< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Aug-17-12|| ||Arturo2nd: Must have been a very sweet day for Victor Korchnoi. He definitely gave Karpov and the Soviet chess mafia a run for their money in 1978. Mr. Karpov owes a lot to Campomanes. Even Emanual Lasker never came close to Korchnoi's strength as a senior citizen.|
|Aug-17-12|| ||Petrosianic: Campomanes destroyed Karpov. It was his idea to end KK1, and Karpov, in a moment of weakness (as one top GM put it) went along with it.|
Dumbest thing Karpov ever did. If he had lost KK1 by a 6-5 score, Kasparov would have been the bad guy. Everyone would have said that Karpov was the better player and Kasparov won by outsitting him. If Karpov had resigned the match after Game 48 saying he was physically unable to continue, even though he was leading 5-3, Kasparov would have looked even worse. What actually happened was the <only> scenario where Kasparov comes out looking like the Good Guy.
But basically Karpov owes nothing to Campo. He needed friends like that like he needed a hole in the head.
|Aug-17-12|| ||Psihadal: <Arturo2nd>
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
The abortion of the 1984 match was a huge injustice towards Karpov, which resulted in him losing his title in a match which he clearly dominated (Kasparov Achieved his first victory only on game 32, that says a lot).
The thought that Kasparov was able to erase a 2 game deficit and start a new match from scratch is just absurd, even if Kasparov did well to make it look like a conspiracy against him and that the decision actually favoured Karpov.
|Aug-18-12|| ||HeMateMe: 1) Karpov was exhausted, 2) Kasparov had won two games and was about to win a third, 3) Campomanes stepped in to save Karpov from a potentially humiliating match collapse.|
I remember following the match game by game, as it happened. No news in the New York Times for two straight days. Then, on the third day, a Sunday I think, we see a photo of an angry Kasparov at a FIDE/participants meeting, who feels cheated, as the match in anulled just when he is picking up steam and winning games.
|Jan-27-13|| ||solskytz: In watching this game I like the move 63. Queen f to a8 - with the threat to push a6.|
|Jan-27-13|| ||solskytz: Shame that it isn't workable on account of ...Rb1|
|Jan-27-13|| ||solskytz: For example 63. Qfa8 Rb1 64. Q8xb7+ Rxb7 65. Qxb7+ Kg6 66. a6 Qf6 67. Qb1 Qf2 and 68...Be3 ouch!|
|May-12-13|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Korchnoi learned from Korchnoi vs E German, 1962, where he had drawn with a weaker player despite obtaining two queens. Korchnoi explained:|
"During the analysis, I discovered something very remarkable: the board is simply too small for two Queens of the same color. They only get in each other's way. I realize that this might sound stupid, but I fully mean it. The advantage is much less than one would expect by counting material."
Also in A Reshko vs V Faibisovich, 1969. White has only two minors for Q, but the pair of extra Qs means he has the advantage. Again, the board is too small for two Qs.
|Feb-11-14|| ||offramp: With two queens you can never win.|
|Feb-11-14|| ||Strelets: One of the highlights from the decades of chess battles between Viktor Korchnoi and Anatoly Karpov. Chess became enriched, even more compelling, through the creative achievements of both players.|
|Aug-13-14|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Korchnoi talked about this game in an interview at the time:|
That win against Karpov must have been quite satisfying.
Of course. And it really was some game. At a certain moment, there were three queens on the board, two of Karpov's and one of mine. I have been in that situation before. That was, if my memory serves me well, in the Stockholm Interzonal in 1962 against German from Brazil. That game was adjourned. I was the side with the two queens. During the analysis, I discovered something very remarkable: the board is simply too small for two queens of the same color. They only get in each other's way. I realize that this might sound stupid, but I fully mean it. The advantage is much less than one would expect by counting material. Karpov obviously didn't know that and that turned out to be fatal for him. But there were other circumstances that played a role of importance. He had just played the tournament in Linares and that must have cost him a lot of energy. It was an overwhelming success for him, but I know what kind of energy it costs to complete a tournament like that without relaxing a single moment.
|Sep-08-14|| ||kevin86: White should have underpromoted at move 61- A draw or win would have resulted.|
|Sep-08-14|| ||Everett: <memberkevin86: White should have underpromoted at move 61- A draw or win would have resulted.>|
Remarkably true! A knight, of course, yet the follow-up is not so easy... <61.f8=N+! Kh6 62.gxf4!> as <62.Nxe6> results in mate in 3!
|Sep-09-14|| ||4tmac: There is no win - plan: 61=♘ with check to save time 62 take Bishop to stop mate 63 barge in with Queen for perp <61. f8=N+! Kh6 62. gxf4! Qc8 63. Qb8! Qxb8> |
click for larger view
& now White has a perp draw!!
|Jul-23-15|| ||SpiritedReposte: Wowzers. This is an anomaly.|
|Mar-29-16|| ||QueensideCastler: With many pieces remaning on the board, two queens may suffer from Larry Kaufman's principle of major piece redundancy.|
|Feb-28-17|| ||Saniyat24: What a beautiful and complex game...!!|
|Jul-24-17|| ||Toribio3: The game is very complicated. Viktor, the victor always triumphed in the end!|
|Dec-26-17|| ||hudman653: The more i look at Karpov Vs. Korchnoi games the more convinced i am that Fischer would have beat Karpov handily in 1975...No question in my mind..|
|Dec-26-17|| ||Petrosianic: <hudman653: The more i look at Karpov Vs. Korchnoi games the more convinced i am that Fischer would have beat Karpov handily in 1975...No question in my mind..>|
Unfortunately, faith doesn't become fact simply by believing it more unquestioningly. Your bio says you're a 1300 player and that Fischer is your favorite player. So you believe that your favorite player would win, not because of facts but because of desire. Doesn't that explain your faith away to nothingness? I'm sure Karpov's mother has equal faith that he would have won. And that's equally valueless.
|Dec-27-17|| ||offramp: <Petrosianic: <hudman653: The more i look at Karpov Vs. Korchnoi games the more convinced i am that Fischer would have beat Karpov handily in 1975...No question in my mind..>
Unfortunately, faith doesn't become fact simply by believing it more unquestioningly. Your bio says you're a 1300 player and that Fischer is your favorite player. So you believe that your favorite player would win, not because of facts but because of desire...>|
Rudyard Kipling made a mention of this mentality:
<...What should they know of England who only England know?—
The poor little street-bred people that vapour and fume and brag,
They are lifting their heads in the stillness to yelp at the English Flag!>
That phrase, "What do they know of England who only England know?" can be applied to anything. "What do they know of Fischer who only Fischer know?
If the only chess player you really know is Bobby Fischer then this mad, jingoistic mindset takes over.
Fischer could beat anyone. His losses were all because of illness or dirty tricks, he would have beaten Karpov handily, no question!
When you open your mind to other players, Fischer becomes a player in the evolutionary scale of chess history. Definitely a great player, but not an all-knowing god.
|Nov-09-19|| ||The Boomerang: What a game!!! Never seen it before. The depth of positional play is astounding.|
|Nov-09-19|| ||cunctatorg: <The Boomerang>: As far as I know, Vassily Ivanchuk respectfully agrees -regarding <the depth of positional play> and more- with you!!|
|Nov-09-19|| ||W Westerlund: The talk about the Karpov mafia is sheer nonsense. Read Winter's review of Kasparov's Child of Change. Kasparov never took anything tack, although the lies are blatant.
I am happy that the likes of Fischer and Kasparov are gone. Great chess players absolutely, but chess became better without their circus.|
|Nov-09-19|| ||cunctatorg: @ <W Westerlund> and all. |
Alas, the "Royal Game" became way less alive, interesting and fascinating without the likes of ... Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov... and I'm pretty sure that both Anatoly Karpov and Victor Korchnoi would agree with my previous statement.
For the sake of an analogy, compare with the turmoil between and around JRC and AAA...
For the sake of a much stronger (and enlightening) analogy, think about the History of the Ancient Mediterranean without Alexander the Great and think if the Classical World would become <better without the circus> of such <weird personalities> as that Alexander the Great guy, that Hannibal Barca and even Julius Caesar...
Long live Cassius and Brutus or down with Cassius and Brutus, according to Dante Alighieri?!?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·