< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Dec-02-14|| ||perfidious: <Jim> It is correct that Kasparov failed to make a dent in the Berlin Wall until after the match, but at least he tried in some games, whereas neither Symmetrical English reached move 25 before a peace agreement was signed.|
All in all, as I said, uncharacteristic of Kasparov--excluding this first match with Karpov--to settle for repeated short draws with any opponent.
|Dec-02-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I suggest that Kasparov switched away from e4 because he couldn't dent Kramnik's defense to it.|
|Dec-02-14|| ||perfidious: <Jim> In all likelihood, yes; then he returned after those short efforts in the English, presumably to buy time for his analytical team to work up something against the Berlin.|
|Dec-03-14|| ||morfishine: Shouldn't this be listed as a "notable game" of the '84 match? Its thrilling enough and what-with it being Kasparov's first victory, it signaled a turnaround in the match|
|Jan-16-16|| ||Albion 1959: Kasparov's first win against Karpov, at the 43rd attempt !! If you include the simul in 1975 and the three games they played prior to this match:|
|Apr-13-16|| ||Joker2048: Yes garry ¿¿¿¿
Go on and crush karpov.
|Sep-12-17|| ||CMDMB: <Kasparov's first win against Karpov, at the 43rd attempt !! If you include the simul in 1975 and the three games they played prior to this match>|
Kasparov has described how Karpov was like his teacher in this match. Clearly, Kasparov was outclassed in the beginning. But Kasparov learned, and he became stronger than Karpov in the end. He went from elite to #1 because of Karpov, who in a way made Kasparov.
Also, re: earlier comments, given that the rules were what they were, Kasparov's endurance was a key factor in his success. This should not be discounted. But as he became stronger, it's clear that he had something else, too, which set him apart. And his reign thereafter is a testament to it.
|Sep-12-17|| ||RookFile: Hard to measure these guys. For about 10 years, Karpov won just about everything there was to win. I think that in his case he got bored playing chess. He was still a chess professional, very strong, but not willing to give his whole life to the game any more. If he hadn't lost to Kasparov it would have been to somebody else.|
|Sep-13-17|| ||SChesshevsky: Could be a couple of confidence related things that hurt Karpov and helped Kasparov world championship wise.|
Not actually beating a world champion to gain the title, even though no fault of his own, robbed Karpov of that little extra confidence that can often push one over the finish line. Had Karpov beaten Fischer, I think it's more likely he would've put Kasparov away in the first match.
And not being able to put away Kasparov in that first match had to also give Karpov's confidence a hit.
On the other hand, Kasparov both surviving the first match and beating a world champion probably couldn't help but get a confidence boost helping future championship defenses.
|Mar-31-18|| ||Toribio3: The black king is vulnerable to checking when opposing sides queens their pawns.|
|Mar-31-18|| ||CowChewCud: 25...h6 is another move Karpov missed to keep it simple by driving the knight away.|
|Jun-25-19|| ||HeMateMe: I remember following every game in the NY Times. This was pre-internet. I seem to recall this game was adjourned and the people on my college chess team looking over the moves with me, figuring that Kasparov was winning, would win his first game of the match, a break through!|
|Jun-25-19|| ||Momentum Man: This game boosted Kasparov ‘s momentum!|
|Jun-25-19|| ||Howard: Like HeMateMe, I was also following the match using the NYT chess columns. Except near the end, I was starting to lose interest...draw, draw, draw, draw, draw....|
|Jun-25-19|| ||cormier: 1) =0.00 (30 ply) 7...Nxc3 8.bxc3 Be7 9.e4 O-O 10.Bd3 c5 11.O-O h6 12.Rd1 Qc7 13.Qe2 Rd8 14.Bb2 Nd7 15.a4 Rac8 16.Rdc1 Nf8 17.g3 Ng6 18.Bc2 Nf8 19.Bd3|
2) +0.14 (30 ply) 7...Be7 8.Bd2 Nxc3 9.Bxc3 O-O 10.e4 c5 11.dxc5 bxc5 12.Rd1 Qc7 13.Bb5 Qf4 14.Bd3 Nc6 15.O-O Rfd8 16.Qe2 Nd4 17.Nxd4 cxd4 18.Bd2 Qc7 19.e5 Rac8 20.f4 a6 21.Rc1 Qb6 22.b4 g6 23.Rxc8
3) +0.18 (30 ply) 7...Bd6 8.e4
4) +0.08 (29 ply) 7...c5 8.dxc5 Nxc3 9.Qxc3 Qc7 10.e3 Qxc5 11.Bd2 Nd7 12.Rd1 Rd8 13.b4 Qxc3 14.Bxc3 a6 15.Be2 Be7 16.O-O O-O 17.Rc1 b5 18.Rfd1 Bd5 19.h3 h6 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.Bxe5 Rd7 22.f3 f6 23.Bb2 Rfd8
10.0 minute analysis by Stockfish 9
|Jun-25-19|| ||cormier: 1) +0.08 (30 ply) 7.Na4
2) =0.00 (29 ply) 7.Bd2 Nd7 8.e3 Nxc3 9.Bxc3 Bd6 10.Bd3 O-O 11.b4 f5 12.O-O Qe8 13.h3 a6 14.Rb1 Qg6 15.Qe2 Nf6 16.Bc4 Rfe8 17.Nh4 Qg5 18.Nf3 Qg6
3) =0.00 (29 ply) 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Bf4 Bd6 9.Bxd6 cxd6 10.e3 Nd7 11.Bd3 Nf6 12.O-O O-O 13.Rc1 Rfc8 14.Qe2 Ne4 15.h4 Nf6 16.Rfe1 Ne4 17.Red1 h6 18.Re1 a5 19.Red1 Nf6 20.Re1 Ne4
12.0 minute analysis by Stockfish 9
|Jun-25-19|| ||cormier: 1) +0.04 (30 ply) 6...exd5 7.Bf4 Bd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e3 O-O 10.Be2 h6 11.O-O c6 12.h3 Nbd7 13.Qc2 Rfe8 14.Rac1 Qe7 15.Qb3 Rac8 16.Qa4 Ra8 17.Qc2 c5 18.Qf5 c4 19.Rfd1 Bc6 20.Qf4 Rac8|
2) =0.00 (29 ply) 6...Nxd5 7.Nxd5
3) +0.63 (29 ply) 6...Bxd5 7.Qa4+
15.0 minute analysis by Stockfish 9
|Jun-25-19|| ||Everett: In ‘84, with a 24-game or under match, kasparov would not have gone five games down, but he very likely wouldnt have won a single game either. Karpov would have won at least one.|
Pick ten realities with any sensible parameters for a WC match in 1984, and Karpov wins nine of them.
Imagine a reality where Karpov remains champ through 1987. How far behind is he from Kasparov then?
|Jun-26-19|| ||HeMateMe: Kasparov would probably still end up with a slight lead in WC match victories.|
|Jun-26-19|| ||Everett: < HeMateMe: Kasparov would probably still end up with a slight lead in WC match victories.>|
Yes, likely... Assuming Kasparov wins in 1987 and then retains in 90 against Karpov. And in that alternate reality, who knows what would happen in ‘93.
The circumstances of what actually DID happen is remarkably bizarre, and greatly effected the view of both players’ legacies.
|Jun-28-19|| ||Howard: But let's keep in mind that in, say, a 24-game match, both players probably would have played differently. Karpov, in other words, might have jumped to an early lead and then coasted along afterwards by playing for draws.|
A limited-game match is a different ball game than a only-wins-count match. Players tailor their playing styles differently.
|Jun-28-19|| ||john barleycorn: <Howard: But let's keep in mind that in, say, a 24-game match, both players probably would have played differently. Karpov, in other words, might have jumped to an early lead and then coasted along afterwards by playing for draws. ...>|
Yes, and in this format with unlimited games he thought let me lead by 5-0 and see what happens ... well, well, well.
|Jul-26-19|| ||ajile: In the match up to this point Karpov was unbeaten in the: |
Queen's Indian Defense: Fianchetto. Check Variation Intermezzo Line (E15)
But here he deviated with 4..Bb7 instead of 4..Ba6.
|Jul-26-19|| ||thegoodanarchist: @ <ajile>:
I don't know!
But this is a beautifully and, at times, brilliantly subtle game by Kasparov.
How different would chess history be, if this had been a match to 5 wins?
Or 6 wins, but maximum 36 games (which was the AA/Capablanca set up, IIRC)?
|Jul-26-19|| ||SChesshevsky: <ajile> Looks like though Karpov drew the last two fianchetto check variations, Kasparov seemed to have some good initiative with little black counter play late in middlegame. Feeling might be that Kasparov obviously put some time in on the variation and was about to break through so a change doesn't appear ridiculous. But making Kasparov prove he could break though the fianchetto check might have been just as logical.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·