|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 391 OF 391 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-16-14 | | vkk: Anand did try to get the semi slav positions that he is most comfortable with in 2013, but carlsen played some gambit which unsettled him. also semi slav positions are very complicated, aggressive lines for black. check out kramnik anand Wch games where anand wins with semi slav. |
|
| Oct-16-14 | | spinal pat: <PhilFeeley: We need an Anand - Carlsen WCC Match 2014 page now. CG.com?> I concur! |
|
| Oct-16-14 | | Arihant: Things have not been hyped yet...there is perceptible lack of excitement in the air.....if its really the World Chess Championship we used to follow so earnestly..or have things changed? |
|
| Nov-07-14 | | chessvcr: My heart says yes he can do it. Then I go through game 3 and 6, mind says, no he can't do it against magnus. He is a champion of those endgame. |
|
| Nov-12-14 | | dumbgai: <HeMateMe: I predict that Anand will win a game this match. Carlsen's focus will waver just a bit this match, relaxed because he is champion.> Good prediction. |
|
| Nov-25-14 | | visayanbraindoctor: This World Championship match may turn out to be a defining moment in a long reign of a dominant champion. Magnus Carlsen. There isn't any younger player who seems to play chess at his level. There are similarities between the conditions today and in 1975. Young toothpick thin Anatoly Karpov had just become the world champion. He was a positional juggernaut, employing a novel brand of chess that looked puzzlingly peaceful yet profoundly unbeatable, mowing down very strong Candidates (Polugaevesky, Spassky, Korchnoi) in hectic nerve wracking matches. There was nobody else in the horizon who could play chess near his level at all. In any tournament that he entered, it was an almost forgone conclusion that the real fight would be for second place. It could be safely assumed that he would win, barring exceptional circumstances. Karpov was an exceptional champion, a chess anomaly. He was dethroned by another exceptional champion, another chess anomaly, the Titan of Tactics Garry Kasparov. But in 1975, few people knew about Kasparov at all. He was just a 12 year old kid. Many kibitzers who grew up in the Karpov era may still vaguely remember the aura of invincibility that Karpov carried around with him. It was as though he would reign forever. And what if Kasparov never was born? Karpov may well have ruled the chess world until the year 2000. Is that possible for Carlsen? A 25 year reign?
Way back in 1894, another exceptional chess world champion grabbed the Title from Steinitz. Emanuel Lasker. No one today was alive then, but to the chess world, he must have carried the same essence of invincibility that Karpov later and Carlsen now possesses. One major difference is that no one did rise up to Lasker's level for a long long time. It took another chess anomaly, Capablanca, to end his reign in 1921, 27 years later. And if Capa was never born, Lasker may well have reigned until 1925. Carlsen may just keep on ruling the chess world a long long time if no other chess anomaly arrives over rainbow's end. Food for thought. |
|
| Nov-25-14 | | Xenon Oxide: Actually, I think Carlsen already has his Kasparov -- Caruana. Yes I may be jumping the gun a bit, but I think all signs point to an epic rivalry across their careers. If so, it might even surpass Karpov-Kasparov -- after all, Karpov and Kasparov had a few years of age difference, while Carlsen and Caruana are exactly the same age, meaning that their peaks would coincide exactly. It promises to be an epic rivalry. |
|
Nov-25-14
 | | chancho: Unless someone steps up big in the next candidates, Anand could potentially win it again. Carlsen Anand III is not out of the realm of possibility. |
|
| Nov-25-14 | | Petrosianic: The World of Possibility is a pretty big world. |
|
| Nov-25-14 | | Petrosianic: <Way back in 1894, another exceptional chess world champion grabbed the Title from Steinitz. Emanuel Lasker. No one today was alive then, but to the chess world, he must have carried the same essence of invincibility that Karpov later and Carlsen now possesses.> Eventually, yes. At the time there was considerable discussion about whether Lasker was really good enough, or whether he had just won the title from an aging champion ahead of more deserving candidates, like Tchigorin or Tarrasch. |
|
Nov-25-14
 | | perfidious: <visayan: Many kibitzers who grew up in the Karpov era may still vaguely remember the aura of invincibility that Karpov carried around with him.> More than vaguely--it was an upset when he failed to carry off first prize in an event. <It was as though he would reign forever. And what if Kasparov never was born? Karpov may well have ruled the chess world until the year 2000.> None of the young guns of his generation ever looked anything like taking away the crown; as you say, only the extraordinary Kasparov and the ageless Korchnoi were serious threats to the Karpov hegemony. |
|
| Dec-03-14 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <None of the young guns of his generation ever looked anything like taking away the crown; as you say, only the extraordinary Kasparov and the ageless Korchnoi were serious threats to the Karpov hegemony.> Well, there was the match with Nigel Short. He could have remained champion, but most likely he would have been knocked off sometime in the 1990's. Kasparov lost to Kramnik; there are several people that <could have> beaten Karpov. |
|
Dec-03-14
| | perfidious: <NoEscape> Nigel Short was hardly of the same generation chesswise as Karpov--fourteen years' difference in age is rather large, and Karpov's body of work in matches was exceptionally good, with Kasparov the only player besting him, and the margin of victory overall close. Twice Karpov defeated Korchnoi by the odd point, then won a third match in decisive fashion. As for Kramnik, after defeating Kasparov in 2000, what then? He survived his match with Leko by the narrowest of margins and, unlike Kasparov in the 1990s, was primus inter pares overall. If that makes Kramnik a greater player than Kasparov, what is greatness, really? |
|
| Dec-04-14 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <perfidious>
My apologies: I misquoted your post. I meant to respond to the idea that Karpov would have remained champion until 2000. It's possible, but I don't think it's very likely. To be clear: I don't think that Kramnik is a greater player than Kasparov. I think the 2000 London match shows how difficult it is to keep defending your title again and again against new, hungry opponents. I just as easily could have used another example. Kasparov managed five straight title defenses; it's unlikely Karpov would have managed eight. Especially given the reality of his match with Nigel Short. I do think you are selling Kramnik way short with your description of his post 2000 accomplishments. They stand up well in a comparison to Karpov's career after the Kasparov matches, especially if you allow for the period of Kramnik's illness. |
|
Dec-05-14
| | perfidious: <NoEscape> No problem there. I agree that it is very unlikely that Karpov should have stayed in the catbird seat all the way through 2000 if no Kasparov had appeared; after all, with conditions completely in his favour, he barely managed to defeat Anand in the FIDE final. It is most unfortunate that we shall never know what Kramnik might have achieved without his illness. To remain a top GM despite this handicap is no mean achievement. |
|
Dec-05-14
| | chancho: <Viswanathan Anand @vishy64theking ยท Dec 2
Off to london after a brief respite in chennai. The weather in chennai has been awesome. Now bring out the woollens christmas and chess.> Good to see Anand in such high spirits.
He seems none the worse for wear after the Sochi match. |
|
| Dec-05-14 | | beenthere240: Chess does strange things to minds. Carlsen could easily go off the deep end and devote his life to football. |
|
Dec-05-14
| | chancho: Or modeling... :-) |
|
| Jan-02-16 | | cg999: <visayanbraindoctor: This World Championship match may turn out to be a defining moment in a long reign of a dominant champion. Magnus Carlsen.
There isn't any younger player who seems to play chess at his level. There are similarities between the conditions today and in 1975. Young toothpick thin Anatoly Karpov had just become the world champion. He was a positional juggernaut, employing a novel brand of chess that looked puzzlingly peaceful yet profoundly unbeatable, mowing down very strong Candidates (Polugaevesky, Spassky, Korchnoi) in hectic nerve wracking matches. There was nobody else in the horizon who could play chess near his level at all. In any tournament that he entered, it was an almost forgone conclusion that the real fight would be for second place. It could be safely assumed that he would win, barring exceptional circumstances. Karpov was an exceptional champion, a chess anomaly. He was dethroned by another exceptional champion, another chess anomaly, the Titan of Tactics Garry Kasparov. But in 1975, few people knew about Kasparov at all. He was just a 12 year old kid. Many kibitzers who grew up in the Karpov era may still vaguely remember the aura of invincibility that Karpov carried around with him. It was as though he would reign forever. And what if Kasparov never was born? Karpov may well have ruled the chess world until the year 2000. Is that possible for Carlsen? A 25 year reign?
Way back in 1894, another exceptional chess world champion grabbed the Title from Steinitz. Emanuel Lasker. No one today was alive then, but to the chess world, he must have carried the same essence of invincibility that Karpov later and Carlsen now possesses. One major difference is that no one did rise up to Lasker's level for a long long time. It took another chess anomaly, Capablanca, to end his reign in 1921, 27 years later. And if Capa was never born, Lasker may well have reigned until 1925. Carlsen may just keep on ruling the chess world a long long time if no other chess anomaly arrives over rainbow's end. Food for thought.> Not at all.
As you can see anand managed to beat carlsen in world championship 2014.
I bet someone can bring him down. The fact that anand is too old. |
|
| Jan-16-16 | | zanzibar: Came across this cartoon, I think from this match... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-817Bfyqye... Apologies if a repost. |
|
| Sep-02-18 | | Ulhumbrus: I believe that Anand's team made a very serious mistake of omission although they could not help it as they did not know nearly as much chess as Anand did. More specifically they omitted to propose to FIDE that the old fashioned adjournments be brought back with computers, telephones etc excluded from the players' presence during an adjournment interval. Anand had passed the age of forty and would blunder in the fifth hour of play from fatigue otherwise, and it may be that this is what happened. After the match was over it was too late to make the proposal. If not for this Anand might have drawn the match, although Anand may have made one other serious mistake. Karjakin said that underestimation of the opponent might be the commonest error, but overestimation of the opponent was a more serious error. Had Anand played more courageously at the beginning and taken his chances he might have won the match, but for the adjournment business. It seems to me that both of these were errors and the two put together were enough to cost Anand a match which he might have drawn or won otherwise. Too late to try to change the rules after the contest, of course, but perhaps FIDE should bring back adjournments all the same. The main problem is cost. If the organizers are going to arrange to have computers and telephones excluded from the presence of the players, for example, by booking larger venues or extra rooms, it means that they have to spend more money on the event. |
|
| Jan-04-19 | | sricharan: I have the same feeling too. |
|
| Aug-02-19 | | Chesgambit: play English opening |
|
| Oct-11-20 | | thegoodanarchist: <Jun-24-14 dumbgai: Wow I just noticed my own quote from November 21, 2014: <<<dumbgai: What if Anand wins the next candidates?Haha, just kidding.> >> Jun-24-14 dumbgai: Err, that should be 2013, not 2014.> Yes.
I was not accepting your time-traveling claim. |
|
| May-15-23 | | DanLanglois: 'In game 9 Anand finally found what he was seeking: a complex position with good winning chances, but his attack went wrong after 28.Nf1? which lost immediately.' I don't see 'good winning chances', I see that Black has two queens on the board, giving him lots of options. White then blundered, in that Black had a way to neutralize White's mate threat, without having to simply give up his extra queen -- instead, he gets a rook for it. So, two points, White blundered, but arguably the situation he was in wasn't the sort of situation you want to be in, where your opponent has two queens and it's tricky for you. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 391 OF 391 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
