Kramnik - Leko Classical World Championship Match (2004)

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

Kibitzing

WCC Overview

<< previous

HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP

next >>

<< previous

FIDE CHAMPIONSHIPS

next >>

Kramnik vs Leko, 2004
Brissago, Switzerland

In 2002, the annual Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting had an added significance: it also functioned as a Candidates Tournament, for the winner would earn the right to play Vladimir Kramnik for the title. Seven of the top ten players competed in Germany, and emerging as winner was the Hungarian chess prodigy, Peter Leko.

Kramnik-Leko 2004
Leko (left) playing Kramnik in Switzerland, 2004
The financial backing for the match (a prize fund of $1.2 million) was contributed by the the cigar manufacturer Dannemann, the latest in a line of corporate sponsors (Intel, Braingames, and Einstein) for the non-FIDE World Championship title. The match was only 14 games, one of the shortest in World Chess Championship history. Kramnik was to retain the title in the event of a tie match, a detail which was to prove very important.

The very first game illustrated Kramnik's incredible defensive techniques. Leko, by most accounts, had the advantage by move 23; but Kramnik's masterful handling of the ending, combined with an error by Leko, enabled the Russian to take the full point. Not until the fifth game was Leko able to accomplish what Garry Kasparov could not: beat Kramnik in a World Championship match. Then in the eighth game, Leko was able to take the lead, when he achieved victory with the Black pieces by alertly finding over the board a serious flaw in Kramnik's immense opening preparation. Games 9 through 13 were all draws, leaving Leko ahead in the match with only one game left.

Come game 14, Leko needed only one more draw to secure the title of World Chess Champion. Kramnik was faced with the task of winning, at all costs, in order to save his title. Chess author and grandmaster Raymond Keene wrote of this phenomenal game:

Kramnik, the defending world champion, scored a brilliant victory in the 14th and final game; Peter Leko resigned after 41 moves when faced with checkmate. This is only the third time in the entire history of the World Championship that the defending champion has saved his titled by winning in the final game.
The game itself was a jewel of controlled aggression. Despite consistent exchanges throughout the game, Kramnik maintained an iron grip on the position and ultimately blasted his way into the black camp via the dark squares. Taking no account of material sacrifices it was Kramnik's king that dealt the fatal blow when it marched right into the heart of the opposing position.^[1]

After 14 games, with a tie score of 7 to 7, Vladimir Kramnik defended his title of World Chess Champion.

click on a game number to replay game 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Kramnik 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1

Leko 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0

FINAL SCORE: Kramnik 7; Leko 7
Reference: game collection Kramnik - Leko WCC Brissago,2004

NOTABLE GAMES [what is this?]

    · Game #14     Kramnik vs Leko, 2004     1-0
    · Game #8     Kramnik vs Leko, 2004     0-1
    · Game #1     Leko vs Kramnik, 2004     0-1

FOOTNOTES

World Chess Championship: Kramnik vs Leko by Ray Keene, 2004, Hardinge Simpole, p. 145.

page 1 of 1; 2 games

Game	Result	Moves	Year	Event/Locale	Opening
1. Leko vs Kramnik	0-1	65	2004	Kramnik - Leko Classical World Championship Match	C42 Petrov Defense
2. Kramnik vs Leko	0-1	32	2004	Kramnik - Leko Classical World Championship Match	C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall

REFINE SEARCH: White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 72 OF 73 · Later Kibitzing>
May-03-05		aw1988: Technically it was a draw, but Kramnik kept the title.

May-03-05		Darklight: <Computers> It's just my opinion, but this is why I have much more admiration for the grandmasters of yesteryear---they did all their work and preparation without the use of the computers that we (including myself) are almost dependent on today.

May-03-05		aw1988: Because they simply didn't have them. The grandmasters of today don't have a choice: admiration has nothing worthy in this discussion.

May-03-05		RookFile: I think chess was more fun then, too. There was more an element of art to it. Now a computer looks at a beautiful move that works in 9 variations out of 10 and instantly spits out the 10th move at you.

May-04-05		knightspot: alas, poor rook, the 1970's are over . . .

May-15-05		superiorNOshow: Then don't use a computer,lol.

May-15-05		superiorNOshow: but of course, since it exists it is a must have.

Jul-02-05		Giancarlo: <Because they simply didn't have them. The grandmasters of today don't have a choice: admiration has nothing worthy in this discussion.> I very much agree. If the choice is made not to use computers as an aid, you simply will have trouble being one of the best. So it's true then that admiration isn't in the equation, but I can see on what level it is. It's like saying old tennis players were more admirable because they used small wooden rackets. If they didn't use the new rackets now, it would be much more diffucult to win. Whatever ;-)

Jul-02-05		Darklight: <Because they simply didn't have them.> That is my point. Since the subject of computer analysis was hot at the time of my previous post, I just thought that I would share my feeling that I admired players of the pre-computer days more than today's because they had to do all of their research and analysis without computers. Perhaps my comment was a bit ill-timed.

Aug-01-05		Koster: Some players seem to overuse computers to the point where they're more of a crutch than a tool. I wonder if maybe this is why Kramnik's results have declined.

Aug-02-05		SEMENELIN: I agree with you <Darklight> that is why Fischer was considered a legend after fischer was the computer age for chess. Players of the past era only relied on their own. Players formulated their openings and traps. That is why i admire classical openings. They were authentically made by their creators. computers could not formulate such opening. The earliest players of chess had developed their own concepts and techniques. Computers just play chess defensively that is what i can observe. Sacrifices are usually made by players anyway depending on the structure. That is why human players think better than computers. Computers could just mimic what human players could have done because of their data stored on their memory. RAM. heheheh. One example of a genius player in chess before the computer era was Napoleon Bonaparte. Now at this time Napoleon could be compared to etiene bacrot. Chess is really the ultimate sport in testing the thinking ability of man.

Feb-10-06		TylerD: SEMENELIN: Surely your arguments come with some irony? Napoleon was not a strong player. ...Bacrot? What do you mean? How? "Thinking ability of a man"... well, I can not take that one all too serious either... In fact, take any top 100 chess player and put him (or her, let us not forget) in the same room with the top 100 fictional writers (authors) - and they would not appear neither "smart" nor "intelligent"... Or put them in the same room as the 100 top philosophers... or musicians... or artists... or actors... An elite chess player is most often a very special person in many different regards... but their "thinking ability", well...

Feb-10-06		TylerD: I meant, of course, 1 player in the same room as 1 of any of the other mentioned categories... Or, if u will: 100 chess players in the same room as 100 of any of the other... (A crowded room any way you look at it!)... I did not intend to put one single chess player in the same room with 100 writers... Even though the thought is interesting - maybe those 100 would put together some interesting stuff based on the 1...

Oct-17-06		Whitehat1963: Who takes the credit for this super exciting match that included six draws of 23 moves or less?

May-20-07		Scarecrow: I see this match is linked to the series of WCC matches now. This was a great match, for the first time in history a Hungarian player had a shot at the world title. It still hurts to recall how Leko lost that last game. <chessgames.com> I spot an error in the text above. Leko's second win was not the seventh game but game 8. And, although it's not my task to judge it, he won it not because of his immense preparation but because of Kramnik's preparation errors and his own calculation OTB. The game is special because it's an OTB masterpiece in the era of home prep.

May-20-07		Plato: <Scarecrow> You're absolutely right, in my opinion, and <chessgames.com> should change their summary accordingly.

Sep-24-07		Karpova: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... User: offramp became famous

Dec-14-07		amadeus: 4 wins out of 32 games?

Dec-14-07		Illogic: The text in the description is still the same. It was the eighth game Leko won, and Scarecrow and Plato are correct, Leko busted Kramnik's prep OTB, it was not a win with his own prep.

Feb-20-08		positionalgenius: A fine match with deep chess.

Feb-25-09		WhiteRook48: the match was a tie? Aww...

Mar-31-09		WhiteRook48: why didn't they play one more game?

Jul-03-09		WhiteRook48: therefore, Leko is better than Kasparov

Jul-20-09		dumbgai: Too bad there were so many short draws in this match. But the rest of the games are genuine treasures.

Apr-02-13		Xenon Oxide: Remarkable to remember how Leko was considered one of the strongest and most promising talents. He was phenomenally strong back then. Pity he's never been the same since this match. Seems like he peaked rather early.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 73)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 72 OF 73 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!