< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-04-04|| ||acirce: <who> He also lost to Adams and almost lost to Karjakin, something he certainly shouldn't do. The win against Vallejo Pons in Amber was a blindfolded game and doesn't really count. For a player who loses as seldom as Kramnik Najdorf has been a disaster for him. |
|Aug-04-04|| ||arjunkakar: for the last year or 2 doesnt it seem that the big three ie kaspy - kramnik and anand are just to scared playing againt each other in tournaments? always playing dull againt each other - i mean in classical versions of the game. The only results are in rapid tie breaks. Look at the (closed) ruy lopez game that was played in the final here with kramnik as white. What a disrcafully flat game that was. I would have thought they would show most flair againt each other - but its quiet the opposite. Anyone agree? |
|Aug-04-04|| ||acirce: <for the last year or 2 doesnt it seem that the big three ie kaspy - kramnik and anand are just to scared playing againt each other in tournaments? always playing dull againt each other - i mean in classical versions of the game.> You're wrong. Anand vs Kramnik, 2004 is one of the most incredible struggles of all lately! So what if it was a draw, that is the logical result of a well-played game anyway. The other final game with classical time controls - Kramnik vs Anand, 2004 - wasn't exactly flat either. Kramnik vs Anand, 2004 was "only 25 moves" but full of fight. Some other examples are Kasparov vs Anand, 2003 , Kasparov vs Anand, 2002 and Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2004 just to name some. |
|Aug-04-04|| ||arjunkakar: Dont get me wrong. I Think these guys are great. Those games are well - Nice. But please look at there games in the period prior to the one discussed. You will see more hunger to outdo each other. Much more intent to outdo each other. Point is they are such good players that one expects more tussle from them than they provide. The hunger is missing. Its saftey first approach. I like the world championship type format where the two best players had a prolonged head to head tusstle - and they threw all the pucnhes at each other over several games. |
|Aug-06-04|| ||Coleman: I have to agree with arjunkakar on this one. Safety appears to be the priority lately. The world championship finals were very exciting, Adams do or die win was thrilling. But in my opinion Morozevich has consistantly been playing the most imaginative and unorthodox chess this year. Even some of the games he draws have bold tactical maneuvers. This is the first game I've viewed. I hope the other games will have more end game action. |
|Aug-07-04|| ||artemis: Kramnik's "boring chess" is not boring at all. The true strategic mastery is to pull off an entire game by merely destroying a player through positional moves, while both are countering the tactical threats of the other, with out a tactical blow actually struck! Sure Mikhail Tal's sacrifices were amazing, and Adolf Anderseen's arguably even more so. But I recall a game Kasparov played against Karpov, where after 17 or so moves, He had, at the loss of a pawn, manuevered Karpov (playing white) into a position where he could only move his king to a single square, or his bishop to a single square without losing material. That is chess brilliancy.|
Kramnik is many things, but stupid is not one of them. If you are playing against an opponent who opens 1.e4, the best winning chances seem to be in the sicilian defense. While white has a "ready made attack" as NM Larry Kauffman describes in his magnificent book "The chess advantage in black and white," he suggests that white should play a closed sicilian with the moscow or rossilimo because open sicilians are very unclear. I prefer the scheveningen with the pawn on e6 rather than on e5, as Kasparov has scored some incredible wins with this, including against Karpov, and more recently against Short.
<Pinkpanther> In this day and age, where the chess world is so riddled with politics, to see a player who does not care about his image is a blessing. Kramnik plays chess, Kasparov manipulates chess masters.
|Aug-18-04|| ||arjunkakar: There seem to be underlying favourites everyone has, between kramnik , anand and kasparov. Which is fine - but wh try and put down th others? <artemis> Kramnik plays chess, Kasparov manipulates chess masters. I mean was that pot shot at kasparov rquired in dfending Kramnik? I am glad that you hav made a point of kramnik - a great player - againts another potshot by someone - but in doing so why put down kasparov - another great player - arguably th best. They all play chess. Great chess. |
|Aug-28-04|| ||Vischer: <If you are playing against an opponent who opens 1.e4, the best winning chances seem to be in the sicilian defense. While white has a "ready made attack" as <NM Larry Kauffman> describes in his magnificent book "The chess advantage in black and white," he suggests that white should play a closed sicilian with the moscow or rossilimo because open sicilians are very unclear. I prefer the scheveningen with the pawn on e6 rather than on e5, as Kasparov has scored some incredible wins with this, including against Karpov, and more recently against Short.>
Larry Kaufman is an IM |
|Sep-27-04|| ||InspiredByMorphy: I think Kramnik went wrong with 18. ...Na4 ? The same knight gets moved three times to end up on d7. Perhaps 18. ...Nfd7 would have been better. |
|Oct-10-04|| ||csmath: Yup, moves by knight costed him the game. Anand proves again that he is not to be experimented with. |
|Dec-16-05|| ||Conde de Montecristo: Kramnik...the Najdorf does not suit you!!
|Oct-20-06|| ||Whitehat1963: Kramnik's nemesis strikes again!|
|Nov-01-07|| ||Kasparov Fan01: I have noticed that since Kramnik defeating Kasparov in 2001 many people believed that Vlad was stronger..|
Who here believes this?
I'll bring up a few stats then you can decide for yourselves..
