|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 254 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-27-05 | | Dionyseus: <acirce> I disagree, Kasparov was gaining the momentum whilst Karpov was declining, they apparently did not want to let Kasparov to get within a point. |
|
| May-27-05 | | Hesam7: <Dionyseus> One can not be sure. I can imagine Karpov taking a one week break and then winning the 6th game. |
|
| May-27-05 | | Everett: Well <Dionyseus> I guess you'll have to be satisfied disagreeing with Kasparov himself. |
|
May-27-05
 | | chancho: <Keypusher> Fischer had played Petrosian WAY before the match of the Century. Maybe he was afraid, but not the way you portray it. Taimanov's observations are not necessarily accurate either. With Karpov, it was different. They had never played a game against each other and in such high stakes. |
|
| May-27-05 | | Wilhelm: About the 1984 match, I wouldn't go as far as Fischer saying they arranged their games, but I would bet some kind of agreement was reached about holding the longest ever WCh match in Soviet Russia: it was good for the Press, for the System, for Soviet chess, even good for the players. As to what kind of agreement, I would especulate they could have agreed to play serious chess every 6 dull draws,.. eventually Campomanes discovered the trick --one player winning, then the other, more draws, then again one wins, etc and decided to end the show.. |
|
May-27-05
 | | keypusher: <chancho>
I'll try one more time.
Fischer was often afraid of strong opponents.
He was especially afraid of Karpov, because Karpov was very, very strong and Fischer had never played him before. The fact that Fischer was afraid of Karpov does not mean he would have lost a match to Karpov. In fact, Fischer was capable of very strong chess even when he seemed prostrated by fear, as when he played Petrosian in the Match of the Century. That is as clear as I can make it. |
|
| May-27-05 | | Everett: <keypusher> Interesting opinion, and I will not enter into it's legitimacy, but will say this: The best are often spurred on by terrible fear, so strong that they cannot bear losing and do everything they can to win. They fear failing, period. Not all, mind you, but some, so what you say seems reasonable. |
|
May-27-05
 | | offramp: <Hesam7: <Dionyseus> One can not be sure. I can imagine Karpov taking a one week break and then winning the 6th game.> Kasparov himself said that his ghances at the end of the match were about 30%, so you are probably right. |
|
May-27-05
| | chancho: <Keypusher> yeah your right, Fischer WAS afraid of Karpov and your right, it does not mean if they had played he would have lost, but he was afraid, so he avoided the match with Karpov by his non negotiable demands. And if Karpov had agreed to the conditions Fischer had made, Fischer would have just found another way out of the match.This is speculating on my part but hey, that's all we are doing here speculating. Lasker also wanted no part of Capablanca in a title match and went as far as naming him his successor, but when the fan's outcries at this decision reached his ears he relented,and he then went on to lose his title. Fischer could have done the same, but Fischer is all about Fischer as it turns out, and please none of this stuff about how he improved Chess in so many ways. |
|
| May-29-05 | | Wilhelm: Sonas writes "..((something interesting based on statistics)).." Has Sonas (or somebody else) made a research on the theme "How possibly a top player[WCh] consistently lose to a [lot] weaker player"?
Something like Kramnik losing to Adams, Kasparov to Radyabov (Ivanchuk?), Fischer to Geller..etc What was Karpov's nemesis? --Kasparov was not, as he clearly had him 5-0 back in 1984, and in 2000 in rapid games defeated him..hardly a nemesis in the usual sense.. |
|
| May-29-05 | | Everett: <Wilhelm> The examples you give are of near equal players, it seems, well within 100 ELO. Ivanchuk was #2 for a bit in '91-92 I think, when he slapped some losses on Kasparov, and Adams is almost above Kramnik now, so who's stronger is debatable. Kasparov lost to Radjabov once, hardly a trend, and Geller's history speaks for itself, when it comes to champions. |
|
| May-29-05 | | Everett: And I will say this: The most fascinating events in chess occur when two different styles, independently successful, clash on the board. It's the single best thing, two genius', with unique ways of looking at positions, making move after move in accordance to personal principles. Who comes out on top? Probably the stronger player, but styles make all the difference sometimes. This is why Karpov vs Fischer is so fascinating. Their styles when result in a classic battle, much like Kasparov's and Karpov's did. |
|
| May-30-05 | | wenkai: qwerty!u,i,op!a,s!dfghjkl?zxc,vbnm!
|
|
| May-30-05 | | Wilhelm: Everett I like your view . In the message I wanted to say that one weak player who has not achieved any important thing plays a strong player wich has won a Title or is No.1 and the expected result is strong 1 weak 0 but it is weak 1 strong 0 . I agree that sometimes the weak is really too strong when the game was played. wenkai if you are from Japan, you must use other keyboard! |
|
| May-30-05 | | OneBadDog: Regardless of who might have won the match, the big loser in '75 was the Chess World. I think that a Fischer-Karpov match would have generated an unparalleled world-wide interest in Chess. |
|
| May-30-05 | | Akavall: <Regardless of who might have won the match, the big loser in '75 was the Chess World. I think that a Fischer-Karpov match would have generated an unparalleled world-wide interest in Chess.> One think we know for certain, is that, "chess world" came out as a looser :(. No match... |
|
| May-30-05 | | acdc: <One think we know for certain, is that, "chess world" came out as a looser :(.> And also, if Fischer stayed on to play a few more years, than Fischer vs Kasparov would have been VERY interesting. Then we could have an idea of who the greatest player of all time is. |
|
| May-30-05 | | iron maiden: I'm not sure of that. By the time Kasparov hit his prime, Fischer would have been well past his. |
|
May-31-05
 | | Honza Cervenka: <What was Karpov's nemesis?> Before 1972 Karpov had some troubles with Rafael Vaganian. There are also some players like Aivars Gipslis who had beaten young Karpov once and never lost. With Petrosian, Geller or Tal Karpov achieved his first win not until 1980s and his total score against them was even or only slightly better. But the greatest problems he had definitely with Korchnoi. Although Karpov's score was active against him, during 1970s Viktor the Terrible was the best candidate for beeing Karpov's nemesis. |
|
| May-31-05 | | Wilhelm: very informative answer <Honza Cervenka>, thanks! I also think than Korchnoi was very uncomfortable for Karpov (in the first match in '74 he couldn't have a large advantage) |
|
| May-31-05 | | skyman: I remember watching on Deportv -avec José Ramón Fdez- a glimpse of the match between karpov and G. Kasparov for the title back in 1984-5; I played chess ocassionally + I still remember the strange sensation of two players sitting in front of each other moving wooden pieces for a bizarre reason; some months later Karpov was sick and the match was posponed for several months; I wondered what would happen ?
The next year the youth beat the mature and there was a new world champion, -never saw it-; The last time i remember hearing anything of such a different world to mine was in 1987 when Gary was in Sevilla, i was in that continent; and that was it....b
It had to come to the year nought to see through a newspaper how a new gentle giant beat the older giant !!!
It was no surprise to me at least..
Jürgen Kärl. |
|
May-31-05
| | Honza Cervenka: <Wilhelm> Korchnoi with his uncomfortable style was a nemesis for many top GMs of different generations. He had highly active score against Tal, Spassky, Geller, Reshevsky, Ivkov, Gligoric, Najdorf, Szabo, Suetin, Filip, Timman, Miles, Ljubojevic, Pinter, Hort, Kavalek, Polugaevsky, Yusupov or Lautier to name only some of them. He beat also Petrosian, Averbakh, Savon, Huebner, Ulf Andersson, Taimanov, Uhlmann, Vaganian, Balashov, Smejkal, Benko, Larsen, Ftacnik or Judit Polgar, tied with Botvinnik, Fischer, Antoshin, Andrei Sokolov, Tukmakov, Ribli etc. Against much younger guys like Beliavsky, Seirawan, Ivan Sokolov. Short or Leko he had also quite good results. On the other hand, some players knew well how to play against Viktor the Terrible, especially Keres. Other players with a slightly active score against Korchnoi were Smyslov, Kholmov or Portisch. |
|
| May-31-05 | | AdrianP: <Honza> It's also worth mentioning that Korchnoi had truly terrible results against Kasparov (on this database -19 +1 =24 see http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... ) Korchnoi himself jokes that he has a more or less equal score against Kasparov... qualifying this by saying that he manages to draw as many games as he loses! It's true that Korchnoi was probably at his best before Kasparov burst onto the scene, but that doesn't entirely account for the huge discrepancy in results. |
|
| May-31-05 | | samikd: <Honza Cervenka> Just like Kasparov, Korchnoi has pathetic score against Anand. Anand is probably the only player Victor has never beaten +12-0=5 |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | chesswonders: I think Karpov is the man with highest number of recorded games in chessgames.com |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 254 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
