|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-01-14
 | | scutigera: After this game, Spassky lost his touch vs. Tal; the score henceforth is +5=17-0 in Tal's favor. Interestingly, comments to the two games before this last game of the match claimed that each of those was Spassky's last victory over Tal, but until now, no one has mentioned here that this one was. |
|
| Jun-01-14 | | Olavi: The score henceforth is +4-0 in Tal's favour. The 1988 game is 5 minutes. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | A.T PhoneHome: Spassky wins and will play against Tigran Petrosian for the World Championship! I know, I'm 50 years late with this message. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | Petrosianic: <Spassky wins and will play against Tigran Petrosian for the World Championship!> And will never again win a game against Tal. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | A.T PhoneHome: Mikhail Tal was so strong even up to the 80's. Wasn't he ranked #2 briefly behind Karpov? |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | Petrosianic: He and Karpov were #2 in December 1973, I remember that (Mainly because Chess Life & Review published the rating list on the cover of their magazine that month!) Not sure about the 80's. Maybe. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | Nerwal: Tal was number 2 on the 1980 list (a remarkable one; only one active player of the Top 10 besides Karpov was born in the 50s). He was still number 6-8 in january 1988, aged 51. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | A.T PhoneHome: Remarkable feat... And you know, it would be too easy to say about him that "he was so good only because he played so odd moves". Tal must have had a solid feeling for positions to play such moves to begin with. I guess that same feeling enabled him to "tone" down his style as he aged. Thanks for answering my question <Petrosianic> and <Nerwal>! |
|
Apr-09-15
 | | keypusher: Of course Tal was up and down...you could find a lot of lists where he was lower. <Tal was number 2 on the 1980 list (a remarkable one; only one active player of the Top 10 besides Karpov was born in the 50s).> The 1920s (Euwe excepted) and the 1960s-70s (Karpov excepted) seemed to be really awful for the development of young talent. World War I is an obvious explanation for the 20s, but I don't understand the 60s and 70s. Lasker is famous for being a great old player, and rightly so, but when he won New York 1924 he was facing pretty much the same field he would have faced in 1911 or so. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | A.T PhoneHome: Yeah, Tal had a poor spot around the late 60's, like 1968-1969 if my memory serves me well here. Plus other spots where he wasn't in top 5 or so which is nothing odd. As for 1960's-70's, Korchnoi was reborn in the early 70's; very tough customer. You can find similarities in his and Fischer's willpower. I may be wrong here but I wondered if even Soviet Union didn't come up with many new strong players because after Fischer won, players may have been less well-paid and so. Just speculating but I had in mind that Soviet government thought that Soviet players got "soft" or something due to losing against American. I always found it funny how Alekhine became extremely good when he was in his forties by the way. |
|
Apr-09-15
| | keypusher: <A.T PhoneHome: ....
As for 1960's-70's, Korchnoi was reborn in the early 70's; very tough customer. You can find similarities in his and Fischer's willpower. I may be wrong here but I wondered if even Soviet Union didn't come up with many new strong players because after Fischer won, players may have been less well-paid and so. Just speculating but I had in mind that Soviet government thought that Soviet players got "soft" or something due to losing against American.>Korchnoi worked hard on his health and his game in the 70s, I understand, but one explanation for his "Renaissance" in the 70s was that the greats of his generation were fading away, and no one (except Karpov) was stepping into their place. I don't think you can "credit" Fischer for the decline, because the USSR was ceasing to produce super-GMs before he won the title...that's why the Soviets were so relieved when Karpov showed up. I think the Soviets viewed Fischer's win partly as a freak occurrence (sort of like the Mule in the Foundation series...you can't plan for everything) and partly as a wake-up call. But even so, after Karpov, you have to wait another dozen years for Kasparov. |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | A.T PhoneHome: You're right, I totally forgot to talk on the 60's as well. But Fischer's victory probably made things a bit harder for Soviet players financially at least. Didn't Soviet government start to take bigger cuts off of players' prizes, reasoning that it was to "improve sports" and "show loyalty" on behalf of the players? And of course Fischer's play had nothing to do with Soviet chess school and new Soviet players (Fischer-Soviet chess connection seems ridiculous when I think about it now) but one can speculate on the "privilege side". I think that when Karpov emerged, he got government behind him very quickly. |
|
Apr-09-15
| | keypusher: <A.T PhoneHome: You're right, I totally forgot to talk on the 60's as well. But Fischer's victory probably made things a bit harder for Soviet players financially at least. Didn't Soviet government start to take bigger cuts off of players' prizes, reasoning that it was to "improve sports" and "show loyalty" on behalf of the players?> Yes, at least according to a Karpov interview I read. But that would only affect players who were already elite. At least theoretically it meant more resources would be ploughed into developing young talent. Maybe it would make chess as a profession less desireable to a budding master, but I think, even with the government taking a big cut, chess had to be one of the more attractive professions available in the USSR (even leaving out of account the fact that in the 70s, Spassky, Korchnoi, and Karpov earned sums that no Soviet GM before them had ever approached). |
