< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-16-14
 | | offramp: Sure an 'tis a load of hooey! |
|
Feb-16-14 | | thegoodanarchist: <offramp: Sure an 'tis a load of hooey!> Well, if you think you have the straight scoop, lay it down! |
|
Feb-23-15 | | Estoc: Has Karpov ever said anything about the accusation of being given Kasparov's secret prep? |
|
Feb-22-16
 | | GrahamClayton: Footage of the preparations for the London part of the match: http://www.gettyimages.com.au/detai... |
|
Oct-12-16 | | Allanur: < the loser would play in February 1987 against the winner of the current candidates cycle > what the hell right do they have to determine the final of candidates tournament? They mutually agreed to make their life easier and so was done? Can you imagine Anand and Carlsen in 2014 agreed to this condition and Karjakin would first have needed to face Anand after winninh candidates. |
|
Oct-12-16 | | WorstPlayerEver: Can't remember how much matches Fischer had to play but no one said: "Poor dude." |
|
Oct-12-16 | | Howard: Allanur, your comment isn't very clear. Exactly what do you mean ? All I can say is that the 1985-87 cycle ended up having to be improvised somewhat due to the K-K marathon, in 1984-85. |
|
Oct-12-16 | | Petrosianic: <Howard>: <Allanur, your comment isn't very clear. Exactly what do you mean ?> He worded it very badly, but clearly he's asking why the winner of a the candidates didn't get an automatic title shot, as such winners always had in the past. One could reasonably argue that the Candidates winner should have got his title shot as always, and the loser of Karpov-Kasparov been seeded into the next candidates (again, as always). It would have been more boring that way, as Kasparov would surely have toasted Sokolov, but it would arguably have been fairer. |
|
Oct-12-16 | | Lambda: Having the loser of the match play the winner of candidates was surely a way of not having the loser of the match deprived of the opportunity to play in candidates as normal because they were too busy playing for the championship. Anand and Carlsen wouldn't have been able to do it because there was no match rerun and no revenge match preventing the loser from playing in candidates as normal. |
|
Jan-26-17 | | Allanur: @Lambda, < Having the loser of the match play the winner of candidates was surely a way of not having the loser of the match deprived of the opportunity to play in candidates as normal because they were too busy playing for the championship. >
if X is too busy to take place in the cycle, that is not the right to directly play the final without qualifying there. Life is not obliged to be scheduled for Karpov or Kasparov. Fischer was absolutely right in ignoring FIDE. Such a certian country favoured organisation should be said "f.ck off." How could they could have supported Karpov more? @Howard,
< Allanur, your comment isn't very clear. Exactly what do you mean ? >
why the winner of candidates were to play the loser of the match? why the loser was given such a *privilege* |
|
Jan-26-17 | | todicav23: Kasparov is really a bad looser for accusing Karpov of cheating by having access to his preparation. <In the 7th game, Karpov was fully prepared for my new move [9...Nb6], which my trainers and I had looked at a few hours before the start of play.>
This is from a comment on this page. It seems that Kasparov had looked at a variation just a few hours before the game and somehow Karpov, in just a few hours, was able to get access to all that information and also analyze it deeper. It's clear now that Karpov hacked into Kasparov's computer and stole all the preparation. He also had access to a time machine so he traveled to the future and used Stockfish to find holes in Kasparov's preparation. Since Karpov was very close to win in 1987 it's clear that in that match not only he had access to all Kasparov's preparation but he also used black magic to influence Kasparov's thinking process. Without all these tricks employed by Karpov, Kasparov would have easily won with 12-0. |
|
Jan-26-17 | | Petrosianic: <todicav23>: <Kasparov is really a bad looser for accusing Karpov of cheating by having access to his preparation.> Possibly he is, but your actual arguments are nonsense. (No Black Magic was used, therefore no theft or prep occurred. That's a complete non sequitor.) |
|
Jan-27-17 | | todicav23: <Petrosianic: <todicav23>: <Kasparov is really a bad looser for accusing Karpov of cheating by having access to his preparation.> Possibly he is, but your actual arguments are nonsense. (No Black Magic was used, therefore no theft or prep occurred. That's a complete non sequitor.)> Black magic is real! |
|
Feb-19-17
 | | Sally Simpson: Proof of plagiarism is if the original document had spelling mistakes in it and they re-appear in the copied document. Map makers have been to known to put in deliberate mistakes so fake copiers can be prosecuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_...
One of the things I recall from Kasparov's claim that a second was feeding Karpov's team was the fact that a Bishop move in an opening they were studying was considered good so they worked out a plan against it. It was discovered the Bishop move was actually not good. However come the game and Karpov played the same Bishop move and then an anti plan to Kasparov's plan. This blunder by Kasparov team was 'apparently' given to Karpov's team who took it at face value and worked on it. The move in question was 12...Bd7 in this game.
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1986 Kasparov's notes (in his London-Leningrad 1986 book) say: "It's paradoxical, but a fact, that in our preparations we too regarded this move as best. 12..Qc7 was recommended by commentators and in subsequent analysis a way of developing White's initiative could not be found." In his 1990 Autobiography he says he had found the mole, Yevgeniy Vladimirov (based by the way on some pretty flimsy evidence) and recalling this game added. "So it was not just the analysis that coincided, it was also the holes in the analysis." Basically if there was a mole in Kasparov's camp, it appears he picked up a 'spelling mistake' passed it onto to team Karpov who in turn reproduced the 'spelling mistake.' I'm of the opinion this is just great players paranoia (they all have it)
clutching at straws to explain a later 3 straight defeats. But Karpov was not averse to playing with Gary's mind. When the London to Leningrad plane landed (during the flight Gary says he and Karpov played cards together) a limousine with a military escort was laid on for the challenger Karpov. Kasparov, the champion, was given an ordinary Volga with no escort. Kapsarov thinks this snub was arranged by FIDE or the city elders of Leningrad, but would they really do that? I reckon it was a relatively easy to organise brilliant ploy by team Karpov to upset Gary. Ahh the good old days. |
|
Apr-08-17 | | The Boomerang: "Karpov past his prime was still a fighter, unlike Kasparov who played like a dead fish against Kramnik." Kasparov wasnt past his prime vs Kramnik, so your comment makes no sense. In fact he was at his highest elo ever or very close. That deas fish stayed No.1 in the world until retirement. How about Fischer? Did that guy even play a game as champ? |
|
Apr-08-17 | | Howard: Keep in mind that even if Kasparov's ELO rating was at "his highest ever" (or close to that), rating inflation would have been partially the reason. At the age of 37, Kasparov's best days were certainly behind him--even if he was still #1 on paper. Granted, he did have a hot streak in 1998-99, but that was probably a fluke I suspect. |
|
May-22-17
 | | perfidious: <Geoff: Proof of plagiarism is if the original document had spelling mistakes in it and they re-appear in the copied document....> In a droll vein, the title character of the Steinbeck short story <Johnny Bear> was a savant who could repeat music, inter alia. There were people in the small town where Johnny lived who tried to catch him out by having him repeat musical pieces with small mistakes--and he would replay the mistakes. |
|
Mar-20-18
 | | Tabanus: Jeez. Site of the games is a mess. Someone please fill in London ENG and Leningrad URS. |
|
Dec-27-20 | | fisayo123: A great match, the best of the 5 Karpov vs Kasparov matches. Both sides played many great games. I just feel at this stage of his career, it was a bridge too far for Karpov to fight Kasparov and overcome him. Karpov was already 35 with a lot of battle scars and mileage in him. He was a very active World Champion and played a lot of chess during his decade of total supremacy. It was too much to ask to fight an equally talented player who was much younger and much fresher than he was. When Karpov was younger, he used to make the best moves almost instantly but by this time period, he routingly was in time trouble difficulty. If they were a bit closer in age, this would have been an even more incredible rivalry. Karpov came close and should have won in Seville the following year but his nervous system let him down in the final game. |
|
Dec-27-20 | | fabelhaft: <If they were a bit closer in age, this would have been an even more incredible rivalry> I think that if Karpov also could have been 21-24 years old during their matches 1984-87 this would have been much to Kasparov’s advantage, just like Kasparov being 33-36 instead also would have been to his advantage. Korchnoi was 20 years older than Karpov when going 27-29 over 56 match games 1974-78 while Kasparov did worse in his first 56 match games against Karpov (26.5-29.5). I consider Kasparov to be a much greater player than Korchnoi, but he also faced a stronger opponent. I think he would have done better against the 1974-78 Karpov than Korchnoi did. |
|
Dec-27-20 | | fisayo123: <fabelhaft> Kasparov was 37 years old against the 12 year younger Kramnik and failed to win a single game against him in a World Championship match. Your point about Korchnoi, Karpov and Kasparov is a poor one since the first 48 of the first 56 games between Karpov and Kasparov all happened within the span of months in the same match. |
|
Dec-28-20 | | fabelhaft: <Kasparov was 37 years old against the 12 year younger Kramnik and failed to win a single game against him in a World Championship match> I don’t think one should deduce too much about Kasparov’s playing strength based on that one result though. In July 1999 which he considered his peak time Kasparov had a lead of 80 Elo on the rating list, ahead of Anand, who by most are considered top ten among the greatest ever. On the next rating list in 2000 his lead was even bigger with Anand in second. Karpov was first ahead of Timman, Tal and Korchnoi in 1976-83, but often the margin was rather slender. 5-10 Elo ahead of Korchnoi on some lists, 20 ahead of Tal in 1980, etc. But he was also once 60 Elo ahead of Korchnoi and 45 ahead of Timman in his biggest leads. But then Timman was no Anand, and Korchnoi was 50 when he was 5 Elo behind Karpov. To me the Karpov of the 1980s was stronger than the Karpov of the 70s, and Kasparov was stronger in the later 90s than when he played Karpov. |
|
Dec-28-20 | | RookFile: I thought I heard that Kasparov was having marital difficulties at the Kramnik match. |
|
Dec-28-20 | | fabelhaft: I think Grischuk said in an interview that Kasparov had made it a self fulfilling prophecy that Kramnik was going to succeed him. He always said that Kramnik would be his successor, and then did his best to make it so. First he picked Kramnik as his second and prepared openings together, then he picked him as one of only two participants in the Candidates, and then gave him the title match in spite of losing said Candidates, and then played far below his usual level in the match, even taking draws with white in 11-14 moves in must win games. Kasparov was a big believer in fate, and at least according to Grischuk that was a big reason behind things going as they did. |
|
Dec-28-20 | | fisayo123: <fabelhaft> You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine. We already discussed this before and we don't need to go around different forum pages in the site disputing anything. I don't see what is so controversial about claiming the rivalry would have been even better with more parity in age between the 2. It was essentially over as a contest after 1990. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |