|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-21-06 | | TheSlid: 20.fxe5 is a nice move. |
 |
Sep-05-08
 | | plang: In their 1991 match Karpov had played 6 Qc2 in three games (two wins and a loss)and, in fact, 6 Qc2 has been his favorite continuation prior to this match and was what he played in the fifth game. The innovation 17 Ndxb5! had been prepared by Karpov for his 1990 match with Kasparov but he did not get a chance to use it until this game. Prior to this game the theoretical move was 17 Nf5. It had been most recently played by Kasparov in his draw with Akopian at the 1996 Olympiad. Kasparov had spent a long time at the board considering 17 Ndxb5
but did not play it. Karpov's home analysis ended with 26 Qa8+ and he thought his advantage would be small after 26..Qb8 27 Qxb8+..Nxb8
28 Bxf6..gxf 29 Rf2. After the ambitious 26..Kf7?, however, Anand got into trouble quickly. 29..Ne5? would have lost to 30 Rxf6+!. Either 36 Kh3+ or 37 Kh3+ would have shortened the game by allowing Karpov to keep his connected passed pawns. Karpov felt that 61..Qb2+ would have been a better defense keeping Karpov's king on the kingside. After 84..Qxh3 white wins the queen starting with 85 Re2+.
100 Re1 would have won immediately. This game was voted the third best game in Informant #71. |
|
| Sep-17-08 | | Woody Wood Pusher: 26..Kf7 asks too much of the position, but then Anand knew how painful the defense would be against Karpov after 26..Qb8. This endgame still amazes me, after Karpov lost the connected passers, I would have bet a lot on a draw... |
|
| Oct-05-08 | | shintaro go: Unimpressive, marathon win by Karpov given that the odds are stacked against Anand in this match. |
|
| Mar-06-09 | | VaselineTopLove: <Whether that is better or worse than playing a zonal, interzonal, Candidates ¼-final, ½-final, final and the World championship match I suppose can only be decided by someone who has done both.> Does all this happen within one month and are your opponents as well rested as Karpov was for this match? |
|
| May-12-09 | | Pravitel: Anand agreed to play the old man on those conditions. If a few games tired him so bad that he couldn't resist the much older player then he didn't deserve the title in the first place. But as this game also shows, Anand wasn't too tired to offer a serious fight. Karpov's splendid play did crack him only after hundred moves. |
|
| May-12-09 | | Jim Bartle: I disagree. The conditions were totally unfair, and Anand shouldn't have been forced to play under a disadvantage just because his opponent--the FIDE champion--was an "old man." And remember, he not only had to play a fully rested player with only a day's rest after winning seven mini-matches, he had to travel to a different site. And of course, the next year Karpov sued FIDE for holding the Las Vegas knockout tournament, because it didn't fit his schedule. |
|
| May-12-09 | | docR: i agree terms were bad for anand but once the clock starts like in all other sports there are no excuses. if you play you either win or lose, period |
|
May-12-09
 | | acirce: <Jim Bartle> You are usually more careful about facts. It was about breach of contract, not just that it didn't "fit his schedule". |
|
| May-12-09 | | Jim Bartle: Yes, you're right, but I wanted to make it look worse. But the "breach of contract" charge basically was about the dates for Las Vegas. |
|
| May-12-09 | | Petrosianic: <i agree terms were bad for anand but once the clock starts like in all other sports there are no excuses. if you play you either win or lose, period> True, to a point. Anand agreed to a handicap match and has to accept the results. But just because he has no right to say it was unfair, doesn't mean that we the spectators don't. It was and is a ridiculous contest, and the only mitigating factor is that they were fighting for a meaningless title, anyway. |
|
| May-12-09 | | dramas79: I recall an Anand interview where he was extremely critical of Karpov taking advantage with FIDE backing. I think he was referring to this match. |
|
May-12-09
| | acirce: <Yes, you're right, but I wanted to make it look worse.> I appreciate honesty :)
We can say what we think about it, but a contract is a contract, and rules are rules. Whatever the case then, here we have blatant unfairness, but as far as I know it was legal. And once you signed up to play under these conditions, you're bound by it. Also note that it wasn't just unfair to Anand but to everyone. Still I think Kramnik was alone in boycotting the event. But Anand was to dismiss the final match against Karpov as a mere contractual obligation, with the Groningen event as the "real" tournament. |