Garry Kasparov beat Vishy Anand 23-8 (38 draws)
Kasparov beat Kramnik 22-21 (79 draws)
Kasparov beat Shirov 17-0 !! (15 draws)
Kasparov beat Gelfand 13-0 !! (9 draws)
Kasparov beat morozevich 6-0 (4 draws)
Kasparov Beat ivanchuk 15-6 (27 draws
Kasparov beat bareev 12-0!! 6 draws
Kasparov beat Kamsky 10-1 3 draws
Kasparov beat j Polgar 11-1 3 draws
Kasparov beat Svidler 4-1 5 draws
Kasparov beat Leko 5-1 16 draws
Kasparov beat Adams 12-2 8 draws
Kasparov beat topalov 15-6 17 draws
Kasparov beat griscuk 6-0 5 draws
Kramnik beat grischk 2-0 4 draws
Kramnik beat Topaliv 24-13 42 draws
Adams Beat Kramnik 7-6 23 draws
Kramnik beat leko 15-8 61 draws
Kramnik beat svidler 10-6 20 draws
Kramnik beat polgar 20-0 !! 16 draws
Kamsky beat Kramnik 5-4 10 draws
Kramnik tied with Bareev 6-6 12 draws
Kramnik beat Ivanchuk 20-13 38 draws
Kramnik beat morozevich 7-5 10 draws
Kramnik beat Gelfand 13-5 37 draws
Shirov beat Kramnik 17-16 39 draws
Anand beat Kramnik 18-14 88 draws
What do you guys think??
Garry clearly stronger? when compared to all the other best players...
|Nov-01-07|| ||Whack8888: I think that Kasparov is very strong indeed, but I think the first stat you list is the most telling. Kasparov vs Kramnik 22-21 with 79 draws. A quick look over everyone else's scores and you see that aside from Anand, Ivanchuk and Topalov, no one else even comes close. Kasparov annihilated everyone except those three and Kramnik. And of those four, Kramnik has the closest to even score. |
Kramnik's stats against the same people are a lot less impressive, but it should be kept in mind that a lot of those games are from a young Kramnik versus whoever, whereas with Kasparov, it is Kasparov 'already the man' versus whoever. Maybe Kramnik's scores with the younger players he starts to encounter will get equally lopsided, though I dont think it will get so out of hand as Kasparov's.
Keep in mind Kramnik has lost only 3 games (I believe) since returning to chess after his break in mid 2006. Though he doesnt win as much as Kasparov, he doesnt lose much either.
It is doubtful perhaps that he will get amazing scores like 17-0 against Shirov or 13-0 against Gelfand, but he may get some 8-0 or 6-0 with a few more draws then Kasparov.
<Garry clearly stronger? when compared to all the other best players...>
Yes, Garry is clearly stronger when compared to all the other best players, except for Kramnik.
|Nov-01-07|| ||Kasparov Fan01: Good comments...I really wish they had a rematch after 2000.|
Don't get me wrong, I think Kramnik is awesome just not at the same level as Garry. It's incredible that Shirov beat Kramnik in their 1998 candidates match and has a positive overall score against Kramnik but has never beaten Kasparov.
That's simply amazing. Now I know that Shirov's style is just what Garry loves, sharp complicated games. But that score against Shirov is awesome.
Do you think all those 0 score wipeouts were came from Kasparov's strength? Or do you think players were simply terrified of Garry when they played him? And kind of played into his plans?
|Nov-01-07|| ||chessmoron: <I really wish they had a rematch after 2000.> It sorta did in 2001 when they met after Karpov departure in the Botvinnik Memorial. Sadly the classical ended up without any fight +0-0=4. Kramnik was not impressed by giving Kasparov a rematch after that which never would have happened anyway since the rematch clause was not in the contract.|
|Nov-02-07|| ||Kaspablanca: " Or do you think players were simply terrified of Garry when they played him? And kind of played into his plans?"
Kramnik said in an interview something like this; that many player felt fear when played GK but him.|
|Mar-09-08|| ||notyetagm: <Kasparov Fan01:
Kasparov beat Shirov 17-0 !! (15 draws)
Kasparov beat Gelfand 13-0 !! (9 draws)
Kasparov beat bareev 12-0!! 6 draws>
Kasparov beat Shirov, Gelfand, and Bareev (once World #4) by a combined score of 42-0!!!!!
How is that possible?
|Mar-09-08|| ||Voltaic: <Kasparov beat Shirov, Gelfand, and Bareev (once World #4) by a combined score of 42-0!!!!!>|
it's difficult to find and adjective for that score, it really goes beyond imagination. i mean those three GM's really know something about chess. Kasparov was simply the best player of his time.
|Mar-10-08|| ||notyetagm: <Voltaic: <Kasparov beat Shirov, Gelfand, and Bareev (once World #4) by a combined score of 42-0!!!!!>
it's difficult to find and adjective for that score, it really goes beyond imagination. i mean those three GM's really know something about chess. Kasparov was simply the best player of his time.>|
That 42-0 score is just beyond comprehension.
Versus Shirov, Gelfand, and Bareev:
|Sep-26-08|| ||Woody Wood Pusher: < PinkPanther: There is nothing to admire about Kramnik. He is a lazy, cocky "Champion" who plays the most boring chess I've ever seen.>|
Well said! Don't forget his fans call him Drawnik!
|Oct-06-08|| ||VaselineTopLove: I remember Anand himself saying something to the effect that in this game, white's king seemed to be in atoo safe a position for a typical Najdorf.|
|Oct-13-08|| ||parisattack: I don't think the Sicilian is a good pick against Anand; he seems to play his best chess against it. We'll see...|
|Apr-26-09|| ||Kasparov Fan01: I forgot to mention
Kasparov beat Korchnoi 18-1 !! 25 draws
|Apr-26-09|| ||Kasparov Fan01: "Kasparov beat Shirov, Gelfand, and Bareev (once World #4) by a combined score of 42-0!!!!!|
How is that possible?"
Freakish strength, you know these scores really make me wonder if Garry was stronger than Fischer, I don't any other player in history had such ridiculous personal scores.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·