|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-19-05
 | | keypusher: <TedBundy> Travel agent? Right, here's your post from Schiller's page: <I'm sorry Eric, but some of the worse chess books I've read had your name on it. I'm sure this is a mistake since your chess games here show you as a really good player! I LIVE IN INDONESIA and your 'books' are widely translated.> (Emphasis added.) I can't believe I've wasted this much time on you, troll. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | calman543: Pretty lame for Botvinnik to make that comment ("this boy knows nothing about chess") when he (Botvinnik) was the one who blundered away his queen in the first place. |
|
| Jul-11-07 | | TheIrateTurk: What do people think would happen if the game was to be continued? Intuition says white has a strong advantage, but then again I am pretty poor at the chess. |
|
| Jul-12-07 | | Shadout Mapes: It looks drawn. I don't think white has enough pawns to win, since the b pawn is lost. I don't see how white could make progress despite having a material advantage. |
|
| Jul-12-07 | | talisman: botvinnik's 2 best quotes were karpov did not have any chess talent and larsen would not lose 6-0 to fischer. |
|
| Jul-12-07 | | TheIrateTurk: Well it's White to play.
The next two moves appear to be:
43. Qxh4 Rxb2
Which leaves an even number of pawns on the board... |
|
| Jul-12-07 | | TheIrateTurk: Sorry; I meant that they would probably be the next two moves, not that there are moves missing from the game. |
|
| Jul-12-07 | | Shadout Mapes: I think black's position is stronger than you're giving it credit for. I played through the ending a bit, and in most variations, it's white who has to be careful in order to keep the draw. After 43.Qxh4 Rxb2 it looks like white has to lose another pawn. 44.Rxb2 (44.f5 Rb1+ 45.Kh2 R6b4 white loses the f pawn) 44...Rxb2 and White's a pawn will fall after either 45.a3? Rb1+ 46.Kh2 Bg1+ 47.Kg3 Rb3+ (  !) or 45.f5 Rb1+ 46.Kh2 Be5+ 47.g3 Rb2+.Maybe 43.Rxe6 is worth a try, but even here 43.Rxe6 Rc4 44.Re1 Rxb2 45.a3 Bf6 black wins the f pawn. Remember that a Q vs. R+B is a draw, and if black can exchange off all of white's pawns, white has zero winning chances. |
|
Feb-20-09
 | | FSR: If I didn't know that these two players were former and future world champions, I never would have guessed it in a million years. A pretty pathetic game. |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | M.D. Wilson: Karpov was 12. |
|
May-21-09
 | | James Demery: Under the heading event it says Moscow clock simul. Can someone explain to a patzer what a clock simul is? Was there some sort of time limit involved? |
|
| Dec-24-09 | | Marmot PFL: In a clock simul a master plays several games against other players at once, with equal time on all clocks. For instance Ben Finegold played 6 players (including myself) with 2 hours each for the game. 2 were masters including a future IM, 2 class A players and another expert besides me. He mowed us down 6-0. |
|
| Nov-23-10 | | laskereshevsky: <James Demery: ....what a clock simul is?......> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmp...
A famous clock simul, with a famous "incident".... (Around. 3:50) |
|
| Nov-23-10 | | laskereshevsky: D Edelman vs Kasparov, 1988 |
|
| Apr-24-11 | | M.D. Wilson: One of Karpov's great strengths was his practical approach to positions and tournaments alike. Sometimes he played different stages of the game very differently; what I mean by that is that he was always objective and wouldn't continue with a strategic or tactical idea if it reduced his chances of victory, unlike, say, Botvinnik or Alekhine, who would persist with an idea or stratagem, confident in the win. Ironically, Botvinnik had this to say about a young Karpov: "The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession." I think this may have been the basis of Botvinnik's unfair criticism; that Karpov didn't implement an overall strategic approach to the game, but was "merely" a technician. |
|
| Apr-24-11 | | Pyke: <I think this may have been the basis of Botvinnik's unfair criticism; that Karpov didn't implement an overall strategic approach to the game, but was "merely" a technician.> Or perhaps it was rather an assumption after their first meeting: A (very) young boy who didn't know anything about opening theory (Botvinnik valued such knowledge very highly). Additionally the young boy is interested not in hard work, but in playing Blitz (Botvinnik disliked Blitz very much) all night long and thus oversleeping while at the Botvinnik school. I think Botvinnik's assessment was first based upon such an impression. Later, of course that assessment changed. |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | M.D. Wilson: Yes, Karpov was never research or work-oriented, which must have annoyed Botvinnik; he was a true natural talent, like Capablanca. Botvinnik thought in systems and methodologies, whereas the young (and perhaps older Karpov) viewed games and positions alike with a freshness and a lack of theoretical baggage. Kramnik said he played with no 'chess history' (i.e. previous stages of the game didn't influence his decision making). The ultimate pragmatist. |
|
| Oct-02-11 | | Everett: <M.D. Wilson: Yes, Karpov was never research or work-oriented, which must have annoyed Botvinnik; he was a true natural talent, like Capablanca.> <Botvinnik thought in systems and methodologies, whereas the young (and perhaps older Karpov) viewed games and positions alike with a freshness and a lack of theoretical baggage. Kramnik said he played with no 'chess history' (i.e. previous stages of the game didn't influence his decision making). The ultimate pragmatist.> I think this is a more accurate description than most of Karpov's unique talent. What I find interesting is Kramnik's description of "two or three moves ahead" chess of Karpov, and how this is the exact way Botvinnik criticized Bronstein's chess in his notebook leading up to their '51 match. This is probably why Karpov is not a great annotator. He "felt" more than saw, and by nature kept his positions and analysis tight. When he was more interested in playing and being in the game (very much like Bronstein) rather than analyzing. Bronstein is much more colorful, and probably puts a bit more effort into his notes, but they are certainly not informator style. Zurich '53 is more explanation than variations. Like two sides of the same coin, however, Karpov as you note was very much pragmatic, with a penchant for limiting opponent's activity, whereas Bronstein was ever the optimist, making sure his army had the activity to create attacks; both with their two to three move operations. |
|
| May-01-15 | | Zephyr10: Interesting comments on Karpov's style. Kramnik made the interesting observation that Karpov was not a strategic player, that he usually didn't think more than two moves ahead. But that he was the ultimate positional player. In the same interview, Kramnik opined that Petrosian wasn't a positional player, but that he was the ultimate strategist, so clearly Kramnik feels that these two traits (strategy and positional play) are very different things.
What Kramnik specifically said was that Karpov was the master of doing nothing -- that he would build up a position until you were sure that now, surely, the decisive move has to be played on this move, and Karpov would instead play something like pawn to h3 and Black would be totally lost! :-) |
|
Sep-12-15
 | | SpaceRunner: From "Anatoly Karpov" : "Chess is my Life"
(I can highly recommend the book!)
Botvinnik:"Karpov did not make much of an impression at that time....I blundered away my Queen against him in a won position,but nevertheless managed to draw the game". "Karpov,Not wishing to get an "unlawfull" point,deliberately made an oversight in reply,which led to the game being drawn". |
|
| Sep-12-15 | | zanzibar: <SpaceRunner> I'm a little confused. The first statement is Karpov quoting Botvinnik. That's clear. But the is 2nd statement Karpov explaining how the draw came about? Who's being quoted? Is Karpov referring to himself in the 3rd person? |
|
Sep-13-15
| | SpaceRunner: Sep-12-15 zanzibar: <SpaceRunner> I'm a little confused. _____________________________________
The first statement is Karpov quoting Botvinnik. That's clear. But the is 2nd statement Karpov explaining how the draw came about? Who's being quoted? Is Karpov referring to himself in the 3rd person?
_____________________________________
No Karpov have a co-author on the book - Roshal.... So he is referred to in the 3. person ;-)
Karpov must have approved the explanation. |
|
| Sep-14-15 | | zanzibar: <Space> thanks for the elaboration. |
|
Oct-16-18
 | | HeMateMe: 'Tolya is age 13 here. Not bad, even though it's only a simul event. |
|
| Jul-13-19 | | joddon: that's why Fischer ran LMAO...Karpov was a strongest positional expert at age 12...utilizing his rooks like a super master and using his knight in the opening like a world champion....Botvinnik should have been able to destroy him in seconds....Karpov was great!! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
