< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 26 ·
|Oct-18-04|| ||Eggman: <<Karpov got his rematch rights because of the special bond he shared with Mr. Kampomanes.>>|
Perhaps this is true, but the rematch was also ostensibly due to the cancellation of the 1984-85 match which Karpov had been leading.
|Oct-18-04|| ||offramp: Will Leko's rating go up or down? I think it goes up. |
|Oct-18-04|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Eggman> Karpov was leading but fading fast in the 84-85 match. Campomanes ended the match to prevent Karpov from losing. |
|Oct-18-04|| ||square dance: im surprised that so many people are disappointed in the match. i think that 4 decisive games out of 14 made for an exciting match. also kramnik's bookend victories gave the match a little something extra. if this match was disappointing to people then i wonder when the last exciting WC match was? 2000? 1995? 1993? probably 1990 or 1987 im guessing. |
|Oct-18-04|| ||Gypsy: Let's not pusyfoot around: Karpov was completely spent at the end of his first match with Kasparov. Karpov's 5:0 lead dwindled to 5:4, and he was transparently a man at the end of his physical and psychical reserves. Kampomanes steped in to save Karpov's title, perhaps even Karpov's life. The match was declared a no-decision and Karpov retained the title while Kasparov was given another match. Kaspy won the second match. Somewhere in the mean time, Kampomanes restored for Karpov the previously discontinued rematch rights. Their third match was thus the re-match, and Karpov barely failed to get his title back. He was immediately seeded against Hubner into the candidate final. After Hubner surendered in the middle of their bout for nervous strain, Karpov got to play Kasparov for the fourth time. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||Minor Piece Activity: I think it was 5:3 but other than that you are right. Kasparov was reportedly mad although the match had been cancelled. He accused Campamones of favoring Karpov since the match was cancelled suspiciously immediately after Kasparov routed Karpov two games consecutively to even it up 5-3. Kasparov said that Camp could have cancelled the match anytime- for instance when Kasparov was much worse off at 5:1 which did not change until the 47th game. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||AlekhineViaOuija: So Kramnik retains his title in a drawn match. We sure have had a lot of these results in Chess history, have we not? |
I think Leko missed his only chance when he failed to take the a5 pawn followed by retreating with Bb5. There seem to be several lines where Kramnik can win a pawn or two, or even set up a mating position but black gets a perpetual check or other sufficient compensation thanks to the bishop on b5.
I posted my take on this game at http://cartermobley.com/Game_14:__K...
I say we should have a Leko-Anand match, with the winner to face whoever wins next January in Dubai. It would be quite an interesting match now that Leko has drawn with Kramnik and Anand is playing stronger than ever. It might be difficult to put enough stakes on the games to prevent a lot of early draws though.
Perhaps a per-game prize fund, split 75%-25% for the winner and loser, with no prize at all given for draws. Sound like a plan?
|Oct-19-04|| ||Granite: How about simply first person to 3 wins takes the prize. Draws are great games and I'd hate to see GMs play like patzers just because they'd rather lose then draw. Think of the draw with two bare kings this match produced! |
I consider it the second most entertaining game of the match conceding first place to the first game which I enjoyed very much.
If you really want to get rid of drawn matched I'd suggest a chess varient instead, where being stalemated would lose you the game, repeating the position is illegal forcing the opponent to chose another move.
Even in a king vs king endgame (they'll run out of legal positions because of the repetition rule) this produces a decisive game every time, but would change the tactics and theory of the game significantly although I would expect it to carry much of the same depth as real chess.
Personally, I love the game as is and to me a draw simply means a game played with the best skill by both parties and produces many great escapes which are great to watch in their own right!!
On that note, does anyone have a game collection on great draws? I'd be curious to see one.
|Oct-19-04|| ||offramp: <Gypsy: Let's not pusyfoot around: Karpov was completely spent at the end of his first match with Kasparov. Karpov's 5:0 lead dwindled to 5:4,>|
<and he was transparently a man at the end of his physical and psychical reserves.>
I wasn't there so I don't know what Karpov looked like. He said he wanted to play on. It was the match funds that were dwindling
<Kampomanes steped in to save Karpov's title, perhaps even Karpov's life. The match was declared a no-decision and Karpov retained the title while Kasparov was given another match.>
Kasparov said his chances of winning the first match were 'about 40%'. He was very pleased to start a new match. Karpov was the one that was annoyed.
<Kaspy won the second match. Somewhere in the mean time, Kampomanes restored for Karpov the previously discontinued rematch rights.>
The rematch clause had been in since 1975.
<Their third match was thus the re-match, and Karpov barely failed to get his title back. He was immediately seeded against Hubner into the candidate final.>
Hubner? Are you mistaking Hubner for Sokolov?
