< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 235 OF 235 ·
|May-25-15|| ||TheFocus: But how do we know that didn't really happen?|
|May-25-15|| ||offramp: Because there is no sellotape in the Soviet Union.|
|May-25-15|| ||Everett: <offramp> it is confusing, but Karpov believed there was no way for him to save the game with best play, that Polu was looking for a way for Karpov to save himself but couldn't find it. Why? Because it was not there to be found.|
So the "saving a lost position" story line is consistent.
Now, all that being said, Kasparov, likely in an immense effort to make everyone else look bad, says the game was not truly lost for Black for most of it, which ruins the fun.
|May-26-15|| ||offramp: <Everett: <offramp> it is confusing, but Karpov believed there was no way for him to save the game with best play...>|
It certainly is confusing because I thought Karpov was saying that he was NOT lost.
<[He] couldn’t understand how I could save myself. Of course he couldn’t — he was looking for something that wasn’t there>
I understood the "something that wasn't there" as being "a win".
|May-27-15|| ||Everett: "couldn't understand how I could save myself."
Of course he couldn't, What was it he didn't understand? <How Karpov could save himself> Karpov said that Polu was looking for a save from Karpov, no a win for himself... so the "something that wasn't there" was a save. At the time, most thought there was a winning position on the board.
|May-28-15|| ||offramp: <Everett>, I would paraphrase this paragraph
<He was a pitiful sight to behold. Over and over he calculated and miscalculated the variations, and couldn’t understand how I could save myself. Of course he couldn’t — he was looking for something that wasn’t there.>|
<Polugaevsky was a pitiful sight to behold. Over and over he calculated and miscalculated the variations, and he couldn’t understand how it was that in every variation I was able to save myself. Of course he couldn’t find a win — he was looking for a win that I knew wasn't there.>
|May-28-15|| ||Howard: The fifth game of that match was "not" lost for Karpov, according to Kasparov ?!|
Lemme get out that Volume 5 of MGP. Don't recall Kasparov saying that. The position, I seem to recall, was definitely lost for Karpov, but it required accurate play from Polugaevsky to wrap up the win---which he wasn't able to do.
|May-28-15|| ||Everett: <Howard> When you read it, I believe Kasparov claims that the position on the board during Karpov's calm walk-about came before Karpov played a losing move. He was in dire straits, but not lost until later. |
Let us know what you find.
|May-28-15|| ||Everett: <offramp> I don't think your paraphrase is right.|
Karpov believed he was lost but looked so calm that Polu tried to understand it. In fact, Polu likely kept on finding <wins> all over the place, but could not find the variation that supposedly had Karpov acting so calmly. This is what rattled him. He could not find the <save> that was not there.
Karpov thought he was lost. That is why your paraphrase < he was looking for a win that I knew wasn't there.>
Karpov bluffed, pretending everything was under control even though he himself felt he was in a lost position. Polu fell for it and became rattled.
|May-28-15|| ||offramp: <Everett>, my friend, I have read and re-read your last post and I actually and sincerely think that you are RIGHT.|
I am not absolutely certain... [on a second reading that doesn't make sense: I'm certain but then not absolutely certain] But your case is so persuasive that I think that I have got it wrong.
It's not a big deal... But I think you are fantastic and I am going to add you to my favourites! [And that is a very short list!]
Well done, Everett! It was a short, funny interchange.
|May-28-15|| ||Everett: Thanks <offramp>. You are one of the posters I try to learn from, in that you are bright, funny, and don't take things too seriously. I may be a new favorite of yours, but you have been one of mine for some time.|
Okay, hugs and all that. Back to sniping at <Rogoff>
|Jun-01-15|| ||TheFocus: <Karpov’s strongest point, and maybe his weakest, is that he doesn’t look for the best move> - Garry Kasparov.|
|Jun-02-15|| ||Howard: Just looked at Kasparov's MGP....Karpov had a lost position at one point--no question about it.|
|Jun-06-15|| ||Everett: Thanks <Howard>|
|Jun-08-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Anatoly Karpov is a remarkable chess player and man.|
So often people discuss how Karpov emerged shortly after Fischer's World Championship win. But what Karpov did see wasn't a shadow of Fischer, but a possibility to become a great of our game.
And he became a chess great. Says a lot about Karpov's qualities. Uncompromising, mentally strong, goal-centered when so required.
Those qualities are what make a success. That's Anatoly Karpov as we should know him.
|Jun-20-15|| ||SteinitzLives: It's hard to believe that any experienced player, GM or otherwise would actually try to read the strength of the position, (their own or Karpovs) or assess move choices, based on Karpov's mannerisms, appearance or body language!|
That's a minefield of smoke and mirrors and potential major missteps, that represent a debilitating distraction from game focus. Cold, hard deep, accurate, calculation is needed, and or application of principles, or exceptions to them, to win.
