|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-27-12 | | Conrad93: Why wouldn't he be? 32 games is average for a WC match. 50-65 is not. Karpov lost 22 pounds during the match, and Kasparov was in perfect condition. Anyways, he led by 5-0 until this point.
It simply proves that he's vastly superior. |
|
| Dec-27-12 | | Jim Bartle: "It simply proves that he's vastly superior."
...which he proved later that year by defeating Kasparov emphatically in the next match. |
|
| Dec-28-12 | | Conrad93: The next match was also made too long.
If the game consisted of only 32-35 rounds, Kasparov would be a nobody by now. |
|
| Dec-31-12 | | Jim Bartle: "The next match was also made too long."
The second match was 24 games. |
|
| Jan-05-13 | | Conrad93: Look at the results. Karpov was crushing until he hit exhaustion. Kasparov, on the other hand, was young and healthy. |
|
| Jan-05-13 | | Jim Bartle: The result was that they played a shorter match later in 1985, and Kasparov won. |
|
| Aug-20-14 | | coldsweat: I feel that Anatoly's 33...Qc1 was a mistake -- it was too early to begin a mate sequence. All he accomplished in the next couple of moves was to give the opposing king an opportunity to improve his position.
When he finally got back to business -- capturing white's a3 pawn -- he was at a positional disadvantage.
To me, this shows him already being affected by fatigue, and underscores the anti-progressive effect of having rules which encourage draws. |
|
| Nov-15-14 | | thegoodanarchist: <Conrad93: The next match was also made too long. If the game consisted of only 32-35 rounds, Kasparov would be a nobody by now.> Crazy talk. Karpov never won a match against Kasparov. |
|
| Dec-01-14 | | yurikvelo: http://pastebin.com/xrMWu8BN
this game multiPV by Stockfish |
|
| Dec-02-14 | | yurikvelo: <What a strange comment. 11...g5?! would weaken the kingside even more, and after 12.Be3 h5?? loses to 13.Nxg5!> +0.27: 11...g5 12.Bd2 Qe7 13.Bh3 Qe4 14.Bf5 Qxc2
+0.39: 11...g6 12.h4 Rc8 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Qd1 b5 |
|
| Dec-02-14 | | yurikvelo: SUMMARY OF BAD MOVES SORTED BY DROP vs BEST MOVE
Kasparov
-2,39 23.g7
-0,89 40.g4
-0,21 24.Bxb7
-0,15 13.Bg2
-0,11 11.g3
-0,07 6.cxd5
-0,06 7.Qc2
Karpov
-2,88 40...b4
-0,95 39...b5
-0,41 7...Nd7
-0,38 21...Nxc5
-0,22 23...Bxg7
-0,18 12...Qe7
-0,10 28...Ne6
-0,08 11...g6 |
|
| Dec-02-14 | | Jim Bartle: <Conrad93: The next match was also made too long. If the game consisted of only 32-35 rounds, Kasparov would be a nobody by now.> This is a silly comment for two reasons.
First, if the first match had been 32-35 games Kasparov clearly would have played differently. You can't just assume the games would have played out the same way. Second, say he had lost the first match to Karpov. Why would he then have disappeared, rather than come back to challenge again? He certainly showed he could defeat Karpov (though with difficulty) in future matches. |
|
| Dec-02-14 | | Petrosianic: <First, if the first match had been 32-35 games Kasparov clearly would have played differently.> Right. Kasparov had begun playing for short draws by Game 10. In a Limited Match, the player who's trailing never does that. |
|
| Dec-02-14 | | Shams: <Kasparov had begun playing for short draws by Game 10. In a Limited Match, the player who's trailing never does that.> Right. He waits until Round 13. :)
Kasparov vs Kramnik, 2000 |
|
Dec-02-14
 | | perfidious: <Right. Kasparov had begun playing for short draws by Game 10. In a Limited Match, the player who's trailing never does that.> That is true--when the player is actually trying, as opposed to what went in Botvinnik-Petrosian 1963, when the titleholder was content to limp into the sunset with three tepid non-efforts at the close. |
|
Dec-02-14
| | perfidious: In re <Shams>' kibitz, that whole match was odd: Kasparov indulged himself in several short draws as White, as Black mixing in such openings as the Nimzo-Indian and QGA, which were otherwise uncommon or nonexistent in his praxis. In retrospect, it is as though he was psychologically beaten before the first pawn was pushed in anger. |
|
| Dec-02-14 | | Jim Bartle: I thought people said the key to that match was Kasparov's inability to win against the Berlin defense. |
|
Dec-02-14
| | perfidious: <Jim> It is correct that Kasparov failed to make a dent in the Berlin Wall until after the match, but at least he tried in some games, whereas neither Symmetrical English reached move 25 before a peace agreement was signed. All in all, as I said, uncharacteristic of Kasparov--excluding this first match with Karpov--to settle for repeated short draws with any opponent. |
|
| Dec-02-14 | | Jim Bartle: I suggest that Kasparov switched away from e4 because he couldn't dent Kramnik's defense to it. |
|
Dec-02-14
| | perfidious: <Jim> In all likelihood, yes; then he returned after those short efforts in the English, presumably to buy time for his analytical team to work up something against the Berlin. |
|
| Dec-03-14 | | morfishine: Shouldn't this be listed as a "notable game" of the '84 match? Its thrilling enough and what-with it being Kasparov's first victory, it signaled a turnaround in the match |
|
| Jan-16-16 | | Albion 1959: Kasparov's first win against Karpov, at the 43rd attempt !! If you include the simul in 1975 and the three games they played prior to this match: |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | Joker2048: Yes garry ¿¿¿¿
Go on and crush karpov. |
|
| Sep-12-17 | | CMDMB: <Kasparov's first win against Karpov, at the 43rd attempt !! If you include the simul in 1975 and the three games they played prior to this match> Kasparov has described how Karpov was like his teacher in this match. Clearly, Kasparov was outclassed in the beginning. But Kasparov learned, and he became stronger than Karpov in the end. He went from elite to #1 because of Karpov, who in a way made Kasparov. Also, re: earlier comments, given that the rules were what they were, Kasparov's endurance was a key factor in his success. This should not be discounted. But as he became stronger, it's clear that he had something else, too, which set him apart. And his reign thereafter is a testament to it. |
|
| Sep-12-17 | | RookFile: Hard to measure these guys. For about 10 years, Karpov won just about everything there was to win. I think that in his case he got bored playing chess. He was still a chess professional, very strong, but not willing to give his whole life to the game any more. If he hadn't lost to Kasparov it would have been to somebody else. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
