In the illustrious annals of chess history, few names resonate with the power and dominance of Garry Kasparov. Known as “The Beast from Baku,” his games are often perceived as flawless expeditions into the labyrinth of strategic brilliance and tactical precision. Yet, even titans stumble. A fascinating analysis by Grandmaster Ivan Sokolov, focusing on a pivotal game from the Corus Chess Tournament in Wijk aan Zee in 2001, reveals a rare instance where Kasparov, against Jan Timman, navigated a dynamic middlegame with strategic blunders, only to emerge victorious. This isn`t merely a tale of victory, but a profound lesson in the human element of chess, where resilience and an opponent`s missteps can outweigh even a legend`s uncharacteristic errors.
The Battleground: Corus 2001 and a Dynamic Middlegame
The year 2001 saw Kasparov once again at the pinnacle of competitive chess, leading the Corus tournament with his characteristic zeal. His eleventh-round encounter with Jan Timman, a formidable opponent in his own right, unfolded into precisely the kind of dynamic position Kasparov relished. Flexible pawns, potential for kingside pressure – it was a setup ripe for the “Iron Garry” to weave his magic.
The initial moves saw a relatively symmetrical English Opening transpose into complex lines (1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Nb6 7.O-O Be7 8.Rb1 O-O 9.b4 Nxb4 10.Nxe5 c6 11.a3 N4d5 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.a4 Bf6 14.d4 Bf5 15.Rb5 a6 16.Rb2 Rc8 17.Bf4 Bxe5 18.Bxe5 Re8 19.e3 Re7 20.g4 Be4 21.f3 Nc4 22.Re2 Bg6 23.h4 f6 24.Bf4 Qd7 25.Rfe1 Rc6 26.h5 Bf7). White, with the bishop pair, held a clear intention to press the attack on the kingside, while Black eyed counterplay on the queenside, aiming for an outside passed pawn. The stage was set for a classic Kasparovian assault.
When Precision Eludes Even the Best: Kasparov`s Strategic Blunders
However, the narrative took an unexpected turn. At a critical juncture, Kasparov, known for his unerring strategic vision, made a misstep. Instead of opting for moves that would either weaken Black’s kingside pawns (like 27.h6) or strategically reposition his pieces for a sustained attack (such as 27.Bf1, preparing Re2-g2), he chose 27.e4. Sokolov, in his incisive analysis, identifies this as a “crucial strategic mistake.” What an engine might simply mark as a minor shift in evaluation (say, +0.23 to -0.30) becomes, under human scrutiny, a moment of profound strategic imbalance.
This central pawn push, far from enhancing White`s advantage, led to trades that surprisingly ceded the upper hand to Black (27…dxe4 28.Rxe4 Rxe4). And then, another uncharacteristic blunder from Kasparov: instead of capturing with the pawn (29.fxe4), which would have, after further complications, likely led to a draw, he took with the rook (29.Rxe4). It`s almost as if, having calculated the pawn capture line and found it unsatisfying for a player of his winning ambitions, he sought an alternative, only to plunge into an objectively inferior position.
The Road Not Taken: Timman`s Missed Opportunities
So, the pendulum had swung. Timman now held the advantage, a rare gift against the reigning world champion. Yet, the pressure of playing against Kasparov, coupled with the inevitable time trouble of a complex game, proved to be a formidable adversary in itself. Timman, after navigating his way out of a difficult spot, failed to seize his newfound initiative.
At move 30.Re2, after Kasparov’s second error, Timman had a golden opportunity. The quiet and robust 30…h6 would have stifled White`s kingside aspirations and allowed Black to focus on the isolated d4 pawn and advance his queenside majority. Instead, he played 30…Rc8, a seemingly innocuous move that offered Kasparov a lifeline. True to form, the opportunist in Kasparov immediately grabbed it, pushing 31.h6, complicating the position once more.
Later, after a series of exchanges (32.Bg3 Re8 33.Qe1 Rxe2 34.Qxe2 Kf8 35.Qd3), Timman again missed a chance to consolidate. Engines indicated equality, but White`s bishop pair was a subtle long-term asset. Black`s optimal response would have been 35…b5, forcing action on the queenside. However, Timman retreated his knight with 35…Nb6, leading to further maneuvering (36.a5 Nc4 37.Bf1 Qe7 38.Qc3). His final decisive error came with the forced queen trade, 38…Qe3+ 39.Qxe3 Nxe3, simplifying into an endgame where Kasparov`s bishop pair could eventually triumph.
The Resilient Victor: Kasparov`s Unyielding Spirit
In the end, despite his earlier strategic inaccuracies, Kasparov, leveraging Timman`s subsequent errors, demonstrated why he was world champion. His ability to create problems, seize any glimmer of opportunity, and convert even a slight edge in complex endgames was unparalleled. He didn`t play perfectly, yet he played better when it mattered most, navigating the murky waters of human psychology and time constraints to secure the full point.
Sokolov`s Legacy: Beyond the Engine`s Cold Logic
Ivan Sokolov`s analysis, as highlighted in this game, underscores the profound difference between a machine`s dispassionate evaluation and a grandmaster`s intuitive understanding of critical strategic junctures. An engine might merely present a numerical shift, but Sokolov elucidates the why – the underlying strategic principles, the missed human opportunities, and the psychological pressures that define high-level chess. It’s a testament to the enduring depth of human chess analysis, far beyond the binary outcomes suggested by silicon.
This game serves as a compelling reminder: chess is not just about finding the best move, but about navigating imperfect situations, exploiting your opponent`s fallibility, and possessing the sheer willpower to win, even when the path is not as clear as a grandmaster`s legendary reputation might suggest. Kasparov won the Corus 2001 tournament with a commanding 9/13, a testament to his overall strength, even when individual games revealed the very human side of his genius.
Marcus Blakely 
Gilbert Pendleton