|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-14-10 | | Stoned Knight: Korchnoi was a sore loser. He defected from the USSR because he wasn't number one and in this match he made a fool of himself by irritating his opponent with cheap and childish complaints and arrogant behaviour. I believe that people like him spoiled chess, which should be the simplest of games: 2 people, a chess set and a clock. |
 |
Aug-14-10
 | | David2009: <Jimfromprovidence: I can't find anything wrong with 57...a5.> With White to play we have:
click for larger view
Setting the position up on Crafty End Game Trainer: http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-t... White can win (at least, against Crafty EGT) with
58.Rg3 b3 59.Kc6 Rd4 (Jim's suggestion which Crafty EGT also plays) 60.Rxb3 Rb4 61.Ra3 a4 62.Kd6 Kb7 63.Ke6 Kc6 64.Kxf6 Kxc5 65.Kg7 Rf4 66.f6 Kb4 67.Rg3 a3 68.f7 and wins. In contrast, 57...Rc4 instead of 57...a5 seems to draw, see my earlier post Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1978. |
|
Aug-15-10
 | | thegoodanarchist: < Domdaniel: Hasn't Montezuma been corrected to the spelling 'Moctezuma'? btw, how does the bug in the water in Mexico know to keep to its own side of the Rio Grande?> The little chap doesn't like cold weather! |
|
Aug-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: <Stoned Knight> -- <Korchnoi was a sore loser> True: but so are most chessplayers, and you have the other details a bit confused. Viktor was in the top 3 or 4 players in the world from about 1960 to 1985, from the time of the young Tal to the arrival of Kasparov. Only Spassky, Fischer and Karpov got near him, and none showed anything like his stamina. Simply fighting his way through to three successive candidates finals in 1974-81 took incredible talent and self-belief. Remember too that after the soviets blacklisted him he was barred from elite tournaments apart from the FIDE WC cycle. If he'd had the best opponents and seconds in the mid-70s he could well have beaten Karpov. Who is also one of the all-time greats, and no slouch in the resilience department. |
|
Aug-18-10
 | | Eggman: <<Viktor was in the top 3 or 4 players in the world from about 1960 to 1985>> Korchnoi wasn't top 3-4 in the first half of the sixties. Even in, say, 1969, it was only clear that he was in the top 6 (the others being Fischer, Spassky, Petrosian, Larsen, and Tal). And I'm not sure what era or achievements you refer to when you say that <<only Spassky, Fischer and Karpov got near him>> - what about former World Champions Tal and Petrosian? And didn't Polugaevsky at least "get near" Korchnoi? |
|
Aug-26-10
| | Domdaniel: <Eggman> Ehhh, yes. You appear to be right about pretty much everything. I was having one of those over-enthusiastic moments when I made that previous post. I might debate Polu ... I've long enjoyed the games of his 1970s candidates match with Korchnoi. I may be misremembering this, but I seem to recall Viktor - with some encouragement from his English seconds, Stean and Keene - playing new lines in the English Defence, with ...e6 and ...b6 and even ...Qh4. Or was that another match? Anyway, I concede. I normally think that who-was-better debates are the essence of futility: dunno what came over me, unless it was admiration for Korchnoi. Some argue, as I did, that the soviet ban kept him out of important tournaments and meant that his only top-level games were in candidates matches. With more and stronger opponents, they say, he'd have been world champion. Yet it seems to me that, psychologically, Korchnoi *needed* that exclusion -- it gave him the fuel he needed to fight. |
|
Aug-26-10
 | | lost in space: At that time I always loved Victor's victories...and thought that his losses was due to his own mistakes, not due to Karpov's strength. Even today I think that Korchnoi was simply the better player, even he lost the championship in 1978. Maybe I am not objective here. I simply dislike the chess-machine Karpov. |
|
Aug-28-10
| | Domdaniel: <lost in space> Apart from a Fischer-Spassky book with no analysis, my first real chess book was the Keene & Hartston book of the 1974 Korchnoi-Karpov match. For some reason, it influenced me much more than either Fischer or Spassky did. I've been playing Viktor's openings, especially the French and English, ever since. But in time I came to appreciate both players. And Boris'n'Bobby weren't so bad either ... |
|
Oct-24-10
| | lost in space: <Domdaniel>
My first chess book was rent from the public library in the late 60ties/very early 70ties. <Das Schachspiel (The game of chess) > from Tarrasch. I had it for 3 years and the library never compliant about it. Obviously no one else was interested in the book. I still love to play for the center a'la Tarrasch
My second strong influence was the match Fischer-Spassky in 1972 - this is the reason why I still play the sicilian defense.And the next and most important influence was this match between my hero Victor and the ugly little Karpov. Here my love to 1. c4 and 1. d4 is resulting from. Nimzowitch and the hyper-modern chess (My system) was coming very late to me - in the early 80ties when I started actively playing OTP chess in a chess club. I quitted that in the very late 90ties and only was playing versus comps (only wining when cheating) due to time reasons. Internet and CG.com was activating the fire again. |
|
Jan-04-11
 | | jmboutiere: 45...Nc3 better than 45...Rd8
49...Rg3 better than 49...Re8 |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | Crazychess1: Fantastic! As the decades went on, the myth we were taught to accept was that Karpov was the modern day Capablanca, that his endgame wizardry was second to none. I'm not sure if the endgames in this match align with that idea. And here, Korchnoi conducts one of the finest endgames I have ever seen. Unforgettable. |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | Everett: Well, even Capablanca wasn't as good as he was purported to be. Fischer, for one, pointed out some mistakes, and Alekhine had no fear of his endgame. And Capablanca himself had no higher respect for endgame skill than Lasker (who was the real first endgame master). As for Karpov, both Kasparov and Yusupov felt that he sometimes misevaluated playing against the IQP in his younger years. At some point this reversed, much like his understanding of the endgame. I guess it goes to show that one cannot be good all at once. |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | sarah wayne: For someone who's supposed to display incredible technique Karpov played this very poorly. |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | goldenbear: <sarah wayne> In fact, Black's position is extremely difficult. Kasparov shows that Black's position is lost after 47.f5! in OMGP. Korchnoi loses his advantage in spots, but nevertheless the position remains very tricky. |
|
Oct-25-11
 | | visayanbraindoctor: <Everett: Well, even Capablanca wasn't as good as he was purported to be.> In endgames that are unsymmetrical, or with lots of pieces, or required lots of calculations, or in brief those that are best played like middle-games (with emphasis on piece activity and initiative), IMO Capablanca was the best. (For example see Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924, J Bernstein vs Capablanca, 1915, J Cukierman vs Capablanca, 1938, Marshall vs Capablanca, 1918, Marshall vs Capablanca, 1909, Capablanca vs Janowski, 1911, Capablanca vs Bogoljubov, 1924) Karpov was of course great at endings, but in the particular domain of rook endings, Korchnoi may have been better than him. Korchnoi may be one of the all time greats in Rook endings. Here is another Rook endgame won by Korchnoi from the same match.
Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978 |
|
Oct-25-11
 | | Mozart72: White's, final material vcalue: 6.1, Black's: 4.7 = 1.4. If 6.1 - 4.7 = 1,rounded to the nearest whole number = 1. A 1 in the standard chess piece relative value scale is equal to a pawn. So, White has an advantage of one theoretical pawn. |
|
| Oct-25-11 | | goldenbear: <visayanbraindoctor> Check out this recent save... Korchnoi vs N Grandelius, 2011 |
|
| Oct-25-11 | | AnalyzeThis: Actually, Mozart, white is ahead two pawns.
Thanks for playing. |
|
Oct-25-11
| | Mozart72: <AnalyzeThis> 6.1 - 4.7 = 1.4, rounded to the nearest whole number = 1. And one in the standard chess piece relative value scale is a Pawn. But I'm talking of a "theoretical pawn". A pawn that is not phisically on the chess board but that influences and affects the game result. |
|
| Oct-25-11 | | Everett: <visayanbraindoctor> thank you kindly for the links to all those great games. I see you put a lot of effort into understanding them. Through this you have helped me understand the endgame in general, and Capablanca's genius in particular. |
|
Oct-25-11
| | visayanbraindoctor: <Everett> Glad you liked the games. Capablanca vs Yates, 1924 is another outstanding end-game I forgot to mention in which Capa maximizes the activity of his pieces (Knights in particular). Capa's keeps on increasing the activity and scope of his pieces so that they literally drive Yate's pieces to the edge of the board, until they can no longer move - zugzwang! Bogoljubov vs Capablanca, 1928 and Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927 are other famous games on the same the theme (win the endgame by increasing piece activity rather than by immediately going for material gain) although they ended more quickly. Capa I think was a poor annotator and explained his games rather badly (compared say to Alekhine or Botvinnik and the Soviet/ Russian school of chess), and so he never properly explained this recurrent theme in his endgames. <goldenbear: <visayanbraindoctor> Check out this recent save... Korchnoi vs N Grandelius, 2011> That's an incredible save. Thanks for the link. GM Grandelius must have been amazed. Victor the Terrible at his age still showing why he is one of the greatest players of the Rook endgame. |
|
| Oct-26-11 | | Everett: <visayanbraindoctor>
Capablanca and Karpov are similar annotators; they were players first, and annotating was not their preference. Also both "saw" more at the board without particularly calculating variations. The "calculators" are likely better annotators; Kasparov, Botvinnik, Alekhine, Korchnoi. ... Or at least better regarding accurate and thorough variations. |
|
| Nov-24-11 | | King Death: < sarah wayne: For someone who's supposed to display incredible technique Karpov played this very poorly.> This is way off the mark. It isn't clear that Korchnoi can win after the adjournment, but he made Black miserable trying. This is the kind of defense that may be easy to come up with using an engine, but I'd like to have seen anyone (including me) hold this over the board. Karpov himself spent a lifetime squeezing out these endings. |
|
| Nov-24-11 | | Riverbeast: Korchnoi outplayed Karpov in more than one endgame in the '78 match Back then he may have been the superior endgame player of the two |
|
| Nov-25-11 | | King Death: < Riverbeast: Back then he may have been the superior endgame player of the two> That probably was true then, and I'm not sure anyone was stronger than Korchnoi in the ending at the time. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
