chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Anatoly Karpov vs Jan Timman
Karpov - Timman (2013), Groningen NED, rd 4, Dec-29
Queen's Indian Defense: Fianchetto. Nimzowitsch Variation Quiet Line (E15)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

NOTE: You are using our new chess viewer, "Olga." For more info see the Olga Quickstart Guide. You can switch back to the old viewer (pgn4web) from the pulldown menu below. If you have questions or suggestions see our Olga chessforum.

explore this opening
find similar games 108 more Karpov/Timman games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: The Olga viewer allows you to get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" link on the lower right.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-19-14  RubinSteinitz: Thank you Redshield for your nice post.

Again, I feel I need to defend myself. I am not a mean hearted person. I have been very humbled by the fact that I am lucky to be alive. I am in recovery from a stage 4 cancer battle back in 2012. I have been through 5 months of chemo; 33 xrays on my throat; a tracheotomy; a stomach tube through my abdomen; and a PICC line from bicep to heart. I've been to hell and back.

I left out Karpov's win percentage because the post that had the wins and draws was not meant to be a statistical argument. The percentage of wins were irrelevant to my argument. I was focusing on his large number of draws and that I found the draws not that exciting. I put the wins in the post as a comparison...in my humble opinion, there are a lot of games he won that were just grind it down boring to me. But I defended Karpov at every opportunity. I apologize for the Petrosian in slow motion remark. It was not quite right but Karpov has been compared to Petrosian in playing style.

Please quit taking my posts out of context...read the entire message if you going make a comment on it.

I still stand by my statement that there are a group of people here who are getting upset and calling me names over NOTHING.

Jan-19-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Everett: it's simple reciprocity; your comments come off as rude and disrespectful, so you get responses in kind.>

Oh, please. What did he say that is remotely close to calling someone else an idiot?

Jan-19-14  DrChopper: Well it's true that I have a huge preference on aggressive/tactical players, but if someone want to be better it's a must to study Karpov's games to have a better position and technique (it's the core of the game). Like I said before he doesn't take risks but he was always going straightforward and wasn't afraid to go into complicated situations. To me, there is a lot more boring players in the top than him.
Jan-19-14  RubinSteinitz: Thank you <OhioChessFan> for your kind words. :) And to <DrChopper>, I totally agree with you. I feel that I know Karpov like a brother. We are the same age; he is a few months older than me and I have watched his progress and studied his games since we were teenagers. I did develop this feeling over the years that Anatoly was a cautious player who, like Capablanca and as you said in your previous post, liked to steer toward clear positions. I felt sorry for him when Fischer forfeited the WC because nobody likes to win anything by default. But he made up for it by playing in tourney after tourney trying to prove his worth. He did an excellent job too. Then came the Kasparov fire storm. It was like the Alekhine and Capablanca match: the Irresistible Force vs the Immovable Object. For me the battle that started between the two K's was very exciting until the draw plague encroached upon the play. Then it got to where even the audience began to fade. But despite the fact that I don't really care for Karpov's style, he really has done a lot for the game and has proven to be a real fighter in a mostly quiet sort of way.

I wish Karpov and everyone here at Chessgames, a great New Year and may we all continue to indulge ourselves with the greatest game on earth. :)

Jan-19-14  Everett: Karpov is not to everyone's taste, yet every truly knowledgeable chess player understands his immense strength and overall contribution to the game. I am not surprised that he continues to be under-appreciated by those new to chess and those not willing or capable of looking deeply into why he is considered so brilliant by the very best players.

Besides, both Kramnik's and Carlsen's first books were of Karpov's games. They seem to have made a positive impression.

Jan-20-14  MarkFinan: <RubinSteinitz: <Jim Bartle: How can Karpov' s games be sleepy and boring?> I respect your statement regarding your feelings toward Karpov' s play. Objectively, I'm referring to the fact that at this time, Karpov has 3558 games in this database and he won 997 and drew 1306. And from my own observation, most of the draws were from playing safe. Which to many people is sleepy and boring or at least sleepy. But in Karpov' s defense, I will state that he did make it to the top of one list I read regarding most popular chess player. But most lists of popular chess players that I read, had him at the middle or not on the list at all.>

I totally agree with you about Karpov. I've read all your posts on this subject and agree with everyone, but I thought like you anyway, and don't expect <Jim Bartle> to understand or even try understand what your point is! I find karpovs games dull, I find him dull, but that isn't to say he's not one of the greatest ever and he has played exciting chess games! I think it's just a matter of taste with Karpov, probably an aquired taste that I just can't get into! I remember him at his peak in the mid 80's (although some would dispute that too), and I wasn't a fan of his chess games then and I aren't now.

Jan-20-14  RubinSteinitz: Thank you Mark for your support! And good to see you!

