< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 213 OF 213 ·
|Dec-30-12|| ||drik: <<Would Hubner have been able to play at that level at 61? Where was he in 2008?> Who knows...>|
With respect, I was comparing him with Smyslov's performance in reaching the Candidates final in 1983. Being 6th-10th in the German rankings, is not quite the same as reaching 3rd place in the World Championship qualification cycle.
|Jan-15-13|| ||Everett: How good was Karpov? It is anyone's Gauss...|
|Jan-25-13|| ||Naniwazu: Anatoly Karpov and tobacco..is Karpov a foreign agent? http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...|
|Feb-19-13|| ||tzar: Karpov insists in that the most difficult thing for him in his matches with Kasparov was to find something that Kasparov and his team had not analyzed. To have good seconds and work a lot in preparation is a part of the strenght of a player, but I think what Karpov was claiming is that over the board Kasparov did not show superiority in his matches against him. The very tight score after so many games (21-19=144)and the fact that Kasparov never managed to crush Karpov in any of the matches seems to back his claim...In some of the matches, what many people consider to be a supreme psychologic edge of Kasparov in the crucial moments was probably just better luck or simply that one of them had to win...although in my opinion in 1990 Kasparov showed a slight superiority...but also because of better preparation and mistakes by Karpov' team.|
|Feb-19-13|| ||Eyal: <Karpov insists in that the most difficult thing for him in his matches with Kasparov was to find something that Kasparov and his team had not analyzed. To have good seconds and work a lot in preparation is a part of the strength of a player, but I think what Karpov was claiming is that over the board Kasparov did not show superiority in his matches against him.>|
Kasparov, on the other hand, claimed - not surprisingly - the exact opposite on several occasions... For example, here is part of his notes to game 17 of the 1986 match (Karpov vs Kasparov, 1986):
<"This short game is a classic example of a battle decided entirely during home preparation," Karpov proudly writes in his book of best games. [here comes a lengthy quote of what Karpov says about the key novelty of that game – 14.h3! – compared to game 15 of the same match] This is a noteworthy fact: Karpov himself admits that he won this game thanks to home preparation. Just as in the 5th and, to a considerable degree, the 19th. I must once again remind you that genuine novelties were employed in this match only by my opponent, as if dispelling the myth about Kasparov the "opening expert." Strangely enough, in this, my best of the five matches with Karpov, I did not win a single game out of the opening! Moreover, I myself was literally bombarded with opening "bombs." But Karpov was let down by the fact that when playing Black his "bombs" missed their target: in the 4th, 8th, 14th and 16th games, and also in the tragic (for me) 18th game (as well as in the triumphal 22nd) I outplayed him in a complicated middlegame. And I won the match thanks to my enormous playing advantage at the board, rather than home preparation.> (from "Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part Three: Kasparov v Karpov 1986-1987")
|Feb-20-13|| ||Shams: <Eyal> Interesting. What's your verdict, may I ask? The few games that are coming to my mind would tend to bear out Kasparov's version of events.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||tzar: Kasparov has the tendency of praising the games in which he uses his home preparation claiming that his preparation was excellent and he even found some new moves over the board (game 16 of the 1985 match is a clear example), and looking down on games that his oponents win due to home preparation pointing out that it was a clear preparation by his oponent.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||tzar: But it is fair to notice that his home preparation was always outstanding and that most of the work was done by Kasparov himself.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||FSR: Does anyone else remember those incredibly biased articles by Lev Alburt in Chess Life? Before every Karpov-Kasparov match he would say that Kasparov has gotten much stronger since their last match, is significantly higher-rated, and that this time he would pummel Karpov. Never happened. Kasparov's 13-11 result in 1985 was the only time that he even scored +2.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||tzar: <Eyal:> This comment by Kasparov is really surprising if we consider that he fired Vladimirov accusing him of selling his preparation to Karpov and that his <enormous playing advantage at the board> only brought him a +1 score. I think that what he calls "Karpov's novelties and preparation" is referring to the fact that in at least some games Karpov was reacting with extreme precision over the board to his own prepared strategies, so well that he could not accept that it was only due to the skills of his oponent.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||Everett: <tzar: But it is fair to notice that his home preparation was always outstanding and that most of the work was done by <Kasparov himself.>>|
Are we sure about most of the work done by Kasparov himself?
One thing I can guess/assume; Kasparov likely checked his seconds' work and expanded on it more than Karpov. Or not. I have no idea, really.
As far as what Kasparov says, about anything really, he can be speaking the complete truth but because of his ego and desire for self-aggrandizement, it is hard to trust it.
Finally, with or without opening prep, Karpov and Kasparov were absolute monsters throughout the rest of the game, and this is the true reason why they are rightfully considered the greatest of all-time. Karpov in particular, as an "old" man from '91-'96, played nearly the same openings with no special TNs and by and large beat everyone save Kasparov during that time.
|Feb-20-13|| ||Eyal: <Shams> I think that overall Kasparov is exaggerating, but still there’s definitely a grain of truth in what he says. I’ll give you my impressions of the decisive games in this match, after reading Kasparov’s notes. |
Game 5 was truly a dramatic failure of preparation on his part: he played quickly and confidently straight into an endgame which he suddenly realized was losing (or at least very close to that) for him. Game 17 was also won by Karpov mainly due to the prep factor – Kasparov repeated (rather naively, in retrospect) the line played on game 15 and was hit by a very strong novelty. In game 19 there doesn’t seem to be anything dramatically related to preparation – Kasparov just got outplayed over the board. In (the "tragic") game 18 Kasparov really played the middlegame superbly up to a certain point – it could have been one of his greatest games – but then, in a winning position, he made two consecutive mistakes in time trouble and the tables were turned (which is also part of the middlegame, of course).