|
| May-12-09 | | Jim Bartle: I'm not saying Anand was cheated, just that the playing field was tilted in favor of Karpov. |
|
| May-13-09 | | Petrosianic: <We can say what we think about it, but a contract is a contract, and rules are rules.> Yes, but the point you're missing is that it's the fairness, rather than the content of the contract that's in dispute here. That Anand had no legal right to demand that the contract be broken is true, but not really germane to this question. As far as what Anand may have said, I think that's largely a matter of perception. Was the match with Karpov a part of the "Groningen Tournament"? Or was it a separate event held immediately afterwards? The public is not necessarily going to agree with what the contract says in any case (How many people agree with the contract, that Capablanca was defending champion in 1921), so you can take your pick. Personally, I think it seems silly to say that Karpov won "a knockout tournament" when he only participated in one of the 8 rounds (held at a completely different location than the other 7), but ultimately think that it doesn't matter. The results are clear and indisputable either way: Anand won the right to challenge Karpov for the FIDE title (a battle that Karpov, naturally, had no part in, as he could hardly challenge himself), but failed to win that title. |
|
May-13-09
| | acirce: No, I don't think I'm missing the point, or at least not <that> point; I think you are missing mine. For some reason <Jim Bartle> brought up Karpov's protesting regarding the Las Vegas tournament. I assumed it had to do with implying double standards on the side of Karpov, or some other thing that was based on the two cases being similar. But this was "only" a case of unfairness - I fully agree it was totally unfair, said so myself many times - while Las Vegas was about rules and legality. If I misunderstood him, OK, but the point is still valid I believe. Btw, by saying Anand was dismissing the final match as a formality I was thinking specifically about this: <In an interview a few weeks after winning the title, Anand was asked, 'Did the FIDE World Championship win exorcise the demons of that 1998 mess with Karpov?' He answered, 'There weren't really any demons to exorcise. It wasn't a fair struggle. Karpov had the whole month to prepare for me, while I had obviously just had to work hard to get there. I'm quite sure that Karpov would not have made it to the final if he had also started in the second round. For me the tournament had finished in Groningen, and Lausanne was no more than a contractual obligation.'> http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/a0a... |
|
| May-13-09 | | Petrosianic: I see, well that statement does seem unusually catty for Anand, but I guess he was just trying to explain why he didn't let the defeat upset him. Judging from the cattiness level though, I think it upset him more than he admits to himself. I'd agree that the Las Vegas situation was different than the Groningen one in that way. Karpov may not have got what he was promised at Vegas, but the rules weren't unfair to him. |
|
| May-13-09 | | Jim Bartle: The only time I've seen Anand visibly upset was after he lost the FIDE candidates match to Kamsky after leading by two points. He just refused to answer questions about it from an Inside Chess interviewer, despite repeated attempts. I brought up the 1999 dispute with Karpov as an exclamation point to my argument about the 1998 final, and fibbed about Karpov's suit against FIDE. One inconsiderate kibitzer was extremely rude, and noted I was lying. |
|
| May-13-09 | | WhiteRook48: 108...Kf1 109 Rf5+ Ke2 110 Re7+ Kd3 111 Rd5+ Kc4 112 Rdd7 Kc5 113 Rc7+ Kd6 114 Rc8!! |
|
Aug-25-10
 | | chancho: This game may be long, but the two Rooks vs Queen ending won by Karpov is sensational. |
|
| Apr-21-11 | | ADDADZ: please I want to know how much playing time anand and karopov |
|
Apr-24-11
 | | HeMateMe: Why can't black win a pawn with
11...e X d5? |
|
Dec-20-11
 | | Garech: Fantastic game from Karpov.
-Garech |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | RookFile: Tough way to lose a game, a real body blow for Anand. |
|
| Aug-08-12 | | TheUltimateSecond: Karpov plays so beautiful its like he saw 5 moves ahead |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 17.Ndxb5
button will automatically play the moves for "hands free" viewing.
