they'd play. vewry often I wass either picking the line you said was tempting but not that strong or sometimes a strong line which made me feel happy with my own understanding. great informative video!

[@nickcellino1503]

It's such a pleasure watching and listening to Jerry's annotations. No one does a better job breaking down the games so all levels of chess players can understand them, move by move.

[@oliviapg]

Hey Jerry, another great video! Not sure if you're looking for more games to analyze but game 39 in the ongoing Stockfish vs Leela TCEC superfinal was crazy, involving Stockfish losing what it considered a completely drawn middlegame position (eval at +0.13) which came from the knight sacrifice opening played in the infamous game 6 of the Kasparov/Deep Blue rematch.

[@GaryTheGray]

Nice, instructive commentary on a game from one of my favorite players. Thank you.

[@saywhat4464]

Judit Polgar isn't just the greatest woman player ever, she's one of the greatest tacticians of all time. Morphy, Tal, Polgar.

[@PK-xv4bg]

You people watch 2-3 games and go crazy 😂😂 any of the current top 20 can play like this

[@irfanyamashita7184]

Anand kramnik ivanchuk is far better than judit polgar

[@AndjeiKuna]

@@PK-xv4bg clown take bruv. I can, off the top of my memory, name like ten games when Judit held her own in a fascunating manner against insanely good players in their own right.

[@PK-xv4bg]

@@AndjeiKuna delusional life

[@LukeLongboneOfficial]

Jerry is one of the best teachers I’ve ever listened to. Seriously.

[@RicardGomes76]

That explanation about the prevention to Queen attack was very insightfull. I would much fancy just a short video with this. All the rest is of corse also great, GM 👍

[@DFWREIClub]

I love the attacking, tactically brilliant style of Judit Polgar! She's rapidly becoming one of my all-time favorite chesss players. 🙂

[@mentalmoves6032]

Thanks for this game. You and ChessDawg are the best chess YT channels.

[@marthadunkley6758]

'Feel free to pause the video' Now where have I heard that before? 🙂

[@ChessNetwork]

My previous video

[@altonbrek]

Polgar made strong grandmasters sweat!

[@dougcarey2233]

I love Polgar's sense of style. She's so good at smelling blood in the water too.

[@markhughes2556]

She's pretty good at putting the blood in the water too

[@euclideszoto997]

Its unusual to associate Judit with the Queens indian defense. Its incredible that Judit beat Katpov of all people with it!

[@jeffrey3498]

Polgar is so precise in this game.

[@schess75]

Can you show the 1996 Karpov vs Gulko game "The Jewel of Oropessa"! Its not very known although its a brilliancy! Thanks!

[@gustavomilione1970]

I was lucky enough to meet Judit at the Magistral Najdorf in Buenos Aires 2000. I have seen her play and she is more incredible than she looks!!

[@pratushpradhanxiih3263]

Superb analysis loved it

[@malcolmmarshall7009]

Was forever getting congested early with black when I used to play all those years ago. Really skillfully got out of that here. Thanks Jerry

[@ashoksafaya5397]

Nice game with square wise analysis including positional and tactical aspects as well ❤, thanks.

[@ChessNetwork]

Thank you 👍

[@ashoksafaya5397]

Thanks

[@omezzyallen7742]

It’s insane how strong she was. In this Era- she definitely causes trouble in the candidates

[@aidanhoward213]

How delightfully intriguing that at move #7, Karpov played 7.Qc2, which is the Kasparov Variation (of the Petrosian), named after Karpov's own major rival for more than 20 years.

[@michael2244]

Judit Polgar 😍😍😍

[@TheAtheist22]

With this level of understanding for chess Jerry, it is really a mystery why you're not a GM yet.

[@rohitchakravarthi94]

Jerry is absolutely a legend when it comes to breaking down chess, showing us how to see the board, making chess entertaining, his soothing voice and delivery and his dry wit. Being a GM is another skill which just takes a lot of sacrifice to just study and acquire the skill to calculate and be able to focus for a long time, I really believe it should not be a end goal for a chess player. There is so much to contribute and what Jerry has been doing for me since 7 years I think its far much noble than rather him being a GM.

