chessgames.com

  WCC Overview
 
  << previous HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP next >>  
  << previous FIDE CHAMPIONSHIPS next >>  
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000
London, England

 Kramnik-Kasparov 2000
 Kramnik (left) plays Kasparov for the title
Although Garry Kasparov was not recognized as champion by FIDE, the rest of the chess world continued to acknowledged him as the best player. He had continued to dominate the chess tournaments while FIDE's new system to select their champion, consisting of a single tournament of short knockout matches, offended the sensibilities of both players and fans. However, Kasparov had not played a match in 5 years, and believed that for his title to maintain its credibility, it was time to take on a new challenger.

The Braingames organization was created by a group headed by Grandmaster Ray Keene specifically to organize a match for Kasparov. Whereas the champion's challenger had since 1948 been the winner of a series of tournaments and matches, this time Kasparov's opponent was simply picked by GM Keene. Keene writes:

I personally selected Kramnik as the most worthy and dangerous opponent to play Kasparov in 2000. We wanted the best opponent possible for Kasparov. We chose the highest rated opponent, Anand, but he refused, so we went to the next man down on the ratings, Kramnik, who, by the way, overtook Anand in the ratings while the latter was considering whether to play or not. [1]
Vladimir Kramnik, born in Tuapse, Russia exhibited great potential very early in his chess career. At only 16, he won the under-18 World Championship. He then won first prize in many top International tournaments and was unbeaten in 86 classical games over 18 months up to July 2000.

The match was held in London England from October 8th to November 4th. Only 16 games were to be played, with Kasparov retaining his title in case of a tie. The purse was $2,000,000 dollars with 2/3rds going to the winner. Kramnik took an early lead by winning game 2, this was followed by 7 draws until Kramnik scored again in game 10. In the remaining games, Kasparov could not break through Kramnik's super-solid defences, notably the Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez.

After 15 games, with a final score of 8½ to 6½ Kasparov's long tenure as World Champion had finally come to an end. Vladimir Kramnik's had become the 14th World Chess Champion.

click on a game number to replay game 123456789101112131415
Kasparov½0½½½½½½½0½½½½½
Kramnik½1½½½½½½½1½½½½½

FINAL SCORE:  Kramnik 8½;  Kasparov 6½
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Kramnik-Kasparov 2000]

NOTABLE GAMES   [what is this?]
    · Game #10     Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000     1-0
    · Game #2     Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000     1-0
    · Game #4     Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000     1/2-1/2

FOOTNOTES
1. Posted in Chessgames.com's /perl/chessplayer?pid=12295&kpage=880>Kibitzer's Corner by GM Ray Keene.

 page 1 of 1; 15 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½25 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchC67 Ruy Lopez
2. Kramnik vs Kasparov 1-040 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchD85 Grunfeld
3. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½53 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchC67 Ruy Lopez
4. Kramnik vs Kasparov ½-½74 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
5. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½24 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchA30 English, Symmetrical
6. Kramnik vs Kasparov ½-½66 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
7. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½11 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchA31 English, Symmetrical, Benoni Formation
8. Kramnik vs Kasparov ½-½38 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
9. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½30 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchC67 Ruy Lopez
10. Kramnik vs Kasparov 1-025 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchE53 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3
11. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½41 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchC78 Ruy Lopez
12. Kramnik vs Kasparov ½-½33 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchE55 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Gligoric System, Bronstein Variation
13. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½14 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchC67 Ruy Lopez
14. Kramnik vs Kasparov ½-½57 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchA15 English
15. Kasparov vs Kramnik ½-½38 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship MatchE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-12-10  rapidcitychess: I believe Kramnik is the best at matches but not a tourneys
Apr-17-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: SHIROV'S SAD SAGA

Q: I decided it was time to answer your oft-repeated line about "Kasparov's shabby treatment of challenger Alexei Shirov."

