chessgames.com

Kramnik 
Photograph copyright © 2007 Milan Kovacs (www.milankovacs.com)  
Vladimir Kramnik
Number of games in database: 2,368
Years covered: 1984 to 2013
Last FIDE rating: 2811
Overall record: +446 -126 =805 (61.6%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      991 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 English (109) 
    A15 A17 A14 A13 A16
 Sicilian (107) 
    B33 B30 B90 B52 B58
 King's Indian (102) 
    E97 E92 E94 E81 E86
 Slav (92) 
    D17 D15 D11 D12 D19
 Queen's Gambit Declined (89) 
    D37 D38 D31 D39 D30
 Grunfeld (71) 
    D85 D70 D87 D86 D82
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (254) 
    B33 B30 B31 B65 B57
 Petrov (102) 
    C42 C43
 Semi-Slav (100) 
    D45 D47 D43 D44 D46
 Ruy Lopez (100) 
    C67 C65 C88 C78 C84
 Queen's Gambit Declined (67) 
    D37 D38 D30 D39 D31
 Nimzo Indian (63) 
    E32 E34 E46 E20 E58
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Kramnik vs Leko, 2004 1-0
   Kasparov vs Kramnik, 1996 0-1
   Kramnik vs Kasparov, 1994 1-0
   Leko vs Kramnik, 2004 0-1
   Gelfand vs Kramnik, 1996 0-1
   Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000 1-0
   Kramnik vs Morozevich, 2007 1-0
   Leko vs Kramnik, 2004 1/2-1/2
   Topalov vs Kramnik, 2006 0-1
   Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2001 1-0

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship Match (2000)
   Kramnik-Leko World Championship Match (2004)
   Kramnik-Topalov World Championship Match (2006)
   FIDE World Championship Tournament (2007)
   Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008)

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Linares (1997)
   Tilburg Fontys (1997)
   Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens (1998)
   Cap D'Agde FRA (2003)
   Dortmund Sparkassen (2004)
   13th Amber Blindfold (2004)
   37th Chess Olympiad (2006)
   16th Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2007)
   Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2009)
   Azerbaijan vs the World (2009)
   Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2010)
   Dortmund (2011)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Match Kramnik! by amadeus
   Kramnik on a King Hunt & vs the World Champions by visayanbraindoctor
   Vladimir Kramnik's Best Games by KingG
   Vladimir Kramnik - Immortal masterpieces by Karpova
   Some interesting games by Kramnik by fgh
   Guess-the-Move Chess: 1990-1999 (Part 3) by Anatoly21
   Guess-the-Move Chess: 2000-2010 (Part 3) by Anatoly21
   Volodya versus Vesko by Resignation Trap
   Kramnik with Berlin Wall by tesasembiring by tesasembiring
   Book of Samurai's favorite games 6 by Book of Samurai
   Kramnik & Carlsen play the Catalan by suenteus po 147
   Kramnik g3 by Jason Harris
   Kramnik! by larrewl
   Alluring Kramnik games by positionalbrilliancy

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Vladimir Kramnik
Search Google for Vladimir Kramnik
FIDE player card for Vladimir Kramnik


VLADIMIR KRAMNIK
(born Jun-25-1975) Russia

[what is this?]
Former World Champion Vladimir Borisovich Kramnik was born in Tuapse, on the shores of the Black Sea, on June 25, 1975. As a child, Vladimir Kramnik studied in the chess school established by Mikhail Botvinnik. In 2000 he won the Classical World Championship from Garry Kasparov and then won the unified title when he defeated Veselin Topalov in 2006. He relinquished the title in 2007 to the incumbent World Champion, Viswanathan Anand.

Championships

<Age> In 1991 he won the World Under 18 Championship in Guarapuava, Brazil.

<National> He won the 1990 Russian Championship in Kuibyshev, Russia.

