|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-28-15
 | | chancho: The worst part of the <St Louis Massacre> is the realization that Nigel Short has been actively playing throughout the years, while Gazza last played Karpov in 2009. Holy Mackerel! |
|
Apr-28-15
 | | tamar: Very impressive display by Kasparov. His fear was that he could not compete in the subtle switch in chess to computer resistant variations, but Short was not the opponent to challenge him there. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | docbenway: Sally Simpson:Kasparov would have racked up roughly the same blitz score against anyone except Carlsen and Nakamura. Who knows but I would bet on Andreikin, Grischuk, Nepo or Savchenko in blitz against Kasparov and I think he intimated as much in his interview without being specific about these particular blitz monsters. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | schweigzwang: Nepo, Savchenko, and Grischuk all mentioned in a sentence about blitz chess always brings a smile to my face. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-39... |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | MagnusVerMagnus: The coverage was great, it made a match of 2 people seem so exciting at that time control. Especially when both are trying to win. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | Shams: <schweigzwang> Funny video. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | HSOL: Watching the games, I thought Short played very far below his current rating. As reference, Short and Kasparov played a 8 game blitz match back in 2011 and Kasparov won 4.5-3.5. I find it very unlikely Kasparov is significantly better after another 3½ years as retired. If I would guess about Kasparov's level in these games, I would say low 2700s (which would still be amazingly good for someone who has been retired for a decade) And given Kasparov has never been known for modesty and being against self-promotion, his post-match interview makes me think I'm not that far off. |
|
Apr-28-15
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi schweigzwang,
Good vid. The old Caro Kann no it's a French Opening. (what ever happened to the touch move no matter who played it rule.) Of course now I'm going to stay awake at night wondering how the Caro Kann player got on in his real game. ---
I know of a case where a player sat down at the wrong board in a tournament game. The lad who should have been sitting there had gone home.
The game went the distance and the lad sitting in the wrong seat lost. Meanwhile about three tables away he also lost on time. Losing two games in the same round - even I've not done that one. ----
Kassparov has to make a come back. If not in 50 years time the lads here will be speculating what would have happened if he had. It will be the Karpov - Fischer non-match all over again. (hence my very slight outrageous post - I'll get quoted in 50 years time!) If you are not going to come out and play again Gary how about another book. 'My Successors' volumes I-III. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | 1d410: <chancho: The worst part of the <St Louis Massacre> is the realization that Nigel Short has been actively playing throughout the years, while Gazza last played Karpov in 2009> World champ is World champ. Doesn't matter how long you haven't been playing. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | Shams: <1d410> I don't know, Karpov has had some pretty poor performances as a former champion. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | 1d410: Yeah, well at least against former contenders for your title :P |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | Octavia: all this talk about humiliation is sooo daft! We're talking about a game. So what if one person is much better at it than any other? On the other hand to become proficient at it takes as long as it takes to learn a profession. However in ANY profession people don't retire in their 30s! There is definitely something wrong with agism in chess. But look what happens when the top players retire: both Kasparov & Fischer made fools of themselves! Chess won't come of age until people show that you can play well when you're old - Anand is well on his way to prove it & if Short can get his act together he can help him in this venture! |
|
Apr-29-15
 | | Fusilli: <Octavia> <both Kasparov & Fischer made fools of themselves!> What do you mean? How did Kasparov make a fool of himself? Are you referring to his attempts at winning the FIDE presidency? I think GK retired, simply put, because he was defeated and couldn't stand it. He wanted to be world champion or nothing. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | john barleycorn: <Fusili> I think the "fool" part started with his run for president of Russia and presenting himself (a bolchewiki of the clearest water, imo) as a true democrat and freedom fighter |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | Nerwal: <HSOL: Watching the games, I thought Short played very far below his current rating. > Short indeed played very badly in this match, especially in day 2 when he just collapsed and played some moves just impossible to explain, even in positions which were fine for him (eg 31. h5 in game 2, 22. b4 in game 8, 20... h5, 23... ♖8b7 and 24... ♘a5 in game 9, 16. dxc5 and 21. ♘c2 in game 10). It was very entertaining to watch Kasparov attack and he certainly had fun but he was quite objective about the accuracy of his chess. It's not clear how he would fare against stronger opposition, but for sure against a Carlsen ready to punish any small mistake it would be a completely different story. Yet Kasparov could probably come back and be a permanent top 15 player with some adjustement and dedication. Tal and Korchnoi were still top 10 at +50 in the 80s, so it's far from impossible. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | denopac: In his interview with Ashley after day two Short himself mentioned his lack of energy during the match, especially on the second day. The Bangkok Chess Club Open had finished on 19 April, and the match against Kasparov in St. Louis, twelve times zones away, started six days later. That's a pretty brutal schedule, especially against someone who plays with an much energy as does Kasparov. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | john barleycorn: <denopac> yes, it is a pretty brutal schedule. But it did not come as a surprise, did it? Idiotic excuse from Mr. Short. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | maelith: <john barleycorn: <denopac> yes, it is a pretty brutal schedule. But it did not come as a surprise, did it? Idiotic excuse from Mr. Short.> Considering that Kasparov is inactive for many years now,yeah just a poor excuse by Short. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | denopac: <john barleycorn> Of course you're right. Nigel said he gave them two dates from which to choose; he preferred the other but they wanted this one and he went along. He is a professional chess player after all and does not make money by not playing. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | 1971: Kasparov came out guns blazing. Played like if he had a point to prove. I'm not going to lie, I'm a big fan of these massacres, I love to see great players flex and totally dominate their competition. If only we could have a tournament with all of history greatest players in their prime. Quadruple round robin and World Cup style. Alas. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | JamTin: If Short's comments were true, that on both days he had not been able to sleep since 2.30-3am, then we have to accept that is likely to have had some impact on his play. Not sure how Kasparov's schedule compared. I am sure Kasparov would have had a clear triumph in any case. If I was a billionaire then I would happily put up 10 million dollars for a Kasparov-Carlsen match (split 65:35 to the winner), with the proviso that Kasparov must prepare on a full time basis for at least 3 months before the game. |
|
Apr-29-15
| | chancho: Kasparov knows he does not have a chance against Carlsen. Heck, if he played Anand in a match now, I think he would lose that one too. Kasparov is no fool.
