From Scott Thompson Page. Last Year. =))

Happy birthday <keypusher>!

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...

So Kasparov was from the Botvinnik school in more ways than I'd realized.

He was absolutely no threat to win that tournament. In his own autobiography he said that all his fellow Soviet contestants and the team persuaded him it was best to withdraw. He consoled himself with the thought that he was withdrawing after the third cycle, so that all the competitors would be equally affected by his withdrawal.

What do you think of the notion that Karpov was more of a game day player than Kasparov? Were other gms providing him with openings? So could he make a superficial look at the ideas, and come to real terms with them over the board? I find this pretty incredible if so. I was reading once about Miles' st George win over Karpov, 1...a6 somewheres, and during the game some sort of icy stare from Karpov to his team revealed his fury that his team didn't prepare him for this. Which sorta tells me that he was the "game day" ringer for team Karpov. It makes me so happy to see that carlsen seems to have this quality to him... "Let's play this position to death. Since I am better than you, I will beat you." Was Karpov's lack of opening study discipline what prompted Botvinnik to dismiss young Karpov's potential? This is a big contrast to the Kasparov/Botvinnik style, of planning middle games and endgames from the opening, which is admirable, vicious and effective, but in my opinion de-emphasizes such things as scrappy defense, reevaluatIng plans as a result of the opponents scrappy defense, and endgames, because, really, how well can an endgame be planned from the opening? So a flaw int the Kasparov/Botvinnik school, would be the player is focused on the "advantages" that are supposed to result from the opening prep, and a lack of resiliency to game day happenstance. I remember that at sometime during the four k/k Wc matches, Kasparov stated (as usual, I don't remember source), that the only opponent worth playing is Karpov, Karpov was the only opponnent playing at kaspy's level. Were these matches Kasparov's final stage of his chess education, playing "at the board" against a Wily opponent? I wonder what you think. Later!

I don't think Karpov was particularly reliant on opening prep in general. He had a very solid, relatively unambitious repertoire. He didn't use many super-sharp lines. Home analysis definitely got him some victories against Korchnoi, but I don't think that he relied on it day in and day out. Note, also, that he remained #2 in the world for a decade after Kasparov took the title and presumably most of the best help also.

Karpov's tremendous positional understanding enabled him to play at top level well into his forties.

Do you care if I nominate it? Can you add a cross-table and an intro?

I'd be happy to, though I don't know how to do a cross table and don't know much about the match.

Just wanted to run it by you first.

What I don't like is that they will pollute the Candidates page throughout the tournament. If I've contributed to that, I regret it.

Just ragging-I do it all the time. A typist I am not.

Congratulations on winning the bet. :-)