|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 58 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-09-09 |
| Plato: Yup, in the candidates matches of 1974 he quipped they were all competing to decide who would earn the right to lose to Fisher :) |
 |
| Nov-09-09 |
| Ziggurat: <During his 1970s peak Korchnoi always said that Fischer was the best; he would claim that he was second to Fischer.> Sure, but he came close to defeating Karpov in their first match, so he would be justified in thinking he missed his chance to become world champion, I think. |
|
Nov-11-09
 |
| JaneEyre: <Viktor Korchnoi Simultaneous Entry
Come and play a legend
Date: Monday 14th December 2009.
Time: Play starts at 7pm.
Entry Fee: £40.
Who can play? Anyone can take part.
**30 Board Maximum**>
http://www.ukgamesshop.com/Merchant... What a flipping rip-off! Get stuffed! |
|
Nov-11-09
 |
| talisman: <JaneEyre> may have been present at this simul when this picture was taken. Some got upset when Victor dozed off...standing up. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: Old nuts. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| TheGadge: Korchnoi is the reason I got into chess many years ago. In 1978, I was 11 and devastated when he lost to Karpov in the WC match. You can say what you want about the grumpy auld bastard, but if I could be there, I would gladly pay 40 quid for a crack against the old boy. Get yersel over to New Zealand for a holiday, Viktor.. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| HeMateMe: <I would gladly pay 40 quid for a crack against the old boy. > Is that the same as 40 pounds? |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| talisman: I'd pay it too...and buy a camera. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| Red October: <What a flipping rip-off! Get stuffed!> yup Korchnoi is getting ripped off |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| Jim Bartle: <I would gladly pay 40 quid for a crack against the old boy. > Great. Just don't get your hopes up that you'll take a scalp. |
|
| Nov-21-09 |
| TheGadge: <HeMateME> Yeah, it's 40 pounds.
<Jim Bartle> Mate, i'd be happy for him just to growl at me after thrashing me in 20 moves.
Considering Australia just paid Tiger Woods $2,000,000 just for turning up for the Open, then a few hundred pounds is nothing to get Korchnoi over to London |
|
| Nov-21-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: Three million for Tiger. Crown also paid him one million to stay at the casino. The return was worth it. Crown's revenue alone more than covered the expenses. Brumby is chuffed by the whole affair. Now, although sport is getting its fair share of the front page, as a medical student I am glad to see some true heroes, the surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses involved in the separation of Trishna and Krishna making the headlines. Now, about Korchnoi; what a star he is. One of the best never to become WC. If it wasn't for Karpov, he would have been WC. |
|
| Nov-21-09 |
| kurtrichards: <If it wasn't for Karpov,he would have been WC.> Partly. There was also the problem with regard to his family. Parapsychology. KGB. But the most crucial was Game 32 of the match when Korchnoi employed the Pirc Defense as a reply to Karpov's 1. e4. And the rest was history. What if Korchnoi used The French Defense or the Ruy Lopez? Could have played for a draw and in Game 33, when he will be handling white, go for his best and become champion. But that never happened. Karpov won 6-5. Korchnoi ranked alongside Tarrasch, Rubenstein and Keres as great chess masters never to win the world championship. (Korchnoi became senior world chess champion in 2006.) |
|
| Nov-23-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: Korchnoi employed the Pirc and lost. Karpov played very well in that game, and Korchnoi didn't. You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain Karpov's match victories over Korchnoi: at the end of the day, he was simply the better player. Still, Korchnoi most probably would have prevailed in any set match against anyone else in the world from about 1975-1983. He was clearly the second best player in the world, until the young Kasparov came on the scene, and Karpov found his greatest nemesis. |
|
Nov-23-09
|
| HeMateMe: One wonders if Korchnoi could almost have done a "Kasparov" on Karpov, play enough games to exhaust Karpov, till his play quality dropped. I think Korchnoi was down 5-2, but kept Karpov at the board, in the heat of the Phillippines. Perhaps if he had played something more sound than the pirc, he could have won that 6th, final game, not at the moment, but a few games later? |
|
| Nov-23-09 |
| Petrosianic: <You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain Karpov's match victories over Korchnoi: at the end of the day, he was simply the better player.> I don't know how deeply you've studied Baguio, but it was a shot to Karpov's reputation. He lost 5 games and Korchnoi let him off the hook in about 5 more. Karpov had looked nearly invincible in the preceding three years, so it was one of those rare matches where the winner's reputation decreased (Fischer-Spassky II and Pillsbury-Showalter I are two other notable examples). It's not at all clear that Karpov played better in that match, especially since Korchnoi had so many notable boners as well. The unfair off-the-board tactics may very well have made the difference. <One wonders if Korchnoi could almost have done a "Kasparov" on Karpov, play enough games to exhaust Karpov, till his play quality dropped.> Theoretically yes, but Korchnoi doesn't have the temperament to play that way. The match went on so long not because anyone was stalling but just because they were so evenly matched, just as they had been in 1974. |
|
Nov-23-09
|
| HeMateMe: <I don't know how deeply you've studied Baguio, but it was a shot to Karpov's reputation. He lost 5 games and Korchnoi let him off the hook in about 5 more.> Whoever makes the last mistake loses. Chess isn't about 'could have' or 'should have.' It's about what moves were made on the board. Karpov was just a little better than Korchnoi in those matches; Kasparov was just a little better than Karpov in their matches. |
|
| Nov-23-09 |
| Petrosianic: <Whoever makes the last mistake loses. Chess isn't about 'could have' or 'should have.' It's about what moves were made on the board.> The comment I was responding to was about 'could have' and 'should have'. A lot of people thought that underhanded shenanigans decided that match, and therefore the argument that Karpov was better so he "should have" won even without them wasn't very convincing. Of course life isn't always simple, so a lot of even that is Korchnoi's fault too. If he hadn't spent 15 minutse or so arguing about Zukhar at the beginning of Game 17, he wouldn't have been in so much time trouble at the end and might not have blown his win and then his draw. The fact that he did so was his fault. Even in the Candidates Final, he had gone to pieces and dropped 4 straight games to Spassky just because Spassky started hiding in his offstage box. He still won but his victory wasn't nearly as impressive as it was before all that started. As Keene said, somebody like Larsen would have just shrugged his shoulders, thought his opponent was a lunatic, and kept playing. Korchnoi was unable to shrug things off so easily, and that flaw more than anything else may be what kept him from becoming world champion. |
|
Nov-23-09
|
| HeMateMe: I think Spassky said that "Korchnoi's behavior at the board was so rude, I started analysing the positons using the demo board, and only returned to the board to make the move." Spassky didn't elaborate on 'behavior.' grunting or cursing under one's breath? Kicking the table, tapping feet? blowing air across the board? Spassky has said that "Korchnoi has to hate his opponent." I would guess Korchnoi wasn't winning and was probably resorting to small tricks. I would trust Spassky's behavior more than most GMs. If he had to spend time in his break room or analyse from afar, there was good reason for it. At the end of the day, the better players also have stronger nerves, and that translates into better moves. |
|
| Nov-24-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: Yes, Petrosianic, I have played through every game from that Match. Karpov may have had issues with endurance, but Korchnoi played really good chess during the 1978 Match, and in many games had Karpov on the ropes. Still, Karpov won when it mattered, and kept the Title. Chess is a sport, as this Match demonstrated. How many World Champions were successful in their attempts to retain the Title before Karpov? Petrosian once, Alekhine once, Botvinnik drew Bronstein, etc. And, well, Lasker. Makes Karpov's and Kasparov's achievements even more outstanding. |
|
| Nov-24-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: <HeMateMe>:
<Whoever makes the last mistake loses. Chess isn't about 'could have' or 'should have.' It's about what moves were made on the board. Karpov was just a little better than Korchnoi in those matches; Kasparov was just a little better than Karpov in their matches.> Well put, <HeMateMe>. |
|
| Nov-24-09 |
| Petrosianic: <I think Spassky said that "Korchnoi's behavior at the board was so rude, I started analysing the positons using the demo board, and only returned to the board to make the move."
Spassky didn't elaborate on 'behavior.'>
I've never heard anything specific either, so I have to assume there wasn't much. I think the real issue is that Spassky was simply devastated at not simply losing, but at getting totally wiped out by somebody he'd beaten handily in their last match and expected to beat again. I think he was beaten so badly that he couldn't even stand to look at Korchnoi. That Korchnoi chose an occasion like that to go to pieces wasn't a good sign. Fischer would never have done that. Fischer LIKED to see 'em squirm. Of course Team Karpov couldn't help noticing how easy it was to put Korchnoi off his stride. Korchnoi had positively broadcasted the fact. |
|
Nov-24-09
|
| HeMateMe: Chances...Chances are, Chances were...? If Korchnoi just plays solid chess for another week (no pirc defence) does Karpov fold, in Baguio City? If Karpov can just draw game 24, he wins back his title from Kasparov. If chess is a battle of the minds, what do military people say about chance in battle? Napoleon: "The art of war lies in calculatiing the odds very closely to begin with, and then in adding exactly, almost mathematically, the factor of chance. Chance will always remain a sealed mystery for average minds." Admiral Horatio Nelson: "Something must be left to chance; nothing is sure in a sea fight above all." Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke: "I never plan beyond the first battle." Maybe von Moltke's words are the best parallell with chess--play the opening soundly, then begin to make your plan based on how your opponent has responded in the opening phase? But my favorite Napoleon maxim is: "God favors the side that has the superior artillery." |
|
| Nov-25-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: Capablanca said something along the lines of "The better players tend to be luckier". |
|
| Nov-25-09 |
| Petrosianic: Yeah, luck in chess is a subject that many words have been written about. But I'm not sure if this is luck exactly, but a weakness in nerves. It's not luck that Korchnoi went for the jugular in Game 32, it's just the way he's always played. <Tigran Petrosian, His Life and Games> attributes Geller's loss of a winning position to Fischer in the last lap of Curacao as due to a tendency for his nerves to weaken in the tensest situations. And Keres had a long history of uncertain and fumbling play in the last round of a Candidates tournament. And none of these three became World Champion. I do think all three were capable of it, but maybe it's not just bad luck that they didn't. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 58 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
