< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·
|Dec-20-12|| ||drik: <Honza Cervenka: Kasparov did not participate not because of any high moral grounds but because he did not wish to jeopardize and diminish his valuable title in this Russian roulette.>|
Source? I seem to recall that Kasparov always claimed that he WAS the champion & so could not participate in a tournament that had Karpov as reigning champion. Indeed - quite aside from ANY considerations of fairness - had FIDE had any interest in Kasparov's participation, a pure KO format with no reigning champion was the only option. The format they chose seems calculated to force his exclusion.
<For Karpov as professional who lives from chess it would be a vain gesture with no effect which would hurt only his interests.>
Karpov was reigning champion & in the top 6 (only 90 points adrift of Kasparov), & so would have carried a lot of weight MAKING A STAND FOR SOMETHING TRANSPARENTLY FAIR.
<In fact, he withdrew next year in protest of breaking his rights of the World Champion from the part of FIDE and what has happened after that? Exactly nothing.>
He withdrew MAKING A STAND FOR SOMETHING TRANSPARENTLY UNFAIR, something in his & only his interests. And he chose to do when he had dropped outside the top 10, trailed Kasparov by 150 Elo & was so clearly untenable as a world champion that FIDE would have been relieved to see him go.
|Dec-20-12|| ||drik: <Honza Cervenka:.The text of Sevastyanov's letter can be found in Edward Winter's "The Termination" at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/>...|
Thanks for this, it is very useful. But as you say, it does not address Karpov's initial acceptance. I agree that at the point of termination, Karpov had better chances of winning the match that Kasparov ... but the fact the accepted termination SUGGESTS TO ME that he thought otherwise. After a few days rest, he probably came to realise his mistake.
I have to agree with the conclusions at the end of the letter -
<The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and self-contradictory;
Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself from suspicion;>
|Dec-20-12|| ||drik: <Honza Cervenka: The only real issue, which was highly problematic from the perspective of even and fair conditions was just the three days gap between the end of Groningen and the start of the match in Lausanne. As the fatigue can be key factor in the chess match, this schedule was definitely in Anand's disfavour.>|
OK. So we are in agreement that the conditions were in Anand's disfavour ... we only disagree about the EXTENT of this disfavour.
<But the question is how great role the fatigue played then, if any at all.>
Fatigue plays a role in most human competition - so 'any at all' is scarcely in doubt. Recall Karpov's fatigue after 20 games in both the 74 & 78 matches against Korchnoi. Recall that Kasparov dismissed the match as between "a tired player and an old player". https://sites.google.com/site/carol...
<I have to repeat here once again that Vishi as far as I know never explained his loss in 1998 by fatigue>
Vishy is a gentlemen. He has said little about his treatment by the Bulgarians in the Topalov match either, but that does not mean that nothing was amiss. He finally admitted the toll of Kasparov's 'door slamming' antics at the 1995 match - but it took him over a decade to do so. Perhaps he only did so because it was not widely known. Comment on this case may be deemed superfluous - given that it is so blatantly obvious.
|Dec-20-12|| ||nok: Your point was the unfairness of one player sitting out while the other plays the Candidates :|
<Yes Karpov not knowing who his opponent would be, was inconvenient. But the REAL 'inconvenience' of ACTUALLY having to fight through all these players, was INCOMPARABLY greater than the VIRTUAL inconvenience of POSSIBLY playing them.>
It happens to be a correct point. I noted that all Steinitzian cycles were unfair in this way, whatever the Candidates format. Now, the latter will have its own twists, and knockout is generally disliked. But to say a hundred men lost their honor by a playing in Groningen is, well, moralising.
|Jan-06-13|| ||blazerdoodle: @Honza. Fascinating analysis on Fischer. But all the analysis aside, Fischer did have a set of rules he claimed he would play under. I canít say they were right or wrong, they were fed up with the guy. But being and old guy and old school, I liked the Cramer rules and donít believe itís true they unduly favored the champ. The idea of having to beat the champ to take his title is not to give the champ special treatment - he has it by the success he gained it, already- why? If the match is drawn, and the challenger still able to usurp him, but not beat him. This canít be good. Itís trying to give to the usurper more than his due, is all it is. Iím not saying the challenger deserves more than his due. But if the match is drawn, he shouldnít lose his title. No one took it. This will continue to bug me. I believe chess is like boxing, not tennis or baseball.|
|Apr-29-13|| ||Capabal: <Determining the Strength of Chess Players Based on Actual Play>
by Diogo R. Ferreira, ICGA Journal, March 2012
Ferreira analyzed various matches and tournaments, among them all the K-K matches. Results of the K-K matches are copied below. The method is described as follows:
We used HOUDINI 1.5a which is one of the strongest engines currently available (only superseded by HOUDINI 2.0c at the time of this writing), with a search depth of 20 plies.
ē We carried out the analysis from move 1 (actually, analysis begun with the starting position, so that the gain of the first move could be determined). With respect to opening theory/preparation, we consider it to be an integral part of strength of play.
ē With regard to suboptimal play in won/lost positions, we considered that playing strength should be de- termined based on whatever a player brings about on the board. If a player plays suboptimally, and this changes the position evaluation, then it should have an effect on the perceived strength of play.
ē Our method for comparing players is based on the distribution of gain expressed as a histogram with the maximum possible resolution (in this work, we used intervals 1 centipawn). This is in contrast with other approaches that consider only one or two parameters (e.g., mean loss, or mean and standard deviation).
ē Rather than an expected error or best move percentage, our method provides an expected score between players that can be directly translated into an estimated rating difference. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that computer analysis can be translated directly into the Elo-rating scale.
