ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 248 OF 801 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-08-07 | | percyblakeney: Timman probably has a point, I just thought a couple of the examples of premature draws were a bit dubious. Timman could for example offer draw with white after 11 moves against Karpov in the FIDE title match himself, but I suppose he doesn't mean that sort of premature draws. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Karpova: <percyblakeney>
But this kind of short draws was the most stunning, wasn't it? Sure, five years after Timman wrote his article but:
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000
Doesn't look like the other examples at first glance since they weren't such short draws. But the psychological reason could be the same (considering Timman has a point and the examples he presented there were not the best ones). |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | percyblakeney: <Karpova> Yep, that's the sort of games I think about when someone mentions "premature draws", and the reason behind them may be a bit different (at least if Schiller is right in the kibitzing about the first of those games). The leader having nothing against draws isn't strange, Timman more sounds as if taking a very short draw is nothing to talk about but playing 40 moves and get the advantage and first then take the draw is more to complain about. If Timman's point actually is to complain when he calls Kasparov the most prematuredrawish of all World Champions... |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | acirce: I don't find any complaining in the article. Where did that come from anyway? Also, short draws could simply be the subject of another article, not everything people write about draws has to be about that; it would be hard to deny they have been given quite a lot of attention anyway. What's the problem? |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | percyblakeney: <I don't find any complaining in the article. Where did that come from anyway?> I get the feeling that there is some criticism in claiming that someone so often disappoints the audience with premature draws: <No other World Champion has so often startled his audience with premature draw offers as Kasparov> But it's always possible that he doesn't see that as something the least negative. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | acirce: Ok, his briefly stating the fact in the beginning of the article that premature draws disappoint the audience is the only thing even arguably complaining in the whole text. Here is some anti-complaining from the same article: <All in all, Kasparov's draw offer [in Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 ] had one salutary effect: it inspired Speelman - as well as some others - to delve into interesting and exhaustive analyses which otherwise would never have been made. On the basis of this, one could argue in favour of such premature draw offers, just as one could break a lance - equally vainly - for retaining adjournments.> |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | percyblakeney: <anti-complaining from the same article> OK, I hadn't read the article so I wrongly assumed that it continued as it began. Timman is definitely right that that K-K game never had been as discussed if they had played on as it has been now. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Tactic101: Hey, Doc. When are you planning to buy a premium membership? |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | WBP: Hey <Jess> I'm loving all this chess talk, especially the K-K stuff. Very interesting, and great to see others wading in with odds and ends. I hope you don't mind, but I've chosen your busy site to post something in a desperate attempt top redeem my typo-virus status! Here goes: fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
>
>
>
>
>
>Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
>
>
>
>
>i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
>phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
>Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
>olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
>pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
>pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
>istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
>slpeling was ipmorantt!
There! |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Karpova: <jessicafischerqueen: <And more on the <<mystery>> of "friendly <Kaspaov-Karpov>>. This time, from one of the "horse's mouths:
<Kasparov> "You have to realize that heis the only serious opponent for me. I am talking chess with the number two in the world. I wouldn't go to a restaurant with him, but who else can I really talk with about the games? Spassky? Who else can Karpov talk with? Karpov is the man who understands chess at the same level as I do."> True, and in 1993 we sadly got Kasparov-Short and Karpov-Timman instead of another great K-K-match. Not until ten years after the last K-K-match Kasparov got a <really> challenging opponent again. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Open Defence: <Not until ten years after the last K-K-match Kasparov got a <really> challenging opponent again.> and we got a K-K match again.. Kramnik-Kasparov.... but before that I guess Kasparov-Anand though Kasparov demolished Anand in that match.. but I think Anand is a better player for it.. and did not wilt away after that like i feared he would...I dont know if others would agree but Anand though a tough customer himself was not much of a challenge for Kasparov ... no doubt he did draw first blood and threw Kasparov off his Najdorf.. but the rest is history... |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Open Defence: <WBP> I could read it perfectly.. and quickly too... |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Karpova: <Open Defence>
Anand is without doubt a better player than Short ever was but as you said he wasn't that much of a challenge.
It seems that Karpov and Kramnik were the only ones not to be intimidated by Kasparov.