I too think Karpov has to be considered one of the greatest players of the recent times. But he has been listed as having a boa constrictor style that like you stated too, is just boring. He has been compared to Petrosian and Capablanca in that he will chose a clearer path to a tiny endgame advantage over an unclear tactical blow, in Karpov's own words: "Without a second thought." But make no mistake, he will pounce unrelentlessly on the smallest mistake. I have all of the chess books on him and feel I know him well. And like <DrChopper> states, it would pay to study his games because boring or not, his style wins games. And speaking of books, many people don't know that Karpov has a library of over 9000 chess books!! He is also an avid stamp collector including chess stamps. The collection was at auction just recently.

Again, thank you Mark for your support!

Jan-20-14  MarkFinan: No worries about the support. I recognise the nice guys around here and I treat them with respect, just like I always have with you. I think that when someone has been through what you have and come out with the attitude you have then it's worthy of respect.

And I agree with you about Karpov in everything you write. But... it would have been a lot different without Kasparov!?! But that is one big IF.

Jan-20-14  rogge: <Jim Bartle: I said I leave it to others to judge.>

Ok, he's smarter than you.

Jan-20-14  RubinSteinitz: <Mark> That is a good question as to whether things would have been different for Karpov if Garry hadn't shown up. If I have your meaning correct?

Karpov had it rough acquiring the WC without a match. The fiasco with Korchnoi didn't help at all either. If anything, it made Karpov look greedy and snobbish. But looking back, I feel that if Kasparov hadn't come along with his classic genius, we would have been subjected to more of "The Korchnoi Show." at the WC. Because at the time, there really wasn't anyone close to Karpov's class. I have the book on the Korchnoi/Karpov match. There were a few interesting games but I think the side show going on with Korchnoi's family being held, the sad charade of the sunglasses and the yogurt along with everything else effected both players and effected the quality of the play too. I feel that if Karpov could have played uninterrupted, he would have smashed Korchnoi without a sweat.

Kasparov forced Karpov to play his best and that was good but things went sour with Karpov being the poster boy for the regime and then the match turning into a marathon of boring games (with the exception of a few gems by both players) coupled with the record 40 draws. Even the spectators were booing.

Thanks for reading. :)

Jan-20-14  MarkFinan: <RubinSteinitz: <Mark> That is a good question as to whether things would have been different for Karpov if Garry hadn't shown up. If I have your meaning correct?>

Hi.. yeah kind of. I think that Karpov would possibly be looked upon as Kasparov himself is now... the greatest ever, although some think Fischer has that title. I think if his main challenger early on would have been Korchnoi and then he'd faced Short et al, he'd have beaten them in much the same way as Kasparov had. He would have been looked at differently if it wasn't for Kasparov is what im trying to say 😃

Although I still wouldn't be a fan of his chess. Today out of the top players I like Carlsen and Nakamura, from the 90's (which I can hardly remember, haha) Kasparov, Topalov, Ivanchuck and then there's quite a few from the 70's and earlier I like because there were more mistakes in games and that always makes good viewing.

Jan-20-14  RubinSteinitz: To<Everett>, I agree with most of what you stated in previous post. Since you only gave three categories for which non Karpov supporters can fit in: New to chess; or not willing or capable of looking deeply into why he is considered so brilliant by the very best players.

I don't fit into any of those categories. :) I fit into dislike of the player's style and little bit into his behavior.

I have read where Kasparov did not consider Karpov all that brilliant but there might have been bias due to the hard feelings between them.

On your text about both Kramnik AND Carlsen having Karpov's book as their first book. That is incorrect. Only Kramnik had Karpov's book as his first one. Carlsen's first book was Bent Larsen's "Find a Plan."

Jan-20-14  MarkFinan: I never knew that about Carlsen. I naively thought that someone must have told him, "Don't worry about reading and stuff. You're gonna be brilliant anyway!" lol. I have wandered what kinda chess books he read as a kid, favourite games etc etc.. <I don't fit into any of those categories. :) I fit into dislike of the player's style and little bit into his behavior.> Well said 😃

I don't like his style either, but I don't know much about him as a person to judge. What books have you read chesswise? Be it biographical or on the game?

But Kasparov did once say about Fischers standing as an all time great... "Just behind Karpov!", so I'm guessing he puts himself in the top spot, Karpov second and Fischer third!

Jan-20-14  RubinSteinitz: <MarkFinan: ><RubinSteinitz: <Mark> That is a good question as to whether things would have been different for Karpov if Garry hadn't shown up. If I have your meaning correct?>

<Hi.. yeah kind of. I think that Karpov would possibly be looked upon as Kasparov himself is now... the greatest ever, although some think Fischer has that title. I think if his main challenger early on would have been Korchnoi and then he'd faced Short et al, he'd have beaten them in much the same way as Kasparov had. He would have been looked at differently if it wasn't for Kasparov is what im trying to say Although I still wouldn't be a fan of his chess. Today out of the top players I like Carlsen and Nakamura, from the 90's (which I can hardly remember, haha) Kasparov, Topalov, Ivanchuck and then there's quite a few from the 70's and earlier I like because there were more mistakes in games and that always makes good viewing.>

I'm in total agreement with your entire message. Karpov was the man to beat. It would have been a great contest to see Fischer and Karpov play. And I really enjoy Ivanchuck's play; he has been labeled by many as a true chess genius. Nakamura is a bit inconsistent but still a super player. And what can you say about Kasparov? He has been beyond belief in mental strength. Carlsen brings in new lighting; the years ahead are going to very fun to watch.