<World> Kramnik’s early attempts at storming the citadel of the World Championship met with mixed results. In 1994, he lost a Candidates quarter finals match for the PCA championship to Gata Kamsky by 1˝-4˝, and a few months later he lost a Candidates semi-finals match for the FIDE championship to Boris Gelfand by 3˝-4˝. In 1998, Kramnik was defeated by Alexey Shirov by 3˝-5˝ in the Candidates match held in Cazorla to determine the right to play Garry Kasparov for the Classical World Chess Championship. In 1999, Kramnik lost in the quarterfinals of the FIDE knockout championship in Las Vegas to Michael Adams by 2-4, including the 4 game rapid play-off.

Although Shirov had defeated Kramnik for the right to challenge Kasparov, suitable sponsorship was not found for a Kasparov-Shirov match, and it never took place. In 2000, however, sponsorship became available for a Kasparov-Kramnik match instead. This meant that Kramnik was the first player since 1935 - when Alexander Alekhine selected Max Euwe as his challenger - to play a world championship match without qualifying. In 2000 Kramnik reached the pinnacle by defeating long-time champion Kasparov for the World Championship in London by the score of 8˝ to 6˝ (+2 =13 -0) without losing a game, becoming the next Classical World Champion in the line that started from Wilhelm Steinitz. It was the first time since the Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) that the defending champion had lost a match without winning a game and it was also the first time Kasparov had been beaten in a World Championship match. Kasparov said of Kramnik that: <”He is the hardest player to beat in the world.”>

In 2004, Kramnik successfully defended his title as Classical World Chess Champion against challenger Peter Leko at Brissago, Switzerland, by drawing the Kramnik-Leko World Championship Match (2004) in the last game. Lékó was leading the 14-game match until the final game, which Kramnik won, thus forcing a 7 - 7 draw and ensuring that Kramnik remained world champion. Because of the drawn result, the prize fund of 1 million Swiss francs was split between the two players.

Kramnik refused to participate at the FIDE World Championship Tournament (2005), but indicated his willingness to play a match against the winner to unify the world championship. His next title defence in 2006, therefore, was a reunification match with the new FIDE world title holder from the 2005 tournament, Veselin Topalov. The $1 million Kramnik-Topalov World Championship Match (2006) was played in Elista, Kalmykia from September 21 to October 13 and after controversially forfeiting the fifth game, Kramnik won the rapid game playoff by 2˝ -1˝ after the classical games were tied 6-6, thereby becoming the first undisputed unified World Chess Champion since the 1993 split. In the following year, Kramnik lost the unified World Champion title when he finished second to Viswanathan Anand at the Mexico City FIDE World Championship Tournament (2007). In October 2008, Kramnik exercised his entitlement to a rematch as a challenger to World Champion Anand in Bonn, Germany, but lost the Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008) match by 4˝ to 6˝ (+1 =7 -3).

Kramnik's tournament performances in 2009 (see below) raised his rating (average of July 2009 and January 2010 ratings) sufficiently to qualify him for the World Championship Candidates (2011). In the first round he beat Teimour Radjabov by the narrowest of margins*: after tieing the classical games 2-2 (+0 =4 -0), and the rapid games 2-2 (+0 =4 -0), he won the blitz playoff by 2.5-1.5 (+2 =1 -1) to move to the semi final match against Alexander Grischuk, which he lost 1.5-0.5 (=1 -1) in the blitz tiebreaker after he drew the classical games 2-2 (+0 -0 =4) and the rapid games 2-2 (+0 -0 =4), thereby eliminating him from the contest. Participating in the World Championship Candidates (2013) on the basis of his rating, Kramnik came =1st with Magnus Carlsen on 8.5/13 after both lost their last round games. As the first tiebreaker (individual score against the other player in the tournament) left them level, the second tiebreaker (most number of wins in the tournament) relegated Kramnik to 2nd place due to scoring 4 wins to Carlsen's 5.

Kramnik is eligible to contest the World Cup 2013, and if he retains his rating in the top 3, will be seeded directly into the next Candidates Tournament in 2014, provided he participates in the World Cup.

