< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·
|Dec-19-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <drik> <Unfortunately your 'evidence' is YOUR INTERPRETATION of his behaviour. His behaviour was notoriously bizzare - and of all players, the least susceptible to reliable interpretation. Fischer withdrew from the Sousse Interzonal whilst leading - was that because he was terrified of playing Spassky? In the end - this is just guesswork.>|
Well, I don't say that my interpretation of his behaviour and his conditions for 1975 match is the only possible and that the evidence in this matter is absolutely conclusive. I also don't think that Fischer was particularly afraid of Karpov or (when he withdrew from Sousse) of Spassky or Petrosian or anybody else. But I think (and many things surrounding Fischer's career support such a possibility) that Fischer's problem was atychiphobia or something very close to it. He was simply afraid of possibility of failure, and he had to fight with this fear always when he should play. He loved chess and he had very strong motivation in the objective to become the World Champion. But even then he sometimes needed other people to persuade him to return back to the chessboard. And his state was getting worse during the time. When he became the World Champion, he lost the only incentive which was able to hold him in the game.
|Dec-19-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: If he would have withdrawn from the event then he would have lost his title by default.>|
...& so? A title already devalued by the absence of Kasparov & Kramnik, was still so valuable that it was worth participating in this travesty? At some point, a sense of integrity has to overcome self-interest. Otherwise you lose credibility, which is worth more than real titles - let alone paper ones.>
Despite of significantly lesser value of the FIDE title in the eyes of general public it was far from worthless. 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. It was well known already then that short matches decided eventually by rapid tie-breaks can lead to great upsets on the account of favourites. Kramnik and Kamsky were the only serious contenders who refused to participate. For Karpov as professional who lives from chess it would be a vain gesture with no effect which would hurt only his interests. 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. Kirsan was running happily his KO show (this time with Kramnik in the field, though without Kasparov and Anand) and in the final the 31st man (Akopian) met the 36th man (Khalifman) with the letter becoming the World Champion. In 2000 Kramnik as the new Classical WCH absented there and so did both Karpov and Kasparov but all other heavy weights were there and Anand won the jackpot this time. So why to blame Karpov that he did not withdraw already in 1998? And of course, the beginning of this debate was Karpov's shrewdness and toughness in handling of FIDE.
|Dec-19-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: The evidence like Sevastyanovís letter to Campomanes from the 13th of February>|
OK - I have not seen this letter. How does it explain Karpov's initial acceptance of the termination? And please don't say that it was because the naive & innocent Karpov, was so overawed by the majesty of Campomanes.>
Of course, Sevastyanov's letter does not explain Karpov's "initial acceptance" (more precisely his signature under Campomanes declaration which explicitly stated that the match is stopped despite of wish of both players to continue) but it shows the position of Soviet chess federation which was strikingly different from Campo's decision announced two days later which on the other hand exactly followed Kasparov's proposal made in the beginning of February after the 47th game. Karpov's "initial acceptance" (read signature) of Campomanes declaration of termination of the match can be explained quite easily in the way Karpov did it. After public announcement of termination at the beginning of that press conference which came as a surprise to him Karpov simply considered the announced decision to be definitive, especially if representatives of Soviet chess federation did not object and even urged both players to accept it.
The text of Sevastyanov's letter can be found in Edward Winter's "The Termination" at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
|Dec-19-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: Please, donít try to pretend that you donít understand my point here.>|
I never claimed not to understand the point. I simply claimed to not to understand anyone, who could think that the contest was REMOTELY fair.
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.
DID Karpov have an unfair advantage in this tournament. YES or NO.
If you can possibly answer NO - then I have absolutely nothing more to say on the matter.>
Well, even under good old system of FIDE any challenger had to go through (usually much tougher) qualification consisting of zonal, interzonal and candidate tournaments or matches, and in this respect there was nothing unfair there, though the newly established K.O. format was not much reliable mean to produce the best challenger (in 1997 Anand was the player with the highest rating among participants of Groningen but there were many upsets on the account of main contenders for the title and very next WCH played under same format had had Khalifman and Akopian in the final, both of them from the fourth ten of participants according to rating. 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. But the question is how great role the fatigue played then, if any at all. I have to repeat here once again that Vishi as far as I know never explained his loss in 1998 by fatigue after Groningen and journey from Netherland to Switzerland during one of those three days for his rest. Personally I would prefer to be in Karpov's place rather than Anand's under conditions like that but I am not a player who cares much about opponents and usually I am not doing any specific preparation and so it is more important for me to be fresh that well prepared but tired. But super GMs and chess profesionals can see an impossibility to make focused preparation on the opponent as great disadvantage. It is hard to make any meaningful comparison here, and I don't think it is necessary to do it.
|Dec-20-12|| ||drik: <nok: Your morals lesson notwithstanding, a hundred adults still participated.>|
...& that makes it right? I'm glad nobody entrusts you with moral lessons.
<but Steinitzian tradition has its way for now.>
Yes of course - the 'Steinitzian tradition' clearly applies without modification, to a 100+ player knockout tournament, with the winner forced to player the champion with only 3 days rest. I'm glad nobody entrusts you with lessons in chess history either.
|Dec-20-12|| ||drik: <Honza Cervenka: Well, I don't say that my interpretation of his behaviour and his conditions for 1975 match is the only possible>|
Fine. Your interpretation is perfectly reasonable - but there are several others; each sufficiently likely; to make very questionable any deductions based solely yours.
I doubt very much that Fischer was afraid of anyone in 1972 - indeed I remember an interview where he stated his wish to be champion for 30(?!) years. The first seeds of fear probably date from Karpov's superb demolition of Spassky - but immediately afterwards the Korchnoi match demonstrated Karpov's lack of stamina ... probably giving rise to the demand for a first to 9 wins format. The mere fact that Fischer was fine-tuning match conditions, suggest to me that he intended to defend. I doubt there was any intention to default, before 1974. But that is just my opinion.
|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?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·