|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-28-07
 | | kevin86: Why did Kasparov play black in the last two games? Anybody know? |
 |
| Feb-28-07 | | RookFile: I don't believe he did, but then again I do see what you're saying, in that the way the list is currently sorted above, it looks like he did. |
|
Mar-25-07
 | | ahmadov: <CG> needs to check the text to remove typos. |
|
| Mar-30-07 | | Timex: Once upon a time, Anand was playing Kasparov for the world title. He sat down and suddenly---
............a crack in the floor appeared.
Kasparov asked, "Have you been gaining weight lately?"
Anand blushes and answers, "Oh yes."
Kasparov replies, "Don't tell me you are 400 pounds."
Anand, "Oh, I am even better. I am 500 pounds."
Immediately, the floor cracks and both of them fall through 107 floors of the World Trade Center.
Note: This is probably what caused the World Trade Center's potential 9/11. :)
Anand looks fat in the pic. |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | chessblind: <Timex> If Anand is obese,(your estimate is 500 Pounds) then how about Kramnik?Where will you place him so that the earth under him does not give away? |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | Davolni: I wonder if the picture is real. They really played under the sun? with that view? |
|
Aug-01-07
 | | Sui Generis: The picture is just promotional, the actual games were played under normal conditions. You can find videos of games 8, 9 and 10 at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Qh...
|
|
| Aug-27-07 | | contra: Yusupov's ideas worked wonders for Kasparov in this match. |
|
| Dec-24-07 | | mistreaver: I wonder what would have happened if Anand used Scandinavian in the 10th game after he took the lead. It would certainly be more effective and would put Garry in hard situation. |
|
| Jul-08-08 | | Jim Bartle: "The match started with eight straight draws (a record for the opening of a world championship match)" Providing lots of fodder for David Letterman, who joked about the high drama of the match. |
|
| Sep-22-08 | | offramp: Without a doubt one of the very worst matches in history. Definitely the worst World Championship match EVER. |
|
| Sep-22-08 | | anandrulez: The thing about this dual is that the play was veyr much theory oriented and none actually wanted to deviate from it . When Anand won , Kaspy struck back with vengance . Anand never recovered from that . The quality of Anands games were much below his par . I think after 2000 Anand really squared up with Kaspy though . |
|
| Oct-17-08 | | Akuni: <offramp: Without a doubt one of the very worst matches in history. Definitely the worst World Championship match EVER.> Says the kibitzer who lists James Mason as his favorite player... |
|
| Oct-20-08 | | VaselineTopLove: It doesn't seem to me that Anand had a Plan B for the second half of the match, like Kasparov did (such as playing the Dragon with black). Anand continued playing the same openings after game 10 which he had been playing from game 1. So there was no surprise element from Anand's side, except for game 14 when he used the Scandinivian, but I doubt that he seriously considered employing it in all his black games, as he switched to more conventional openings after his loss with the Scandinivian. So I don't think he had prepared it that thoroughly. His decision to play 1...d5 may have been caused by a) desperation b) get Kasparov on unfamiliar territory c) play a one off, off-beat game because your seconds found a novelty, or a good, promising continuation - unfortunately for Anand, he was unable to convert the advantage he obtained and lost instead. So the Scandinivian seems more like a one-off game, rather than a thoroughly prepared Plan B. |
|
| Oct-21-08 | | VaselineTopLove: You can't compare Kasparov's 4-1 thrashing of Anand in 1995 to Anand's thrashing of Kramnik now. Back in 1995, an inexperienced Anand was playing a mature and seasoned Kasparov and most of Anand's losses came in the second half after a tough first half, and that too when played over 18 games. Here both Kramnik and Anand are seasoned enough and were considered equal before the match, but no one expected a 3-0 in the first 6 games! |
|
Oct-21-08
 | | acirce: It almost feels like this match was 13 years ago or something. |
|
Oct-21-08
 | | Hesam7: And the match was not as bad for Anand as the result indicates or people make it out be. I have said this before, he forced Kasparov to abandon Najdorf! |
|
| Nov-25-08 | | Ladolcevita: Old picture always looks so beautiful |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | Jim Bartle: Sports Illustrated's report on the match:
In a soundproof glass cage a quarter of a mile above Wall Street, a couple of cavemen named Garry Kasparov and Viswanathan Anand spent the past month clubbing it out at the Intel World Chess Championship. Caveman is the chess term for a player of primitive and brutal instincts. Kasparov, the champion who treats chess as blood sport, showed he's still the game's top troglodyte by bludgeoning his opponent in the best-of-20 series. The $1.5 million battle ($1 million goes to the winner) on the 107th floor of the World Trade Center, had promised to be the worst mismatch since Tyson-McNeeley. Kasparov, a 32-year-old Russian, was expected to pin his 25-year-old Indian challenger to the ropes early, bounce him around at will and score a quick knockout. It didn't play out that way. For eight games Anand jabbed, probed and feinted with astonishing speed, frustrating Kasparov's best efforts and earning draws. Then Anand, the mild, jokey son of a Madras railroad executive, won the ninth game in a display of tactical genius that left his rival stunned. "You catch a tiger by the whiskers, next day he's going to be ferocious," Anand reckoned. He was right. Kasparov mauled Anand in Game 10. And Game 11. And two of the three after that. Then, on Monday, Kasparov drew Game 17 to secure his fifth title defense since 1985. "Anand showed he could hold his own," said one grandmaster analyst. "But he's an intuitive player, and you can't beat Kasparov on intuition alone." In the tournament's final days, the question was not whether Anand would win another game, but whether he would survive to play championship chess again after his psychological and intellectual battering. The $500,000 loser's share may help him recover. Even cavemen have to eat. |
|
| Apr-16-10 | | SharpAttack: <VaselineTopLove> I completely agree with your posts here (about Anand's opening choices and he being inexperienced) Don't you think Anand has become too predictable in his openings? I mean he finds sharp lines in the popular top-level openings but never surprises the opponents with something unusual. |
|
| Aug-31-10 | | garrykasparov: Wow.Even though Anand took the lead in Game 9 he lost the match. |
|
Aug-31-10
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <garrykasparov> (fan) That's not so unique in itself, but it is interesting to think about: how can we measure the "competitive level" of a chess matches? You often hear people say things like "the match was closer than the score would indicate," or use wildly different adjectives to describe matches with similar (or even identical) final scores. Perhaps we could start by looking at 5 things:
1. The final score of the match.
2. The number of lead changes in the match (one player taking the lead away from the other, not just breaking or establishing a tie). 3. The number of games where the loser led the match. 4. The number of games where the match was tied (post-game). 5. The most dominant "mini-match" within the match, and who won it. I'll use the longest period where one player won without answer from his opponent, trimming draws from both ends. I'm sure there are other things, and maybe there is a way to weight/combine these into a single number. The last three items help us get around the problem of comparing matches of different lengths. For what it's worth, here are the results in the post K-K era (classical title matches): Kasparov-Short 1993
Final Score: +5 (Kasparov)
Lead Changes: 0
Short led for 0 games
The match was tied for 0 games
Dominant stretch: 10.5/15 (+6), Kasparov (games 1-15) Kasparov-Anand, 1995
Final Score: +3 (Kasparov)
Lead Changes: 1
Anand led for 1 game
The match was tied for 9 games
Dominant stretch: 4.5/5 (+4), Kasparov (games 10-14)
Kasparov-Kramnik 2000
Final Score: +2 (Kramnik)
Lead Changes: 0
Kasparov led for 0 games
The match was tied for 1 game
Dominant stretch: 5.5/9 (+2), Kramnik (games 2-10)
Kramnik-Leko 2004
Final Score: even, but Kramnik retained his title
Lead Changes: 1
Leko led for 6 games
The match was tied for 4 games
Dominant stretch: 3/4 (+2), Leko (games 5-8)
Kramnik-Topalov 2006
Final Score: even (official classical score)
Lead Changes: 1 (official)
Topalov led for 1 game (official)
The match was tied for 4 games
Dominant stretch: both players went 2/2, +2 (Kramnik in games 1-2, Topalov in games 8-9) Anand-Kramnik 2008
Final Score: +2 (Anand)
Lead Changes: 0
Kramnik led for 0 games
The match was tied for 2 games
Dominant stretch: 3.5/4, +3, Anand (games 3-6)
Anand-Topalov 2010
Final Score: +1 (Anand)
Lead Changes: 1
Topalov led for 1 game
The match was tied for 6 games
Dominant stretch: 2.5/3, +2, Anand (games 2-4) |
|
| Sep-01-10 | | garrykasparov: <SetNoEscapeOn> Thanks for thinking that i'm not really garry kasparov.Besides,I bet he would use capital letters anyways. |
|
| May-26-12 | | offramp: <Akuni: <offramp: Without a doubt one of the very worst matches in history. Definitely the worst World Championship match EVER.>
Says the kibitzer who lists James Mason as his favorite player...> I can change it if you tell me who my favourite player should be. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
