< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 228 OF 228 ·
|Jan-03-15|| ||perfidious: If the phrase had gone instead 'first-rank world title aspirant', I should agree with <Caissanist>, mais certainement.|
As to the proposition <Olavi> made, agreed--it is plausible, if not highly probable.
Romanishin indeed showed some promise of breaking through, but never quite managed at the very highest level, for reasons I have never understood.
|Jan-03-15|| ||Howard: Romanishin certainly showed some promise back in 1977 when he tied for first with Tal at a very strong tournament in Leningrad....and Karpov finished only around fourth ! In fact, Chess Life and Review ran a short article on the event, and the writer (David Levy I think) actually went as far as to say that at the rate that Romanishin was improving..."I fully expect to see him in the Candidates final match in 1980."|
Didn't quite work out though....Romanishin didn't even make the Candidates for 1980.
|Jan-03-15|| ||alexmagnus: <Didn't quite work out though....Romanishin didn't even make the Candidates for 1980.>|
Yes, Romanishin got to the Canidates only once - in the PCA championship which ended in 1995 (lost in the quarterfinal 2:5 to Anand).
|Jan-04-15|| ||Olavi: And Vaganian. But it's true, comparatively few. Another possible reason, perhaps it was because the earlier generation was too strong?!|
|Jan-04-15|| ||Troller: And then even Kasparov was sort of a glitch. There were some strong players of the same generation, e.g. Jusupov and Ehlvest, but these were all but eclipsed by the Anand-generation born 1968-75 or so. They would then go on to dominate chess for the next two decades.|
|Jan-04-15|| ||tamar: I agree with <perfidious>' distinction between "first-rank world title aspirant" and super-gm with regard to those born in the Soviet Union between 1937 and 1963.|
Part of the reason might be that while the chess drenched atmosphere looked inviting from the outside, the competition to reach the top was cut-throat, and the older generation was entrenched.
A Fischer born in the USSR in 1943 at age 15 would encounter a 1958 USSR Championship where a 27 year old brute like Korchnoi could only finish at 50%, and to make an plus impression you would have to get past Geller, Polugaevsky, when your reward would be to face the top group, Tal, Bronstein, Petrosian and Spassky.
|Jan-04-15|| ||Olavi: "First-rank title aspirant" is so very exclusive. For me, there's ever only been four at the same time at the most, normally two. <tamar>'s point is a good one; it is not inconceivable that that Fischer would have drowned. (I'm not suggesting that he would have.)|
|Jan-04-15|| ||tamar: <Olavi> To me you opened a fascinating, if unsolvable discussion.|
Fischer's trip to the USSR in 1958 does provide some indication what might have happened.
He navigated the first level of strong players in blitz beating Vasuikov and Nikitin, and demanded to play Botvinnik. The Soviets instead trotted in Petrosian who won their sessions.
Fischer became insulting when it became apparent that was all the Soviets were prepared to organize for him, and left in a rage.
Even such a talented player as 24 year old Stein was toiling away in the semi finals to qualify for the Championship in 1959.
|Jan-04-15|| ||perfidious: We have seen a great many borderline candidate-level players from those born in that period 1937 through the fifties, in numerous countries: the distinction between them and those whom I regard as legitimate aspirants to the title was not a huge one at first glance, but proved almost insuperable for those who tried.|
To add to the names listed by <echever7> above, we may mention Ljubojevic, Ribli, Nunn, Adorjan et al.
|Jan-04-15|| ||tamar: Fischer of course thought of the Soviet players as a group, a clump of cheaters.|
But most of them were outside the main and hardly communists. Keres was not outspoken, having had to tolerate even Nazis in WW2. Bronstein had learned to keep his mouth shut by hard experience. Tal was a nationalist Latvian, but only spoke out later. Spassky used irony to disguise his criticisms of the system, and impersonated all the top players. Korchnoi only excelled in fits and starts, not showing his title contender capabilities in full until he left.
Geller was a hardline communist, but it didn't do him much good. Botvinnik used him as an ideas factory, and later Petrosian outflanked him in Curacao to win the "Survivor' competition there.
Petrosian was the only one to use the politics to his advantage, although as an Armenian, he was for a long time an outsider as well.
|Jan-04-15|| ||perfidious: <tamar> As I have opined elsewhere, had Keres been merely on the level of Vladimirs Petrovs, rather than a potential titleholder, he may well have been hanged for collaboration after the war instead of narrowly escaping with a whole skin.|
Spassky was an interesting case: someone who could help his masters' aims, but always a maverick. I have always been curious why the authorities allowed him to live abroad.