The World Chess Council (WCC) under its Chairman and Founder, Luis Rentero, agreed to put up $2.1 million [US] for a title match plus another $100,000 for the loser in Kramnik vs. Shirov after Anand withdrew in 1998. Rentero then arbitrarily announced this $100,000 would have to be deducted from the $2.1 million. In retrospect, it was an early indication as to how things would be run! The glue began to come unstuck and as soon as we heard rumors and questioned Rentero, he told all of us, "my word is my bond!" and "if necessary, I pay the prize money myself." Coupled with this was a continuous "Trust Me" and another constant refrain was "the Government will approve the signing this week."

Garry and I discussed going public but you can imagine the hullabaloo that would have ensued with him blamed for pulling the plug prematurely. We started to scramble. I personally made half a dozen transatlantic trips and spent enough time and dollars to make me care. Rentero finally ran out of ideas and we were left with no alternatives. The match backing disappeared and soon thereafter tragedy struck in the form of a life-threatening auto accident for Rentero. Garry retains a healthy respect for what he did for chess in Linares over the years, but Rentero's foray into bigger things was an unmitigated disaster of his own making.

Eventually a businessman in California agreed to put up $600,000 [US] in cash plus full airfares and hotel for each player at a value of $50,000 each. We went to Shirov and he refused. Dr. William Wirth (a notable chess sponsor and patron himself) agreed to top up the prize with a further $200,000 of his own money. Shirov said "no." He repeated to me that there was an offer from Tarrasa near Barcelona, where he was living at the time for 225 million pesetas (about $1.6 million). The hope of the Catalonian offer was, I believe, the real reason why Shirov turned down our $800,000 offer. He has since tried to say that it was not in writing, but the truth is he said "no" so firmly that we never had time to confirm it in writing.

Meanwhile we kept going from Southern Africa to the Far East without success while waiting for Tarrasa. My file is full of many Shirov e-mails saying, "there is a very important meeting next week and you will get an offer right away." It never happened. By Christmas of '98 we received no answers and I discovered Shirov had moved from the area. That, from my viewpoint, was the end of the Tarrasa non-offer.

Now let's come to the interesting question - why is it so fashionable to blame Kasparov? He has been World Champion since 1985. He has been Number 1 on all rating systems for a decade and more. There is a general perception that he pulls every string in every deal from start to finish and he has made the sort of enemies who will make up stories if they can't find evidence of wrongdoing. *Let's face it, Garry was the most harmed player in this whole fiasco, and here's why*: [*bold*]

1. He offered to play for $800,000 and his opponent said no, because he took a gamble on a bigger pot of gold around the corner. But no, we hear quite incredibly that Kasparov was greedy and Shirov was the shabbily-treated one.

2. He is accused of trying to retire the crown without playing. I can list 20 to 30 sites, cities, countries, promoters and sponsors we have approached to try and get the funding. Most turned it down because they said Kasparov was too strong and the match had no marquee value. I have heard Garry extol the virtues and playing strength of Anand, Kramnik and Shirov to try and convince sponsors that it would be a tough and fascinating match.

3. Garry suggested Shirov for his spot in the $100,000 Prague Match vs. Judith [sic] Polgar. If Garry had nothing to do with this invitation as Shirov claims, ask yourself what Garry was doing appearing in Prague for two days with NO FEE at all? Answer: He made a promise to Bessel Kok and Serge Grimaux that he would come to Prague free of charge, as this was the only way Bessel could get the sponsorship.

4. Shirov claimed "his right" and "his freedom" to play whom he liked and when he liked, including the 1999 FIDE Championship in Las Vegas. Did Garry ditch Shirov or did Shirov ditch Garry? Actually, the factual answer is neither as the match basically had "no takers" (i.e., no sponsorship).

5. Let's hope this puts to bed "the shabby treatment" type comment. As to the future: rest assured that Kasparov remains ready, willing, able and eager to play. Experience has taught us to make no statements until something firm is on offer.