ē There is no consideration whatsoever of the complexity of the positions. This is perhaps one of the few issues in which the present approach is lacking in comparison with both Guid and Bratko (2006) and Regan and Haworth (2011)
Kasparov-Karpov WC matches
|Aug-31-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: <After defeating Beliavsky, Korchnoi, and Smyslov in the candidates matches, Kasparov earned the right to challenge Anatoly Karpov for the title.>|
How impressive is Smyslov? More than 30 years after his WC reign he was back in the mix of it.
|Aug-31-13|| ||RookFile: Good for Smyslov, but a commentary on the relative decline in chess at the time. Kasparov deserves credit, with his lively play, for reawakening interest in the game. Karpov was very strong, but his style was more focused on winning endgames.|
|Sep-30-13|| ||Conrad93: Wow. A a first time win on the thirty second move.
That must be a record.
|Sep-30-13|| ||Conrad93: They should have stopped the championship after the fifth consecutive win by Karpov.|
|Sep-30-13|| ||Jim Bartle: <They should have stopped the championship after the fifth consecutive win by Karpov.
Excellent idea. Forget about the rules, just make them up as you go. In football, if a team is ahead by two goals after 80 minutes, call the game. In golf, if one player is three strokes ahead after 16 holes, declare him the winner.
|Sep-30-13|| ||Conrad93: Comparing golf and football to chess is idiotic.|
|Sep-30-13|| ||Jim Bartle: So if the rules say first to win six games wins the match, if it gets to 5-0, just say it's over. The hell with the rules.|
When Karpov was leading Korchnoi 5-2 in 1978, should they have declared Karpov the winner right there?
|Oct-01-13|| ||offramp: Neither player was tired. 48 games in five months is not very many - and nearly all those games had been very short draws.|
FIDE was the tired one; FIDE and the Soviet Chess Federation. They simply could not afford to keep the match going on indefinitely.
|Oct-02-13|| ||Conrad93: Why not just indefinitely extend the match then, Jim?|
There is always a chance the opponent could catch up, right?
|Oct-02-13|| ||KKDEREK: KKDEREK: <conrad> <Conrad93: They should have stopped the championship after the fifth consecutive win by Karpov.>
stop being a moron, if is that possible. Jim is right, you gotta FOLLOW THE RULES PREVIOUSLY SIGNED. Besides, Karpov didn't won 5 "consecutive" games..Not even 3..FIDE should not stop the match thats for sure, but your argument can't hold anyway.. Conrad, when you will ever learn? How difficult can be for someone <not> post a silly stuff <all the time>? You get <everything> wrong..Jesus..|
|Oct-03-13|| ||Jim Bartle: The rule was first to six wins, conrad.|
|Oct-03-13|| ||perfidious: <Conrad> is still learning....|
|Oct-18-13|| ||devere: I've never seen it discussed, but what happened to the purse for this match? Did the K & K boys play 48 grueling games for no pay?|
|Aug-07-14|| ||tzar: The whole 1984 WC match was a mess. Again Fischer's ghost was present with his stupid demands that affected the next WC match cycle which should have been to 24 games.|
IMO Karpov showed complete superiority over any conceivable reasonable match lenght and Kasparov's strategy of making draws to prolong the fight led to a senseless endless match that became just a resistence test. Karpov had already lost 10 Kg. and the officials were worried about his health.
Campomanes tried to end the mess that was a ruin economically and could have lasted 20 or 25 games more putting the players health at risk.
His decision was controversial and open to criticism but it does not make him a "criminal".
|Aug-07-14|| ||Petrosianic: Timing is everything. If Campomanes had stopped the match after Game 46, few would have blamed him. Stopping it when he did looked like exactly what it was: An attempt to save Karpov's bacon. (Nobody called him a criminal, even though you put that word in quotes for some reason).|
Mind you, I personally think Karpov would have won the match had it continued. That doesn't mean Campomanes thought so. He toyed with the idea of stopping the 1978 match the same way.
Likewise, if both players had agreed to the stoppage, few would have blamed Campo. But neither did.
I don't think the Unlimited Match was a bad idea. It was a reasonable attempt to put more fight into the matches. A lot of people predicted that this kind of thing might happen, given two players with the wrong kinds of styles, and the wrong circumstances. But just as many poo-pooed the idea. The only way to settle the question was to test the format and find out. We tested it, it failed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have tested.
|Aug-07-14|| ||tzar: The decision was controversial...some people like you see it as a way of saving Karpov's bacon...others as a quite reasonable decision (considering the tactics going on in the match, financial and health reasons)...others think it only favored Kasparov.|
|Aug-07-14|| ||Howard: Regarding Petrosianic's recent comment, Campomanes didn't become president of FIDE until 1982. It was actually Euwe who was FIDE president at the time of the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi match, though he stepped down later that year. |
Olafsson succeeded him, and then in 1982 it was the Campomanes regime.
|Aug-07-14|| ||Petrosianic: I'm aware that Campo wasn't FIDE President in 1978. But he was running the Philippine Federation, where the match was played. Of course it would have been a lot messier if one the organizers tried to pull the plug on a match without FIDE's consent. They'd probably be in breach of contract. And since it never actually happened, it's no more than rumor.|
|Aug-07-14|| ||Petrosianic: <tzar>: <others think it only favored Kasparov.>|
In the end, I think it did, if you consider what would have happened had Kasparov won the 1984 match. Everyone would have said, with some justification, that Karpov was a better player but Kasparov won by outsitting him. His whole image as the gutsy rebel challenging the establishment would be destroyed. He'd have been champion, but a champion that got little respect. Even if he still won the 1985 match, his reputation would be permanently affected.
People are funny. They don't blame him for TRYING to win that way (what else could he do?). But actually succeeding at winning that way would have left a different impression.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·