Korchnoi was too much his own man and only wanted to play chess, with little or no interest in politics.
Petrosian was the golden boy of the establishment, until he found himself unable to beat Korchnoi in the 1974 and '77 cycles. For him to get sacked as editor of <64> was no mean feat.
|Jan-04-15|| ||alexmagnus: <Korchnoi was too much his own man and only wanted to play chess, with little or no interest in politics.>|
By the way, you know that when Korchnoi moved to his new apartment in Switzerland, he got a call from the Soviet authorities (informing him that he is not a Soviet citizen anymore) literally minutes after he set his phone up? The story goes, Korchnoi always wondered how they found out the number, it was nowhere registered at all.
|Jan-05-15|| ||perfidious: Never heard that one--a gem.
Korchnoi was doubtless deeply wounded at having been deprived of his citizenship.
|Jan-05-15|| ||Petrosianic: Never heard that story. Considering that Korchnoi first lived in the Netherlands (long enough to have won a Dutch Championship), it seems odd that the KGB would have taken that long to call him. Surely he already knew by the time he went to Switzerland.|
|Jan-05-15|| ||HeMateMe: Did Korchnoi ever return to Russia after the end of the communist government? What does his son Igor do, these days?|
|Jan-15-15|| ||ketchuplover: Anatoly's still playing. Played Ivan Morovic 2 classical & 2 rapid games.|
|Jan-26-15|| ||The Rocket: <Can someone compare their styles a bit? What distinguishes Carlsen from being a better Karpov? What areas is he stronger in? What areas is he weaker than Karpov was in?>|
Magnus Carlsen is the better defender of critical positions. I'd say on par with a young Kramnik. This suggests his calculations are stronger. Anatoly Karpov had a wonderful ability to make his opponents pieces look stupid, through sheer positional maneuvering. I don't think Carlsen is at that level of positional mastery. But hey, a win is a win..
|Jan-26-15|| ||plang: Karpov is stronger in the openings than Carlsen. Karpov concentrated on a few openings and played them very well - rarely got into trouble early in a game.|
Carlsen plays a lot more openings - occasionally gets outplayed early counting on his middlegame and endgame skills to save draws or win from equal positions.
|Jan-26-15|| ||perfidious: <plang: Karpov is stronger in the openings than Carlsen....>|
On what we have seen, agreed--one wonders how matters would stand if Carlsen were to focus more on the opening phase.
<,....Karpov concentrated on a few openings and played them very well....>
In his early career as a top-class player, there was far more variety to his game than later, when his repertoire tended towards narrowness, especially as Black against elite opposition.
< (Karpov) rarely got into trouble early in a game.>
Very definitely, as one might expect.
|Jan-27-15|| ||The Rocket: <Karpov is stronger in the openings than Carlsen>|
No, he isn't. If Karpov was stronger with the black pieces he might very well have beaten Kasparov. Fact is he wasn't. Anatoly never managed to adopt an impenetrable black defence against Kasparov, comparable to what Kramnik did with the Berlin. Karpov was always beatable with the black pieces and that's just a fact.
Carlsen doesn't play main lines because he's hundred elo points stronger than his adversaries and doesn't want to compare computer preparation.
|Jan-27-15|| ||plang: <Karpov was always beatable with the black pieces and that's just a fact.>|
?!? Then why did he lose so few games?
|Jan-27-15|| ||perfidious: <Karpov was always beatable with the black pieces and that's just a fact.>|
It would seem that <Rocket> is living by a river known as Denial, iffen y'all get my drift.
|Jan-27-15|| ||RookFile: With these things, I always want to ask what version of Karpov you're talking about. Somewhere around 1978 this guy was beating just about everybody. Certainly he has to be a top 5 player all time.|
|Jan-27-15|| ||The Rocket: Yes. Maybe even top 3. Remember, this guy beat Anand twice in matches back when Anatoly was past his prime both times. Just goes to show you what a tough match player he really was.|
|Jan-27-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Maybe Karpov was slightly past his prime when he defeated Anand in the 1991 match, but Anand definitely had not reached his prime.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 228 OF 228 ·