|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Mar-24-06
 |
| pawn to QB4: Hi McCool, I expect he thought 36...Kb8 saves a tempo since on 36...Kb7 37. Rg6 and the g-pawn's going with check; if 37...R defends g7 then 38. Rd7+, again one tempo ahead of where she was in the actual game. |
 |
| Mar-30-06 |
| JYMMI: 7_ ...  f5?? 8_  xd8+  |
|
| Mar-30-06 |
| krhodes: JYMMI, there is nothing wrong with nf5.. this variation is ok for black |
|
| Mar-30-06 |
| JYMMI: I use to call the players who leave the oponent to give this kind of check to his king crazy. This kind of queen change for me is never good... Kasparov shouldn't experiment moves that others usualy dont play. |
|
| Apr-12-06 |
| Kelvieto: <JYMMI> Isn't this the mainline of Berlinwall!? Black does have two bishops and Queens off as compensation |
|
| May-13-06 |
| MagnaPsygnosis: You know those exeptions that happens once a millenium...
Well people this is even more rare than a miracle.
Kasparov would crusk polgar is it wasnt a rapid but a 6hr match (PS.. I DO like polgar very much (all 3 of them) but she is not in the league with the big boys. But this game is a proove that accidents do happen.
(Gary allow judith to get a 7th rank absolute on him) |
|
| Jul-23-06 |
| kidster: There's no such thing as "greatest of all time"...just greatest in their time. |
|
| Oct-26-06 |
| s4life: <RookFile: Well, this Fischer stuff is all silliness. If he had played in 75 and destroyed Karpov, Korchnoi, Spassky, and any other pretender, then somebody would be explaining that Fischer played an 'easy' opponent in Karpov, but ran away when Kasparov appeared on the scene, and Kasparov was too tough for Fischer to deal with.> Your argument is so twisted and fallacious is not even funny... |
|
| Nov-23-06 |
| Jole: the thing is that for the greatest of all time arguement to be favourably applied, you need all the people to have the same access to training and chess theory (it just isn't fair to say that capa was not that strong and quote his ordinary opening repotire for example). Also the opponents need to be of the same strength so that it can be properly compared. Finally, even this fails, as you have to assume that all players have recieved fair and equal training, but then you may find that some player from the 1600's, or a person who is currently 100 or so on the FIDE rankings but puts absolutely no work into it. That is the fundamental issue with trying to do such hypotheticals...the parametres can be custom picked to arrive at a wanted result, and even the possiblity of a fair comparison is ridiculous as how do we know, for example, that if kasparov was born in the US, he would even become a world champion? |
|
| Dec-26-06 |
| 4daluvofchess: <Jole> The argument you give is actually only relevant if one is trying to determine who had the strongest "innate chess ability". For determining who was the greatest, we can accept that these players lived different lives and simply discuss the merits of their results. In any case, it will remain a subjective endeavor. |
|
| Apr-06-07 |
| Atking: <ddferrer: Even if Fischer kept on playing, I highly doubt he would have been able to crush Karpov as he did Spassky. Karpov is a much stronger player than Spassky. I would even go as far as to say Fischer = Karpov in overall playing strength.> Difficult to agree. They never played together.