Watching your opponent's physicality to "find the right move", which coincidentally, is the name of a Karpov-based book, is beyond risky. It's ridiculous and stupid into the bargain.
If Polugaevsky admits to doing this I would be surprised, because if he really did, he would be showing that he was probably suffering from some sort of low self-esteem issues during or even before the match, which now or then would be best kept secret to protect himself professionally or otherwise.
|Jun-20-15|| ||perfidious: <SteinitzLives: It's hard to believe that any experienced player, GM or otherwise would actually try to read the strength of the position, (their own or Karpovs) or assess move choices, based on Karpov's mannerisms, appearance or body language!>|
Maybe such reads on an opponent are not the balderdash you make them out to be.
White offered the following insight into the tells even a world champion has been known to offer in C H Alexander vs Alekhine, 1938, to wit:
<I remember a curious incident in one of my games with Alekhine. Someone told me that when Alekhine was worried about his position he always twisted his hair with his fingers. In 1938 I played Alekhine in the Margate tournament and he made what looked to me like a weak move in the opening; I made my reply with a nervous feeling that I had probably overlooked something. What was my delight to see Alekhine, after a minute or two’s reflection, start to twist his hair.
This was about 10.0 a.m., and from then till 2.30 (it was the last day of the tournament and no adjournment for lunch allowed) Alekhine sat without leaving the board, and through all the turns of a complex game continued (to my great moral support) to twist his hair.
At 2.30 I made a slight tactical error and let my advantage slip; Alekhine moved, took a comb out of his pocket, ran it through his hair, got up, and walked up and down the tournament room. My own judgment (that my advantage was gone) was thus confirmed as clearly as if he had told me so, and I took an immediate opportunity to force a draw before worse befell me.>
<That's a minefield of smoke and mirrors and potential major missteps, that represent a debilitating distraction from game focus....>
It can very well be a false trail, when not based on acute observation and knowledge of one's opponent.
<Cold, hard deep, accurate, calculation is needed, and or application of principles, or exceptions to them, to win.>
All well and good when software faces software to wave the banner of brute-force calculation conquers all, but at human levels, people remain people. Even elite players will ignore psychology at their peril.
|Jun-20-15|| ||SteinitzLives: <perfidious>
Ok, a tell is a tell, and you make a good point mentioning the possibility or reality of such in chess.
It would seem that if in a chess game one spends too much time (how much is too much depends on a lot of factors) trying to find a tell, or looks for a known existing chess player's tell, without finding it, it could be a terrible case of wasted energy and time that cannot be gotten back during the game.
Karpov had a fake tell, or perhaps just a bluff of nonchalance that many observed during his match with Polugaevsky, and it might well not have flummoxed Polu had he not been focusing too much on it.
I am curious if in poker you observe these fake tells. Do players in either chess or poker find it worthy to develop fake tells?
On the other side: real tells, many players I observe (as a spectator which is not too often, since I am usually playing) seem so engrossed in their games that thy might not even be aware if they are revealing a real tell or not.
|Jun-24-15|| ||Mr 1100: By the way, where is Mr. Karpov these days?
Looks like the most recent games we have for the great man are from last year... no games from this year, apparently... has he stopped playing professionally?
|Jul-08-15|| ||Penguincw: Karpov is playing against Sveshnikov!
|Jul-08-15|| ||offramp: Eugene Svyeshnikov is very original and inventive and I think these games will be fascinating. It's possible that ES might win the match.|
|Jul-23-15|| ||SpiritedReposte: Fake tells are definitely part of poker. I've seen Phil Helmouth see right through them and insta-call. |
Real tells are subconscious, body language you aren't even aware you are putting out there. You can always see what someone's intent/state of mind is from their body language. Unless they are deliberately covering/changing it, then hopefully you can see through that and wonder what they are hiding.
That's why playing against a basic poker player, "If a fish acts strong he's bluffing, if he acts meek he has a hand" from Rounders.
|Jul-23-15|| ||SpiritedReposte: Should add that novice poker players really do think their pair of 3s are good with a board of all paint and will push all in with great confidence. They make "stupid" calls or bets that a pro wouldn't and can wreak havoc on a pros sophisticated thought process. So "reading" a novice is harder when they don't even know what they have themselves.|
I think Amirillo Slim said something like "You don't put a sophisticated play on a fish, you simply show him a hand" Meaning it's tougher to bluff them out, or set a trap for them, just play ABC poker and show them the best hand when they call you.
|Jul-24-15|| ||perfidious: More often than I can remember, I have seen a strong player indulge himself in what we call 'fancy play syndrome' and get caught out by someone, when good, solid stuff was the shortest way home. Slim referred to the latter as 'showing someone Mr More'.|
|Jul-24-15|| ||SpiritedReposte: I think it comes down to the trite but true adage <"know thy enemy">. In chess, poker or anything really when you know what the opposition is capable of, what he will or won't do etc. that intel is priceless!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 235 OF 235 ·