The guy is 52 years old.
It's not realistic to see him come back and play like the Gazza of old. This match against Short only showed he can still beat Short at rapid and blitz. If there's one rapid/blitz match I'd like to see him play, it's against Kramnik. He lost to Vlad without winning a game in 2000.
Surely he would be motivated for some payback.
But even there he probably loses.
Let the man enjoy his legacy.
He has nothing to prove. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | Sokrates: <chancho: ... He lost to Vlad without winning a game in 2000. > Unfortunately, yes. Too stubbornly he wanted to break Kramnik's Berlin. IMO he was victim to his own vanity and false pride. Kramnik cleverly exploited that, but afterwards he failed to confirm his supremacy as the world champion. He kept the title far too long. |
|
| Apr-29-15 | | metatron2: <chanco: Heck, if he played Anand in a match now, I think he would lose that one too. [..] If there's one rapid/blitz match I'd like to see him play, it's against Kramnik. [..] But even there he probably loses.> Quite a strange estimation here chanco. You evaluate Kasparov's chances vs Anand to be lower than his chances vs Kramnik ? Anand has always been Kasparov's client. Kasparov beat him left and right over and over again, while Kramnik has always been a very tough opponent for Kasparov. Those kind of things don't tend to change over time, since they are based on playing style, psychological issues, weaknesses vs strengths in specific fields, etc. I can hardly see a 52 yo retired Kasparov, beating his long time arch-nemesis Kramnik, who is not even 40 yo and still active. Kasparov vs Anand today? I don't know. Anand is not young either. It is true that he is still very active and has been playing quite well lately, so he might have a better chances there. But if Kasparov made a real comeback now, then in 8-12 months I would have put my money on Kasparov in such a match. Kasparov vs Carlsen today is a fantasy. Kasparov can't really have a chance today. Even at Kasparov's prime, Carlsen of today would have been an extremely tough opponent for him. I would have still put my money on Kasparov there, but it would have been close. In any case, Kasparov really played great here. Certainly giving lots of appetite to see him play more. Much more. I hope he'll start playing blitz/rapid tourneys/matches on regular bases now for the next 4-5 yrs, since after that, it will probably be too late for him (and for us..). |
|
Apr-29-15
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Sokrates,
"...he wanted to break Kramnik's Berlin. IMO he was victim to his own vanity and false pride. " No problem with anyone's opinion however it's was probably more to do with Kramnik knowing his man. Kramnik was on Kasparov's backroom team in the Anand WC match so he had insder knowledge on what made Gary tick and what he would be looking for. The Berlin was a perfect discovery. It's anti Kasparov's style and suited Kramnik's. The four Berlin's (all drawn) blunted Kasparov's White's. What ever prep Kasparov's team had then Kramnik neatly side-stepped it. The first was an OTB surprise.
The second was a challenge to see what his team had come up with...Not much. Gary laid of 1.e4 for a few games, then banged his head against the wall again. By this time it was obvious we were seeing some very uncharacteristic Kasparov match play (an 11 move draw with White in an English when 1-0 down?) The last Berlin when Gary was 2-0 down was that 14 move draw. No trying to refute that one was part of the plan. A mind game?
Luring Kramnik into thinking the match was over and fight like a rat in the next game, win it (and he nearly did) and a demoralised Kramnik would lose the next game as well. The plan failed.
Anyway this was not a real World Championship match.
Kasparov lost his title to Deep Blue so the real World Champion is the janitor chappie who plugged Deep Blue into the electric socket. We have to find him and organise a match v Carlsen. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