[@TheAtheist22]

@@rohitchakravarthi94 I love Jerry's intellectual approach to chess. And I'm a big fan. So my question is genuine. Not doubting Jerry's abilities.

[@irfanyamashita7184]

Judit beat karpov with one of his favorite opening

[@Qhsjahajw]

karpov was the reason everyone started playing it

[@pyephyoaung7340]

Wow!!! Sick game

[@alexandershorse9021]

Polgar is clinical, thanks Gerry!

[@YonaNgambi]

She was such an extremely tactician. She's definitely a queen of the chess.

[@jsardi56]

She defeated 11 current or former world champions in rapid or classical chess.

[@barracuda7018]

Yes only few times, in total she has been crashed...Carlsen, Kasparov and even Karpov all have superior result against Polgar, Kramnik was her worst nightmare, with ZERO win..

[@mr.anti-hero4398]

"Defeated" is a tad bit strong of a word. Most of those former champs hold a superior record against her, and by superior I really mean superior. She won a few battles, but they won a war. The only reason this isn't evident is due to a perceptive fault, which comes from the interpretation that's based on the amplification of her greatness...for the cost of diminishing the greatness of her opponents. That's because most of the high-ranking players are positional types (to a higher or lower degree), thus they produce conceptual, strategic, and intuitive games with strictly technical wins, which is interpreted as tedious by the general audience...because the approach is cold...devoided of any emotions. Judit on the other hand is a tactical player. Her game is based on the brainstorming of ideas which stems from the input of the potential motifs in a concrete position. Given approach makes her games seem dynamic, fast, and risky, which leads to the creation of the intensifying effect...and not to mention that a given approach creates aesthetically pleasing threats because it often involves sacrifices and deflection ideas. As her games are more beautiful and emotionally invoking, streamers have a tendency to elaborate on those more often than they elaborate on the games of her opponents, which gives the impression that she's better than the world's greats---and that's ofc untrue Similar occurrences can be noted in other sports, and we will derive the analogy from MMA. Let's take Khabib N as an example here. He's pound for pound the most superior fighter that ever stepped in the octagon. However, he's a wrestler (positional joe). His strategic approach is fairly simple: a) Put the opponent on the ground. b) Tire him by applying pressure on the top of his upper body. c) Submission! The approach works. It works perfectly. But there's a problem though. The problem is the reality that most people are sensory-driven rather than intuitive and conceptual--- which means most people don't prefer to watch two folks lying on a mat for 45 minutes (commercials included) . They want punches, dodges and evades, counters and flying kicks...and that's the reason Connor was so popular, even tough he wasn't the greatest. Sad, but it is what it is.

[@mr.anti-hero4398]

@terrarossa-tk6zu Defeat does imply domination...especially within this context. *Defeating* someone can be described as scoring a victory over someone in a battle or a contest. According to the Oxford Dictionary, synonyms for defeat are "win against someone", "triumph over"..."conquer" etc. Now...One could argue that defeat in its broader scope means winning over someone. Still, OP specified the statement by writing she defeated 11 world champions (I'm paraphrasing), which does indeed imply that she conquered them in a match for a professional title, not in individual-friendly games. It's fairly reasonable to assume how one could interpret reality as such, especially when one lacks the information needed for a valid frame of reference. When I saw the comment, given interpretation instantly came to mind. Commenter above me shares similar sentiment, which can be reasonably assumed from the underpost.

[@moesheri9385]

Thx Jerry 😊

[@deadbeefmonster]

Judit and Karpov! NICE! A++++

[@Blazko612]

VERY TRICKY FROM POLGAR ! SHE IS A CHAMP FOR MY POINT OF VIEW ! THUMB UP DUDE !

[@humblesir5880]

Jerry thanks again ❤for

[@strooomon]

Polgar is a beast.

[@tomasolsson1491]

Very instructive and not to fast!

[@ChessNetwork]

👍

[@ituramphisa7445]

I wonder what Fischer thought of Judith.