Tournaments

Kramnik won Chalkidiki 1992 with 7.5/11, and in 1993, he played in Linares, finishing fifth and defeating the then world number three, Vassily Ivanchuk. Following some solid results in the interim which resulted in him winning the 1994 PCA Intel Grand Prix, major tournament triumphs were soon to follow, such as Dortmund 1995, Horgen 1995, Belgrade 1995, =1st in Dos Hermanas in 1996 and 1997, =1st in Tilburg 1997 (8/11). Dortmund became a favourite stop, as Kramnik has gone on to win nine more times in 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, Dortmund Sparkassen (2006), Dortmund (2007), Dortmund (2009) and Dortmund (2011), as either equal or clear first; in the 2011 edition of the event he won by 1.5 points despite losing in the last round. In 2000 Kramnik won his first Linares tournament, completing his set of victories in all three of chess's "triple crown" events: Corus, Linares, and Dortmund. Kramnik later captured additional Linares victories in XX Ciudad de Linares (2003) (shared) and 21st Linares (2004) (outright). He won the Tal Memorial (2007) with 6.5/9, 1.5 ahead of Shirov. Kramnik had exceptionally good results in 2009, winning once again in Dortmund and then winning the Category 21 (average ELO = 2763) Tal Memorial (2009) in Moscow with 6/9 and a TPR of 2883. At the time, the average ELO rating of the field made it the strongest tournament in history. He also participated in the London Chess Classic (2009) in December, finishing second to Magnus Carlsen. These magnificent results qualified him for the 2011 Candidates on the basis of his boosted ratings. Kramnik began 2010 at Corus (2010) in the Netherlands, during which he defeated new world number-one Carlsen with the Black pieces in their head-to-head encounter, ending Carlsen's 36-match unbeaten streak. A late loss to Anand knocked him out of first place, and Kramnik finished with 8/13, tying for second place with Shirov behind Carlsen's 8˝ points. He came 2nd in the preliminary Shanghai Masters (2010) to qualify for the Bilbao Masters (2010) against Carlsen and Anand, who had pre-qualified. He then won at Bilbao with +2 -0 =4 over world champion Anand, then-world number one Magnus Carlsen, and Shirov. The 2009 Tal Memorial and the Grand Slam Final at Bilbao were the most powerful tournaments (in ratings terms) ever staged. In late 2011, he easily won the 15th Unive (Crown Group) (2011) with 4.5/6 and a TPR of 2903 and finished the year with outright first at the London Chess Classic (2011) with +4 -0 =4 and a TPR of 2934, recovering ground lost following a mediocre performance in the Tal Memorial (2011) where he failed to win a game. In June 2012, he placed =4th at the category 22 Tal Memorial (2012), with 4.5/9 and in July 2012, =3rd (4th on tiebreak) at the category 19 Dortmund (2012) tournament. Kramnik finished 2012 with a surge, placing 2nd at the London Chess Classic (2012) behind Magnus Carlsen, scoring 6/8 (16 points in the 3-1-0 scoring system used in the event) and a TPR of 2937 to Carlsen's 2994.

His final training preparation for the Candidates tournament in March at the category 21 Zurich Chess Challenge (2013), was less than completely successful in terms of results (2.5/6), drawing five and losing one to Anand, although it seemed to contribute to his game fitness at the Candidates as he placed second by the narrowest of margins, scoring equal to Carlsen who won the event and the right to challenge Anand for the World Championship. He placed =4th with 4.5/9, a point behind the winner, in a low scoring Alekhine Memorial (2013).

Olympiads

Kramnik has won 3 team and 2 individual gold medals at the Olympiads as well as two team silvers. He played in the gold medal winning Russian teams in the Manila 1992, Moscow 1994 and Yerevan 1996 Olympiads, his first gold medal being awarded to him as an untitled 16 year old in 1992 when he scored eight wins, one draw, and no losses to record a remarkable TPR of 2958. In 1994, he came fifth on the second board with 8/11 and a 2727 TPR. In 1996, he scored a relatively meagre 4.5/9 on the second board. He did not participate in any more Olympiads until 37th Chess Olympiad (2006) in Turin, when he again won a gold medal with overall best performance on the top board with 6.5/9 (2847 TPR). In the Olympiad (2008) in Dresden, he scored 5/9 on top board and a 2735 TPR. Kramnik played board one for the silver medal winning Russian team in the Chess Olympiad (2010) in Khanty-Mansiysk, coming fifth with a scored of 5.5/9, winning 2 and drawing 7 with a TPR of 2794. At the Chess Olympiad (2012) held in Istanbul, he again played top board scoring 5/9 and coming 7th on that board, leading his team to another silver medal.