Anand said that himself - that Kasparov just couldn't play against Kramnik (before London 2000). He <wasn't himself> when facing Vladimir. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Open Defence: i always found that strange that Kasparov did not try his usual jibes or psychological stuff with Kramnik.. plus Kramnik was Kasparov's second in New York... and Kramnik used to play the Dragon in his younger days.. now Kasparov would have no doubt been ahead of the theory even in the Dragon.. but maybe Kramnik was in some way helping him in this respect.. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Karpova: <Open Defence>
I guess Kasparov tried his jibes or psychological stuff with Kramnik but Vladimir simply didn't care:<Kasparov is a genius player, but like all other people, he does make mistakes. Without denying his great skills, a lot of his wins are due to the fact that he somehow mentally crushes his opponents. I often see fear and the feeling of being doomed in their eyes. With me it never happens, and maybe that's why Kasparov feels less comfortable when he has to play me. When I play him, I promise myself to never look at his face because he is a very talented actor.>
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | acirce: <- You don't get a kick solely by virtue of having beaten Kasparov? - (Kramnik) That has to do with self-respect. If you think that beating Kasparov is something exceptional, you don't respect yourself as a chess player. It has always surprised me when people get so hung up on a victory against Kasparov. Then it seems as if it happened by accident. I don't believe I defeat Kasparov by accident. He is slightly stronger than me, but not even by that much. So why, then, would you not beat him sometimes? Short also beats me sometimes, although the gap between me and him is bigger than that between me and Kasparov. Why should Short be deliriously happy when this happens? The idea that Kasparov is so exceptional is a myth that has been created by the journalists. He would lose far more often if everyone understood that he isn't. - You seem to know something about Kasparov that the others don’t. You are the only player that regularly beats him. - (Kramnik) The only secret is forgetting against whom you are playing when you are sitting opposite him. I also regard Kasparov as a player of genius, of course, but no more. He also makes many mistakes, possible fewer than us, but still quite a lot. So why wouldn’t you be able to beat him in one single game? Beating him in a match is a different story, but in one single game? On the other hand, it goes without saying that it is nice to defeat him...> (from a fascinating interview conducted in June 1997 by Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, republished in <The Day Kasparov Quit>) I really like that line - <If you think that beating Kasparov is something exceptional, you don't respect yourself as a chess player.> Read some of the stuff Kramnik used to say and you will begin to understand why he and only he could beat Kasparov in a match. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Open Defence: <acirce> I have no doubt that Kramnik is mentally a very different customer.. than Kasparov had seen until their match...I wonder if Anand has become mentally tougher though... unfortunately Mexico might not reveal that aspect and here I feel match play is probably superior in deciding a World Championship |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Karpova: <acirce>
Reminds me a bit of the Tal quote that he stopped being so nervous when he realized that his opponent was nervous, too (I don't know the exact wording but it was (a bit) like this).
Kasparov is only a human being also. |
|
Jul-08-07
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Karpova> Hey!
<Percy> Hey!
Very nice to see you guys adding more information analysis to a topic that's been engrossing me lately, thank you all very much!! |
|
Jul-08-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Karpova> I read that <Tal> quote somewhere too, was just looking for it but I can't find it. But I found this one: looks like he was afraid of some people, at least when he was young; (OR WAS HE????): <Journalist> (who is really Tal, of course): "And have you never been araid of anyone?"
<Tal> (again, really Tal- heh): "Before a game with <Korchnoi>, for instance, or with <Spassky> or <Keres>, against whom the score is clearly not in my favor...I might be afraid, but on siting down at the board, I would forget about everything. I would become engrossed in the game." |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | Timex: <jessicafischerqueen> Thanks for the welcome and the link. |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | percyblakeney: Hey!
Speaking of Tal, I read an interview with one of his assistants (Kapengut), who recalls how Tal had an important Interzonal game adjourned in a very bad position. Kapengut took the opponent’s pieces, they quickly played the game out and Tal lost. Then they tried it again and Kapengut won again. Then Tal went to have several drinks instead of analysing, saying that he would win somehow anyway. Which he did. In this late clip one can see that he had health problems, he was after all five years younger than Korchnoi but it’s hard to guess: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q6nUvp5W...
|
|
Jul-08-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Percy> thanks for that amazing link! <Tal> looks like death warmed over, but notice how graceful his long fingers remain as he moves and hits his clock with one seamless motion. And, as always, some very insightful commentary by <Kasparov> |
|
| Jul-08-07 | | WBP: Tal appears to punch his clock before making his first move in this clip, no? (And then he moves rather slowly for that first move). |
|
Jul-08-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Timex> no problem, drop by any time. If you ever play a game of <Seirawan Chess> (you don't need to buy the special two pieces- you can use different shaped corks or just about anything)-- Please let me know what you thought of it. As I said, I really enjoyed the two games I played.
BTW, in August in Vancouver, Canada, there is a very large <Seirawan Chess> tournament happening with decent prize money. <Yasser> has been pretty much promoting his new game full time for the last year. He even visited Vancouver a few months ago, but I didn't get in to town to hear him speak. I won't be playing in it though. |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 248 OF 801 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