[@MoonBurn13]

I believe he once “challenged any woman player in the world to a game at knight’s odds”, and there were no takers. What he thought of Polar as an individual player I don’t know.

[@marianosetula5666]

@@MoonBurn13 he changed his ways throughout the years :)

[@DemoboyOot]

Fischer may have personally coached the Polgar sisters. Didn't he live in Hungary when they emerged as strong players?

[@wzdew]

Bb4 is nasty.

[@neurathal0n534]

Naaaasty

[@joyphobic]

Day 2 of asking Jerry to cover the Sack of Rome games by Sofia Polgar

[@PeterWhite-q1k]

Yes, please (day 2 request, also)!

[@MoonBurn13]

Why did Karpov never attain a phalanx pawn center with PK4?

[@Nabbottt]

Barring move 1 it lost a pawn for most of the game including the first 15 moves

[@MoonBurn13]

@@Nabbottt Ok I only glanced at that during Jerry’s commentary, so you’re probably right, thanks. I know for certain Jerry despises the move Bc1-d2 though. 😀

[@chuckh553]

Jerry flight square 😎

[@danielbspinola]

I watched again cause I forgot to like. It was worth it.

[@jorgealejandroreyeshernand140]

She is a monster

[@edwardkrall2454]

After the wonderful Polar sisters, chess was never the same...THANK YOU POLGARS. ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️😎

[@edwardkrall2454]

That's polgar sisters..

[@edwardkrall2454]

Polgar sisters

[@exponentmantissa5598]

This was also near the end of Karpovs career

[@PeterWhite-q1k]

Hi! I don't get your point. Karpov made 1 mistake at move 16 according to the tale of the tape. I don't want to believe you are throwing shade at Judit!

[@eyeofhorus1301]

​@@PeterWhite-q1khe's defending that it wasn't the best karpov

[@Qhsjahajw]

​@@PeterWhite-q1k?? Karpov clearly fell off after hitting 50. And that one mistake is pretty decisive

[@zwischendurundmoll3968]

yessss

[@tommyrjensen]

Why punish Tolja? He is such a nice polite man.

[@PeterWhite-q1k]

Jerry, Thank you for this. Please help me (and likely quite a few others, in explaining the Tale of the Tape percentages. To my tired mind getting 0 scores for inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders sounds like a 100% rating. I admit I am ignorant about how this and seek your always excellent. imho, explanations. Best wishes, always.

[@alessandro3139]

I think 100% means that you made the best move (according to the engine) in 100% of cases. There could be some moves (in this case 2% of them for Polgar) where you didn't play the absolute best, but the alternative you have chosen is only slightly worse, and therefore is not considered an inaccuracy.

[@eyeofhorus1301]

​@@alessandro3139if its slightly worse it's an inaccuracy not a mistake tho

[@alessandro3139]

@@eyeofhorus1301 I've not talked about mistakes. I've said that if your move is only slightly worse than the absolute best, than is considered a good move, and not an inaccuracy. If after playing a move as black you are -0.53 instead of -0.54 (after the best move) I think it's not fair to consider that an inaccuracy. I think there is a minimum centipawn loss (for example 10, or 15 or whatever it is) to consider a move an inaccuracy.

[@E8oL4]

@@alessandro3139 True. Actually, does anyone know the threshhold from nothing -> inaccuracy -> mistake -> blunder?

[@loplop7029]

Hi Jerry.

[@balygaby]

Milyen gyönyörű nő

[@davidbatchelder85]

I did see it but I viewed the pawn taking pawn taking queen taking. I am writing this before you tell me why. I want to learn, your videos are great for myself trying to learn and can not afford a couch. So may Jesus the Christ bless you for a prayer answered. Amen

[@passenger1312.]

it was a difficult game to understand it. i'm sorry. it was so difficult for me.

[@M.KEY_HEMIN]

J.★★ ★★★★☆

[@zwischendurundmoll3968]

28 seconds ago never saw that :D

[@cygil1]

Karpov well past his prime, of course.

[@itsthedaywalker]

I wish we could have an analysis for c5 too @1:19