<After Hubner surendered in the middle of their bout for nervous strain, Karpov got to play Kasparov for the fourth time.>
Hubner gave up matches against Petrosian and Kortschnoi; I don't think he has ever played Karpov in a match.
Apart from the errors, not a bad effort.
|Oct-19-04|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: Anybody else notice a resemblence between the ending of this game and Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924?|
I'll bet Kramnik was thinking of this game. It pays to study the classics.
|Oct-19-04|| ||offramp: I thought it was similar toLasker vs Capablanca, 1914. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||Minor Piece Activity: Offramp, both Karpov and Kaspaov were upset that the match had been cancelled. For Kasparov's reasons, read my earlier post. Karpov wanted to play on because he was up 5-3, but would he really have survived the match(literally)? By the end of the match, a physician found that Karpov had lost 22 pounds(!) |
|Oct-19-04|| ||Shah Mat: ^^it pays to study PERIOD.
Kramnik promised us fine chess, and today's game was one of the finest games i've ever seen. I'm not saying i approve of 10 draws (when I think they should play to win EVERY game) but it is unfair and foolish to say that this was a poor match, when it obviously was not.
|Oct-19-04|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: Look at moves 38 and 39 of this game and the Capablanca game I mentioned above. I tell you, it's deja vu all over again-- |
|Oct-19-04|| ||Gypsy: <offramp> <The rematch clause had been in since 1975. > After Karpov became the World Champion or before?|
<Kasparov ... was very pleased to start a new match. Karpov was the one that was annoyed. > You may buy that cover, I do not. (Although I do understand that Kasparov was pleased to start that new match; he had been worried that it would be cancelled.)
I stand corrected on Sokolov and 5:3. The point we were realy discussing, however, was the issue of rematch rights; and from that we wandered off to preferential treatments for some players. My position has been that rematch rights confer a way too large an advantage to the champion. On the tangential issue I claim that two players in history received prefferential treatment from FIDE far above all others: Karpov and Botvinnik.
If you think otherwise, on either point, state your case. Othervise, thanks for filling in accurate details.
|Oct-19-04|| ||Rawprawn: As I mentioned a few times through the match, Petrosian would have won several of Kramnik's positions. Ray Keene today in the Times refers aptly to his win against Botvinnik in 1963. In Petrosian's day one talked about a python hypnotising its victim before squeezing it to death, but in Leko's case he was more like a rabbit in the headlights of a truck. We saw a classic yesterday. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||ughaibu: Gypsy: You missed out Fischer. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||acirce: <Petrosian would have won several of Kramnik's positions.> Against the opposition of his era, absolutely. Against Leko? Highly doubtful. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||acirce: <patzer2> <Perhaps 22...Bxa4! 23. Rc7 Bb5! 24. Bb1! Bd7!? (Fritz 8's recommendation) would enable Black to hold for a draw. Play might continue 24. Bb1! Bd7!? 25. Ng5 Rf8 26. Rxb7 Ke7 27. Nxf7> I think I'd prefer 27.Rc1 Rab8/Rfb8 28.Rcc7 Rxb7 29.Rxb7. It might keep a stronger grip than what happens in your line. Overall I can't see that 22.a4 was a mistake. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||ruylopez900: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
Picture of the nice trophy Kramnik won.
|Oct-19-04|| ||ruylopez900: <Granite> Draws are not the enemy! Chess is drawn according to some players and experts. No matter what players do, if they both play as hard as they can, sometimes it comes out even. In that case split the spoils and be happy. In hockey when the game is tied you don't say the team who had the last shot won, that's just stupid, your endgame idea would A. take forever, B.produce unworthy winners, C. the players would agree to a draw anyways.|
The real enemy is GM draws when the book hasn't been fully played out. If you've gotten to the endgame it's been a good game.
|Oct-19-04|| ||AdrianP: What a great game! and a worthy finish to an interesting match. This will go down as a Kramnik masterpiece (especially given the match situation), very much in the style of Capablanca, I think. |
I agree with <Gregor> that move 39 evoked shades of Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924 (shielding the K with a black pawn rather than taking it - a not uncommon motif).
|Oct-19-04|| ||whiskeyrebel: I think this game was flat out good for chess. If Kramnik had gone down without a fight I'd be disappointed. Leko has certainly distinguished himself. I'd love to see Anand vs. Leko. |
|Oct-19-04|| ||acirce: Has Mig Greengard yet revealed how Kasparov, while working on his books, glanced at the screen for a few seconds after 15.Bd4 and muttered "Leko is dead meat, he will be mated around move 43"? |
|Oct-19-04|| ||Dionysos2004: @acirce:
looool - I like your humor. And your loyalty to Kramnik the whole match (o.k. there was one "idiot" after Lekos Qd3 in the Marshall). And your positional understanding of chess and your analysis of the endgames.
greets from switzerland
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 26 ·