< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·
|Jun-18-12|| ||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|| ||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 =)
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." >
|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|| ||john barleycorn: <To some extent now I of course regret that I acted too nobly just trying to follow my principles> wow!!!|
|Jun-28-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <tivrfoa: ...
Doing this little search made me have a different perception of Karpov. He was really super strong!!!>
I always had that perception of Karpov. I just never liked how he benefited from FIDE help.
But the matches he won, the tournaments he won, <early on>, established my respect and perception of his talent and ability.
|Jun-28-14|| ||ughaibu: How did Karpov benefit from FIDE help?|
|Jun-29-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <ughaibu: How did Karpov benefit from FIDE help?>|
If you would like to receive a history lesson, I suggest you just go through the following pages, post by post. You can find most of it here:
Karpov - Korchnoi World Championship Match (1978)
Karpov - Korchnoi World Championship Rematch (1981)
Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984)
Make sure to go through ALL posts from page 1!
|Jun-29-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: Oh, and I almost forgot, here is one more page you need to read through, all the way.|
Karpov - Fischer World Championship Match (1975)
|Jun-30-14|| ||ughaibu: Not a helpful response.|
|Jun-30-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <john barleycorn: <To some extent now I of course regret that I acted too nobly just trying to follow my principles> wow!!!>|
<RookFile: Tell that to Shirov.>
GKK is the strongest player ever since the machine-like Fischer of 1969 - 1972, and IMO the most brilliant in the history of chess (with Alekhine coming in second). He has produced more beautiful brillancies than any other player. Yet some of his pronouncements never fail to surprise me in their decidedly singular point of view.
How was Kramnik able to beat GKK? I now think that the Kramnik of 2000, in the unique moment in time that occasionally occurs among top players, played nearly to perfection, almost like a computer. When a player plays like that, he becomes unbeatable, the presumption being that one has to err in order to lose. (See Bridgeburner's analysis in each of the games.) So Kramnik managed to beat GKK fairly and squarely. However next year in Astana, Kramnik was not able to replicate this near perfect moment, and could only come second to GKK.
|Jun-30-14|| ||john barleycorn: <visayanbraindoctor: ... Yet some of his pronouncements never fail to surprise me in their decidedly singular point of view.>|
Very diplomatically stated.
|Jun-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: <thegoodanarchist>: <Oh, and I almost forgot, here is one more page you need to read through, all the way.>|
It would be better if you explained your own point, because the page doesn't seem to do it for you. It explains how Karpov got the title after Fischer retired, but not how he benefitted from FIDE help.
|Jun-30-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <ughaibu: Not a helpful response.>|
<Petrosianic: <thegoodanarchist>: <Oh, and I almost forgot, here is one more page you need to read through, all the way.>
It would be better if you explained your own point, because the page doesn't seem to do it for you. It explains how Karpov got the title after Fischer retired, but not how he benefitted from FIDE help.>
No not really. All of the stuff has been posted before, a lot by me. If you and <ughaibu> and others really want to know what it is, then you will look through those pages. I have taken my own advice in the past, and scrolled through pages for hours, to get caught up on a discussion, instead of lazily claiming other people are not helpful, and demanding that they spend hours of their time alleviating my ignorance.
I am not going to let some Fischer hater like <ughaibu> [or anyone else for that matter] bait me into sinking lots and lots of time into reposting things I have <already<<<<<>>>>>> posted before, simply because the other person is too lazy to do the work.
If he wants to idly scoff at my posts simply because he hates Fischer, that is HIS problem, NOT mine. I am under no obligation to do his work for him, to spoon feed him his education.
People own their own educations, and are responsible for alleviating their own ignorance. I have pointed the way - please do some work for yourself.
|Jul-01-14|| ||ughaibu: One of the oddest things about the internet is the transformation of the word "hate" to mean something like "non-enthusiasm". Besides which, your statement and my question about it, have nothing to do with Fischer. Your claim was about Karpov.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Petrosianic: <thegoodanarchist> <I have taken my own advice in the past, and scrolled through pages for hours, to get caught up on a discussion, instead of lazily claiming other people are not helpful, and demanding that they spend hours of their time alleviating my ignorance.>|
Okay, I'll accept that. Your answer was directed to one person, rather than the general public and you feel it was right for that person. Message boards do tend to be a mix of public and private talk, and it gets confused sometimes.
|Jul-01-14|| ||ughaibu: It was directed at me, but I certainly didn't demand that he spend hours of his time alleviating my ignorance. He could've answered me, in his own words, in less time than it must've taken him to locate and link to the pages he posted.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I'm surprised at the error-by-admission in the introduction to this page:|
<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. >
The Shirov-Kramnik match and Shirov later dropping out of a Kasparov match shouldn't be ignored.
|Jul-01-14|| ||Olavi: <Jim Bartle> The Braingames organization had nothing to do with Shirov-Kramnik, so they were free to choose anybody they liked.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Jim Bartle: But Shirov's involvement in the process to choose a challenger should be mentioned.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Olavi: It deserves a mention, but one should be careful not to create the impression that some contract had been breached.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·