chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Vladimir Kramnik
Kramnik 
Photograph copyright © 2007 Milan Kovacs (www.milankovacs.com)  

Number of games in database: 3,250
Years covered: 1984 to 2024
Last FIDE rating: 2753 (2700 rapid, 2670 blitz)
Highest rating achieved in database: 2817
Overall record: +545 -170 =957 (61.2%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 1578 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 English (154) 
    A15 A14 A17 A13 A16
 Sicilian (147) 
    B90 B30 B33 B52 B92
 Queen's Pawn Game (109) 
    D02 A46 E10 D05 D00
 King's Indian (106) 
    E97 E94 E92 E91 E86
 Reti System (101) 
    A04 A06 A05
 Slav (99) 
    D17 D15 D11 D18 D12
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (270) 
    B33 B30 B31 B62 B65
 Ruy Lopez (182) 
    C67 C65 C84 C78 C95
 Queen's Gambit Declined (123) 
    D37 D35 D38 D39 D31
 Semi-Slav (110) 
    D45 D43 D47 D44 D48
 Petrov (102) 
    C42 C43
 Nimzo Indian (81) 
    E32 E21 E54 E34 E46
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Kramnik vs Leko, 2004 1-0
   Kasparov vs Kramnik, 1996 0-1
   Gelfand vs Kramnik, 1996 0-1
   Kramnik vs Kasparov, 1994 1-0
   Ivanchuk vs Kramnik, 1996 0-1
   Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000 1-0
   Leko vs Kramnik, 2004 0-1
   Kramnik vs Anand, 2001 1-0
   Topalov vs Kramnik, 1995 0-1
   Kramnik vs Morozevich, 2007 1-0

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (1999)
   Kasparov - Kramnik Classical World Championship Match (2000)
   Kramnik - Leko Classical World Championship Match (2004)
   Kramnik - Topalov World Championship Match (2006)
   World Championship Tournament (2007)
   Anand - Kramnik World Championship Match (2008)

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Belgrade Investbank (1995)
   New York PCA/Intel-GP (1994)
   Hoogovens Group A (1998)
   Dortmund Sparkassen (2004)
   16th Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2007)
   Amber Blindfold (2003)
   Dortmund Open-A (1992)
   World Cup (2013)
   Tata Steel Masters (2018)
   Qatar Masters (2014)
   Sao Paulo Latin American Cup Open (1991)
   World Youth U26 Team Championship (1991)
   Legends of Chess (2020)
   Manila Olympiad (1992)
   Biel Interzonal (1993)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Kramnik - My Life and Games by JoseTigranTalFischer
   Kramnik - My Life and Games by Goatsrocknroll23
   Kramnik - My Life and Games by peckinpah
   Kramnik - My Life and Games by pacercina
   Kramnik - My Life and Games by jakaiden
   Kramnik - My Life and Games by Okavango
   Vladi Kramn'd Fredthebear Full of White Russian by fredthebear
   Match Kramnik! by amadeus
   Vladi Others Earthly by fredthebear
   My Life and Games (Kramnik/Damsky) by Qindarka
   Kramnik on a King Hunt & vs the World Champions by visayanbraindoctor
   0ZeR0's collected games volume 75 by 0ZeR0
   Vladimir, the Conqueror by Gottschalk
   Vladimir Kramnik's Best Games by KingG

RECENT GAMES:
   🏆 Titled Tuesday Early
   T Rendle vs Kramnik (Dec-10-24) 1-0, blitz
   Kramnik vs Carlsen (Dec-10-24) 1-0, blitz
   Nakamura vs Kramnik (Jul-16-24) 0-1, blitz
   Kramnik vs Carlsen (Jan-02-24) 0-1, blitz
   Svidler vs Kramnik (Sep-26-23) 1-0, rapid

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Vladimir Kramnik
Search Google for Vladimir Kramnik
FIDE player card for Vladimir Kramnik

VLADIMIR KRAMNIK
(born Jun-25-1975, 50 years old) Russia
PRONUNCIATION:
[what is this?]

Former World Champion - and former top ranked player in the world - Vladimir Borisovich Kramnik was born in Tuapse, on the shores of the Black Sea, on June 25, 1975. As a child, Vladimir Kramnik studied in the chess school established by Mikhail Botvinnik. In 2000, he won the Classical World Championship from Garry Kasparov, then won the unified title when he defeated Veselin Topalov in 2006 to become the 14th undisputed World Champion. Kramnik relinquished the title in 2007 to his successor, the 15th undisputed (and now former) World Champion, Viswanathan Anand.

Championships

<Age> In 1991, Kramnik won the World Under 18 Championship in Guarapuava, Brazil.

<National> Kramnik finished equal first in the 1990 RSFSR (Russian) Championship in Kuibyshev, Russia, but placed second on tiebreak, behind Andrei Kharlov. He came third ex aequo in the Russian Championship Superfinal (2013) after a last round battle with Ian Nepomniachtchi for a share of first and the possibility of the title for the first time. However, he lost the game and scored 5.5/9.

<World> Kramnik's early attempts at storming the citadel of the World Championship met with mixed results. In 1994, he lost a Candidates quarter finals match for the PCA championship to Gata Kamsky by 1½-4½, and a few months later he lost a Candidates semi-finals match for the FIDE championship to Boris Gelfand by 3½-4½. In 1998, Kramnik was defeated by Alexey Shirov by 3½-5½ in the Candidates match held in Cazorla to determine the right to play Garry Kasparov for the Classical World Chess Championship. In 1999, Kramnik lost in the quarterfinals of the FIDE knockout championship in Las Vegas to Michael Adams by 2-4, including the 4 game rapid play-off.

Although Shirov had defeated Kramnik for the right to challenge Kasparov, suitable sponsorship was not found for a Kasparov-Shirov match, and it never took place. In 2000, however, sponsorship became available for a Kasparov-Kramnik match instead. This meant that Kramnik was the first player since 1935 - when Alexander Alekhine selected Max Euwe as his challenger - to play a world championship match without qualifying. Kramnik reached the pinnacle by defeating long-time champion Kasparov in the Kasparov - Kramnik Classical World Championship Match (2000) in London by the score of 8½ to 6½ (+2 =13 -0) without losing a game, becoming the next Classical World Champion in the line that started from Wilhelm Steinitz. It was the first time since the Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) that the defending champion had lost a match without winning a game and it was also the first time Kasparov had lost a World Championship match. Kasparov said of Kramnik that: <"He is the hardest player to beat in the world.">

In 2004, Kramnik successfully defended his title as Classical World Chess Champion against challenger Peter Leko at Brissago, Switzerland, by drawing the Kramnik - Leko Classical World Championship Match (2004) in the last game. Lékó was leading the 14-game match until the final game, which Kramnik won, thus forcing a 7 - 7 draw and ensuring that Kramnik remained world champion. Because of the drawn result, the prize fund of 1 million Swiss francs was split between the two players.

Kramnik refused to participate at the FIDE World Championship Tournament (2005), but indicated his willingness to play a match against the winner to unify the world championship. His next title defence in 2006, therefore, was a reunification match with the new FIDE world title holder from the 2005 tournament, Veselin Topalov. The $1 million Kramnik - Topalov World Championship Match (2006) was played in Elista, Kalmykia from September 21 to October 13 and after controversially forfeiting the fifth game, Kramnik won the rapid game playoff by 2½ -1½ after the classical games were tied 6-6, thereby becoming the first undisputed unified World Chess Champion since the 1993 split. In the following year, Kramnik lost the unified world title when he finished second to Viswanathan Anand at the Mexico City World Championship Tournament (2007). In October 2008, Kramnik exercised his entitlement to a rematch as a challenger to World Champion Anand in Bonn, Germany, but lost the Anand - Kramnik World Championship Match (2008) match by 4½ to 6½ (+1 =7 -3).

Kramnik's tournament performances in 2009 (see below) raised his rating (average of July 2009 and January 2010 ratings) sufficiently to qualify him for the World Championship Candidates (2011). In the first round he beat Teimour Radjabov by the narrowest of margins*: after tieing the classical games 2-2 (+0 =4 -0), and the rapid games 2-2 (+0 =4 -0), he won the blitz playoff by 2.5-1.5 (+2 =1 -1) to move to the semi final match against Alexander Grischuk, which he lost 1.5-0.5 (=1 -1) in the blitz tiebreaker after he drew the classical games 2-2 (+0 -0 =4) and the rapid games 2-2 (+0 -0 =4), thereby eliminating him from the contest. Participating in the World Championship Candidates (2013) on the basis of his rating, Kramnik came =1st with Magnus Carlsen on 8.5/13 after both lost their last round games. As the first tiebreaker (individual score against the other player in the tournament) left them level, the second tiebreaker (greater number of wins in the tournament) relegated Kramnik to second place due to scoring four wins to Carlsen's five.

Kramnik was seeded directly into the World Championship Candidates (2014), as he met the pre-condition that he participate in the World Cup (2013). During the Cup, he defeated Zambian IM Gillan Bwalya in the first round, compatriot GM Mikhail Kobalia in the second round, Ukrainian GM Alexander Areshchenko in the third round, veteran Ukrainian GM and twice former Candidate Vasyl Ivanchuk in the Round of 16 (round four), his third Ukrainian opponent in the shape of GM Anton Korobov in the quarter final (round five), one of the wildcards of the event, French GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave match in the semi final (round 6) before defeating compatriot GM Dmitry Andreikin in the final by 2.5-1.5 (+1 =3). His win also guaranteed qualification in the World Cup 2015, although he would qualify by rating alone. At the Candidates in March 2014, he placed 3rd with 7/14 behind Anand and Karjakin.

He qualified by rating to play in the World Cup (2015) where he met and defeated Peruvian Deysi Estela Cori Tello and Cuban GM Lazaro Bruzon Batista in the first two rounds to advance to the third round where he lost to Dmitry Andreikin in the first set of rapid game tiebreakers, thereby bowing out of the event.