|
| Apr-09-15 | | A.T PhoneHome: I think that between 1960-1970 it was harder to find a definitive answer to "Who is the best now?" whereas, when Karpov and Kasparov were at their peak, it was simply between them. Karpov had to live under Fischer's shadow. Fischer declined to play against Karpov yet some conclude that "Fischer didn't play against Karpov, therefore Fischer would beat Karpov with a big margin". I'm glad Karpov dominated the way he did. He didn't need to live under anyone's shadow or succumb to that belief and he knew it. He was a hard worker and modest too. Kasparov on the other hand, was the guy who started to create his own "cult" from early on. He was brash and all. And there you have an interesting World Championship pairing; modest and sedate positional mastermind versus brash and young tactical genius. I simply don't think one can conclude Kasparov was superior to Karpov. Had their 120 WC games been tournament games, no one would necessarily call Kasparov the better player. Kasparov leads in format (3.5-0.5 in matches + one match called off) but cut that into components and you'll have +21 -19 =104 for Kasparov. |
|
| Aug-13-16 | | mandor: Can someone explain the point of Qa8?! |
|
Aug-13-16
 | | perfidious: <mandor: Can someone explain the point of Qa8?!> The reason for this is that, given time, Black is threatening to play ....cxd3, then capture at e4 depending on circumstances. If he can break through on e4, White's attack collapses. |
|
| Mar-14-17 | | Ricosupercapo: Interestingly, this was the last Game Spassky ever won against Tal. After 1965 they met many times and there were 5 decisive Results; all Victories for Tal. |
|
Mar-14-17
| | perfidious: <A.T PhoneHome....I simply don't think one can conclude Kasparov was superior to Karpov. Had their 120 WC games been tournament games, no one would necessarily call Kasparov the better player. Kasparov leads in format (3.5-0.5 in matches + one match called off) but cut that into components and you'll have +21 -19 =104 for Kasparov.> Why ever not?
Dominant as Karpov was during his purple patch, Kasparov's tournament record was still more impressive. If you are referring to lifetime results head to head, <of course> there is no clear superiority--these were two of the very greatest players ever. By an extension of logic, we might infer that Kramnik's plus score over Kasparov made him the stronger player, same as that of Boris Gulko: I have yet to see a coherent argument to that effect for either player which has merit. |
|
| Apr-21-20 | | Agferna: It’s unfair on Karpov to say Kasparov was better. Age difference is 12 years so they are a half generation apart. While Kasparov was growing and on the rise, Karpov was leveling off or declining, due to age alone.
In addition sadly Karpov was victimized by Fischer, deprived of the opportunity to shine and earn the world title in active play. Nobody can deny the chess world was greatly frustrated with this, primarily blaming Karpov. Today we all know better that Karpov was not at fault, for it takes two to tango, and Fischer’s absence cannot be rationalized against Karpov. It’s not clear Karpov had anything to do with the USSR holding Korchnoi’s son, as many conspiracy theories suggest. Finally Karpov was victimized by FIDE in the first match with Kasparov with a bad WC format that went on forever and exacerbated the age and stamina difference.
Given all this Karpov is not liked by many. But I have met Karpov a couple of times and he is a well behaved nice person. He is also a fantastic world champion. Did Kasparov fly higher than Karpov? Maybe slightly, but this does not diminish the great Anatoli Karpov! |
|
Nov-24-20
 | | RadioBoy: If Karpov had put his foot down and demanded that Korchnoi's son be released prior to the match he would have earned the admiration of the entire Western world. If he then had won the world championship he might have survived in the Soviet union. But if he had then lost we never would have heard of him again. After all, Botvinnik and Bronstein were the only two Soviet grandmasters who had the stature to refuse to sign the condemnation letter against Korchnoi. All that being said, I still feel that Karpov's victory was tainted. |
|
Nov-24-20
| | perfidious: <RadioBoy: If Karpov had put his foot down and demanded that Korchnoi's son be released prior to the match he would have earned the admiration of the entire Western world....> One can picture the conversation which would have followed from that with Viktor Baturinsky: AK: I want the son of Viktor Lvovich released before I defend my title against the apostate scum--that way this match is fair. VK: Tolya, you must not be well today. Can you really mean what you say? AK: Colonel, that's how I want it.
VK: You must be mad; this means you give up dacha, nice apartment in Moscow and go to gulag. |
|
| Dec-10-20 | | Ulhumbrus: If 16 Bb3 gives Black a tempo for 16...a5 this suggests 16 a4. |
|
| Aug-20-21 | | Albion 1959: Spassky's last win against Tal. Up to 1965 he had beaten Tal 9 times in 23 games. Then in the next 20 games up to 1989, Spassky failed to beat Tal again, while losing 4 games to Tal ! |
|
| Aug-20-21 | | sudoplatov: 41....Nf2+ seems decisive.
I once read an essay by some Soviet chess writer mentioning that the Soviet system produced great players by giving players opportunity for development; they could learn basics, etc. The article also claimed that the US also created great players seemingly at random. The article listed Morphy, Pillsbury, Marshall, Reshevsky, and Fischer. According to the article, the Soviet Chess Establishment didn't really understand how this happened. (I'd guess the actual players did though.) And what about Petroff, Tchigorin, Alekhin, Bogolubov, Levenfish... |
|
Aug-20-21
 | | harrylime: Some garbage on this thread !
Fischer always loved Tal
Fischer brought down the Commies ....
Some folk need to re read chess history. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
icon.