Matches

In 2004, he won a simul against the German National Team 2˝:1˝.

In October 2002, Kramnik played an eight game match against Deep Fritz (Computer) in the Brains in Bahrain (2002) match, drawing 4-4 after leading 3-1. In 2006 the German organization Universal Event Promotion (UEP) staged a return match of six games between Kramnik and Deep Fritz in Bonn, which Kramnik lost, +0 -2 =4.

In April 2012, Kramnik and Levon Aronian played, as part of their preparation for the 2012 Candidates Tournament, a six-game training match in Zurich. The Kramnik vs Aronian (2012) match was drawn 3-3 (+1 -1 =4).

Rapids

Kramnik has been an excellent and consistent performer at rapid and blindfold play. He won or shared the overall lead at Amber in 1996 (outright overall 1st), 1998 (=1st with Shirov with 15/22), 1999 Monaco (14˝/22), 2001 (=1st with Topalov with 15/22), 2004 (=1st with Morozevich with 14.5/22), and 2007 (outright overall first with 15˝/22). He also won the 2001 rapid play match against Lékó by 7-5, drew the 2001 rapid play Botvinnik Memorial match with Kasparov 3:3 and the 2001 rapid play match against Anand 5:5, lost the 2002 Match Advanced Chess Kramnik vs. Anand (Leon) 3˝:2˝, was runner up to Anand in the Cap D'Agde FRA (2003), won the 2009 Zurich Champions Rapid (2009) with 5/7 and shared 1st in the 2010 President's Cup in Baku with 5/7.

Ratings

<Classical> In January 1996, Kramnik became the world top rated player. Although he had the same FIDE rating as Kasparov (2775), Kramnik became number one by having played more games during the rating period in question. Kramnik became the youngest ever to reach world number-one, breaking Kasparov's record; this record would stand for 14 years until being broken by Magnus Carlsen in January 2010. He is the second of only six chess players to have reached a rating of 2800 (the first being Kasparov, followed by Anand, Topalov, Carlsen and Aronian). Ironically, during his reign as world champion, Kramnik never regained the world number-one ranking, doing so only in January 2008 after he had lost the title to Viswanathan Anand. As in 1996, Kramnik had the same FIDE rating as Anand (2799) but became number-one due to more games played within the rating period. Kramnik's 12 years between world-number one rankings is the longest since the inception of the FIDE ranking system in 1971.

Currently (June 2013), he has a rating of 2803 and is Russia's top player and number 3 in the world.

<Blitz> 2752 (world #17). He does not yet have a rapid rating.

Other

In 1995, Kramnik served as a second for Kasparov during the latter’s successful defence of his Classical World Chess Championship against Anand, and in an ironic counter point in 2010 he served as a second for Anand during the World Champion’s successful defence against Topalov.

Kramnik has a form of arthritis called ankylosing spondylitis. In January 2006, Kramnik announced that he would miss the Corus Wijk aan Zee (2006) to seek treatment for this condition. He returned from treatment in June 2006, playing in the 37th Chess Olympiad, winning gold by top scoring on the top board. Kramnik's performance in winning the Classical World Championship in 2000 won him the Chess Oscar for 2000, while his 2006 victory in the reunification match earned him the Chess Oscar for 2006.

On 30 December 2006 he married French journalist Marie-Laure Germon and they have a daughter, Daria, who was born 28 December 2008, and a son, Vadim, born 28 January 2013.

Sources and references Website: http://www.kramnik.com/; Biography: http://www.kramnik.com/eng/biograph...; Extended and candid interview with Kramnik by Vladislav Tkachiev in August 2011: http://whychess.org/node/1605; Live rating: http://www.2700chess.com/; * http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...; Wikipedia article: Kramnik


 page 1 of 95; games 1-25 of 2,369  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. A Oganian vs Kramnik 0-131 1984 BelorechenskB89 Sicilian
2. Kramnik vs Serdyukov 1-031 1984 BelorechenskB78 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack, 10.castle long
3. Remezov vs Kramnik  0-152 1985 KrasnodarB45 Sicilian, Taimanov
4. Zaitsev vs Kramnik 0-149 1986 Team TournamentB83 Sicilian
5. Kramnik vs Zhukov  1-038 1986 BelorechenskB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
6. Kramnik vs Chumachenko 1-032 1987 GelendzhikB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
7. Shilov vs Kramnik 0-137 1987 USSR Boys' ChampionshipB33 Sicilian
8. I Odesskij vs Kramnik 0-125 1987 URS-chT U16A52 Budapest Gambit
9. Kramnik vs Otsarev 1-018 1987 Baku TrainingB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
10. Kramnik vs Mayorov  1-034 1987 GelendzhikC12 French, McCutcheon
11. Y Yakovich vs Kramnik 1-042 1988 USSRB40 Sicilian
12. Kramnik vs Danislian  ½-½60 1988 Dimitrovgrad U18B15 Caro-Kann
13. Sakaev vs Kramnik 1-021 1989 Ch URSA85 Dutch, with c4 & Nc3
14. L Basin vs Kramnik ½-½49 1989 It (open)A87 Dutch, Leningrad, Main Variation
15. Kramnik vs Campora  ½-½26 1989 Cup World (open)C50 Giuoco Piano
16. Kramnik vs A N Panchenko ½-½60 1989 Sochi (Russia)B58 Sicilian
17. Kramnik vs G Kuzmin ½-½42 1989 World Cup ( open )C55 Two Knights Defense
18. Kramnik vs B Taborov  ½-½35 1989 It (open)B06 Robatsch
19. A Filipenko vs Kramnik 0-140 1989 Sochi (Russia)B00 Uncommon King's Pawn Opening
20. Kramnik vs Y Yakovich ½-½14 1989 Sochi (Russia)B33 Sicilian
21. V Arbakov vs Kramnik 0-173 1989 It (open)A87 Dutch, Leningrad, Main Variation
22. Kramnik vs Anand ½-½19 1989 Moskva 13/565C53 Giuoco Piano
23. R Dautov vs Kramnik 1-036 1989 Cup World (open)A81 Dutch
24. Kramnik vs A Grosar ½-½47 1989 Sochi (Russia)B58 Sicilian
25. Kramnik vs Huzman ½-½10 1989 It (open)C01 French, Exchange
 page 1 of 95; games 1-25 of 2,369  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Kramnik wins | Kramnik loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1406 OF 1586 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <alexmagnus: I would be slightly stricter - to analyze his games <agaist his equals>. Against worse players one always plays better than against one's equal (and against an equal better than against the better one). The best way to judge player's chess ability is too look at is games against his equals - there he does not better and not worse than he actually is. That's why I think the answer about the strongest player is impossible to answer - the mentioned players had no equals in their time, therefore their games give no information about their true chess strength.>

At around Lasker's time, top players started to play at super GM level IMO, probably because the coming of the chess clock standardized tournament conditions. You seem to imply that players like Lasker, Pillsbury, Rubinstein, Maroczy, Schlecter, and later on Capablanca and Alekhine, are intrinsically weaker than today's top super GMs. If so our opinions differ.

Certainly, if their brains were autopsied, they would look exactly like the brains of today's super GMs. Human brains haven't changed for maybe 35,000 yeas. These people were as smart as us. It is the folly of every generation to think it is always smarter than its predecessors.

May-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <alexmagnus: Disagree. While the players "number one" of different times may be equal (on the right end of the curve), the players "number two" are already different - with fewer players around, the density is smaller therefore the gap between #1 and #x is bigger therefore a modern tournament of #1,#2,#3,#4 and #5 is better in terms of average level than the same tournament from the past. The #1 participants are about equal, but the rest is worse.>

Probably not so much difference in opinion?

Here's an example that might clarify matters.

Every billion mass base would produce one player at or near the caliber say of Kasparov. Let's call him player #1 belonging to class A. The rest of the second tier players belong to class B.

2 billion people would produce two players #1 and #2 belonging to class A.

3 billion people would produce three players #1, #2, and #3 belonging to class A.

4 billion people would produce four players #1, #2, #3, and #4 belonging to class A.

20 billion people would produce 20 players #1, #2, #3, #4,... #20. belonging to class A.

Implications?

1. There are not many class A players, the very top ones capable of playing chess at the limit our brains are capable of, in every generation.

2. A top tournament say in 1914, featuring Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Rubinstein, Tarasch, Nimzovich, Marshall, and no weaker players; would be just as tough as today's more numerous top tournaments.

As a corollary, a 20 game match with Lasker would probably be tougher than a ten-rounder present-day tournament that features only two or three class A players; since you still have class B players in it. Playing the same class A player 20 times in a row should be tougher.

As another corollary, the toughest event in 2008 was the Anand vs Kramnik WC Match. No super tournament in 2008 came close to it.

May-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  SetNoEscapeOn: <Petrosianic>

The thing is, the Grischuk game in Mexico City was not a must win game for Kramnik. We can even leave aside the fact that there were still three rounds left. Kramnik must have realized that it would be difficult to catch Anand in any case (as it turned out, had he won that game and everything else stayed the same, Anand would have won the tournament by half a point). However, if somehow he had beaten Grischuk with black, and Anand had stumbled, and then Kramnik was also able to beat Anand in the rapid tie-breaks (as he likely would have had to), the result would be that he had to play a match against Topalov. True, by finishing second he lost the title and the Mexico City prize money, but he was guaranteed a large payday a year later, against an amicable (or at least, respectful) opponent.

That contrasts rather sharply with the consequences of not winning the game against Leko in 2004. So I really don't think that those two games are evidence of anything changing in Kramnik's character, or a weakening of his competitive drive. After all, we saw what he played in game 11 against Anand in Germany. Not the Petroff.

May-16-09  apple pi: <visayanbraindoctor> Congradulations on the hendeca-post. I think you just set a new CG record!
May-16-09  KamikazeAttack: <As another corollary, the toughest event in 2008 was the Anand vs Kramnik WC Match. No super tournament in 2008 came close to it>

Absolutely.

May-16-09  apple pi: <visayanbraindoctor> The interensting issue with Lasker as a model of early super-strong middle/endgame play is that he predated the trend starting I think in Capablanca of the specialization of chessplayers.

Consider: Lasker was accomplished not only in chess, but also in mathematics (he was a friend of Einstein's,) writing (many of his plays were adopted by German troupes,) and even philosophy. With Capablanca and even more so in the 20th century Soviet school (Botvinnik through [?]Kasparov) we encounter lives dominated by chess. Some notable exceptions include, for example, the talented baritone Smyslov and the politician Kasparov, but both formed a career initially around chess.

Would you concede that specialization is a factor that has increased mean strength of the super-elite?

May-16-09  KamikazeAttack: <Yes middlegame and endgame theory have indeed progressed, but not so much since Lasker's time IMO.>

Not by much? Really?

My friend, u underestimate the hundreds of thousands of hours of work put in by many great GMs of the last 80 years many of whom were/are just as talented as Lasker.

May-16-09  apple pi: <just as talented as Lasker> Fischer.
Karpov.
Kasparov.
Capablanca
Alekhine?
Botvinnik?
Petrosian?
Tal?
Spassky?

I think your point that talented GMs have worked hard to improve on theory in the middle- and endgame is good, but consider that Lasker was often able to find what we understand today to be the best moves OTB. Also, I would argue that much of our improvements in the middle game have sprouted out of deep opening analysis, and should be considered as such. Not to belittle the work of modern GM's of course!

May-16-09  apple pi: it should read <Lasker and comparably good players>
May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  JointheArmy: Endgame theory may have progressed, but the practice of the endgames themselves may have even declined in quality. This can be attributed to abolishing adjournments and GM's now a days see a rook and pawn ending, assume it's drawn, then go have lunch.

Capablanca wouldn't have put have up with that @#$%.

May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  JointheArmy: For the record, I have no doubts Lasker and Capablanca would hold their own against today's super GM's. The opening theory advantage is grotesquely overrated, especially considering Lasker and Capablanca often stood worse after the opening anyways.

The only players I see Capablanca not being able to handle would be Kasparov and Anand. The rest I could see him getting into drawfests with and I wouldn't be surprised if he traded down to an equal ending against many in the top 10 and wrestled the full point away due to superior endgame technique. No one today in the top 10 impresses me with their endgame technique as much as Capablanca. Not even Rybka.

May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <The opening theory advantage is grotesquely overrated, especially considering Lasker and Capablanca often stood worse after the opening anyways.>

This is a chicken-or-egg argument...they stood worse in openings of games they would have lost, had their opponents been more savvy about openings.

May-16-09  KamikazeAttack: <The only players I see Capablanca not being able to handle would be Kasparov and Anand. The rest I could see him getting into drawfests with and I wouldn't be surprised if he traded down to an equal ending against many in the top 10 and wrestled the full point away due to superior endgame technique. No one today in the top 10 impresses me with their endgame technique as much as Capablanca. Not even Rybka. >

OMG.

May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <You seem to imply that players like Lasker, Pillsbury, Rubinstein, Maroczy, Schlecter, and later on Capablanca and Alekhine, are intrinsically weaker than today's top super GMs.>

I didn't imply that. I said it's <impossible> to estimate Lasker's level. As a dominator, he never faced his equals, so we cannot get any information about his strength from his games. Same with other dominators, like Kasparov and Fischer.

<Certainly, if their brains were autopsied, they would look exactly like the brains of today's super GMs. Human brains haven't changed for maybe 35,000 yeas. These people were as smart as us. It is the folly of every generation to think it is always smarter than its predecessors.>

As smart but with less knowledge. And knowledge affects quality of games.

Anothr bad thing about <just analyze their games> is... clocks. In Morphy's time, chess clocks didn't even exist. Through the 1.5 centuries, time controls changed all the time. Heck, I don't even know under which time control f.x. the Lasker vs. Capablanca match was played. But different time controls make the games ipossible to compare.

As I said, I don't say past (very top) players were worse. I said thy are uncomparable for technical reasons (different time controls and - in case of dominators (Morphy, Lasker, Fischer, probably Karpov, and Kasparov) - no equals. As I said, a player shows his level at precisest against someone of equal level).

As for title succession, you misunderstood me once agin. I'm not against the succession, I just said that the title was not always succssive (Botvinnik's opponents didn't take the title from each other - they took it from Botvinnik).

May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <dominators (Morphy, Lasker, Fischer, probably Karpov, and Kasparov)> And Capablanca before Alekhine's rise.
May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Also, <visayan>, the number of players has grown more than 20-fold since early 1900s. It grew like 10000-fold. Just for information: the first official FIDE rating list (1970) featured only 88 players (the rating floor was 2200).
May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Btw I just looked up: the first world championship in checkers was played in 1847. So much for chess championships being a "unique" tradition.
May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: And funnily enough, checkers had a "schism" too, in 1934-1960. History repeats ;)
May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  amadeus: Concerning FIDE's lists.

There were 592 players in FIDE's 1971 rating list -- perhaps 88 was the number of GMs. Five years later, with no big differences in the pool, but better organization by FIDE, there were 1650 players in the January list. A couple of numbers through the years:

Year: #Players with a 2400+ Elo:
1979: 517 (1354 above 2300)
1989: 796 (2850 above 2300)
1999: 2004 (2834 above 2370; 6456 above 2300)
2009: 2820 (8068 above 2300)

Many of the old lists are available at http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/rat...