Owen Williams, Worldwide Agent for Garry Kasparov, Palm Beach, Florida

Apr-17-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: A: Mr. Williams, you know where I stand on the major issues swirling around Kasparov. I believe he is the "real" champion. I believe he is the strongest player in the world. I believe he is NOT trying to duck anyone.

I already knew the hard facts you outlined about l'affaire Shirov, though not the lengths to which you endeavored to arrange such a match. From what you wrote, it is obvious Kasparov felt either a moral or legal responsibility (perhaps both) to make enormous good-faith efforts to arrange a match with Shirov under a sanctioning organization that was clearly his vehicle. Fine. I have no problem with this because, if nothing else, it was less corrupt than FIDE.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from his pledge to give Shirov a title shot for $2 million as announced to the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself more shabbily than he did Shirov.

I still believe Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to play Shirov. If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and capital letters. As it stands, however, Shirov never got paid for beating Kramnik or a title shot - both are Kasparov's obligation.

I accept your account, though Shirov might take issue with it. After all, if I had beaten someone eight times and drawn seven out of a total of 15 games (recent results over a short period) and if I could arrange a match against the same opponent for big bucks, I would certainly do so.

Until this happens I will continue to write that Kasparov has treated Shirov shabbily, just as I will continue to opine that Kasparov remains the only true champion who is NOT cosseted by playing in elite events against very strong opponents.

Larry Evans, "Evans On Chess"

"Chess Life" April 2000

*****

"Cosseted" means "pampered" indicating Kasparov was still actively playing at the highest level instead of waiting for a WC match.

Apr-17-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: There are good point's in Williams's comments, but this is ludicrous:

*Let's face it, Garry was the most harmed player in this whole fiasco, and here's why*:

I can see that Kasparov was harmed, but not nearly as much as Shirov. Shirov never even got paid for his match win over Kramnik, plus of course he never got to play Kasparov.

Jan-29-11  WiseWizard: Wasn't Kasparov going through a divorce around this time? Kramnik is a keen psychologist for making Kasparov play without Queens for most of the match. I thought this was a friendly game.
Jan-30-11  WiseWizard: I don't believe a master of Mr. Kramnik's class would consciously decide his strategy based on those circumstances. A player who would resort to such methods isn't in line with the true nature of competition or Chess. Chess is honorable, just and built upon truth, integrity and purity of thought among other synonms. Furthermore, a true warrior wants his opponent at his absolute best so there is no dispute as to who is King.
May-09-11  vileblunder: There is some debate on this page regarding Kramnik granting Kasparov a rematch. In the video 'My Story' with James Plaskett, which was filmed shortly before he played Kramnik, Kasparov states that he never had a rematch clause in any of his World Championship matches, because he felt that the challenger has to go through such a rigorous process to claim the title, that if he wins the title, he should automatically assume the status of World Champion, and the person that relinquishes the title should automatically become a candidate. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to criticise Kramnik for not offering a rematch, when this is something that Kasparov himself did not advocate.
Aug-06-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: Just to make a comparison with the first Karpov - Kasparov match from 1984:

Here, Kramnik is up 2 games after a total of 15. He is declared the winner. This implies that 15 games are enough to determine who is the stronger player.

15 games in the Karpov - Kasparov 1984 match, Karpov was up 4 games! This is twice as convincing as Kramnik's effort.

The Karpov - Kasparov match had too many games, allowing attrition to be the decisive factor, rather than true chess strength.

So if 15 games are enough to determine the stronger player, then Karpov won twice(!) in the first match, because games 16 - 31 (the second group of 15 games) also showed Karpov with a winning score.

Of course Kasparov is a great player, but I'm just trying to inject some reality here and cut down some of the hype. He is only a man. Deal with it.

Aug-06-11  Petrosianic: <Here, Kramnik is up 2 games after a total of 15. He is declared the winner. This implies that 15 games are enough to determine who is the stronger player.>

That argument implies that people play exactly the same way, no matter what the match rules are. That a player playing quietly because there's no time limit would play equally quietly if there were, and he knew that time was running out for him. Obviously that's not so, any more than people play an untimed game with the same urgency they do a 1 0.

Aug-07-11  Mr. Bojangles: Kramnik was always Kasparov's most difficult player in his career so it is only logical that he he would lose his crown to him and he did, thus ending Kasparov's match playing career.

Kramnik never bought into the invincibility hype of GK.

Aug-08-11  Petrosianic: That's not exacty "logic", technically speaking. Even if it were, Karpov was Kasparov's most difficult opponent.
Dec-11-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Caissanist: Hikaru Nakamura, when interviewed by Daniel King after round 7 of the London Chess Classic

<Daniel King Ė Tell us a little more about working with Garry Kasparov. You enjoy those sessions?>

Hikaru Nakamura Ė There is something to be gained. Mainly itís the opening preparation he did with his team over the past 20-25 years of his chess career. Thatís really the strength of working with someone like Kasparov. Itís his opening preparation because a lot of his wins came just out of getting good positions out of openings as a player. So itís mainly looking at openings and working from there. There are other things like studies and endgames, but itís pretty much the openings.

<DK: Right, so he doesnít look at particular middlegames that much with you, orÖ?>

HK: No, like I said, his strength was in openings. I mean you look at middlegames or endgames and Iím quite convinced there are other players who are better than he was, but he was able to get advantages out of the openings so that was his main strength.

<DK: Ok, right.>

HK: And when he wasnít able to do that, thatís why he lost his title to Kramnik.

<DK: Simple as that?>

HK: Well, pretty much.

Dec-11-11  AlphaMale: <Hikaru Nakamura, when interviewed by Daniel King after round 7 of the London Chess Classic>

To be exact, it was during the round; he was guest commentator for the day.

Apr-26-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  King Sacrificer: I have a question. Why did Kasparov keep playing Ruy Lopez? Was it so easy to draw against Italian game?
Jun-18-12  Brown: Funny how Daniel King basically mocks Naka: "Simple as that?"

Its not that Naka sounds disrespectful. He actually sounds ignorant.

Jun-18-12  RookFile: It doesn't sounds good, but other players have said the same thing. Openings are a Nakamura weakness at the world class level, so it's good he's working on them.
Jun-18-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: How does Nakamura's statement compare with Carlsen's casual but firm assertion that in their training sessions he had proven to be "<much> faster than Kasparov in coming up with the right [middlegame] plan"?
Jun-19-12  Brown: <Shams: How does Nakamura's statement compare with Carlsen's casual but firm assertion that in their training sessions he had proven to be "<much> faster than Kasparov in coming up with the right [middlegame] plan"?>

I don't think they are similar, in that Kasparov is probably just showing his age and lack of fighting shape. Of course Kasparov is immensely talented, but, you know, chess is hard, and so are Russian politics.

And of course, we are assuming that Carlsen's assessments are correct ;-)

Feb-24-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  lost in space: I played through all games of this match, first the wins, afterwars all games with Kasparov as white, finally all draw games with Kramnik as white.

Beside the 2 wins Kramnik had 2 additional games were he had excellent winning chances and Kasparov had to fight long and hard to get a draw.

In none of his white games Kasprov had a <clear> winning position nor was he close to win. In one of his white games there were different opinions if there was a winning chance or not if he would have played Ra1. So the best he achieved was a potential but controversial wining option in a not played variation. Simply not enough

All in all a well deserved match win of Kramnik.

Feb-25-13  tivrfoa: <visayanbraindoctor: No one has to take my word for this. Anyone could simply replay and think through all the games that Kasparov lost to both Karpov and Kramnik, and it should be pretty clear how Vlady was obtaining his victories over Kaspy. And it definitely was not by luck or bad form from Kasparov IMO.> I agree with you. How come Kaspy beat Anand, Kramnik beat Kaspy and Anand beat Kramnik? =) Well, the WC match is used to prove who is the best. So was Kramnik better than Kaspy? Only that year? Was kaspy old (37)? It's sad that wasn't a rematch. Kaspy would study the games in such depth that would be pretty difficult for Kramnik.

I'm just asking to know what other people think, but for me Kaspy was best. It's because is surprising for me one that is considered the "GOD of Chess" to lose in such a way.

Look him analysing this game. Simply wonderful =)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z4Z...
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985

<maxi: It is obvious from the picture above why Kramnik won: Kasparov thought it was a blindfolded match.> lol

<pubaer> Nice theory. And seeing a game finishing with 11 moves makes more sense to it.

<shach matov> I agree that the fact that Kramnik work with Kaspy before helped him, but it should not be decisive. I hope Anand won't have problem with Carlsen because one of his team members went to work for him.

<Jim Bartle:...All these events were highly unlikely, and would probably not happen again. But they happened once, and you can't take anything away from the winners.> yeah ... Barcelona lost to Chelsea in 2012 too ... But here it's a bit different. 15 games and not a single victory for Kaspy.

Feb-25-13  tivrfoa: <Big Pawn: Just to make a comparison with the first Karpov - Kasparov match from 1984: Here, Kramnik is up 2 games after a total of 15. He is declared the winner. This implies that 15 games are enough to determine who is the stronger player.

15 games in the Karpov - Kasparov 1984 match, Karpov was up 4 games! This is twice as convincing as Kramnik's effort.

The Karpov - Kasparov match had too many games, allowing attrition to be the decisive factor, rather than true chess strength.

So if 15 games are enough to determine the stronger player, then Karpov won twice(!) in the first match, because games 16 - 31 (the second group of 15 games) also showed Karpov with a winning score.

Of course Kasparov is a great player, but I'm just trying to inject some reality here and cut down some of the hype. He is only a man. Deal with it.> Excellent comparison!!! Very interesting.

Let's analyse the first 15 games of K vs K:

1984: Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Match (1984) Karpov 4 vs 0 Kasparov

1985: Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Match (1985) Karpov 2 vs 2 Kasparov

1986: Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Rematch (1986) Karpov 1 vs 3 Kasparov

1987: Kasparov-Karpov World Championship Match (1987) Karpov 2 vs 3 Kasparov

1990: Kasparov-Karpov World Championship Match (1990) Karpov 1 vs 1 Kasparov

Doing this little search made me have a different perception of Karpov. He was really super strong!!!

Mar-30-14  RedShield: <"It was a matter of principle with me. You can of course consider that decision stupid and contradictory to my interests, but I always believed that the automatic right of the champion to play the revenge match contradicted the logic of the fight for the title. Maybe the champion lost his shape and his time has gone. For instance, it's clear that's happening to Anand now. So if he loses why should he have the right for the return match? I fought against that rule, although I was following it myself. It was absolutely clear for me that including it in the contract would undermine my own legitimacy. Maybe I would do it differently now, but I thought that the right to play the rematch had to be won.

Kramnik saw it all differently. I have won the tournament in Wijk aan Zee, the one in Linares and what is more important I won the competition in Astana in 2001 by defeating Kramnik in the last round. That was evident for those in the chess world, because the world championship match is held for defining the strongest chess player. Kramnik wasn't the strongest player and failed to repeat the success of the London match in other tournaments. So, he just hid himself behind that legal wording. To some extent now I of course regret that I acted too nobly just trying to follow my principles; but at least no one can reproach me for changing my attitude to the return matches and in general the rules of the world championship matches." >

http://chess-news.ru/en/node/11247

Mar-30-14  RookFile: Tell that to Shirov.
Mar-30-14  RedShield: Just noticed Williams's letter. It adds something to the common knowledge, but he doesn't explain why the $600,000 (or $800,000) deal couldn't have been resurrected after Shirov's plans fell through. My recollection is that Kasparov moved with indecent haste to kill off the match.
Mar-30-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <To some extent now I of course regret that I acted too nobly just trying to follow my principles> wow!!!
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 14)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies