|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-08-11 | | serenpidity.ejd: This game is entitled: OVER EXHAUSTION KNOWS NO CHESS.
There is no doubt that the then World Champion Karpov was the stronger player during their first and aborted match with Kasparov. It was shown how easily he defeated Kasparov in the first half of the match.
And then Kasparov changed strategy by just prolonging the match by drawing games.
And the strategy worked.
This game is a convincing proof of how exhausted Karpov was. A very simple and uncomplicated game(as seen by an unrated and ordinary lover of the game like me) and yet Karpov lost!
For me KARPOV was the winner of the match.
It was very very unfortunate for the Champ Anatoly that the previous 24 games limit was not retained.WHEW!!!
. |
|
| Oct-08-11 | | I play the Fred: <And then Kasparov changed strategy by just prolonging the match by drawing games.> You do know that Karpov had the option to not agree to those draws, right? He also had a chance to end the match in game 41, though of course the win would not have been easy - or even certain. <There is no doubt that the then World Champion Karpov was the stronger player during their first and aborted match with Kasparov. It was shown how easily he defeated Kasparov in the first half of the match.> Why does the second half of the match not matter? Karpov was +5=22 in the first 27 games, Kasparov was +3=18 in the last 21 games. Not as good as Karpov's half, but not far below it. <This game is a convincing proof of how exhausted Karpov was.> No one ever discusses the possibility that Kasparov was also very tired. Yes, Kasparov is younger, but Karpov was 33 then - not exactly ancient. <It was very very unfortunate for the Champ Anatoly that the previous 24 games limit was not retained.> Not at all - in fact, quite the opposite. Had the 24-game limit been in effect, Karpov wins the 1984 match 12.5-8.5 after 21 games (+4=17). |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF KASPAROV.
Your score: 56 (par = 53)
LTJ |
|
| Dec-15-12 | | morfishine: This game was the point that Karpov began to collapse physically |
|
| Feb-13-13 | | duplex: Great game from KASPAROV,not everyone can dominate KARPOV like that, from from beginning to end |
|
| Feb-13-13 | | RookFile: Capa used to throw in an early Bxf6 in these lines. Games like this make you see why, that dark squared bishop of white's was an innocent bystander for much of this game. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | yurikvelo: 31. Nb1 ??
Karpov was exhausted. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | Petrosianic: <I play the Fred>: <You do know that Karpov had the option to not agree to those draws, right?> Of course. But what's your point? If you're suggesting that Kasparov didn't adopt such a strategy, you might want to play those games over again. <No one ever discusses the possibility that Kasparov was also very tired. Yes, Kasparov is younger, but Karpov was 33 then - not exactly ancient.> Stamina has always been regarded as a particular weakness of Karpov's. Lots of people have discussed how tired Kasparov may have been. You must have missed it. But the general feeling is that exhaustion hit Karpov harder, and the evidence of the games themselves seems to confirm that. <Had the 24-game limit been in effect, Karpov wins the 1984 match 12.5-8.5 after 21 games (+4=17).> Obviously not, since most of Games 10-24 would not have been GM draws had a 24 game limit been in effect. Although the odds are that Karpov would probably have won with such a lead, it's absurd to assume that the games would have had the exact same moves, lengths and results. |
|
| Oct-08-14 | | Howard: Oh, I couldn't agree more ! If the 24-game limit had been in effect for that match, God only knows what would have happened. In other words, Karpov would not necessarily have jumped to a 4-point lead after only nine games ! |
|
Feb-22-15
 | | gezafan: The 48 game match was a result of Fisher's unrealistic unlimited match concept. The Capablanca - Alekhine match is another example of why the unlimited match concept is a bad one. |
|
Feb-22-15
 | | plang: <The Capablanca - Alekhine match is another example of why the unlimited match concept is a bad one.> Why?
What about the Karpov - Korchnoi match - the format worked there. |
|
| Feb-23-15 | | Petrosianic: <plang> <Why? What about the Karpov - Korchnoi match - the format worked there.> Because the format doesn't work reliably. It's not a strong enough endorsement to say "It's only a disaster SOME of the time." I assume you're talking about Karpov-Korchnoi 1981. The 1978 match was the 3rd longest championship match ever. |
|
Apr-21-15
 | | kevin86: The rook can move, but the knight fork will grab a bishop. PAYDIRT! |
|
Jun-10-17
 | | offramp: This match had begun in early September, 1984. This game took place on the 8th February 1985, roughly 5 months later. No organization can afford to host a 5 month chess event, with all its hotels and food and room hire - and there was no end in sight! The players were still in good health. No player is going to get tired playing an average of 9 very short games a month. So FIDÉ was already thinking about saving some money and terminating the match. Definitely the right decision. |
|
| Jun-10-17 | | Howard: True, but the "organization" in this case was almost certainly the Soviet government. It certainly could have afforded all the expenses of the match. Yes, terminating the match was probably the right call...but Campos' timing was very questionable. Calling off the match after Kasparov had just won two straight, almost inevitably guaranteed questions from suspicious parties. He probably should have waited a few more games before doing so, and then made a decision. |
|
Mar-10-19
 | | HeMateMe: This is the game that triggered 'Karpo-manes' to step in and annul the match. Communist party boy Karpov was drowning and needed a hand. When you're an Azerbaijani half Jew in the USSR, well, you get in back of the bus, so to speak. |
|
| Jan-10-21 | | Jambow: <HeMateMe: This is the game that triggered 'Karpo-manes' to step in and annul the match. Communist party boy Karpov was drowning and needed a hand. When you're an Azerbaijani half Jew in the USSR, well, you get in back of the bus, so to speak.> Interesting observation and probably mostly correct BTW. You also get credit for the pun it seems. |
|
| Jan-10-21 | | Jambow: This game FWIW also demonstrates Kasparov's penchant for the wild steed over the orderly Bishop. That in slight contrast to Karpov at least on some levels which leads me to Magnus who for a long part of his domination had a slow patient Karpovian feel to his games, yet like Kasparov seems a bit more inclined towards the knight. In my observations is less typical of a positional maestro. Maybe the student has retained a bit from the instructor after all? GG BTW. |
|
| Jan-10-21 | | saturn2: 12.0-0 instead of a4. The pawn at a4 got weak later.
Even earlier 7.cxd5 helps black develop its knight.
From this move on you get the feeling black was attacking and white defending |
|
| Jan-10-21 | | RookFile: Karpov's biggest problem in this match was he wanted a 6-0 win. When he was up 5-0 it was pointed out that right there and then he should have just gone every game all out for a win. He might have lost a couple of games but he would have had the physical strength to get the sixth win and end the match. Instead he played too many games after this and lost his stamina. |
|
Jan-10-21
 | | perfidious: Pfleger wrote of this; believe he mentioned that Karpov wanted the whitewash, but <without risk>, and agreed that if he had opened things up a bit, once he had the fifth win, he may well have lost two or three, but would have booked a match victory. |
|
Jan-10-21
| | HeMateMe: Is 20.Pxc5 playable here? It seems to relieve the pressure on white's position. |
|
| Jan-10-21 | | saturn2: < HeMateMe: 20.Pxc5 > It does not change much if played one move earlier. 20. dxc5 Nd7 21. c6 (or Re1 Nxc5) bxc6 and black has the c and d pawn connected. Of course white cannot take 22.Rxc6? Ne5 |
|
| Jan-11-21 | | saturn2: All in all dxc5 gives up the center pawn d4 and concedes the square c5 to the knight.
Maybe neither best choice at move 20 nor at move 21. |
|
| Jan-12-21 | | Jambow: Pxc5 is usually winning ;0]... |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
