On the other hand Kortchnoi did NOT have atleast equal score up to 1978 , which is the meaning of the former statement. I believed that to be true based on CG info , but that info seems to be unsound . So what happened ?

There is an interesthing feature of CG gamelisting that can actually make difference in counting . I checked their head to head result again , counting game by game carefully , and got atleast 2 different results in numerous ´counts´ of the games ending with the 1978 match ! I was confused at first , bit I counted on and on until i noticed few things.

The order of the games is shuffling from time to time . CG will enlist you games sorted by years , but the games of the same year will not , though they can , always occur in the same order . For example , games from 1974 match that happen to be on the lower half of the first, and the upper half of the second page , can therefore sometimes appear double or zero times in some of the counts , making the difference .

I remember Korchnoi emerging equal against Karpov after 1978. match , ´according´ to CG list , which would make the controversal statement true , but today I got Karpov @ +2 once after 1974. match was over (which was different from the very previous count of that same day, ie several seconds prior to that ).

Timman was another great who almost never played the King's Indian.

One thing is absolutely clear. <You> are not <clear> <bronkenstein> when you make your claims. You haven't given years, games, nor your general counting method, whereas I've been kind enough to do some research and post it.

The rest of your previous post is , basically , already covered just few centimeters above :

<On the other hand Kortchnoi did NOT have at least equal score up to 1978 , which is the meaning of the former statement. I believed that to be true based on CG info , but that info seems to be unsound . So what happened ?

There is an interesting feature of CG gamelisting that can actually make difference in counting . I checked their head to head result again , counting game by game carefully , and got at least 2 different results in numerous ´counts´ of the games ending with the 1978 match ! I was confused at first , bit I counted on and on until i noticed few things.

The order of the games is shuffling from time to time . CG will enlist you games sorted by years , but the games of the same year will not , though they can , always occur in the same order . For example , games from 1974 match that happen to be on the lower half of the first, and the upper half of the second page , can therefore sometimes appear double or zero times in some of the counts , making the difference .

I remember Korchnoi emerging equal against Karpov after 1978. match , ´according´ to CG list , which would make the controversal statement true , but today I got Karpov @ +2 once after 1974. match was over (which was different from the very previous count of that same day, ie several seconds prior to that ).

Finally, I want to point out, knowing the history of these games, I did not fall into the same trouble as you. Once we take the games in blocks the picture becomes much more clear, and easily calculated: Pre-'74 match, '74 match, '78 match, '81 match. May I suggest keeping your accounting of games to a number that is listed on one page.

No, what makes you think that ?

<May I suggest keeping your accounting of games to a number that is listed on one page>

The numbers are always fixed , in 25 by 25 portions AFAIK.

<Finally, I want to point out, knowing the history of these games, I did not fall into the same trouble as you.>

I know the history , but it never entered my mind (As it wouldn´t , and didn´t , anyone else´s ) that anything more is to be done but simply go to CG K-K games list and count .

You wont be checking almost 90 games (concluded with the games of their 81. match ) in too great detail , especially if you are doing that count fast , together with dozen more listcounts that you did at that point ( remember , my initial post was about comparing Karpov with bunch of players from the era of his supposed dominance ).

Just to remind you of the funny episode including him , on this very page :) He posted :

<keypusher: <bronkenstein: <Korchnoi won their first decisive encounter, Karpov had the next two wins, and then came the matches.>

No .
It should be simple to check , here on Chessgames . Maybe you have another source , or info on incorrect chronological order of the games ?>

Since you keep saying "No" why don't you identify the games you are talking about? Otherwise you are just wasting time.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Have at it!>

...just few minutes before you rechecked the list , and , in the very next post typed

<Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1970 Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1971 Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1971
Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1973

Ahh, it seems I missed a game. 2-2 in classical before the matches.>

OFC , all the games involved are on the upper half of the first page of K-K CGlist , therefore not affected by the shuffling flaw.

Before their '74 match, Karpov defeated Korchnoi twice, losing once, with a few draws. After this came their three matches, with no games in-between. So, we get the following score of decisive games through '81: Pre-'74 Karpov 2-1 '74 match Karpov 3-2
'78 match Karpov 6-5
'81 match Karpov 6-2>

Sure, I got a game wrong, but the counting method proved more accurate by considering specific historical episodes. Very helpful in clarifying debated facts.

You also posted <bronkenstein: Quite a long time = 8 years , read the previous post carefully please ...> after recognizing that you counted wrong. I may be misreading it, but clarity is not high on this page in general.

My , virtually, first sentence in my first post of this karpovian debate was < In addition to that , Korchnoi had positive score against Karpov for quite a long time ...> . Now , we all know that this statement is false , but I believed ( as you already know ) it to be the truth at that moment.

After the reaction from several other posters , I did double, triple and hundrediple checks on CG K-K list , noticed the flaw causing the fuss, and posted about that:<On the other hand Kortchnoi did NOT have atleast equal score up to 1978 ...>.

In the very next post on this page , Wilson opened with <It's funny how you say "quite a long time". It certainly wasn't quite a long time...> , and from the content of his post it was clear that he didn't read a single word of my explanation.

Now, I consider that the phrase 'quite a long time' can be used to describe period of 8 years , and I hoped that the second part of the sentence of my following post <Quite a long time = 8 years , read the previous post carefully please ...> would make him read the explanation , and understand when and how I used these words.

Unfortunatelly , I was wrong , since Wilson replied with <You're claiming that Korchnoi had a positive record against Karpov for eight years?...>.

So , the sentence was written to him specifically , and it should be percieved exclusively in the context of our previous discussion , having in mind especially the intention to make him actually read the words of people he is arguing with . Had he done that , the meaning of that sentence would become clear to him , and that was it's only purpose.

<...that anything more is to be done but simply ... count.> is good idea.

<when I did exactly this with the above post: ...> I wouldn´t say. since that implies that you did something more than simple counting, while in reality you actually did something less .

<and Sure, I got a game wrong, but the counting method proved more accurate by considering specific historical episodes> ´The method´and it´s separating into ´historical episodes´ has nothing to do with simply counting over a dozen of games prior to 1974. match (which would be only episode one , according to one of your previous posts) , and that small count is, additionally , not even affected by shifting from one page to another. BTW I applied that ´method´ many times , and on much greater sample of games prior to writing the aforementioned explanation , long time before you started describing it (repeatedly )to me , intertwined with unnecessary history lessons .

<I wouldn´t say. since that implies that you did something more than simple counting, while in reality you actually did something less> ...umm, actually, more, in that I bundled information and then counted, and avoided making a gross error.

<So, our friend failed to simply click the very link he posted (something similar happened to him on the CG David Bronstein page few months ago) , therefore I am not sure that he would be patient enough to comprehend ( or even just read ) my wall of text .>

From Crestbook (on russian) , birthday congratulations with some of Anatoly´s finest games from his golden age, 70s and 80s, deeply annotated by the maestro himself :

He is a great champion and certainly one of the greats.