< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Jul-01-11|| ||bronkenstein: BTW,Kasparov vs Karpov, 1990. Last game of their last match , check the final posish. Kasparov offered a draw (which was , naturally , accepted ), and people laughed for months after that . BTW Kasaprov was totally outplayed (having white !) in this one , and Karpov overpushed somewhere later on , when the surprising draw offer came. |
Karpov and Kasparov talking about that game and their motiffs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvL... + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEX9... .
Another fine example of lack of motivation influencing (ruining , better to say ) Kaspy`s playing strength is the VERY previous game of the match , GK had +2 after game 22 and the match was decided , he played game 23 like a baby : Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 . He was lost around move 20, but he played 28 moves ... for the fans I guess ;) You have the game covered in the first part of the first vid upthere.
|Jul-01-11|| ||Petrosianic: Sometimes the psychology of those situations can be fascinating. Like how Fischer and Spassky played so long in Game 16 just because neither one wanted to offer the draw.|
Personally I don't have any aversions to "running up the score". I think it's silly to say that one player is allowed to try for a win but the other isn't. In physical sports, there's some rationale (what if your first string Quarterback gets hurt while you're playing for meaningless points)? But that's a reason for the first string quarterback to be annoyed, not for the other team to be mad.
I don't remember the details but I remember once hearing about a bench-clearing brawl in baseball that erupted when one team stole a base when they were up by like 10 runs. That was probably the culmination of bad feelings rather than the beginning of them, but you get the idea. Etiquette-wise, playing for meaningless points and wins can be controversial sometimes.
|Jul-01-11|| ||Petrosianic: <Sometimes the psychology of those situations can be fascinating.>|
I'll tell you the most interesting such game I ever played. This game could not have been played anywhere except online.
I was White, went pawn grabbing on b7 with my Queen, and got a couple of pawns, but got the Queen trapped. The other guy couldn't actually win it, but he could keep attacking it indefinitely. The result: Draw, right? Well, no. Not right away. After we repeated the position 3 times, I didn't want a draw. I had a winning material advantage, so I figured he can just claim it himself if he wants it that much.
But for some reason he didn't want to claim it either. I don't know why, but he wanted me to claim it. (Maybe to make me admit that the whole pawn-grabbing thing was a mistake in the first place?).
Well, I didn't want to claim it either. So we repeated moves. And repeated them. And kept repeating them over and over. In an OTB game this wouldn't have happened, because we wouldn't have wanted to write down all those moves. But online, we just kept going and going.
Finally, I decided I'd had enough. I wanted the draw, but I wasn't just going to claim it like he wanted. I had to find a different way to end it. The last capture had happened around Move 16. By this point it was about Move 70, with all the moves in between having been repetitions.
So, I thought about what's a clever way to end this and finally came up with something. Breaking the repetition, I moved my queen to d7, checking his King, and also putting it where it could be captured four different ways. The repetition was gone, but while he was reeling from the shock, I quickly claimed a draw by the 50 move rule before he could take my queen.
And I bet he had to go change his pants after that.
|Jul-01-11|| ||Eggman: <<Petrosianic: The comparability is that both are lost positions, Korchnoi even admitted as much when he proposed it, saying that that if Petrosian turned him down, there was no point even adjourning.>>|
I guess we have to agree to disagree. There's a difference, it seems to me, between lost and ludicrously lost (e.g. two pieces down), and this provides context not just for the acceptance of the draw offer, but for the putting forward of the offer in the first place. Korchnoi, down a pawn in a hopeless position, could at least *unsheepishly* propose a draw, while Karpov, basically down a Rook and Bishop, could not have *unsheepishly* done so.
|Jul-01-11|| ||Petrosianic: <I guess we have to agree to disagree. There's a difference, it seems to me, between lost and ludicrously lost>|
Not when your opponent is offering to resign if you don't take the draw.
|Jul-01-11|| ||Poisonpawns: Short would have easily crushed Kasparov, had he not lost games 1,3,4,7,9 and 15.|
|Jul-01-11|| ||KKDEREK: I just checked that Short played Sicilian with white in ALL games (!). Well not sure was the best decision (Kaspy was THE Sicilian expert), but at least gutsy, IMO..|
|Jul-01-11|| ||I play the Fred: <I just checked that Short played Sicilian with white in ALL games (!). Well not sure was the best decision>|
Short had an even score with the white pieces, so <1 e4> and the white pieces weren't the problem. Besides, if he wanted to play a different first move he should have started doing it sooner - according to this database the vast majority of his first moves <other than 1 e4> occurred either before he was a GM or in the past five years.
I don't know exactly what's being discussed here. Short failed to defeat the greatest player of all time - what's so unusual about that? Anand couldn't do it. Freaking Karpov couldn't do it during his best years. Only Kramnik, an all-time great himself who had seconded Kasparov in the 1995 WC match (and thus learn more about what made GK tick) managed to do the nigh-impossible.
I can't tell whether history is, or will be, fair to Nigel Short. But I'm a glass-half-full guy, and for that, Short's swath through Murderer's Row (Gelfand, Speelman, Karpov, Timman) ought to be at least as well-remembered as his failure to defeat Kasparov.
But I'm fighting the world here, and the world says that second place is for the first loser. I guess six billion people can't be wrong.
|Jul-01-11|| ||Petrosianic: <Short failed to defeat the greatest player of all time - what's so unusual about that? Anand couldn't do it.>|
Anand was at least in the running, and even had the lead at one point. Kasparov-Short was the most one-sided match in a half century (since Alekhine-Bogolubov 1934, IMO). Karpov, Anand, and Kramnik all did noticably better against Kasparov than Short did.
|Jul-02-11|| ||Eggman: <<Anand was at least in the running, and even had the lead at one point ... Karpov, Anand, and Kramnik all did noticably better against Kasparov than Short did.>>|
I know that Anand's score in his challenge against Kasparov (7.5-10.5) was somewhat better than Short's score (7.5-12.5), but that can be attributed, at least in part, to the shorter length of the former's match (best of 20). And losing the first game on time in a position in which only he had winning chances certainly didn't help Short's campaign. Anand, like Short, managed just one win against GK.
It seems to me that the main difference between Anand's and Short's challenges to Kasparov was that Anand waited until the second half of the match to collapse. If Anand's collapse had come in the first 6 or 7 games, his challenge would have seemed rather pathetic.
|Jul-02-11|| ||Petrosianic: That's true, because if it happened that way, people would have (probably correctly) chalked up the long run of draws at the beginning (now at the end) to Kasparov not trying to win, and just closing out the match as painlessly as possible. As things stand the run of draws came while the decision was still up in the air, meaning Anand held him in check for a long time while the outcome was still in doubt. The collapse at the end was embarrassing, but one can't say he was never in it.|
|Jul-02-11|| ||keypusher: <eggman> <petrosianic>|
<It seems to me that the main difference between Anand's and Short's challenges to Kasparov was that Anand waited until the second half of the match to collapse. If Anand's collapse had come in the first 6 or 7 games, his challenge would have seemed rather pathetic.>
Conversely, if Short had set himself the task of losing the match by the smallest possible margin, rather than going all out for wins at the start, the final score might have been somewhat less one-sided.
Overall Short is, I think, a lesser chessplayer than Karpov, Anand, or Kramnik, so it's not surprising that they would each make a better score in a match with Kasparov than he did. But so what? He was the winner of a long, arduous selection process. He did some amazing things along the way, e.g. winning this game to reach the candidates, M Gurevich vs Short, 1990 and becoming the first person other than Kasparov to beat Karpov in a match. A lot of great players have never done so much. Kudos to him!
|Jul-02-11|| ||Eggman: <<Petrosianic: That's true, because if it happened that way, people would have (probably correctly) chalked up the long run of draws at the beginning (now at the end) to Kasparov not trying to win, and just closing out the match as painlessly as possible.>>|
OK, let's say Anand's collapse had happened early, with the run of draws happening in the second half. I can well imagine that people would have chalked this string of draws up to Kasparov "closing out the match ... painlessly", but how can you say that people would have been "probably correct" to reach this conclusion? Such a conclusion implies that without an early collapse Anand would *not* have held his own for any stretch against GK, but we know this to be definitely false (because in reality he did), not "probably correct."
Anand's example (and that of Karpov-Timman '93, and Fischer-Petrosian '71, where again the underdog did well early on *before* collapsing) indicate that an extended period of even struggle during a match can not necessarily be chalked up to the winner/favourite coasting to victory.
|Jul-02-11|| ||Kinghunt: Look at the final positions of the last three games of the match. I'm pretty sure Kasparov could have ground out a win in game 19. Instead, he offered a draw. Games 18 and 20 weren't as clear, but he was definitely superior in both final position. Call it losing interest or call it a smart matchplay decision, but Kasparov definitely was not putting all his effort into winning the last couple games.|
|Jul-02-11|| ||Eggman: I believe it is generally acknowledged that Kasparov could have tried for more in game 19, but didn't do so (ruining my prematch prediction of a 12.5-6.5 victory) because he was very tired. But that's the only game that I know of, and it doesn't account for the entire second half of the match. And it's so easy to read into such things. What would we make of Kasparov's short draws with White in the Kramnik match if he had been leading there, rather than trailing?|
|Jul-02-11|| ||Petrosianic: <Conversely, if Short had set himself the task of losing the match by the smallest possible margin, rather than going all out for wins at the start, the final score might have been somewhat less one-sided.>|
True. In fact, very true, because Kasparov would probably have accepted quick draws with Black, and might not have been too averse to them even with White, if he had a lead of even a point or two.
|Jul-02-11|| ||Petrosianic: <Anand's example (and that of Karpov-Timman '93, and Fischer-Petrosian '71, where again the underdog did well early on *before* collapsing) indicate that an extended period of even struggle during a match can not necessarily be chalked up to the winner/favourite coasting to victory.>|
Collapses like that happen more in short matches, and in "Best Of" matches. The person on the short end of the stick can't bide his time, he has to try, harder than he normally would, to win games and level the score.
Conversely, he does NOT have to do that in a Pure Wins match. The conventional wisdomm in the 70's was that such a mmatch would ensure more fighting play, because if you need 10 wins, you're going to go for them as quickly as possible, right? Well no, when Kasparov went down 0-4 in 1984, he was the one who started playing for draws. Reportedly it was Botvinnik who said that the best thing Kasparov could do after tht start was to draw the next 10 games in a row. Such a thing could never have happened in a Best of 24 match.
|Jul-02-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <It seems to me that the main difference between Anand's and Short's challenges to Kasparov was that Anand waited until the second half of the match to collapse. >|
Yeah but it's just like getting knocked out in round 2 as opposed to round 11. A pretty significant difference.
|Jul-02-11|| ||plang: <Overall Short is, I think, a lesser chessplayer than Karpov, Anand, or Kramnik, so it's not surprising that they would each make a better score in a match with Kasparov than he did. But so what? He was the winner of a long, arduous selection process.>|
I agree - the idea that Short "collapsed" during the maych is silly.
I think he played his best - Kasparov is just a much better player.
|Aug-05-11|| ||ToTheDeath: petrosianic- that story was hilarious. online chess at its best (worst?)|
|Jun-05-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: An excellent match possessing a plethora of exciting and instructive games.|
|Jun-05-12|| ||AVRO38: The biggest joke match since Alekhine-Bogoljubov II.|
|May-04-13|| ||Everett: Not a well known game between these two. Some absolutely fascinating tactics in this one!!|
|Nov-01-13|| ||Karpova: Garry Kasparov: <The refusal to play the match under the aegis of FIDE was the worst blunder of my entire chess career.> |
From page 490 of 'Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov Part II: 1985-1993', Everyman, 2013
|Nov-07-13|| ||offramp: The introduction says (I don't know how to get these things changed....):|
<It was played in the heart of London at the Savoy Theater, a short distance from Trafalgar Square and across the street from Simpson's-on-the-Strand...>
Its actual title is The Savoy Theatre, but that is minor. The name of the restaurant is Simpson's-in-the-Strand. IN not ON.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·