<<The main difference [with Kasparov] is that Karpov hardly ever tries to prove objective truths. Karpov's sole wish is to show his opponent that in any given position that might have occurred in the game he would have played better. I witnessed a fine example of this at this year's Las Palmas tournament. After a fairly regular draw with Ivan Morovic, Karpov, who had played the white pieces, sat down to show that he had missed some practical chances. Among the endless variations and regroupings there were certainly enough moments where Karpov could claim an edge, but the overall impression with the onlookers was that Morovic had never been in any real trouble. Having analyzed the more cautious approaches for more than an hour Karpov decided to have a go at some wilder attacking schemes. At first he was quite successful in tricking the unprepared Morovic,but gradually suitable defences for Black were found. At one point Morovic even defended so well that he got a raging counterattack. Quietly he evaluated, 'Now, I'm much better.' Karpov contemplated the position for a split second, moved a few pieces and challenged him saying, 'I'm not so sure. I play this and this and it's not easy for you.' With a resigned expression Morovic mumbled, 'Ah, I see. I'm never better.' He had finally understood.> -- Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, Finding Bobby Fischer> Anatoly Karpov

For embarrassing, read entertaining. Why would a clash of opinions between world class players be embarrassing?

<The truth is there was never a moment when Kramnik was better, let alone winning.>

Vlad's main point was that White is strategically winning after 32.Rc3, holding onto the extra pawn:

click for larger view