Jan-20-14  RubinSteinitz: <MarkFinan: I never knew that about Carlsen. I naively thought that someone must have told him, "Don't worry about reading and stuff. You're gonna be brilliant anyway!" lol. I have wandered what kinda chess books he read as a kid, favourite games etc etc.. <I don't fit into any of those categories. :) I fit into dislike of the player's style and little bit into his behavior.> Well said 😃 I don't like his style either, but I don't know much about him as a person to judge. What books have you read chesswise? Be it biographical or on the game?

But Kasparov did once say about Fischers standing as an all time great... "Just behind Karpov!", so I'm guessing he puts himself in the top spot, Karpov second and Fischer third!>

To answer your question about my chess books, I have about 50 not including Chess Life from back in the 70's up to mid 90's (that is when I got tired of their high subscription fees and my job and health issues put a stop to my tournament travels) and not counting my dozen Informants. My books range from best games complilations from just about all the WChamps. My favorites are Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games; 60 more memorable Games of Fischer by Paul Powell; Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953; Capablanca 3rd World Chess Champion; The Life and Game of Mikhail Tal; I go over all of the World Championship books I have that go all the way up to Carlsen/Anand battle; and a few others in the biographical genre; then in the instructional texts, I like Understanding the Chess Openings; Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn; Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy; and a bunch of other ones. Gotta stop... I'm getting tired. :) Good day to you and I'll be back.

Jan-21-14  MarkFinan: The genius who saw a move Botvinik missed *is* laughing, yes Jim. You were offered peace, so don't complain when things get tough for you. I *never* wanted this! You should have listened to Rogge.
Jan-21-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: What move did Botvinnik miss? I didn't see any.
Jan-21-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: <MarkFinan: And you show me where I haven't owned up to mistakes?? You can't!>

Just <today> you talked about Botvinnik's bad move. In a game where he defeated Capablanca brilliantly. Sounds like an error you haven't corrected.

Jan-21-14  Pulo y Gata: Best live game I've seen in years.
Jan-21-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: <MarkFinan: The genius who saw a move Botvinik missed *is* laughing, yes Jim. You were offered peace, so don't complain when things get tough for you. I *never* wanted this! You should have listened to Rogge.>

There, <you> claimed Botvinnik missed a move. The game is Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938.

Jan-21-14  Everett: <RubinSteinitz: To<Everett>, I agree with most of what you stated in previous post. Since you only gave three categories for which non Karpov supporters can fit in: New to chess; or not willing or capable of looking deeply into why he is considered so brilliant by the very best players. I don't fit into any of those categories.>

Of course you do, <non Karpov supporter>. It is alright, you have lots of company.

Sorry, meant to say <first books <that mattered>> ;-)

Feb-15-14  PJs Studio: I'm positive Fischer was one of the strongest and most tenacious players of all time. If (Big damn if) he hadn't lost his mind and kept playing he would've been a top GM into the late 90's. his occasional poor opening choices would've been corrected just like all the other modern GM's who get punished by the occasional experiment. (maybe never playing the poisoned pawn after '72...?) The man was only 29(!!) when he retired!

Computer tested analysis shows he was an accuracy monster. The GM he was helped shape ALL modern GM's that came after him. Just as Capablanca, Botvinnik and Alekhine shaped the landscape after their reigns.

I remember reading in Byrne's book years ago that Fischer's IQ was around 180. He had the capacity to learn to win against anyone.

Feb-15-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: < PJs Studio: I'm positive Fischer was one of the strongest and most tenacious players of all time.>

Fischer?!
This is Karpov v Timman!

In a match 35 years after Fischer's last serious game of chess! LOL!

Feb-16-14  PJs Studio: Offramp, you'd have to read the previous comments. Mr. Taylor was trolling about Karpov being too much for Fischer...and that he wasn't even ~ all that strong. (?)

Now that's LOL ;)

But I stand corrected, I see your earlier post about them settling the match here instead of on the board... Where their score was a combined 0-0=0

Feb-16-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I understand the quandry.

However, in general if I have any thoughts about the 1975 Fischer-Karpov World Championship match I post them at Karpov-Fischer World Championship Match (1975).

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 4)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Omnia mea mecum porto.
by hanwubai
Volume 97, Game 4
from # Chess Evolution Volumes 51-100 by Qindarka


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC