|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 101 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-11-05 | | who: Korchnoi has "my best games with white" and "my best games with black" if that's what you mean. |
|
Dec-11-05
 | | Ron: "Chess Is My Life" by Korchnoi
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/32... |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Hesam7: According to Kasparov Korchnoi's picture appears with that of Karpov's in OMGP V cover. Certainly Korchnoi was a great player but he was never a world champion, so I do not know if that is a good idea. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | sitzkrieg: <Are there any good biographies on Korchnoi, or does he have an autobiography with games> I would have to look up the title but shortly after his defection he wrote a book with games and an autobiography in wich he wrote about Petrosian the "dirty rat" and more of such. Quite a good read. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | KingG: <an autobiography in which he wrote about Petrosian the "dirty rat"> LOL. It seems that no one likes Petrosian(see for example Short's comments about him). |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Hesam7: <KingG> The problems between Korchnoi and Petrosian happened during the following match: Game Collection: Korchnoi-Petrosian 1974 |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | KingG: <Hesam7> <The match rules called for four wins in the semifinals. Petrosian resigned the match after losing three games. He then attempted, through political means, to have the result of the match reversed.> That's outrageous! What reasons did he give at the time to justify this? |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | suenteus po 147: <who> I am aware of those two books by Krochnoi, but I wasn't sure if they included autobiography or not. <Ron> Thanks for the suggestion! |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Hesam7: <KingG> I read this 6 months ago from a book written by Korchnoi in 1976 right after Korchnoi defected. The story goes like this: (The details might not be exact, but in the book Korchnoi mentions even the corresponding games and what happened at which move) Apparently in pressure (positionally or time) Petrosian shook his legs and the table on which the they played also shook or made sounds. Korchnoi complained to the arbiter, he [Korchnoi] notes that in the first time Petrosian did not do it on purpose, but for the next game (according to Korchnoi) Petrosian did do this on purpose and they had a not so friendly chat during the game. I guess Petrosian did not play in protest to Korchnoi's behavior. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | Hesam7: Also <KingG> I think Kasparov and Petrosian had a very good relationship. |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | KingG: <Hesam7> Ok, thanks. <I think Kasparov and Petrosian had a very good relationship.> Well, no one likes Kasparov either, so they had something in common. |
|
| Dec-13-05 | | kvcs: <norami> <et alii> User: norami states, matter-of-factly: "He [Korchnoi] reached his peak in 1978 when he came within a single game of becoming World Champion. At age 47!" Viktor Korchnoi is listed at Chessmetrics.com: http://chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakLis... *** at #12 with his peak rating of 2798. <Ancr>, Founder of <KVCS> was heavily ensconced in all KORCHNOI--KARPOV matches. <Ancr> is intimately acquainted with the scores of 'all' three matches! If you or anyone else thinks that Anatoli Karpov 'won' any of these matches then.... ***Full URL citation:
http://chessmetrics.com/
CM2/PeakList.asp
KKKKKKK |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | brankat: <poisonpawns><suenteus po 147><ron> Korchnoi, like most of the other masters has had his ups & downs. He was awarded an IM title in 1954 and GM title in 1956. So <Suenteus po 1947> you didn't see him competing at a "highest level" in the late forties.
His 2 most successful/productive periods were: 1. 1960-1968.
2. 1973-1981.
Obviously, these are 2 quite different eras and difficult to compare objectively.
If the sole standard of evaluation is in the question of how close he got to winning The Title, then , in Korchnoi's case, his best years would have been 1973-1981.
But, it doesn't necessarilly means that he was in his prime then.
(example: following this "method" it would appear that Dr. Tarrasch did his best when he played Dr. Lasker for the title in 1908., but we all know that he played his best chess some 15-20 years earlier.)
I think the quality / creativity / compettitivness of Korchnoi's game was at it's zenith between 1960-1968.
Some results from the period:
1. USSR Champion 1960.-Leningrad
1962.-Erevan
1965.-Kiev (2 points ahead of Bronstein and Tal).2. 1st= Buenos Aires, 1960.(with Reshewsky)
3. 1st= Havana, 1963.
4. 1st= Djula, 1965. (5.5 points ahead of the field!).
5. 1st= Erevan, 1965.
6. 1st= Bucharest, 1966.
7. 1st= Sochi, 1966.
8. 4th Candidates 1962.
9. Candidates Finals, 1968. ( Lost to eventual Champion B Spassky). It was during these years that he was considered to be "a demon of tournament arenas". |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | suenteus po 147: <brankat> When I said Korchnoi was competing at the highest level in the forties, I meant the 1940s. Still, you are right about Korchnoi's prominence and success in the 60s, which I had forgotten about. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | MaxxLange: <Hesam7> They are expensive, but I am sure they are good. I want them. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | sitzkrieg: If Korchnoi played better in the 60's but was closer to the title shot twice in the 70's i almost d make the conclusion that the level of chess was higher in the past. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | RookFile: Sitzkrieg - my view is: chess went through a "black hole" from 1975 to 1985. Karpov was unquestionably the best player, but there wasn't a lot of competition for him in the absence of Fischer. Korchnoi just happenned to be the best of the rest. Karpov, although being the best player, had a frankly boring style,
although a very effective one. It wasn't until Kasparov came along and livened up the game that you saw interest in chess increase, and a lot of strong new young players develop. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | Hesam7: <MaxxLange> Yes they are expensive. I have decided to buy them when the third volume (chess is my life) comes out (on 31st January). The prize for three volumes (with the discounts at Amazon) is around 70 USD. |
|
Dec-15-05
 | | keypusher: <brakat> Thanks, interesting. On the other hand, according to chessmetrics his peak rating was in 1978, and his five best performances all came between 1973 and 1984. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | sitzkrieg: Rookfile ; that sounds plausible. Personally I like Karpovs games tho. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | brankat: Thank You guys for Your input & and interesting comments. I really enjoy this sort of discussion. Am aware of Korchnoi's historical ratings (1973, 1978), but by the same token, according to ratings the only time he was rated as #1. was Sept-Dec. 1965. when he wasn't even close to The Title. So, go figure!
Personally, I have a problem with Elo, Chessmetrics etc. My felling is that an attempt to numerically evaluate something essentially artistic/creative is only one-dimensional. Measures just the sporting side of chess. It lacks both, depth and width, and is therefore shallow and misleading. <Sietzkrieg> Your comment is very logical, at the same time I agree with <Rookfile> response.
This kind of situation we had before.
1900-1910, 1933-1940. for instance.
Back to the ratings. The "Old-timers" like Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capa, AA, Nimzowitch, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Rubinstein and many others have been rated posthumously (which I find insulting). If You look at their ratings, it would appear that hardly any of them would make the list of the best 40 players of all times, although most of them deserve to be amongst the top 10! Now, how can that be? So much for Elo. I resent the idea of having numbers attached to creative human beings. What's next?
Shakespeare vs Tolstoi? Leonardo vs Van Gogh? Mozart vs Verdi?
Thank You all. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | sitzkrieg: Ratings only tell about the relative competitive aspect. They don't say a thing about who has the most creative/artisctic or beautiful game or best understanding. About <1933-1940>; I think there were many very strong players at the time,not a downfall there with quite a few very promising Americans, Flohr, young Russians and so forth. Russian chess was in decline in the 70s though. Partially explained by a decline in fighting spirit in chess i think. |
|
Dec-17-05
| | Ron: Concerning Russian chess in the 1970s, I've wondered if there was a demographic factor at work. According to a site Russiansabroad.com:
"History also has affected the absolute number of births. The birthrate during World War II was very low...." So if you have fewer births, you have fewer potential creative chess players.
Those chess players born during the World War II years, would reach their peak playing years in the late 60s, and into the 1970s. |
|
| Dec-17-05 | | ughaibu: Ron: Benzol has mentioned this before, pointing out the large gap in terms of years between Spassky and Karpov, from which period no players of similar strength emerged. |
|
| Dec-17-05 | | brankat: <Ron> Demographic factor certainly played a big role, not only regarding USSR, but all the other European countries too. After all Soviets lost some 20 million people during WWII, and most of them were 20-30 years old, meaning potential parents.
Very few top-notch players were born in Europe in the 40s. At a moment I can think only of R. Huebner & V. Hort
I'm not so sure about a "decline" of Russian chess in the 70's. Young players, in their twenties burst upon the scene, Karpov, Vaganian, Tseshkovsky, Beliavsky. And, of course the leading Russian players of the 60s (Tal, Spassky, Korchnoi, Polugaevsky, Petrosian, even Smyslov & Geller) were still among world's best players in the 70s.
But Russian dominance was not as conspicous as in the 50s or 60s, since there at the same time emerged a number of young, talented masters from other countries, catching up ( Andersson, Timann, Ribli, Ljubojevic, Browne, Miles, Adorian) together with the 60s leading non-Russian greats: Fischer(briefly), Larsen, Portisch. Huebner and Hort fully developed then too. So, Russian prominence was somehow "watered-down". Karpov's superiority over all the others made the entire decade of the 70s somewhat boring. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 101 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