Remember the first game of the second match between him and Spassky. 20 years without play. Of course Spassky didn't play his best but the first part of the game is an accomplishment which could make Karpov proud of (Ra3-Ra2-Qa1 the Ng3-Nf1-Nd2-Nb1 for a Na3!) the second part is an attack which could make Kasparov proud of (See 36.g4!). In all no doubt this match have not the same contancy of a match between the actual top in the world (Still even them made some mistake...) But some games are stone of chess history. For examples, on Fischer part, the game 11 or on Spassky part, the game 26. Many critizised the level of this encounter. Spassky's rating and so on. Every one knows that if Spassky is motivated he still could play up to 2650. Needless to say that without working chess with computers I'm not sure that Kasparov in 20 years could play at this level. I doubt... |
|
| Oct-17-07 |
| wvkevin: Why does Kasparov play an opening in which takes away his right to castle so early, not to mention the fact of so many early exchanges? Seems like his play in the 21 century was affected in part knowing he wasn't at his 20th century level (which is understandable). The last game he played with Deep Blue was an earlier example of this perhaps. |
|
Mar-31-08
 |
| ToTheDeath: Kasparov must have been hypnotized by his match loss to Kramnik to think this Berlin crap was good. |
|
| Aug-05-08 |
| newzild: It's good to see that Judit managed to beat Gazza after that time he cheated against her (moved a piece, then took it back, caught on camera). |
|
| Oct-05-08 |
| TheMacMan: kasparov is a terrible player who deserved to lose this game after he cheated against judit polgar |
|
| Nov-13-08 |
| The Rocket: "Why does Kasparov play an opening in which takes away his right to castle so early" The queens are swapped of so there is no to castle. |
|
| Nov-13-08 |
| Ladolcevita: I really miss the time when Judit was a super power among elite gms. |
|
| Feb-21-09 |
| swarmoflocusts: <kasparov is a terrible player> lol |
|
| Mar-04-09 |
| WhiteRook48: supposedly Kasparov broke the touch-move rule |
|
Mar-19-09
 |
| aazqua: This is one of the most un kasparovian games I've seen. What is he doing playing a variation this passive? I think he just didn't take Judit seriously and didn't want to waste any analysis on her. |
|
| Mar-28-09 |
| WhiteRook48: I can't understand why Black often plays 6...dxc6 in this opening. I mean, all it'll do is prove a disadvantage at 7 dxe5 Nf5 8 Qxd8+ Kxd8 |
|
Jul-22-09
|
| aazqua: More on the Polgar / Kaspy touch move controversy. Personally I agree exactly with the Shibut quote below. One could give Kasparov the benefit of the doubt in being unsure afterward of whether he really released his hand from the piece although it seems more likely that even if he wasn't quite sure he "knew" in his heart he'd released it. Of course I can completely understand Polgar being really pissed, particularly when she found out the video existed but they wouldn't tell her. Some good quotes:
"My favorite quote picked up by Yasser Seirawan was by FIDE President Florencio Campomanes who is reported to have said, "What do you expect from an unrated player?" For those who missed it, FIDE removed both Kasparov and Nigel Short from their rating list when they played their world championship match under the PCA instead of FIDE." "Unrated" - that's pretty funny stuff.
And from Chess author and NM Macon Shibut:
"For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Kasparov cheated, plain and simple. It was something that happened in the blink of an eye under pressure of the competitive situation. That does not excuse what he did in any way, but in light of the circumstances it's possible that he has convinced himself that the infraction didn't occur. Still, in his heart of hearts, I think he knows. "But the real scandal is not Kasparov's disgrace, any more than we consider it an outrage if a football player throws an illegal block when the referee is not looking. The real scandal is the action of the tournament controller, who apparently had videotape evidence and did not forfeit Kasparov." |
|
Jul-22-09
|
| aazqua: Actually, here is the full quote. Interesting.
I remember the incident from when it happened but have no special knowledge or insight about it. Indeed, from the web site you mentioned, you clearly know more about it than I! I'm not sure why this continues to be such a live topic. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Kasparov cheated, plain and simple. It was something that happened in the blink of an eye under pressure of the competitive situation. That does not excuse what he did in any way, but in light of the circumstances it's possible that he has convinced himself that the infraction didn't occur. Still, in his heart of hearts, I think he knows. The honorable thing would have been to simply resign the game on the spot. But the real scandal is not Kasparov's disgrace, any more than we consider it an outrage if a football player throws an illegal block when the referee is not looking. The real scandal is the action of the tournament controller, who apparently had videotape evidence and did not forfeit Kasparov. Unless... As you point out, this purported videotape has never seen the light of day. Perhaps it does not even exist, or perhaps it is inconclusive or even exonerates Kasparov. That would satisfactorily explain everything the arbiters did at the time. But it's much more exciting to try to "get something on" the world champion, and a powerful and abrasive personality like Kasparov is never short of enemies who will kindle rumors like this just to attack the man. |
|
| Oct-02-09 |
| duplex: Had Fischer played against Karpov in 1975-1978 and 1981, Karpov would have been inbeatable until 1990 for anybody including Kasparov as he would have gained immense experience at the end of these 3 clashes with Fischer.These were Karpovs own words.
Fisher would have beaten Karpov in 1975 possibly in 1978 in a tight match but not in 1981.. |
|
| Oct-04-09 |
| The Rocket: "Kasparov must have been hypnotized by his match loss to Kramnik to think this Berlin crap was good." yes because kasparov clearly showed white gets a huge advantage against it in the 2000 match.... NOT |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
