I have been reading some Bareev interviews regarding the Russian performance in the recent Olympiad. The fellow strikes me as willing to brutally criticize even his own players and himself. There is no effort to be diplomatic at all. His interview regarding Kasparov is also the first one I have read where a GM was not paying lip service to Kasparov. Bareev frankly says to the notion that Kasparov has propagated that he plays at virtually super human levels that Kasparov has not been telling the whole truth, that a lot of the wins that significantly propelled him head and shoulders above the rest were essentially decided in the opening, and due to superb opening prep. Bareev then goes on to say that this superb opening prep is due to computers and Kasparov's own hard work.

I find nothing wrong with success due to hard work. I find nothing wrong in an opinion that states that Kramnik and Anand have more talent than Kasparov, but cannot reach the heights GKK has attained because they do not work as hard or have psychological weaknesses. Contrary to what some fans may allege, this is not Kasparov bashing. It forthrightly states the primary basis for Kasparov's unsurpassed competitive chess performances. The best opening repertoire in chess history, and that is rightfully his due to his own hard work.

I know that you are also a Capablanca fan, like me, and for all his chess talent, IMO the most talented chess player that humanity has ever produced, Capa 'failed' when it came to work ethics. His chess talent was still sufficient enough to secure him the World Title, but in another what if scenario in history, I wished he could have worked as hard as Alekhine did, analyzing openings, middlegames, and endgames often up to 3am nightly.

<it was a very good thing for them to introduce candidate cycle to prevent those accidents happening as a result of direct championship match.>

Let's take the case of Kasparov. It was said that he worked very hard on opening prep. True, but does not Karpov, Kramnik and Anand work hard as well?

And when you say "work hard", it should invariably include long hours of memorizing opening preps.

I've never heard of a GM refusing to play at Monaco (Melanie Amber). Good money, nice beaches, and a change up from the same old 40 move/2 hr chess. Well, I remember Morovich complaining. He said "what's next--we are asked to play naked?" Lets not go there....

Of course I speak for myself only, hence "seems".

I'm going to recheck her rating I was reading all of the contestants ratings at the start of the tournament I think hers was 2200. I could be wrong. Naka still had 22 minutes left when she ran out of time.

Most of Kasparov's tactical brillancies are seen in games where he has the initiative or is on the attack. Has he ever produced similar tactical brilliancies when he has been on the defense? Many masters note that tactical wizardry takes its most humanly difficult form when a defender is defending a position in which a single inaccuracy would doom him. This is the reason why many masters regard Petrosian as one of the best tacticians in history.

In the following game, Petrosian walks a knife's edge against the King himself, and not only survives but beat him.

Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1981

Even in this game, where Kasparov missed a win, Petrosian shows his defensive abilities.

Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1981

The question is: has Kasparov produced many such 'reverse brilliancies'? I am not certain myself, because practically all of Kasparov's brilliancies that I have replayed are games where he has almost always been on the attack nearly from the opening.

This is what Bareev must have been referring to when he said that Kasparov does not tell the whole truth, that may of his won games were decided right in the opening. Kasparov as an attacker could easily display his great tactical abilities and bring home the win.

But what about Kasparov the defender? Does his tactical wizardry mostly work only when he is the one on the attack?

GM Carlsen, the great chess viking, is now the #1 rated player in the world. We have all witnessed that in positions where he has the initiative, he is nearly unstoppable. Stopping such a strong player on the attack must take a lot of tactical wizardry. I can present a game each by Anand and Kramnik wherein they did exactly that.

Carlsen vs Anand, 2008

Carlsen vs Kramnik, 2010

Although Carlsen may have missed wins, both Anand and Kramnik in the above games were likewise walking on the edge of the precipice, where single errors of miscalculation or misjudgment of a potential position would have quickly doomed them. It's even possible that only Anand and Kramnik among present players could have survived such 'reverse brilliancies' against the Viking. If it were Kasparov playing Black, IMO he would have gone down against Carlsen in these games.