|May-25-06|| ||lopium: No comments yet!? What a game! I need to check it out, it's very complicated and passionated.|
|Oct-04-06|| ||cotdt: Kramnik shows that he has a deeper understanding of chess than Karpov in this game.|
|Oct-04-06|| ||reynolds: Not to start a war here, but Karpov's positional understanding always came across as a bit shallow and overrated, to me.|
|Oct-04-06|| ||tamar: The positional understanding was still there, but Karpov started to miss a few tactics around this time.|
Kramnik was in his early 20's, Karpov 46.
By 1999 Karpov was barely in the top ten.
|Oct-04-06|| ||amuralid: Yes. Karpov was declining in strength. I do not think it is fair to pass a judgement on Karpov based in this game.
Karpov's judgement and ability were super human and Kramnik humbly admits it.|
Kramnik on Karpov:
<- Has Karpov followed the versatile pattern?
- Of course he has. Additionally, there is something mysterious about his play, no one else could cope with things like he did. It is easier for me to talk about Karpov because his collection of games was my first chess book. I studied his work when I was a child, later I played quite a few games against him. He is a versatile chess player, a good tactician who brilliantly calculates lines and positionally very strong. He also has a distinctive feature. Funnily enough, he has effectively denied Steinitz's pronouncement: if you have an advantage you must attack, otherwise, you will lose it. When having an edge, Karpov often marked time and still gained the advantage! I don't know anyone else who could do that, it's incredible. I was always impressed and delighted by this skill. When it looked like it was high time to start a decisive attack, Karpov played a3, h3, and his opponent's position collapsed.
Karpov defeated me in Linares-94 where he scored 11 out of 13. I got into an inferior endgame. However, it did not seem awful. Then I made some appropriate moves and could not understand how I had managed to get into a losing position. Although I was already in the world top ten, I failed to understand it even after the game. This was one of the few games after which I felt like a complete idiot with a total lack of chess understanding! Such things happen very rarely to top level players. Usually you realise why you have lost. This moment defies description - there is something almost imperceptible about it and so characteristic of Karpov.>
|Oct-04-06|| ||jtd200: Yeah, I agree... Pretty awesome game to receive no attention.|
|Oct-04-06|| ||cotdt: That 1994 Linares game that Kramnik was refering to, well I analyzed it and it seems like a draw to me. I couldn't see the loss that Kramnik was refering to, and neither did my chess engine. In most of the Karpov-Kramnik games, it seems like Kramnik has the upper hand. Karpov was Top 10 till 1999, so I insist that in this 1997 game, Karpov was still very strong.|
Times Chess Twitter Feed