|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-27-06 | | Elixir of Life: <Anatoly Karpov who was seeded directly into the candidates finals (!)> Another proof of FIDE favouritism |
 |
Nov-27-06
 | | acirce: <Elixir of Life> Towards whom? It would have been the case for Kasparov too if he had lost the 1986 match. The alternative would have been that the loser had to be outside the qualification cycle altogether, since on Kasparov's (understandable) insistence the 1986 match was to be played so late. I wonder how many people would have thought that more reasonable. And this was according to an agreement between Kasparov and Karpov that they had agreed to outside of FIDE so "FIDE favouritism" does not exactly seem like an apt description of the situation. |
|
| Nov-27-06 | | Karpova: Karpov needed a draw in the last game and got a winning position - in the end, he lost.
That's a real tragedy but Karpov will always be reagred as a fantastic player and the only challenge for Kasparov until the third K appeared. |
|
| Nov-27-06 | | percyblakeney: If Kramnik had kept his father's name there would have been one more Sokolov to mix up with all the others... |
|
| Nov-27-06 | | percyblakeney: <Karpov needed a draw in the last game and got a winning position> I'd like to see that winning position... |
|
Nov-27-06
 | | Open Defence: hehehehhe yeah..... |
|
| Nov-27-06 | | percyblakeney: The last game could be described like this: Kasparov is pressing and has the advantage, while Karpov gets into time trouble and takes a poisoned pawn. Kasparov has a certain win on move 33 but misses it, and on that move Karpov has the chance to reach an ending where he probably would get a draw with best play. But he has very little time left and after missing that one chance the possibilities to draw the game seems to be gone: Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987 |
|
| Nov-27-06 | | Karpova: <and on that move Karpov has the chance to reach an ending where he probably would get a draw with best play.>
Though his pawns are in bad shape he's still up a pawn (and that's a free pawn) so i'm not sure why you dismiss Karpov's chances so easily. Especially due to the fact that white would have had to find the best moves, too, after 33...Nc5 but you're tacitly assuming he would. |
|
| Nov-27-06 | | percyblakeney: <i'm not sure why you dismiss Karpov's chances so easily> I guess it's not too important how big Karpov's winning chances may have been, since he would have been happy to take a draw rather than trying to win. I personally don't think Karpov had a win, but as one can see from the kibitzing on the game there are also other opinions on the subject. |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | Chess Classics: <Elixir of Life: <Anatoly Karpov who was seeded directly into the candidates finals (!)> Another proof of FIDE favouritism>
I don't think it's favoroutist, I think it's just a stupid system. Regards,
CC |
|
Dec-02-06
 | | Hesam7: <<Karpova>: Especially due to the fact that white would have had to find the best moves, too, after 33...Nc5 but you're tacitly assuming he would.> I thought we were talking about objective evaluation. In game 24 at move 33 Kasparov has a <winning line> while Karpov never has something like that in the entire game. |
|
Dec-02-06
| | Hesam7: @ Karpova
I have posted Seirawan's comments on Karpov's 33rd move in the game's page. He believes that even after 33... Nc5 Kasparov is better although there is no clear win for Kasparov. |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | slomarko: Karpov was not better at any stage of the game. |
|
Dec-04-06
 | | Sneaky: <acirce> <[Favoritism] towards whom? It would have been the case for Kasparov too if he had lost the 1986 match.> What on earth makes you say such a gullible thing? Do you honestly believe that? I suppose your basis for this is that <The alternative would have been that the loser had to be outside the qualification cycle altogether> but I don't understand why you consider this as an all-or-nothing affair. Why do you find it unthinkable that Karpov could be seeded into the semi-finals, or quarter-finals? |
|
Dec-04-06
| | acirce: <What on earth makes you say such a gullible thing? Do you honestly believe that?> Like I said, the fact that they had agreed to this before the match, and it had been approved by FIDE. Odd question, why wouldn't I believe what I say? If you deny that Kasparov would have been seeded into the final in the same way then the onus is on you to explain why they wouldn't have applied the same rules on him. Seems unreasonable to me, but perhaps you have a good explanation. <Why do you find it unthinkable that Karpov could be seeded into the semi-finals, or quarter-finals?> For one thing, when the 1986 match was finished, the candidates semifinal (what from the beginning was supposed to be the candidates final) had already taken place (or was going on and nearing its end, I don't remember exactly). And at the time they signed the agreement, the quarterfinals/semifinals (Vaganian-Sokolov, Yusupov-Timman) were already going on or finished. I suppose they could have postponed Sokolov-Yusupov and let Karpov/Kasparov enter for some kind of 3-player match tournament. A bit odd but not unthinkable; anyway, those were not the rules. |
|
Dec-05-06
| | Sneaky: <acirce> You seem to know a lot about the situation--on the other hand, I am learning about it for the first time from these little historical capsules at the top of this pages. The way it's stated above implies strongly that FIDE was making the rules up as they went along, especially with that little (!) that was inserted for emphasis. <Like I said, the fact that they had agreed to this BEFORE THE MATCH> Actually I don't see where you said this, but if this is actually true then I have to apologize, retract what I said, and even take your side on the issue. |
|
Dec-05-06
| | acirce: Apology accepted. Yes, I should have made it clearer that it was before the match, actually quite a while before, to be exact in January 1986. I guess I assumed it was obvious for some reason. (And how else could I be so sure that the same would have applied to Kasparov?) And in my reply to you I thought from the arrogant tone that you knew at least about the basic facts. I also reacted somewhat to the way it's worded here right now and the way it seems to imply favouritism without including the background. There is always Mark Weeks' page for some information about these matches, even if not always exhaustive: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/86k... |
|
| Dec-05-06 | | euripides: From what I remember (and I wasn't following it closely), the chess world was much happier with Karpov's status in the 1986-7 Candidates' round than it was with the advantage he had in the mid-1990s cycle that ended in his match against Anand after Anand won the knock-out tournament. Perhaps mainly because in 1986 no-one really thought anyone was even close to the top two. I remember in 1990, I think, Karpov being asked by someone 'you may be playing Kasparov all your life - how do you feel about that ?' and his answering 'I look forward with pleasure'. No-one then foresaw that the 1990 match would be the last of the series. |
|
Dec-06-06
| | acirce: What was terribly wrong with Karpov's privileges in the 1997/1998 FIDE WCh was not that he was automatically seeded into the final as this had always been the case for the champion, but that he immediately got to play the winner of the KO who only got a couple of days to recuperate after a tough event. For more information, see The Chessgames Premium Membership Tour ;-) |
|
| Dec-06-06 | | code13: "What was terribly wrong with Karpov's privileges in the 1997/1998 FIDE WCh was not that he was automatically seeded into the final as this had always been the case for the champion, but that he immediately got to play the winner of the KO who only got a couple of days to recuperate after a tough event. " How big an advantage was that though? Although Anand may have been tired, equally one could argue he would have been less "rusty". Furthermore, given that the finallist other than Karpov was not known until a few days before the match, Karpov would have had little opportunity to prepare for the specific opponent. Whereas Anand would have known in advance of the tournament, that if he wanted to be world champion he had to prepare to meet Karpov. |
|
Dec-06-06
| | acirce: Well, you couldn't really equally argue that. Given the choice, almost everyone would take three weeks of rest rather than three weeks of intense competition that close before the match. And I doubt Anand was able and willing to spend a lot of time preparing against Karpov with a big KO event to focus on. After all it was far from certain that he would ever get to use that preparation anyway. Besides, I think he actually called the final match against Karpov simply a contractual obligation after the real tournament had finished... but that is not really an argument since other players might have had a different view. (A certain Danailov agreed though.) Meanwhile, Karpov could of course prepare a little too. In the absence of Kasparov and Kramnik, it was clear that Anand was the favorite to win. It's actually quite probable that he spent more time preparing for Anand than Anand for Karpov. But I don't know what he said about it. |
|
| Dec-07-06 | | percyblakeney: It's hard to deny that the schedule was much to Anand's disadvantage when he played Karpov in 1998. He had in total two days to rest, travel to another country and prepare for the match. That after just having played six matches, the last of them being even longer than the Karpov match. According to Mark Weeks, Kramnik refused to participate in the 1997-98 cycle since he thought it was unacceptable that the Champion had the privilege of only playing the final. |
|
| Dec-07-06 | | code13: Well up until then the champion had always stayed outside any eliminating event and then played the player who emerged. So it might have been fairer if there had been a break before the Anand v Karpov match, but I don't think any of that was Karpov's fault. Might have been better if they had stuck with zonals, interzonals and proper candidates matches too! |
|
Dec-08-06
 | | thegoodanarchist: In the photo it doesn't even look like Kasparov - it looks like Jerry Lewis... |
|
| Dec-08-06 | | square dance: <In the photo it doesn't even look like Kasparov - it looks like Jerry Lewis...> maybe this is why they played half of the next match in france. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
