| Jul-30-06 | | acirce: This is the game Gelfand is talking about in his reply to Kasparov's accusations about Gelfand's "unethical behaviour" consisting of helping his friend Kramnik before the 2000 match. http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/ne... <As far as the differences in ethical code are concerned, Mr. Kasparov indeed proved his thesis in Novgorod 1997, when Vladimir had to beat me in the last round to catch Garry and win tournament on tie-break. After drawing quickly his own game Kasparov started to make statements in front of press and public that our game with Kramnik is a fix and I am going to lose the game to let my friend win a tournament. Fortunately, after 7 hour long defense I managed to draw that game. Yet we are still waiting for apology.> Here is the crosstable and all the results from the tournament: http://www.chess.gr/tourn/1997/novg... This was only a month after Kasparov's match against Deep Blue, where as we all know he also hurled accusations about cheating. Just as paranoid and inexcusable here. I was aware that Kasparov made these accusations, but I didn't know that Topalov was involved as well. From the introduction to a Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam interview with Kramnik just after this tournament, republished in <The Day Kasparov Quit>: <At the bottom of the driveway to the Beresta hotel, an irritated Garry Kasparov is pacing up and down, periodically flinging his arms in the air in frustration. His second, Yury Dokhoian, is standing timidly beside him, wisely refraining from comment. <Why do I, Garry Kasparov, have to wait here for Vladimir Kramnik?>, Kasparov says, once again raising his arms. It is a nonsensical question, and he knows it, but Kasparov is so angry he can no longer think straight. Two kilometres away, Vladimir Kramnik is at the chess board, calculating his last moves for a chance to win first prize in the super-tournament of Novgorod. To be able to claim it, he will have to beat Boris Gelfand. The latest news from the playing hall is that Kramnik is better, but the position is anything but clear.With a sniff, Kasparov lets it be known that it is no secret to him how this decisive game between the two friends is going to end, and that he already knew it when it started.> (...) |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | acirce: <The next day at lunch, I tell Boris Gelfand that I am going to talk with Kramnik that afternoon. (...)
When I ask him whether Kramnik stands a chance of becoming world champion, Gelfand replies without the slightest hesitation. <I hope he will, for two reasons. In the first place because he is my friend, and in the second place because he is one of the few top players with moral values.> He gives me a meaningful look. He is still outraged by the insinuations both Kasparov and Topalov made in the presence of journalists during their final game. It is a topic that Kramnik doesn't sidestep either later that afternoon, when we get to the subject of his relationship with the man who, for years, has been lavishing praise on the exceptional talent of his former pupil. <During the last few days, my relationship with Kasparov has become somewhat strained. We talk to each other and everything seems fine, but then I hear that he is saying strange things about me behind my back. A friend of mine once told me that you never know exactly what kind of relationship you have with Kasparov. You think that you are friends, but maybe the friendship is long gone.The things he was saying yesterday are too silly for words. It's a matter of mentality. I know from experience that the people who get worked up about such things are the people who are capable of such behaviour. I would never suggest anything like this. It is totally against my principles. I will never buy or sell a game. It was very annoying. Imagine I had won that game; it was close enough, after all. Then suddenly everyone would think that I had bought it. The only explanation I can think of is that he wanted to attack me somehow. I find it very disappointing. I am very angry about it.> > |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | euripides: Actually, it's a very interesting game, showing some unusual ideas for White in this familiar pawn formation. Kasparov wasn't, by all accounts, very good at making close friends on the GM circuit and seems to have become suspicious of other people doing so. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | Hesam7: In this tournament Kasparov had lost his mini match against Kramnik, if they had equal points many would have thought that Kramnik was better than him in this tournament (what were the tie break rules btw?). So considering Kasparov's personality his reactions were expected, but Topalov? I don't understand why he got involved. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | acirce: I don't know, probably the tiebreak was indeed the mini-match result. As for Topalov it's the first time I hear about this. Of course that also means I can't be completely sure it's even true. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | Karpova: Fischer's legitimate successor obviously wasn't Karpov - it was Kasparov. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | aw1988: Really? I thought it was Nakamura... |
|
May-19-07
 | | plang: After 12 Rae1 a standard position from the exhange variation of the queens gambit was reached with the addition of the moves a4 and a6 added. After
34 e4 the response 34..de? 35 Bf7..Rf7 36 Ne4..Qb4
37 Ng5 wins. After 36 e5 and 37 e6 Kramnik's space advantage gives him winning chances despite the pawn minus.
Kramnik patiently maneuvers until he is able to set up the sacrifice on d5 which should have won the game. After 59..cd Rb6, e7 and Rf6 would have won for white. With 66 Re6? Kramnik throws away his advantage and the game peters out to a draw. |
|
Apr-30-16
 | | dernier loup de T: Pourquoi dire des idioties, Karpova? Juste pour amuser la galerie ou pour le plaisir de troller? |
|
| Apr-30-16 | | Howard: Where's the English translater feature on this website ?!? |
|
| Apr-30-16 | | Howard: Petrosian would have just loved to have been playing White in this game ! |
|
| Apr-30-16 | | Mr. V: <dernier loup de T>
He was saying it in a sarcastic sense, as in "Kasparov was as unpleasant as Fischer," therefore Kasparov was his true successor at being an unpleasant person. |
|
Oct-07-24
 | | FSR: Ironically given Kasparov's insinuation, his last-round game with Short actually <was> fixed, down to the exact moves played, although there were extenuating circumstances. <In the evening before the last round of Novgorod 1997, when I was due to play Garry Kasparov, I was set upon by a large dog while walking. I received a nasty bite in my arm and was admitted to hospital.
Bandaged and bleeding, I was in no condition to play chess. Thus, for the only time in my life, I proposed a pre-arranged draw to the great man, which he duly accepted (in fact a draw with black guaranteed him at least a shared first place). We then decided to concoct the following game for public benefit. Garry thought that, as we were playing a fake game, it would be hilarious if we followed Azmai’s game [Azmaiparashvili vs N Rashkovsky, 1995 ] for as long as possible.I might add that he was still livid that Azmai had exposed chunks of his analysis to public scrutiny, which in his eyes was the act of a disaffected ex-employee. Of course, we had to arrange a different result and, for the sake of aesthetics, do it as prettily as we could.> https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-f... |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