Now to the games that Kasparov won – in games 8, 14 & 16 it seems that Kasparov had some great ideas prepared in the lines played, but Karpov managed to sidestep them every time and surprise Kasparov, so that the latter eventually had to rely mostly on his own resources otb. With regard to games 4 & 22, according to Kasparov’s own description he actually did manage to get an advantage out of the opening – not decisive or dramatic as what Karpov got in games 5 & 17, but still a definite edge that he could work with (and indeed managed to convert with excellent play). The thing is that later there were some improvements found (12…Qc7 instead Bd7 in game 4, 18…Qd7 instead of Nd7 in game 22) that made these lines, in his opinion, not dangerous for Black.
|Feb-20-13|| ||Eyal: <tzar: <Eyal:> This comment by Kasparov is really surprising if we consider that he fired Vladimirov accusing him of selling his preparation to Karpov and that his <enormous playing advantage at the board> only brought him a +1 score.>|
Well, the case he’s trying to make is that Karpov’s successes in that match were mostly due to preparation (whether original or leaked) and his that own successes were mostly due to middlegame prowess. As I’ve tried to explain in my previous post, I think his descritpion is exaggerated, but I also think that what you quoted Karpov as saying (I haven’t read the original) is exaggerated from the other direction. There's no shortage of examples of Karpov utilizing superb opening prep against Kasparov, on the one hand, and of being outplayed by him in middlegame terms, on the other. Basically, I'd say that with this kind of generalizations both K.s are trying, to one extent or another, to glorify themselves and belittle the other.
Btw, I’ve once posted another lengthy quote from Kasparov's book about the reasons for his suspicions of Vladimirov (or, more generally, that someone was leaking information to Karpov about his opening preparation) - in Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Rematch (1986). It had to do not only with his impression that Karpov was correctly predicting all of his opening choices and coming up with good ideas against them, but also with Karpov supposedly making again and again exactly the same mistakes as Kasparov and his team in evaluating some of these lines (such as the Nimzo-Indian one in game 4).
|Feb-20-13|| ||tzar: <Eyal> I haven't read the books u quoted and therefore you have more information on the subject, but it seems really odd that Karpov will risk his reputation, prize money for the event and who knows if his whole chess career by being involved in something so serious as buying Kasparov's team analysis. Life is full of surprises but Karpov does not seem to be this kind of guy.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||Eyal: <but it seems really odd that Karpov will risk his reputation, prize money for the event and who knows if his whole chess career by being involved in something so serious as buying Kasparov's team analysis.>|
Just to be clear - on this matter I feel very much the same way and find it hard to believe Karpov would do such a thing; I don't claim that Kasparov "proved" anything. But I still think what he wrote about it makes for an interesting read...
|Feb-20-13|| ||diceman: <Eyal: It had to do not only with his impression that Karpov was correctly predicting all of his opening choices and coming up with good ideas against them>|
Wow, Karpov was just like Deep Blue.
|Feb-20-13|| ||nok: <Kasparov's 13-11 result in 1985 was the only time that he even scored +2.>
And that only because Karpov declined the repetition in the last game.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||Eyal: <<Kasparov's 13-11 result in 1985 was the only time that he even scored +2.> And that only because Karpov declined the repetition in the last game.>|
Well, this is pretty much "balanced" by Kasparov not finishing with +2 in 1990 only because he didn't bother to play for a win in a hugely advantageous position in the last game but offered a draw, since he was winning the match anyway.
|Feb-20-13|| ||perfidious: <Eyal> Quite so, in the same fashion that Euwe (Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935) and Karpov (Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1974) could well have won by that same margin, but did not.|
|Feb-20-13|| ||tzar: This is one of the only few quotes by Kasparov that I know which is clearly a tribute to Karpov without claiming indirectly that he was better than him: "Karpov had the psychological greatness of Lasker, the purity of Capablanca and the ruthlessness of Botvinnik(...)and his record has problably no comparison in chess history". Beautiful words...|
|Feb-21-13|| ||Everett: Thanks <Eyal> for all of your work. Much appreciated.|
|Mar-02-13|| ||tzar: <Eyal: Well, this is pretty much "balanced" by Kasparov not finishing with +2 in 1990 only because he didn't bother to play for a win in a hugely advantageous position in the last game but offered a draw, since he was winning the match anyway.>|
You are absolutely right, but interestingly enough Karpov almost managed to draw the 1990 match. In the last game he had a 75% winning position (in Kasparov's own words) but he missed a simple way to win and in the end it was Kasparov who had the winning position.
|Mar-02-13|| ||FadeThePublic: Those matches were great, remember buying the USA Today every day at U of M to look at the back of the sports pages in class to check out the position and later play over the game, seems like yesterday :)|
|Mar-19-13|| ||The Rocket: Karpov in positonal maneuvering was phenomenal, not as universal as Kasparov, and of course Kasparov scored better tournament performances over Karpov in the 80s and 90s(apart from karpovs linaries win), so regardless of their close encounters, Kasparov was a worthy champion.|
Karpov is also a very enjoyable chess commentator, very laidback and funny. I like his annonations very much, usually on the right track when evaluating positions.
|May-09-13|| ||RookFile: I absolutely love listening to Karpov annotate chess positions and always learn a lot.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 213 OF 213 ·