May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <amadeus> I said 88 players in <1970> list. 88 is surely not the number of GMs - too many for that time.
May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Whack8888: A few things:

1) Numbers, I am sure you know this, but I will say it anyway, are not a very good way of predicting high level skill. I think in most fields, you can have periods of say 50-75 years even where things remain somewhat stagnant, or at least moderate lineriar improvement, and then you have some sort of explosion where the number of skilled players increases a great deal. I think after during the 60s this was the case, which I believe would be about when the first generation of Soviets after Botvinnik came into being. A similar thing seems to have happened in the early 1900s which I believe is a period when there were a great deal of top tournaments where pretty much all the best players in the world played. I also feel that around 2000 there was a similar period, when all the players trying to "catch up" to Kasparov were finally able to, at least to a certain degree. (I believe that Kasparov got even better after that though, but...)

Thus, you can have periods of time when the skill level of all players increases out of proportion to what the population or number of players would expect. This makes sense, because if me and 10 other GMs played a lot together, I am no GM but I am sure I would play better than someone at my level who played against a bunch of Class A players. (Hopefully, I wouldnt bring down the GMs haha!) Therefore, more important the overall population, overall interaction between the top players is critical.

Who knows, maybe the fact that there was a split in the World Champinoship helped the generation become better, because instead of having 2 guys duke it out for a World Champinoship every 3 years, there were like 8 or more people in serious contention for various World Championships almost all the time. We may not respect Anand-Karpov as a "real" World Champinoship, but certainly it improved Anand a great deal.

2) Specialiation -- I feel that this is overrated, and in fact, counterproductive. I am no neuro dude, but generally, I know the brain works worst when it has the same or similar information constantly forming "grooves' etc. in the brain, ie the phrase, in a rut. These ruts will decrease overall ability to think, and solve new problems, and chess is all about new problems. No top player has ever been able to rest on lines he memorized at age 15. Therefore, it may actually be to the detriment of chess players today, that for whatever reason, the focus so much time on chess. Maybe it is a matter of zero-one aspect of other careers. In Lasker's time, you could be a mathmetician and a serious chess player etc. However, today, you would be hard pressed finding intellectual skilled job if you said, oh yeah, I also need to leave periodiciatlly to play in tournaments kind of whenever.

Top players then, are forced into playing chess as a career and sole money making thing, whereas, it might be better if they could make money doing so other thing for like 10-20 hours a week, or 2 months fulltime over a year, or some other such limited amount of time, taking a break for chess. Instead, because of money, players are forced to play chess all the time. :(

For these two reasons, it is entirely possible that players of yesteryear are better than players of today, though I dont think that is true right now.

May-16-09  apple pi: <alexmagnus> Well that would mean the # of players would have to grow from 88 to 592 in a single year...unless the rating floor was dropped that seems highly unlikely.
May-16-09  apple pi: <Whack8888> It does in fact seem that specialization could be a detriment to one's chess ability, I hadn't thought about it that way. However, I have watched a presentation on the effect of specialization in a field of science on one's overall scientific capacities. The argument ran that the commonality in thought process between various scientific fields causes specialization to actually increase learning ability in all fields, not just that in which one has specialized. In fact, educational studies (according to this presentation) suggest that specialization in the teenage years is more effective than "covering the bases," so to speak.

I'm not sure if this is true in cross-disciplinary cases.

May-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <apple pi> I think that actually happened. Maybe Elo calculated ratings for 88 players, they were published, and since then each tounament with their participation was rated - so that it came to 592 players a year later.
May-16-09  kamalakanta: Just some thoughts on World Championship...Bronstein, who saw chess as an Art, did not have much regard for the title of World Champion, specially after seeing how Botvinnik manipulated FIDE and the Soviet Chess Federation to his own advantage...

But I personally feel that it is natural, when you have a game like chess, to find out who is the best at it at any given time.

I think this basic desire (childish if you wish, but natural nevertheless) to find out who is the best, gives rise to titles like "World Champion"...

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 1586)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1406 OF 1586 ·  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 users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something which 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 player 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 suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2013, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies