|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 442 OF 445 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-03-09 | | Kaspablanca: Well, in fact Kasparov wasnt the first champion to be shut out but he was the second, the first was Lasker when he lost to Capablanca in the 1921 match, by 4-0. To beat a great player as Kasparov you need steel nerves and not to feel scare, Karpov and Kramnik are the 2 players if that kind. |
 |
| Sep-03-09 | | shach matov: <Wilhelm Steinitz> I think the idea of <KamikazeAttack> reading a chess book and educating himself is rather dangerous since having learned at least something he would lose the whole point of his life which is beating all trolling records on CG. The patzer would not have any point to live anymore, but how does one live without a profession?:)
<Hesam7> The point is that Kasparov may have been feared by some players, but not because he is some sort of boogeyman, but rather because of his chess. What's more, I would imagine most GMs giving their 110% simply to prove that they're worthy opponents. |
|
| Sep-03-09 | | metatron2: <KamikazeAttack: The most asinine comment on CG this year. A mind has lost its bearings...> Actually this comment should be the winner of the year: <visayanbraindoctor: many of Kasparov's victories were due to his 'out-psyching' nearly all of his opponents. They all feared Kasparov so much. [..]But this was in the 1990s. By the 2000s, after losing his Title, I think the other top players realized that Kasparov was not as invulnerable as they thought> This is just a ridiculous claim, not only the thought that Kasparov won his games due to psychology and not thanks to his powerful play, but also this claim doesn’t hold water when looking at the actual facts. If top players stopped being afraid of Kasparov after he lost the title, then his rating should have dropped, but in fact, in the 2 years period following his title loss between Jan2001 and Jan2003, Kasparov <raised> his rating from 2823 (that dropped from 2849 after losing the match to Kramnik) and back to the unbelievable 2847 mark, while winning: Corus (+5 undefeated), Linares2001 (+5 undefeated), Linares2002(+4 undefeated), Olympiad (+6 undefeated), World cup rapid (+4 undefeated), Grand Prix2002 (+7 undefeated), Beat the powerful Czech team in clock simul (+4 -1 =3), and beat Kramnik in a rapid/blitz Exhibition match. And what happened before the 90s (the period Kasparov supposedly won his games by psychology)? It was the 80s when Kasparov set the 10 yrs record of winning all his tourneys + 4 WC matches against the strongest opponent one can think of. So what happened in the 80s, Kaspy used different tricks maybe? Surely it wasn’t his chess.. And in the 70s Kasparov was the biggest prodigy of all times, what tricks did he use then? In fact in the 90s themselves one could expect the fear-factor to decay as time goes by, but 1999 was Kasparov’s strongest year when he won Linares And Corus with a <+7> score while facing the strongest opposition, so this one doesn’t fit either. Of course there was a fear factor, but those were elite players we are talking about, so obviously they could handle their fear. It’s not like they collapsed or something when facing Kasparov. They probably prepared much harder for him, put more efforts into the game then they usually do, and some of them might have played for a draw, not the kind of things that made Kasparov’s life easier. ---
I’m always amused when reading one dimensional explanations to Kasparov success, attributing his wins to one thing such as: “Superior opening preparations” or “More drive” or “More energy” or “Russian chess school” or “Lessons from Karpov” or “Using computers better” or “having a better team” or “his tactical play” or this “Fearsome affect”. Does anyone really think it takes just a <single> edge to dominate so clearly for so long with so many changing generations, entrance of computers, etc.? If it was just for one thing, with so many challengers who so eagerly studied him, Kasparov wouldn’t have been able to dominate for more then a few yrs. |
|
Sep-03-09
 | | visayanbraindoctor: <metatron2> Sarcastic aren't we? Look at the records of the top players against Kasparov in the 2000s - Anand, Topalov, and Leko. Kasparov vs Anand: +1 =6 -0
Kasparov vs. Topalov: +1 =4 -1
Kasparov vs. Leko: +1 =12 -0
Kasparov was much more dominating in the 1990s against the same players. However, this is probably not the only reason why he felt his psychological domination over them was over. He must have felt in his games that they were putting up stiffer resistance. A chessplayer would know that. The question is not about bashing Kasparov's greatness, which you seem to confuse with my post. There is no question as to Kasparov's greatness as a chess player. The question is why would he refuse entering a Candidates event and always never managed to play the solely FIDE world champion. And my opinion is, despite your sarcastic post, that Kasparov doubted himself after losing his Title. As I have posted above, Kramnik himself did not seem to have difficulty in doing so - playing the FIDE champion and playing in the strongest tournament in the world. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | kulangot: If Kasparov is a devil desguised as a man,i would believe this claim of "fear factor". But alas,Kaspy is very human.He was just so dominant as a player. There's only one explanation why Karpov and Kramnik are not afraid of Kaspy. Russians dont fear a Russian. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | KKDEREK: <Wilhelm Steinitz: <KamikazeAttack: This one was worse. Kasparov was the first champion ever to be shut out in a title match. A total shut out!> You are wrong, completely wrong once again. This is hardly surprising though, considering the fact that you seem to be wrong approximately 95-99 % of the time. Instead of trolling between 12 and 18 hours a day on the internet, you should actually do something useful. Perhaps read a good book that deals with the history of chess. It would probably help you to learn some basic facts about the history of chess before opening your big mouth. But then again, my simple request is probably too much to ask. You seem to exploit every single opportunity to diminish the achievements of a truly great champion and his enormous contribution to the game. It only shows what a pathetic, sad and small man you truly are. But please, don't let me to interrupt you. Go ahead, continue hating, keep posting, keep wasting your life.>
+ 10 |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | KKDEREK: metatron2: <KamikazeAttack: The most asinine comment on CG this year. A mind has lost its bearings...> Actually this comment should be the winner of the year: <visayanbraindoctor: many of Kasparov's victories were due to his 'out-psyching' nearly all of his opponents. They all feared Kasparov so much. [..]But this was in the 1990s. By the 2000s, after losing his Title, I think the other top players realized that Kasparov was not as invulnerable as they thought> This is just a ridiculous claim, not only the thought that Kasparov won his games due to psychology and not thanks to his powerful play, but also this claim doesn’t hold water when looking at the actual facts.> Agreed. Also Dortmund 2002 (as well discussed before) was RIDICULOUS qualifying tourney. (check Sonas article about it) . And Kramnik made that on purpose: Give Kasparov some unacceptable qualifier that he knew he would never accept.
Thats it.
Also, was Kramnik that ran away from Prague agreement. The Berlin wall was down already. Kramnik last victory in London was the last he got against Kasparov in classical. Besides, Kramnik was sick. Turns out he couldn't barely stand Peter Leko in a match. Therefore, I DONT SEE ANY REASON AT ALL, why Kasparov should be worried about enter in a qualifying (a fair one!) and play against him. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | cannibal: <KamikazeAttack: <In the first half of their (2000,2008) matches, Kasparov and Kramnik found themselves out-prepared and out-played. Kasparov panicked and went to pieces. Kramnik kept cool and fought back.> Accurate observation. In the second half, Kramnik was playing at Anand's level, in fact he had the initiative.> How on earth is that an accurate observation? In fact almost the opposite happened. Sure, Kasparov lost another game in the second half of the match (and had at most one chance to actually win one), but during Kramnik's hot phase in the first half (where he dominated games 2,4 and 6) Kasparov actually did the opposite of falling apart. He hung on by his teeth in almost hopeless situations, and only this enabled the match do be wide open for a long time (of course in retrospect we can say Kasparov didn't have a chance, but at the time of the match, everything was still wide open at least until game 10). On the other hand, in Kramnik-Anand - well there we really DID see someone fall apart. Anand went for the win three times - and the match was completely over from any realistic point of view. That Kramnik "kept his cool" (did you actually see how he looked after game 6) and "fought back" -- I don't even know how to label such a statement. Propaganda lie, maybe. You could just as well say that Nigel Short kept his cool and fought back after going 0-5 against Kasparov (in the rest of the match they had an even score).
I have nothing against Kramnik, I think he's been a worthy champ, but what happened here is hardly a comeback - it's mainly Vishy switching to safety mode after the thing was as good as over. Kramnik's first actual winning chance came in game 9 - and he didn't take it. The actual "fighting back" then happened in the next game, which had close to zero practical meaning. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | KamikazeAttack: <Russians dont fear a Russian.
>
hmmm now this is interesting. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | shach matov: <Russians dont fear a Russian> Of course Kasparov is in fact Jewish-Armenian, not Russian. He wasn't even born in Russian, but in Baku, Azerbaijan. Though he has been influenced by, among others, Russian culture. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | shach matov: <cannibal> <KKDEREK> Both comments are OBVIOUSLY accurate. <visayanbraindoctor> has managed to make a more idiotic comment than <KamikazeAttack> and that takes an incomparable amount of ignorance. In both cases I believe again the FEAR of "Kasparov" image is talking in these two. They fear the boogeyman and that makes them make comments that are complete opposite of reality. |
|
Sep-04-09
| | visayanbraindoctor: For those labeling my opinion as ridiculous and idiotic, thanks for the free propaganda. I believe this is a widely held opinion by the way, that other chess players in the 1990s feared Kasparov and thought him unbeatable. Do you really think that labeling such statements as ridiculous and idiotic will change such views? |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | shach matov: <visayanbraindoctor> You should read carefully the previous posts by <metatron2> and <KKDEREK>, they explained in detail your mistakes. I could hardly add anything. |
|
Sep-04-09
| | visayanbraindoctor: Hey <shach matov> I am beginning to think you are a troll. So it's fair enough to tell you that next time you begin posts obviously meant to be aggravating, I shall troll you back. It is you who better read my posts well. |
|
Sep-04-09
| | visayanbraindoctor: Sure, I would also like to educate you. For instance regarding: <Additionally, as far as pure chess is concerned the 2000 match was basically a non-event> This statement is not only asinine, ridiculous, and idiotic, it bespeaks of an anencephalic cranium trying to speak through a little hole anterior to the coccyx. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | shach matov: It seems most posters here voted for your comments to be considered as <asinine, ridiculous, and idiotic>: <cannibal>, <KKDEREK>, and <metatron2> among others during the past two days tried in vain to show you in detail your mistakes, but you continue to be an angry troll who refuses to learn. I really have nothing to add. |
|
Sep-04-09
| | visayanbraindoctor: Oh I can assure you that I am not angry at you; in fact I am laughing at you <shach matov>. I don't think you even understood my last post. How's this: most of your posts sound like a little hole anterior to the coccyx trying to speak through an anencephalic cranium. Sounds better. |
|
Sep-04-09
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <cannibal>
<I have nothing against Kramnik, I think he's been a worthy champ, but what happened here is hardly a comeback - it's mainly Vishy switching to safety mode after the thing was as good as over.> I agree that the match was about as good as over after game 6 (although I personally toasted nothing until they shook hands after game 8). However, one of the defining characteristics of Anand's performance in this match is that he <never> switched to safety mode, and never relaxed. The remarkable thing is that in fact, he never even stopped playing for a win. He came to Bonn to fight in every game, and was never satisfied with a lead, no matter how large; game 7 and Kramnik's rejected draw offer is evidence of that. Perhaps Anand viewed Leko's timid play while up in 2004 as a warning? It follows, then, that Kramnik did not win game 10 because Anand was playing it safe. I think he just won the game. As far as the match was concerned it was almost a completely symbolic victory, but maybe it had some beneficial psychological effects for Kramnik. Game 10 also helped to make the match even more interesting, even for those of us who were amused by the idea that it heralded the dawn of some sort of mystic "comeback". Game 11 was another good and complex game, even if Anand did make it a little short by outplaying Kramnik so thoroughly. That was the only game he decided not to fight for a win :). |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | kulangot: KGB played a big role in Soviet chess matters.Without the support of KGB,Kasparov won't last that long as world chess champ. Maybe KGB taught Kasparov,the art of psyching out your opponent. Or we could ask Korchnoi,if hypnotism really happened in Baguio during the Karpov-Korchnoi match in 1978. |
|
| Sep-05-09 | | shach matov: For sure, even now we can see that Kasparov and Putin are the best of friends. |
|
| Sep-07-09 | | dumbgai: <metatron2: ...I’m always amused when reading one dimensional explanations to Kasparov success, attributing his wins to one thing such as: “Superior opening preparations” or “More drive” or “More energy” or “Russian chess school” or “Lessons from Karpov” or “Using computers better” or “having a better team” or “his tactical play” or this “Fearsome affect”.> I completely agree. Kasparov never showed the best sportsmanship, but over the board he was perhaps as close to the "most complete player" or "perfect player" as anyone. Immense talent, outstanding preparation, a ton of experience at a young age (5 world championship matches with Karpov before age 28), and some legendary coaches. Opponents were correct to fear him. |
|
Sep-12-09
 | | Ulhumbrus: There is no mystery about at least a part of the explanation for the results of the matches in 2000 and 2008, although it is not the whole explanation: the winner was better prepared in the openings. In 2000 Kramnik had found a Berlin defence variation to which Kasparov did not find a refutation, and in 2008 Anand had found a pawn sacrifice in the Slav defence to which Kramnik did not find a refutation. |
|
| Oct-16-09 | | LoveThatJoker: Sofia will host the 2010 World Chess Championship.
Here is a brief bulletin on it:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...
LTJ |
|
| Oct-16-09 | | LoveThatJoker: Chessvibes' take on the 2010 WCC match being awarded to Sofia: http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/f... LTJ |
|
Oct-16-09
| | SetNoEscapeOn: <Ulhumbrus: There is no mystery about at least a part of the explanation for the results of the matches in 2000 and 2008, although it is not the whole explanation: the winner was better prepared in the openings. In 2000 Kramnik had found a Berlin defence variation to which Kasparov did not find a refutation, and in 2008 Anand had found a pawn sacrifice in the Slav defence to which Kramnik did not find a refutation.> I wouldn't describe losing two games as "not finding a refutation." Also, I do not think that a "refutation" of either system even exists (refutation typically meaning "demonstrating that a line, move, or idea is unsound"). |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 442 OF 445 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