Tournaments

Kramnik won Chalkidiki 1992 with 7.5/11, and in 1993, he played in Linares, finishing fifth and defeating the then world number three, Vasyl Ivanchuk. Following some solid results in the interim which resulted in him winning the 1994 PCA Intel Grand Prix, major tournament triumphs were soon to follow, such as Dortmund 1995, Horgen 1995, Belgrade 1995, =1st in Dos Hermanas in 1996 and 1997, =1st in Tilburg 1997 (8/11). Dortmund became a favourite stop, as Kramnik has gone on to win nine more times in 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, Dortmund Sparkassen (2006), Dortmund Sparkassen (2007), Dortmund Sparkassen (2009) and Dortmund Sparkassen (2011), as either equal or clear first; in the 2011 edition of the event he won by 1.5 points despite losing in the last round. In 2000, Kramnik won his first Linares tournament, completing his set of victories in all three of chess' "triple crown" events: Corus, Linares, and Dortmund. Kramnik later captured additional Linares victories in Linares (2003) (shared) and Linares (2004) (outright). He won the Tal Memorial (2007) with 6.5/9, 1.5 ahead of Shirov. Kramnik had exceptionally good results in 2009, winning once again in Dortmund and then winning the Category 21 (average ELO = 2763) Tal Memorial (2009) in Moscow with 6/9 and a TPR of 2883. At the time, the average ELO rating of the field made it the strongest tournament in history. He also participated in the London Chess Classic (2009) in December, finishing second to Magnus Carlsen. These magnificent results qualified him for the 2011 Candidates on the basis of his boosted ratings. Kramnik began 2010 at Corus Group A (2010) in the Netherlands, during which he defeated new world number-one Carlsen with the Black pieces in their head-to-head encounter, ending Carlsen's 36-match unbeaten streak. A late loss to Anand knocked him out of first place, and Kramnik finished with 8/13, tying for second place with Shirov behind Carlsen's 8½ points. He came 2nd in the preliminary Shanghai Masters (2010) to qualify for the Grand Slam Chess Final (2010) against Carlsen and Anand, who had pre-qualified. He then won at Bilbao with +2 -0 =4 over world champion Anand, then-world number one Magnus Carlsen, and Shirov. The 2009 Tal Memorial and the Grand Slam Final at Bilbao were the most powerful tournaments (in ratings terms) ever staged. In late 2011, he easily won the 15th Unive (Crown Group) (2011) with 4.5/6 and a TPR of 2903 and finished the year with outright first at the London Chess Classic (2011) with +4 -0 =4 and a TPR of 2934, recovering ground lost following a mediocre performance in the Tal Memorial (2011) where he failed to win a game. In June 2012, he placed =4th at the category 22 Tal Memorial (2012), with 4.5/9 and in July 2012, =3rd (4th on tiebreak) at the category 19 Dortmund Sparkassen (2012) tournament. Kramnik finished 2012 with a surge, placing 2nd at the London Chess Classic (2012) behind Magnus Carlsen, scoring 6/8 (16 points in the 3-1-0 scoring system used in the event) and a TPR of 2937 to Carlsen's 2994.

His final training preparation for the Candidates tournament in March at the category 21 Zurich Chess Challenge (2013), was less than completely successful in terms of results (2.5/6), drawing five and losing one to Anand, although it seemed to contribute to his game fitness at the Candidates as he placed second by the narrowest of margins, scoring equal to Carlsen who won the event and the right to challenge Anand for the World Championship. He placed =4th with 4.5/9, a point behind the winner, in a low scoring Alekhine Memorial (2013) and then had one of his worse ever results at the Tal Memorial (2013), coming last with 3/9 (+0 -3 =6). However, he returned to form in the Dortmund Sparkassen (2013), placing outright second behind Adams, scoring 6.5/9, jointly dominating the category 19 field to the extent that no other player scored better than 50%. In November 2014, Kramnik competed at the category 20 Petrosian Memorial (2014), and was outright second behind Alexander Grischuk with 4.5/7, signalling a mild return to form after a slump that saw him exit the world's top 10 for the first time since he entered the top 10 in January 1993. There followed 2nd at the powerful Qatar Masters (2014), with 7/9, and =1st at the London Chess Classic (2014).

2015 saw Kramnik starting his competitive year by placing outright 3rd behind the winner Anand and runner-up Hikaru Nakamura, ahead of Sergey Karjakin, Levon Aronian and Fabiano Caruana respectively, in the standard section of the RR category 22 Zurich Chess Challenge (2015). He won the final section of the Zurich event, namely the Zurich Chess Challenge (Rapid) (2015), but the added points were insufficient to give him the overall lead and he finished with 3rd prize behind Nakamura and Anand respectively. A relatively poor performance at the Gashimov Memorial (2015) where he scored only 4/9 was followed by a solid performance at the Russian Premier League 2015 (see below) and a below average 3.5/7 for fourth place at the annual Dortmund Sparkassen (2015). He saw out the year with equal third, scoring 6.5/9 at the powerful Qatar Masters (2015), half a point behind the joint leaders Magnus Carlsen and the rising Chinese star Yangyi Yu. Kramnik started 2016 with equal third on 5/9 at the Norway Chess (2016) behind Carlsen and Aronian respectively after also coming third in the preliminary Norway Chess (Blitz) (2016) used to determine the draw. Several months later in July he placed =2nd (with 4/7) behind Vachier-Lagrave at Dortmund Sparkassen (2016). Kramnik's year in standard time chess finished with a reasonably efficacious equal third at the London Chess Classic (2016), a point behind the winner Wesley So.

In April 2017, Kramnik was second on tiebreak ahead of co-runners up Wesley So and Veselin Topalov at the category 21 Gashimov Memorial (2017), scoring 5/9, half a point behind the winner Shakhriyar Mamedyarov. Two months later he again placed equal second, this time at the category 22 Norway Chess (2017), scoring 5/9 alongside Hikaru Nakamura, a point behind the winner Levon Aronian.

Team Events

<Olympiads> Kramnik has won three team and and individual gold medals at the Olympiads as well as two team silvers. He played in the gold medal winning Russian teams in the Manila 1992, Moscow 1994 and Yerevan 1996 Olympiads, his first gold medal being awarded to him as an untitled 16 year old in 1992 when he scored eight wins, one draw, and no losses to record a remarkable TPR of 2958. In 1994, he came fifth on the second board with 8/11 and a 2727 TPR. In 1996, he scored a relatively meagre 4.5/9 on the second board. He did not participate in any more Olympiads until Turin Olympiad (2006) in Turin, when he again won a gold medal with overall best performance on the top board with 6.5/9 (2847 TPR). In the Dresden Olympiad (2008) in Dresden, he scored 5/9 on top board and a 2735 TPR. Kramnik played board one for the silver medal winning Russian team in the Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad (2010) in Khanty-Mansiysk, coming fifth with a scored of 5.5/9, winning 2 and drawing 7 with a TPR of 2794. At the Istanbul Olympiad (2012) held in Istanbul, he again played top board scoring 5/9 and coming 7th on that board, leading his team to another silver medal. At the Tromso Olympiad (2014), he again played board 1 for Russia. He played board two for Russia in the Baku Olympiad (2016), scoring individual gold for his board, and team bronze with his countrymen.

<National Team Events> In 1991, 2490-rated FM Kramnik represented Russia on board 2 at the World U26 Championship played at Maringá; with a perfect score of 6/6 he helped Russia to win gold, and won individual gold for his performance. He played in the European Team Championships on one occasion, in 1992, when the then FM was rated 2590. Again representing Russia, this time on board 3, he helped his team to win gold with a 6/7 effort, and won individual gold for board 3 as well as a gold medal for the best rating performance at the event, that being a 2863 performance, ahead of Kasparov's 2809 performance that won rating silver. That same year (1992), he also played on the USSR team against the Rest of the World. He played for Russia twice in the World Team Championship, in 1993 and 2013. On the first occasion, he lead his country to a bronze medal, and on the second occasion - at the World Team Championship (2013) - to a gold medal.

<European Club Cup> Kramnik participated in the European Club Cup between 1995 and 1999 inclusive, in 2005 and again in 2015 and 2016. He started off playing board one with SV Empor Berlin in 1992 and 1993, moved on to Sberbank-Tatarstan Kazan in 1994 where he helped the club to bronze, then played board one with the powerful Agrouniverzal Zemun team in 1998 and 1999, winning team silver in 1999. Since then, he played for NAO Paris in 2005, winning team bronze and for the Siberia Novosibirsk team in the European Club Cup (2015) and European Club Cup (2016) winning team gold in 2015 as well as an individual gold for board 1.

At the Russian Team Championship (2015), Kramnik played board 1 for Siberia Novosibirsk, winning gold for that board; his effort also helped his team to win gold. He repeated his individual effort in the Russian Team Championship (2016), this time helping his team to a bronze medal in the double round robin 5-team contest.

Matches

In 2004, he won a simul against the German National Team 2½:1½.

In October 2002, Kramnik played an eight game match against Deep Fritz (Computer) in the Brains in Bahrain (2002) match, drawing 4-4 after leading 3-1. In 2006 the German organization Universal Event Promotion (UEP) staged a return match of six games between Kramnik and Deep Fritz in Bonn, which Kramnik lost, +0 -2 =4.

In April 2012, Kramnik and Levon Aronian played, as part of their preparation for the 2012 Candidates Tournament, a six-game training match in Zurich. The Kramnik - Aronian (2012) match was drawn 3-3 (+1 -1 =4). From late November to early December 2016, he played a rapid and blitz match against Yifan Hou at the Kings Tournament in Romania, winning both by significant margins, the rapid by 4.5-0.5 and the latter by 6/9 (+5 -3 =2).

Rapids

Kramnik has been an excellent and consistent performer at rapid and blindfold play. He won or shared the overall lead at Amber in 1996 (outright overall 1st), 1998 (=1st with Shirov with 15/22), 1999 Monaco (14½/22), 2001 (=1st with Topalov with 15/22), 2004 (=1st with Morozevich with 14.5/22), and 2007 (outright overall first with 15½/22). He also won the 2001 rapid play match against Lékó by 7-5, drew the 2001 rapid play Botvinnik Memorial match with Kasparov 3:3 and the 2001 rapid play match against Anand 5:5, lost the 2002 Match Advanced Chess Kramnik vs. Anand (Leon) 3½:2½, was runner up to Anand in the Cap D'Agde FRA (2003), won the 2009 Zurich Champions Rapid (2009) with 5/7 and shared 1st in the 2010 President's Cup in Baku with 5/7. In tandem with the London Classic 2014, Kramnik came =1st in the blitz event and =3rd in the rapid play open.

Kramnik came in equal 5th with 10/15 in the World Rapid Championship (2015), 1.5 points behind the winner Carlsen, and half a point behind the joint runners up Nepomniachtchi, Radjabov and Leinier Dominguez Perez. He followed up the next day with equal second alongside Vachier-Lagrave scoring 15/21, half a point behind the outright winner Alexander Grischuk at the World Blitz Championship (2015).

Ratings

Kramnik entered the top 100 in January 1992 and has remained there since that time. He rose rapidly in the rankings such that a year later in January 1993, he entered the top 10 where he has been ensconced since, apart from a few months in 2014. Yet during that time he made it to world #1 in only two rating periods.

In January 1996, Kramnik became the world top rated player. Although he had the same FIDE rating as Kasparov (2775), He became number one by having played more games during the rating period in question. He became the youngest ever to reach world number-one, breaking Kasparov's record; this record would stand for 14 years until being broken by Magnus Carlsen in January 2010.

Ironically, during his reign as world champion, Kramnik never regained the world number-one ranking, doing so only in January 2008 after he had lost the title to Viswanathan Anand. As in 1996, Kramnik had the same FIDE rating as Anand (2799) but became number-one due to more games played within the rating period. Kramnik's 12 years between world-number one rankings is the longest since the inception of the FIDE ranking system in 1971.

In July 1993 soon after his 18th birthday, he crossed 2700 for the first time and has remained in the 2700+ rating ever since. In April 2001, he became the second of only eight chess players to have reached a rating of 2800 (the first being Kasparov, followed by Anand, Topalov, Carlsen, Aronian, Caruana and Grischuk). Kramnik's highest standard rating to date is 2811 achieved in May 2013 when he was ranked #3 in the world.

Other

In 1995, Kramnik served as a second for Kasparov during the latter's successful defence of his Classical World Chess Championship against Anand, and in an ironic counter point in 2010 he served as a second for Anand during the World Champion's successful defence against Topalov.

Kramnik has a form of arthritis called ankylosing spondylitis. In January 2006, Kramnik announced that he would miss the Corus Group A (2006) to seek treatment for this condition. He returned from treatment in June 2006, playing in the 37th Chess Olympiad, winning gold by top scoring on the top board. Kramnik's performance in winning the Classical World Championship in 2000 won him the Chess Oscar for 2000, while his 2006 victory in the reunification match earned him the Chess Oscar for 2006.

On 30 December 2006 he married French journalist Marie-Laure Germon and they have a daughter, Daria, who was born 28 December 2008, and a son, Vadim, born 28 January 2013.

Sources and references Website: http://www.kramnik.com/; Biography: http://www.kramnik.com/eng/biograph...; Extended and candid interview with Kramnik by Vladislav Tkachiev in August 2011: http://whychess.org/node/1605; Live rating: http://www.2700chess.com/; * http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...; Wikipedia article: Kramnik

Last updated: 2023-11-23 11:45:25

Try our new games table.

 page 1 of 130; games 1-25 of 3,250  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kramnik vs Serdyukov 1-0311984BelorechenskB78 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack, 10.castle long
2. A Oganyan vs Kramnik 0-1311984BelorechenskB89 Sicilian
3. Remezov vs Kramnik  0-1521985KrasnodarB45 Sicilian, Taimanov
4. Zaitsev vs Kramnik 0-1491986Team TournamentB83 Sicilian
5. Kramnik vs Zhukov 1-0381986BelorechenskB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
6. Shilov vs Kramnik 0-1371987USSR Boys' ChampionshipB33 Sicilian
7. Kramnik vs A Chjumachenko 1-0321987GelendzhikB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
8. Kramnik vs Mayorov 1-0341987GelendzhikC12 French, McCutcheon
9. Kramnik vs Otsarev 1-0181987Baku TrainingB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
10. I Odesskij vs Kramnik 0-1251987URS-chT U14A52 Budapest Gambit
11. Yakubovsky vs Kramnik  0-1511987URS-chT U14B23 Sicilian, Closed
12. Yakovich vs Kramnik 1-0421988URSB45 Sicilian, Taimanov
13. Kramnik vs Danislian ½-½601988URS-chT U18B15 Caro-Kann
14. M Golubev vs Kramnik 0-1381988URS-chT U18B33 Sicilian
15. M Sorokin vs Kramnik ½-½521989Chigorin Memorial-BA81 Dutch
16. A V Filipenko vs Kramnik 0-1401989Chigorin Memorial-BB00 Uncommon King's Pawn Opening
17. J Ivanov vs Kramnik ½-½121989Chigorin Memorial-BA85 Dutch, with c4 & Nc3
18. G Kallai vs Kramnik ½-½221989Chigorin Memorial-BA81 Dutch
19. Khenkin vs Kramnik ½-½171989Chigorin Memorial-BD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
20. Kramnik vs A Grosar ½-½471989Chigorin Memorial-BB58 Sicilian
21. Kramnik vs A Panchenko ½-½601989Chigorin Memorial-BB58 Sicilian
22. Kramnik vs B Podlesnik 1-0371989Chigorin Memorial-BB33 Sicilian
23. Kramnik vs R Shcherbakov ½-½351989Chigorin Memorial-BB58 Sicilian
24. Kramnik vs G Tunik 0-1381989Chigorin Memorial-BB46 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
25. Kramnik vs Yakovich ½-½141989Chigorin Memorial-BB33 Sicilian
 page 1 of 130; games 1-25 of 3,250  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Kramnik wins | Kramnik loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1418 OF 1600 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <keypusher> how about those to whom the WC format doesn't matter but the candidates format does? or time controls? Note, WC format was not the only question...
Jun-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <alexmagnus: <keypusher> how about those to whom the WC format doesn't matter but the candidates format does? or time controls? Note, WC format was not the only question...>

You mean a chessmaster somewhere cares enough about the candidates format/time controls to fill out the questionnaire but is utterly indifferent to the WC format? Highly unlikely, I think. But as I said it would be interesting to find out how many masters didn't fill out the questionnaire at all.

<visayanbraindoctor>

I know more about Lasker's era than Steinitz's, and I really don't know much about either to be honest with you. There are many here (SBC, sneaky pete, karpova and Calli spring immediately to mind) who know more.

That said, Steinitz very cleverly called his "training" chess book <The Modern Chess Instructor>, thus appropriating modernity for himself. :-) More seriously, though, reading annotations from late in Steinitz's career I get the impression that everybody believed he had revolutionized and "modernized" chess by laying down general rules of development and strategy. Thus reading a book about the 1894 match with Lasker I see statements to the effect that Steinitz the player was overthrown but that his principles were not -- indeed that Lasker beat Steinitz by more rigorously and accurately applying Steinitz's principles than Steinitz did. (Lasker wrote something similar in his own books.) Whenever Steinitz does something eccentric in one of his games at Hastings the annotator in the tournament book is wont to write that Steinitz is ignoring his own doctrine. Mason and Pollock's book on the St. Petersburg 1895-96 tournament includes a long comparison between Morphy the meteoric genius who plays by inspiration and Steinitz the painstaking researcher and scientist who discovers and applies eternal truths. I have no doubt I could multiply these examples a hundredfold if I did the research.

So the idea that Steinitz is the founder of modern chess is an ancient one -- nearly as ancient as Steinitz himself.

Jun-04-09  amadeus: According to FIDE's January List, there were 38 players above 2690 - 21 answered the ill-formulated questionnaire.

Kasim, Karpov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Spassky, Caruana, Bareev, So and many other irrelevant persons were not among the chosen 38 (21).

Jun-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <amadeus>

Are you sure? FTA: <Criteria of participation were as follows: players with a rating 2690 or higher (on the January 2009 FIDE list), plus participants of the current cycle, plus some ex-world champions.>

Of course, if more than 38 people received the questionnaire, that further reduces the participation rate.

Jun-04-09  amadeus: <Are you sure?> Now, I am not :) So, there was probably less than 50% participation...

Anyway, if you can chose the questions, how they are formulated and who will answer them... not the best thing.

Jun-04-09  amadeus: I don't see why we couldn't have a tournament (or Grand Prix) as a World Championship every three years, and a challenge match in the interim. Everybody would be happy, and the match would provide a lot of money to the champion.
Jun-04-09  Petrosianic: At least we all want there to be A Champion. That's a darn sight better than <Chess Life> columnist Robertson Sillars in the 60's, who was proposing abolishing the title altogether, and having the top DOZEN or so players receive a title called "World Master".

It was a very funny article. He was in a snit about Fischer's (at that time) unwillingness to go through the qualification process, and wrote a long "I didn't want your dirty old title anyway" rant, in which he proposed abolishing the Championship altogether.

A dozen "World Masters" immediately makes me think of when the Cubs replaced their manager with a "College of Coaches". That worked out well, as I recall.

Jun-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  kamalakanta: One note here. As you might have noticed, dumbgai and I were going back and forth about Morphy, and if he was or was not the greatest player ever.

If I really had to name one player, probably Kasparov, because his dominance was so great and for so long.

But again, it does not mater that much. One thing is the mental argument based on percentages, ratings, titles, etc. and then there is the more subjective list of your favorite players. Fischer's own list might not stand a rigorous test; nevertheless, he is entitled to his preferences.

I have never really explored Morphy's games. Only when reading Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", he brought my attention to how these "old" players deserve respect...

And I remember how Fischer, in one of his games with Spassky in the WC match in 1972, used an idea that was first used by either Steinitz or Paulsen, I don't recall which.

And another reason I posted that "provoking" statement is that, as Bornstein pointed out, one common attitude is to look at those masters of the past with a certain disdain..."oh, they played only patzers"...

So I sent away for books with Morphy's games, and Rubinstein, and Steinitz, to explore their games.

I am finding that these players have incredibly interesting ideas, and their game is quite "modern", as well....

In an interview with Susan Polgar, Boris Spassky ironically commented how Morozevich had "invented" the Meran variation in the Slav...while we all know that it takes its name from where it was first played, in Merano, Italy, in 1924....

Good day to all!

Jun-04-09  Petrosianic: <I have never really explored Morphy's games. Only when reading Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", he brought my attention to how these "old" players deserve respect...>

There's a story from Nottingham 1936 in which Capablanca was on the ropes, and lost the exchange, but went on to win the game. A bunch of players analyzed it afterwards trying to figure out where Capa's opponent had gone wrong. They all started from the point where Capa had lost the exchange, figuring that the error must have been after that point. But nobody could figure it out.

Supposedly, at that point, Lasker came in and they showed him the game. When they got to the point where Capa's opponent won the exchange, he said "Oh no, that can't be right," and went on to show them how "winning" the exchange threw away the advantage and led to the loss. According to Capa, Lasker talked to him later, and said something like "I bet you were relieved when he swallowed the bait. These newer players aren't as strong as people think."

I think that that story is about this game:

W Winter vs Capablanca, 1936

Jun-04-09  visayanbraindoctor: <keypusher: Steinitz very cleverly called his "training" chess book <The Modern Chess Instructor>>

I think you hit the nail right on the head. It could have well started from that book. Thanks for the explanation.

<There was rarely a clear #1 and #2 in the world from the mid-1930s through 1970 or so. But there was a very clear best player almost continuously from 1970-2000, and a clear #1 and #2 from the early 1980s through the late 1990s. I have no idea why this should be so, or why there was no clear #1 and #2 from 2000 on, or what will happen in the future.

The long "duopoly" of Karpov and Kasparov is rare, I think. Possible precedents are Lasker and Capablanca from about 1910-1925, and Capa and Alekhine for the ten years after that.>

I have been thinking of this phenomenon for quite some time. Why is it that there are times when only one or two players dominate the chessworld, while in other eras it's a time of <first among equals>? Given the additional datum that no human can play better than modern computers, the hypothesis I can offer is the following. Our brain's anatomy and physiology itself limits the ability of a human being to play chess. Now and then, there will be eras wherein there are both players that exist who can play at this limit for long periods of time and who have the motivation and focus to play at this limit. Since such players would be rare indeed, maybe 0 to 3 per generation of active chessplayers, and they have to be at points of their lives where they have the motivation and focus, there could be periods where no one plays at this limit. Then we get the more common <first among equals> role since we do have the tradition of always having a Chess World Champion who then would fit the said role.

I am not saying that we do not have at present players who can play at the limit of our brain's capacity to play chess. For instance, I think that at the least, both present WC Anand and recent WC Kramnik have the ability to consistently play chess at the human limit. I think that they could play at a higher level under other circumstances compared to their level now. In 2000, Kramnik certainly did when he played practically errorless chess on his way to beating Kasparov.

Jun-04-09  visayanbraindoctor: <kamalakanta: as Bronstein pointed out, one common attitude is to look at those masters of the past with a certain disdain..."oh, they played only patzers"..>

<Petrosianic: There's a story from Nottingham 1936 in which Capablanca was on the ropes, and lost the exchange, but went on to win the game. A bunch of players analyzed it afterwards trying to figure out where Capa's opponent had gone wrong. They all started from the point where Capa had lost the exchange, figuring that the error must have been after that point. But nobody could figure it out.

Supposedly, at that point, Lasker came in and they showed him the game. When they got to the point where Capa's opponent won the exchange, he said "Oh no, that can't be right," and went on to show them how "winning" the exchange threw away the advantage and led to the loss. According to Capa, Lasker talked to him later, and said something like "I bet you were relieved when he swallowed the bait. These newer players aren't as strong as people think.">

I agree with the implication that humans in the past are just as smart as us. We simply have more accumulated specialized knowledge. In the chessworld, accumulated specialized knowledge translates mostly as more knowledge of more opening variations, fundamentally a function of memory - memorizing more opening variations. With the coming of computers, this has been facilitated. However, once in the middlegame away from analyzed opening theory, every one has to play the way players did a hundred years ago, which is to evaluate any given position using one's brain, analyze, evaluate possible future positions, and choose moves leading to possible future positions that look favorable in one's evaluations, while maintaining concentration in the presence of a ticking-away chess clock.

Eugenics in the form of selected breeding and possibly genetic engineering may (or may not) produce brains with the ability to play chess at nearly computer levels. However, since the use of such idea in order to justify the eradication of certain populations of Homo sapiens in WW2, eugenics has become politically taboo.

Jun-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  kamalakanta: Thanks to <visayanbraindoctor> and <Petrosianic> for shedding some light on this subject.
Jun-04-09  visayanbraindoctor: <Petrosianic: I think that that story is about this game>

W Winter vs Capablanca, 1936

Is it not this game you are referring to?

Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1936

Jun-04-09  visayanbraindoctor: <kamalakanta: Thanks to <visayanbraindoctor> and <Petrosianic> for shedding some light on this subject.>

Regarding my statement above <I agree with the implication that humans in the past are just as smart as us. We simply have more accumulated specialized knowledge. In the chessworld, accumulated specialized knowledge translates mostly as more knowledge of more opening variations, fundamentally a function of memory - memorizing more opening variations.>, I would like to add that probably all World Champions and top chess masters of the past and present have very good memories. Memorizing a thousand more opening variations probably would not trouble an Alekhine (who had the memory to play simultaneous blindfold chess for a living) more than a linguist who has to memorize a thousand more words in order to learn another language for the sake of completing his thesis. In a hypothetical situation wherein Alekhine-with-the-photographic-memory is given a large book on updated Modern Chess Openings, there is no reason at all why he should not be able to zoom through it in a few weeks and update himself in short order.

The condescending attitude of some kibitzers regarding pre-WW2 chess masters <one common attitude is to look at those masters of the past with a certain disdain..."oh, they played only patzers"> is one bad attitude problem that later generations of World Champions certainly do not have. All of the present living World Champions generally speak with high regard and respect of their predecessors and the pre-WW2 top chess masters and have studied their games; and know these past chess masters for what they are - stupendously strong chess players.

Jun-04-09  acirce: Time for John Watson to reintroduce some common sense in this kind of discussion again:

<I'm always hearing (and reading) that "If the players of yesteryear could only catch up with opening theory, they'd be as good or better than today's players". The funny thing is that the many years (usually decades) of study that modern players put into opening theory should not only count towards their strength, but that study and practice contributes vastly to their understanding of the middlegame and even some endgames. The silly idea that you can just 'catch up' in opening theory ignores the vast undertaking that this would involve, especially to absorb the vast number of openings and opening variations necessary to a complete chess education.> http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwa...

Jun-04-09  blacksburg: no one knows what would happen if Morphy came back to life. the argument that Morphy would dominate has as much weight as Watson's argument that he wouldn't - zero.
Jun-04-09  whatthefat: If Morphy came back to life he'd probably have less interest in chess than he would in eating brains.
Jun-04-09  whatthefat: <Petrosianic: There's a story from Nottingham 1936 in which Capablanca was on the ropes, and lost the exchange, but went on to win the game. A bunch of players analyzed it afterwards trying to figure out where Capa's opponent had gone wrong. They all started from the point where Capa had lost the exchange, figuring that the error must have been after that point. But nobody could figure it out.

Supposedly, at that point, Lasker came in and they showed him the game. When they got to the point where Capa's opponent won the exchange, he said "Oh no, that can't be right," and went on to show them how "winning" the exchange threw away the advantage and led to the loss. According to Capa, Lasker talked to him later, and said something like "I bet you were relieved when he swallowed the bait. These newer players aren't as strong as people think.">

If it's W Winter vs Capablanca, 1936 then I'd think the story is apocryphal, since Capablanca blundered there with 34...Re2?? and it's White's last move that turns a win into a loss.

I'm not sure Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1936 fits the bill either, since Capablanca doesn't simply go down the exchange - rather, he gets 3 pieces for 2 rooks. And besides, Alekhine was only 4 years Capablanca's junior, and had been world champion for 9 years already.

Jun-04-09  Petrosianic: I don't think it's apocryphal, since theh version I heard was told in Capablanca's own words. (Of course that's not to say he might not have embellished it.)

<And besides, Alekhine was only 4 years Capablanca's junior, and had been world champion for 9 years already.>

I agree that I don't think it was this game. (Although for the record, Alekine was not world champion when this was played.) I just find it hard to imagine a crowd of players trying to help Alekhine figure out where he went wrong.

Jun-05-09  ughaibu: The story is about the Alekhine game. In his notes, Alekhine says that he miscalculated, thinking he would win two exchanges. I've never heard the addendum about "newer players".
Jun-05-09  visayanbraindoctor: <The silly idea that you can just 'catch up' in opening theory ignores the vast undertaking that this would involve, especially to absorb the vast number of openings and opening variations necessary to a complete chess education.>

Actually <blacksburg: no one knows what would happen if Morphy came back to life. the argument that Morphy would dominate has as much weight as Watson's argument that he wouldn't - zero.> is quite right. There is no time machine.

On the other hand, if there were time machines, obviously I disagree with Watson. By Lasker's time, the top players were playing like super GMs. There is a way to test this hypothesis: Subject the games of Lasker, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Maroczy, Schlecter, Marshall, Janowski, Mieses, etc... to computer analysis. If some of them were making a comparable number of errors as today's super GMs per game, then they were playing like super GMs. I wonder if any one has already done this. (If some thing quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, plays chess like a duck, it is a duck for all practical purposes.)

Any super GM player should be able to update himself quickly in his favorite openings. A player like Lasker already knows the middlegame and endgame well; there is nothing in our brains that should prevent such a player from studying a book like Modern Chess Openings and absorbing knowledge that is there to absorb in say 3 months time. (That's probably the average time a typical medical student in my locality spends in studying and updating everything he or she studied in medical school in the past 4 or 5 years in preparation for a board exam. That already consists of a lot of stuff - Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, and almost dozen more subjects, each of which has separate books. Most 'normal' medical students turn into virtual hermits doing nothing but studying medical books at this time of their lives.)

<whatthefat, Petrosianic, ughaibu> The more I think about it, the more I think it was probably the

Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1936

game. I am no chess historian, so I could well be wrong. Perhaps someone can cite some document on this?

Jun-05-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: There is no "human limit". Think of what some savants perform in terms of calculation.
Jun-05-09  jussu: <visayanbraindoctor>, have you read John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book? Not that you have to (although I can recommend it) but Nunn does pretty much what you suggest. He does not have many superstars form the beginning of the 20th century in his analysis, however, I found that he proved convincingly that at least the second tier was way weaker back then than in our days.
Jun-05-09  acirce: <Subject the games of Lasker, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Maroczy, Schlecter, Marshall, Janowski, Mieses, etc... to computer analysis. If some of them were making a comparable number of errors as today's super GMs per game, then they were playing like super GMs. I wonder if any one has already done this.>

It has, and with a couple of exceptions it speaks greatly in favour of modern players. Ask <nimh>, for instance. Also, I'd refer to Nunn's <The Test of Time> section in his Chess Puzzle Book, mentioned and cited at length in the Watson review I linked to. Such things ought to serve as wake-up calls for people caught up in too romantic notions about the old greats. (Nunn: "I was quite surprised by the results. To summarize, the old players were much worse than I expected.")

Watson makes much the same point as Nunn regarding endgames in particular, btw: <I made a lengthy look at endgames from a comparable period and found similar butchery, including some terrible blunders by top players such Lasker. The endgame skills of the great masters - excepting Rubinstein - are much exaggerated in books, for the reasons that Nunn gives, i.e, the understandable selection of a very small set of games for reasons of instruction and beauty.>

And so what if someone memorizes big chunks of Modern Chess Openings? Do you seriously think that would take him anywhere near the kind of opening knowledge (depth, understanding) needed in the top today? Sorry, but I find that kind of reasoning either just very naive or even disrespectful of today's players -- and the <enormous> amount of work they have had to make over years and years to mold their opening repertoires. Or is your point something different?

Jun-05-09  acirce: <jussu> got there before me with Nunn.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 1600)
search thread:   
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1418 OF 1600 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC