< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <alicefujimori: Also, knowing more about the Grunfeld would really help, specifically the line that was featured in game 2 of the London match.>|
Are you always so condescending? What do you know about what I do or don't know about the Grunfeld? Absolutely nothing. You don't know if I play it with Black or against it with White, which lines I've studied, what my rating is, any of that. Are you an International Master or Grandmaster? Somehow I don't get the impression that you are. And if not then you have no right to speak condescendingly towards me in terms of chess understanding, especially when it has been demonstrated (since you didn't believe it) that there are GMs who agree with my view regarding this match.
I have studied Game 2 of that match with both GM and computer analysis. It was a very convincing novelty from Kramnik and it was not easy to find sufficient improvements for Black after that, at least while the match was going on. I'm sure Kasparov tried to find some opening improvements after losing that game, but he was psychologically affected by the loss and feared facing further anti-Grunfeld preparation from Kramnik's team, so he felt compelled to switch openings. Needless to say, switching openings also entailed certain problems (as seen in the Nimzo loss, for example), but after Kramnik's demonstration in Game 2, Kasparov's main weapon with Black against 1.d4 had suffered a serious setback. Why? Because Kramnik was even better prepared than Kasparov, and managed to get in a strong novelty as early as move 11. Not because Kasparov was in such horrible form.
<Also, knowing more about the Grunfeld would really help, specifically the line that was featured in game 2 of the London match.>
And I would suggest that you study the games from Kasparov's previous matches and compare them to those from his match against Kramnik, and then figure out which of his opponents had the best preparation and which of his opponents played on the highest level. Also, knowing more about your own limitations would help, specifically regarding opinions where you feel that you can recognize quality in chess better than strong GMs.
|May-17-07|| ||slomarko: In my opinion the Grunfeld while it make work very well against certain type of players is not a good choice against strong "positional" type players as Karpov or Kramnik. Kasparov had a dismal record with it against Karpov in their championship matches...|
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <s4life: A match does not only take into account games that were actually played, but also those which were forfeited. Now to something more meaningful.>|
<keypusher> properly understood the context of my quote, so there is no need for you to continue "explaining" it to him. My comment about the games played OTB, and I made this abundantly clear before and after the quoted comment. I said specifically that OTB games were my criteria, since as a relative judgment of the *chess* strength between two players, OTB games are relevant and forfeits are not. As an example of this, forfeits are never included in the official head-to-head scores between two players. Yes it was included in the official match score, but I never claimed otherwise. So there is really nothing for you to argue with me about in this case. Throughout that discussion I made it clear that I was referring to the games that were actually played, not the forfeit.
(Needless to say that I consider the forfeit to have been the result of unfair conduct, and like many others I don't ascribe much legitimacy to it... but there's no need to go into all that again, we already debated that at the time and I don't think either of us changed our minds since then).
So I'll repeat: In OTB games, with Topalov having played White in one extra game, Kramnik won the classical match by a margin of three wins to two. As before, I am talking only about the games actually played. The *chess* games. Kramnik won more classical chess games in that match, and he also won more rapid chess games. These are facts, so Kramnik won the match any way you look at it. And regarding the context, <yalie>'s comment indicated that the match had been drawn. There was nothing wrong with my answer that the match was won for Kramnik. Even if you disagree with me regarding the rest, the match was still won for Kramnik.
Now to something more meaningful.
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <s4life: I never claimed he did, and I don't think this is a point of contention, since hypothetically he would have reached his prime a lot faster, had he played Kasparov (or someone of Kasparov's caliber) through the 70's instead of the 80's.>|
That's not just hypothetical, it is irrelevant. Given the context of Hodgson's quote (which is what brought this up), what's relevant is Karpov's actual strength in the mid-1980s to 1990 compared to Kramnik's strength in 2000, and the reason this was relevant was because of Hodgson's evaluation of the relative quality of those matches. It was never intended as an overall comparison between Kramnik and Karpov, as I explained in a previous post, but for whatever reason this seems to be how you interpreted it.
But moving away from Hodgson's quote to this separate issue... Being 25 is not an unfair advantage compared to someone who was 33 at the time of his first match with Kasparov. If anything, 33 is closer to the average peak age (and in Karpov's case the peak age probably came later still). In fact, in Karpov's case some have argued that he peaked as late as 1994 at the age of 43, since that was the year that he had his best performance. This is debatable, but it's evident that his peak came later than 1984 -- how much later can be debated.
<Thirty years is the avg age at which modern chess players reach their peak. They go through their thirties playing with the same strength but their stamina dwindles, which in case of Karpov was the predominant factor that made him lose at least the first match. Would you deny this?>
Yes I do, because Karpov didn't lose the first match. It was a no contest due to FIDE intervention. But with the score at 5-3 in his favor, one can hardly say he lost that match, even if the momentum at the end was with Kasparov. Stamina was a factor, yes, but it had very little to do with age. He was only 33 years old, for crying out loud! It had to do with physical and psychological fortitude, which was even a factor during Karpov's matches with Korchnoi when Karpov was even younger.
|May-17-07|| ||chancho: <keypusher> Great list.|
|May-17-07|| ||alicefujimori: <Plato><There's also something called "bias.">Typical quote from fanatics who tried to deny the facts presented to them by their opposition. I'm not suprised, really. You're not the only Kramnik fanatic around here anyway and it doesn't really make a difference whether you are or not.|
<Somehow during that brief window, however, he was playing so horribly that it was much worse than his level from 15 years earlier, despite all the progress he had made during that time... >First of all, I did not say Kasparov played at a higher level during the K-K matches in 85-90 than in the 2000 match. (Even though this might be true). Secondly, there's nothing wrong with when a player briefly plays below the level he was at some 10-15 years ago. Look at Topalov for example. Was he really playing at a higher level in Linares this year than he was in those stunning performances in 1996? Again, you simply ignore the fact that there's something called "out of form".
<As noted, Hodgson was commenting at the midway point of the match and felt that up until that point the quality of chess was the highest he had witnessed in any world championship match.>Yup, these are typical highest quality of chess from Kasparov with white during the first half of the match.
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000
<Clearly the quality was worse after that point (from Kasparov's perspective), but the main reason for this was that he was facing an opponent who had outprepared him and was outplaying him, and at some point he was just psychologically defeated.>
Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000 - Kasparov blunders a piece...
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000 - typical proof that the first half's level and quality is higher than the second half
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000 - typical proof that the first half's level and quality is higher than the second half
|May-17-07|| ||alicefujimori: <That you continue to blame it on Kasparov's supposedly terrible form from the start, and not on Kramnik's level of preparation and play, this indicates a level of hero worship which precludes you from even considering the idea that Kasparov could ever be outplayed unless something was terribly wrong with him.>LOL. After this fanatic comment from you I realized that you would do anything to make your idol look perfect. |
First of all, I DID in fact acknowledged Kramnik's superior preparations in that match in my previous posts some time ago. I suggest you go back and check it out to stop those delusions of yours once and for all. Secondly, the reason why I mentioned Kasparov's form in that match was because it's an important fact that cannot be ignored. It's just like your insistence on the fact that despite it's 3-3 in the classical phase of the Elista match last year, Kramnik scored a +3 -2 in the 11 PLAYED classical games. Thirdly, I DID NOT blame Kasparov's lost purely because he was out of form. In fact, I challenge you to find a post of mine that suggests that Kasparov lost ONLY because he was out of form.
<This is just false. Prior to that match (and after it, too), you wouldn't find a single GM who would have said he was playing on a higher level in 2005 than he was in 2000.>This is not false, but rather proves the point that Hodgon and your logic has a flaw. Just because 10-15 years has passed that doesn't mean that Kasparov will automatically play at a higher level and quality compared to his previous matches. Not to mention that this also does not mean that he cannot be out of form during the 2000 match. By the way, did you also forgot about Kramnik's performance in the Olympiad last year?
Talking about GMs, I could remember some GMs also critcized the match and even wrote articles with analysis to the various games and opening choices to proof their point.
|May-17-07|| ||alicefujimori: <I have examined Kasparov's games from all his world championship matches, and quite frankly I don't have nearly as much respect for some anonymous kibitzer on CG as I do for Grandmasters. So in general I would take GM Speelman's word over yours, <alicefujimori>, considering that I know nothing about you except that you are fanatical about certain players.><Your opinion that Kasparov's preparation for this match was horrible serves no other purpose than to detract from Kramnik's victory. Even Kasparov himself made no such comment or excuses as you continue making for him.>Another typical Kramnik fanatic response.|
Anyway, if you really have examined all of Kasparov's World Championship matches then you will realize the following typical Kasparov trend and how Kasparov was different in respect of:
1) Kasparov always has 2 openings thoroughly ready against 1.d4 and never abandon them during the match. The only exception to this was the Tarrasch, where ONLY after various tries and fruitless attempts to improve it he had to admit that the Tarrasch was just plain bad against Karpov.
2) As white, Kasparov was always thoroughly ready to play both 1.e4 AND 1.d4. It doesn't matter which one he chose extensively during that particular match. The fact is he always made sure he had another alternative when he is playing white as well.
Now that's typical Kasparov match prep. But what did we saw in the 2000 match? Abandoning the supposedly thoroughly prepared Grunfeld after one lost in a sideline that has nothing to do with the opening, but rather due his choice of going into dubious complications starting with Bc3. The fact that Kasparov said after that game that he got too used to playing for a win with black that he forgot that he was actually a match actually coincides. Then Kasparov brought up what seems to be an unprepared QGA and Nimzo during the match. With white, he was obviously suprised by the Berlin. But where's his typical second alternative (1.d4) when he has trouble with the Berlin back then? Instead, he only remembered it at the end of the match, while he was totally willing to play an unprepared English more than once. Is this really typical Kasparov opening prep in matchplay?
<Are you always such a condescending snob? What do you know about what I do or don't know about the Grunfeld? Absolutely nothing. Are you an International Master or Grandmaster? Somehow I don't get the impression that you are. And if not then you have no right to speak condescendingly towards me in terms of chess understanding, especially when it has been demonstrated (since you didn't believe it) that there are GMs who agree with my view regarding this match.>First of all, you are asked to know more about the Grunfeld because if you really DO know enough about it, then you'll immediately realize that Speelman was talking crap when he said Kramnik blew a BIG hole to Kasparov's Grunfeld in the second game leaving him with no good openings. The line chosen by Kasparov, 9...Bg4, was just a sideline that Kasparov prefers after Kasparov's well-known win against Yemolinsky in 1999. So it was certainly NOT blowing a big hole to Kasparov's Grunfeld to begin with, because there are well tested alternatives such as 9...Nc6 and 9...0-0-0 that are fine for black which Kasparov could always resort to. Not to mention that Kramnik's 11.Rxb7 was really not that of a big deal since it does not really pose problems for black if he is satisfied with a drawn endgame where he is probably slightly worse, but white does not have enough to win. For more about this line, just go to chesslive.de and do some researches on similar games.
|May-17-07|| ||alicefujimori: Secondly, whether I am a GM or IM or whatever is really none of your business. Certainly one does not need to be one to question another kibitzer's knowledge who doesn't even seem to know much about the line in question.|
Thirdly, just because it was GMs who said those words that doesn't mean they are true, especially when the evidence are contrary to what they had said. A number of GMs had been accusing Topalov of cheating, does it automatically make it true just because "a couple" of GMs said so? This attitude of "I believe in what GMs says when they agree with me" and ignoring all evidence contrary to their words are typical biased behaviour of fanatics.
<but he was psychologically affected by that game and feared facing further anti-Grunfeld preparation from Kramnik's team, so he felt compelled to switch openings.>Now this is evidence that you don't know enough about typical Kasparov opening prep and the developments of those past K-K matches. Let's take the 86 match, for example. Kasparov played a continuation in the Grunfeld that he had prepared beforehand in game 5, but there was a flaw in their analysis as they did not consider the plan that Karpov adopted in that game. Karpov then built up a very strong position and went on to crush Kasparov. In game 7, Kasparov chose the solid Queen's Gambit Declined because his Grunfeld obviously needed repairs. He then went on to drew that game. In game 9, Kasparov was back with the Grunfeld. Karpov played the same variation as in game 5, but Kasparov deviated early on (playing another alternative when things don't look so good on the other end) and drew without difficulty after his excellent 15th move. In game 11, the players went down the same line as in game 9. Karpov then deviated with 13.Qe2 and then on move 15 played the famous prepared exchange sac 15.Rxc6. Kasparov then managed to neutralize all the threats and even tried to play for a win himself. The game was eventually drawn.
What does this all mean? It simply means that Kasparov was/is never afraid of his opponent's opening prearations. Even if a specific line he had prepared beforehand suffered badly OTB, he and his team would always repair it and bring it out again. So fear of anti-Grunfeld prep by Kramnik? Are you sure you're talking about the same Kasparov we've been talking about here?
|May-17-07|| ||alicefujimori: <And I would suggest that you study the games from Kasparov's previous matches and compare them to those from his match against Kramnik, and then figure out which of his opponents had the best preparation and which of his opponents played on the highest level.>First of all, it seems that you're confused between opening preparations and the form and level the player plays at. Opening preparations means understanding the line in question and the positions arising from the opening. Then they would try and find different plans and strategies for those openings (so-called novelties). That's basically what opening prep is about, there's obviously a little more. Now the form and level of play of a player is a different story. It has to do with the ability to concentrate, the ability to accurately calculate, etc...Those decide whether the player is in form and whether they are playing at a high level.|
Now, Karpov was perfectly capable of coming up with good novelties and opening preparations against Kasparov too. What Karpov and others failed to do, which Kramnik succeeded in doing, was coming up with an opening with black that Kasparov was very uncomfortable playing against during the match. (ie. The Berlin) If you look at, for example, the 1990 match, you will see that Karpov was thoroughly well prepared in the opening with both white and black. But the problem was Kasparov was comfortable playing in those positions arising from the Zaitsev and Karpov Ruy Lopez, and many a times Kasparov won those encounters because of his form and high level of play and not specifically because he prepared better than Karpov in that opening. Many good moves from those encounters were calculated OTB.
So don't get confused between opening prep and form+high level of play. In fact, I challenge you to find a bunch of games from the 90 KK matches and show me with concrete analysis or fact how Kasparov was playing at a level higher than in the 90 match.
Instead of blindly listening to GM comments, I suggest you do some homework yourself first before ranting about level of play and comparing the quality of those games.
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <alicefujimori: Typical quote from fanatics who tried to deny the facts presented to them by their opposition. I'm not suprised, really. You're not the only Kramnik fanatic around here anyway and it doesn't really make a difference whether you are or not.>|
What's typical is that in a quote branding me as a Kramnik fanatic (which is basically your answer to everybody who disagrees with you), you offer no logic, only insults. No, <alicefujimori>, unlike you I am not a fanatic of any player. Regarding Kramnik, I bet against him during his most recent rapid match, and I also bet against him winning in Mexico. Not such "fanatical" behavior, but since you deal with everything by lableling your opponent a fanatic (I've seen you do it countless times to countless others), it doesn't surprise me in the least that you label me as such.
<First of all, I did not say Kasparov played at a higher level during the K-K matches in 85-90 than in the 2000 match.>
Give me a break. It was clearly implied because you have been going on and on about how you thought the quality of Kasparov's play in 2000 was very poor. And since that's what you think, it would be very bizarre for you to believe that Kasparov's play in his matches against Karpov (which are widely recognized for their high quality) was even worse, unless you think that Kasparov is just some lousy match player ... and as little as I think of your opinion, I gave you more credit than believing something like that.
<Yup, these are typical highest quality of chess from Kasparov with white during the first half of the match.>
<typical proof that the first half's level and quality is higher than the second half>
First, you readily twist meaning and context whenever you feel like it. Hodgson's comment was in relation to previous matches, and it was also in relation to Kramnik being superior to any of Kasparov's previous challengers. *Both* of these things are relevant to the overall quality of that match. Second, this is another example of how you'll do anything to ridicule your opponent rather than examine things objectively. Had I said that the quality was better in the second half than in the first half, you would have brought up games like game 10 and 13 and said <typical proof that the second half's level and quality is higher than the first half>. When he accepted a 14 move draw with White in the second half he was down by not one point but two(an indication that I'm correct in stating that he was psychologically defeated from what had transpired earlier in the match)... and also the quality of the decisive game in the second half was obviously worse from Kasparov's perspective than the quality of the decisive game in the first half. But you have very little interest in seeking the truth, your interest is in blaming almost everything on Kasparov's supposedly horrible form, taking due credit away from Kramnik, and "scoring points" in a debate however you see fit. This is just one typical example.
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <alicefujimori: Secondly, whether I am a GM or IM or whatever is really none of your business. Certainly one does not need to be one to question another kibitzer's knowledge who doesn't even seem to know much about the line in question.>|
It was a rhetorical question. The reason I brought it up is because you speak condescendingly towards a player whose relative strength you know nothing about. I don't care whether you "tell me" if you're an IM or GM or not, because I was already convinced from your comments that you're not a GM or IM anyway. And I very seriously doubt that you're a master, either, based on the frequency with which you exhibit lack of understanding throughout this debate... so as far as I'm concerned it's absurd for you to be the one condescending towards me when it comes to chess understanding (and yet you have twice denigrated me as not understanding chess quality and openings, without any provocation or reason -- there had been no attempts on my part to degrade your chess understanding when you made those comments).
Regarding the Grunfeld line in question, I hadn't even made a single comment about that the specifics of that line (all I may have said was that Kramnik had prepared it better than Kasparov) -- so for you to conclude from this that I don't understand the Grunfeld ("knowing more about the Grunfeld would really help") based on one *true* comment simply demonstrates your weak inference skills.
<Kasparov is never afraid of his opponent's opening preparation> .... Typical hero worship from you. The point is that Karpov's level of preparation, overall, was not as high as Kramnik's in any of his [Karamazov's] five matches. You can dispute this all you want but it only demonstrates your ignorance to do so. In the Kasparov-Karpov matches it was Kasparov, on the whole, who was better prepared, and the level of preparation in the 80s was not nearly what it was in 2000. If you don't know this then you are not familiar with the tremendous evolution of chess theory in over the last two decades. In the Kramnik-Kasparov match it was obviously Kramnik who was better prepared. And in general it can be said that Kramnik was superior in the opening to Karpov, even relative to era, so your comparison holds little water. The opening was never one of Karpov's major strengths (relatively speaking, of course), whereas the same could not be said about Kramnik going into that 2000 match. And in addition to this, the 1985 match was considerably longer, so there was more time to attempt repairs and less risk involved than in a short match.
<What does this all mean? It simply means that Kasparov was/is never afraid of his opponent's opening prearations. Even if a specific line he had prepared beforehand suffered badly OTB, he and his team would always repair it and bring it out again.>
Nope. Wrong. As expected, you haven't bothered educating yourself by actually looking at the games. You go on touting about how much you know and speak condescendingly about the ignorance of people whom you know nothing about, and it turns out that you're just full of hot air and little knowledge. For example, prior to his first match against Karpov, Kasparov had had excellent success with Black in the Tarrasch Defense. So he used that opening in rounds 7 and 9 of the match, lost both games, and never returned to it in that or any other World Championship match. So much for your "he and his team would always repair it [a specific line] and bring it out again."
|May-17-07|| ||WannaBe: Chess Olympiad was May 2006, while Topalov match was September 2006, IF, that's what your debating about.|
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <Now, Karpov was perfectly capable of coming up with good novelties and opening preparations against Kasparov too. What Karpov and others failed to do, which Kramnik succeeded in doing, was coming up with an opening with black that Kasparov was very uncomfortable playing against during the match. (ie. The Berlin)>|
Congratulations! You have given Kramnik due credit without simultaneously appealing to Kasparov's supposedly horrible form! And the truth is, Kramnik was also better prepared with White, coming up with new ideas on a number of occasions. Your Karpov analogy is faulty. In the Kasparov-Karpov matches it was Kasparov who was usually getting the better of the opening wars, but in Kramnik-Kasparov, Kramnik was putting tremendous pressure on him with White and defending relatively easily with Black.
The simple fact is: nobody had prepared this well against Kasparov before. But it should not come as such a shock to you. For one thing Karpov did not have all sorts of computer analysis at his disposal: computers greatly increased the levels of preparation, so for you to even imply that Karpov's level of opening prep in any of the matches was similar to Kramnik's is all the more absurd, not only because of the results of the openings but also because of the eras of the matches. Another point is that Kramnik had an incredible team of seconds working with him, and together with hard work they managed to outprepare Kasparov. *Not* because Kasparov wasn't prepared. But because they found openings that made Kasparov uncomfortable with White (the Berlin) and forceful ways of pressuring Kasparov's prepared lines as Black.
<Speelman was talking crap when he said Kramnik blew a BIG hole to Kasparov's Grunfeld in the second game leaving him with no good openings. The line chosen by Kasparov, 9...Bg4, was just a sideline that Kasparov prefers after Kasparov's well-known win against Yemolinsky in 1999. >
I am aware of that game, and somehow I think Kramnik and his team were as well. That game was a very impressive win for the Grunfeld, and so Kramnik correctly prepared against it and *did* blast a huge hole against it in that match. That's what Speelman was referring to.
<Not to mention that Kramnik's 11.Rxb7 was really not that of a big deal since it does not really pose problems for black if he is satisfied with a drawn endgame where he is probably slightly worse, but white does not have enough to win>
As a Grunfeld player which I assume you are, you should know that this is not the kind of position Grunfeld player's generally seek. And as a Kasparov fanatic which I know you are, you should be objective enough to realize that it's far from the kind of position Kasparov would want to have against Kramnik. For Kasparov to go into a line where he is slightly worse and White has a small but lasting edge, and the most Black can hope for is to hold on to a draw... against Kramnik... that's not what he was looking for.
Besides which, it takes lengthy analysis to come to these conclusions, and it's much easier to do from the sidelines. In the context of the match it was not so easy to "fix" the problems set by Kramnik's powerful novelty -- and even now Grunfeld players seem hesitant to go in for it. In the seven years since that match, NO top GM has been willing to play it. Compare to the seven classical games up to and including that match in which it was played by 2700+ players. Do the research. Clearly the novelty had some bite to it, because when given the opportunity, no top GM (including Kasparov himself when he had the chance) has been willing to play 9...Bg4 since that match.
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <alicefujimori: So don't get confused between opening prep and form+high level of play>|
Not only did I not get confused between them, I specifically used the word *and* to separate the two in that comment of mine you quoted from. The statement <which of his opponents had the best preparation and which of his opponents played on the highest level.> clearly distinguished between those two things, so for you to go on and on about me confusing the two only illustrates your confusion when it comes to making simple inferences. I believe that Kramnik not only had the best opening preparation, but that overall the quality of his play was higher than any of Kasparov's other challengers. And even though they're clearly not the same thing, you are wrong if you think that the quality of the opening doesn't relate to the quality of the game. For a GM game to be of high quality, the level of the opening obviously has some relevance.
Of course you can keep cherry-picking these isolated examples and then make your sarcastic comments "oh yeah sure, look at this amazing quality," but by doing that you only demonstrate that you'll stop at nothing to "win" an argument, even if it means not considering the facts objectively. *Every* World Championship match is going to have some bad games, blunders, etc.
<Instead of blindly listening to GM comments, I suggest you do some homework yourself first before ranting about level of play and comparing the quality of those games.>
And instead of blindly thinking you understand chess better than GMs who openly disagree with you, when you haven't been able to provide a single quote from any GMs who happen to agree with you, I suggest you study the match in context with other matches and realize that there were far from perfect games in his other matches as well, and that you bother studying the games themselves in comparison to the games from other World Championships. I don't get the impression that you have done this, since you handpick the worst examples from this match without any regard to the worst examples from other matches (and also because you didn't know about Kasparov giving up the Tarrasch, etc).
I do not claim, as Hodgson did at the halfway point, that it was the higest quality in a World Championship match overall. But I do believe that compared to most other World Championship matches, the quality of this one compares favorably. And I also believe that the main reason was not Kasparov's terrible form and preparation but Kramnik's even better form and preparation. (Please note the word "and" this time, delineating two *separate* things). Kasparov himself has made comments which suggest he agrees with this. He never blamed it on poor form, and in terms of opening preparation he admitted that Kramnik and his team had done an excellent job.
|May-17-07|| ||Timex: Kramnik is probably exhausted from his performance against Leko, or his wife was distracting him. :)|
|May-17-07|| ||slomarko: <The opening was never one of Karpov's major strengths> <Plato> i've to disagree with you there. There was a time when Karpov was absolutely the best prepared player in the world (late 70s and early 80s). Certainly Kasparov had a slight edge on him in that respect however he was the best of the best. And its not like every match was the same, I'd have a hard time saying that Kasparov was better prepared in the openings in the 1987 match for example, if anything Karpov was better prepared then. Another thing to consider is that Karpov had to expend my opening ideas in his candidates matches while Kramnik was "seeded" directly into the match with Kasparov and could save most of his opening ideas (his powerfull team of seconds could focus exclusivly on Kasparov).|
|May-17-07|| ||Plato: <alicefujimori> comes here and assumes an insulting and condescending attitude towards me simply because he didn't realize that there are GMs who consider the quality of the match to have been high compared to most other World Championship matches... Starts insulting my level of chess understanding without having known anything relevant about it... and when he adopts his sardonic tone, it is difficult for me to keep from responding in kind.|
So thank you, <slomarko>, for expressing your disagreement respectfully. Those are valid considerations, and perhaps I might have come across too harsh on Karpov (whom, as you know, I consider a greater champion than Kramnik -- in fact I consider him a greater champion than everyone besides Kasparov).
I'm not saying that Karpov wasn't a well prepared player or a great opening player, but I just think he was better noted for his strength in the middlegame and endgame, relatively speaking. Whereas Kasparov was noted for his dominant opening preparation, which was probably better (overall) than any other player in history. And Kramnik (especially at the time of the match) was already famous for his skill in certain openings, some which were key parts of Kasparov's repertoire (like the Grunfeld).
On the whole I would have to maintain that Kramnik in 2000 was superior in openings to Karpov of the 80s. On one level this is self-evident, because much more theory (and computer preparation) were available for Kramnik -- so the comparison is not fair in that sense. But even relative to era, I do think the Kramnik of 2000 was superior in terms of opening preparation to Karpov in any of those matches from the 80s/1990.
I realize you have a different take on it, and that's fine. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to say anything bad about Karpov's level of opening preparation, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's just that I don't think his level of preparation in his K-K matches were on the on the same level as Kramnik's (and his team's) in 2000.
|May-18-07|| ||slomarko: <<Plato>, <alice>, would you be so kind as to take this discussion where it belongs, i.e. either the Kasparov-Kramnik match page or a Grunfeld opening page?> and what for? nobody is talking about the kramnik-aronian match anymore, as far as i'm concerned they can continue here.|
|May-18-07|| ||Marvol: <slomarko: and what for?>|
Do the words 'on topic' mean something to you?
|May-18-07|| ||Plato: <Marvol> In fact I had already come to that decision myself, even before you posted. You are absolutely right. If CG.com wants to delete the discussion here for way being off-topic and overly-hostile, or to transfer it to the appropriate page, that's fine with me.|
If <alicefujimori> answers and I choose to respond, it will be on the Kasparov-Kramnik page (with just a quick link to it from here).
|May-19-07|| ||notyetagm: You tell'em, <alicef>!|
|May-19-07|| ||notyetagm: <Timex: Kramnik is probably exhausted from his performance against Leko, or his wife was distracting him. :)>|
Funny how we didn't hear any such excuses being bandied about by the Kramnik supporters after Kramnik's brilliant win in Game 1 of the match.
|May-19-07|| ||chancho: <notyetagm> That's ancient history. I'll bet that on his first wedding anniversary, he'll munch on another one of those tasty cakes that show the winning position that netted him the world title. Hehe. j/k|
|May-07-08|| ||hitman84: ummm.. Kramnik received some pounding from Aronian in this Rapid match.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·