chess

Chess

Share and you will discover!
Funny name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
peppe_l 217 ( +1 | -1 )
Kasparov on Karpov In a recent chat at playchess.com Kasparov shares interesting views on his rival...

QUESTION FROM CLIFFHANGER: WHICH CHAMPION WAS FURTHEST AHEAD OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

That's a great question. [Thinks for a minute.] There were some short periods in which some were far ahead. Fischer in the early 1970's. Lasker at the end of the 19th century. That was a huge gap. Alekhine in the early 30's. Karpov in the late 70's, if you don't include Fischer, who took himself out of the picture.

In Volume Three I argue that Karpov had a very good chance to beat Fischer in 75. I would even consider Karpov the favorite in 75. He was more flexible, he was from a new generation. Karpov's chess was multifaceted. Fischer would have had a very hard time, and I think Fischer knew that. I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and Spassky.

Fischer was watching. Karpov beat Spassky in a more convincing way than Fischer did in 1972. Spassky played better against Karpov in 1974 than against Fischer in 1972, and he lost 7-4!

QUESTION FROM FREDERIC: DO YOU THINK KARPOV WILL LIKE THE BOOK?

I try to be impartial, but I don't know if Karpov will like the book. It's a deep analysis of his contributions. The section on Karpov is still in production. I'm not sure if we will cut it into two parts. But most of the analysis is done. And I can say that up to 1996 Karpov was at the cutting edge of chess.

QUESTION FROM MIKGUNN: WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH KARPOV NOW?

My relationship with Karpov now is writing about him for the book. I have tapes about him, that's enough!

I look at the key games in a player's career, then analyze them, reach a first draft on the computer. Then I dictate my conclusions into a tape and send it to Plisetsky. He makes corrections on dates, facts, adds anecdotes, etc. and sends it back to me. It's a complex procedure.

Fischer I did last year, more than 50 games. I did some work on this trip to the USA. I do it anywhere. I little analysis here and there. It's ongoing, you can't stop. It's always expanding. At some point I could see this on a DVD or online, so as not to be limited by book size.

parrvert 51 ( +1 | -1 )
Maybe Kasparov is trying to convince people that he is the greatest all of time, afterall he beat Karpov but never played Fischer. I'm not trying to take away from Karpov, he was a great champion but Karpov favourite in 75?

As for: "I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and Spassky."

I think we should remember that Fischer was and still is an irrational, immature and unreasonable man, it is very difficult to predict what he would have done but it's not like he didn't cause any trouble in the '72 match.
peppe_l 100 ( +1 | -1 )
It is interesting Kasparov pretty much refuses to comment on relationship between him and Karpov. I suppose they get along nowadays after they no longer have to face each others in long and bitter matches for the title. As chess players they have always respected each other of course, like Kasparov pointed out in 80s they were the only players who knew what was going on in their games...

That is one reason it will be interesting to see what Kasparov has to say about Karpov and his chess ("deep analysis of his contributions - Kasparov). Ironically, maybe it is his greatest rival who helps him to get the respect he truly deserves...?

Fischer - Karpov 75 match...I refuse to comment on that one because otherwise I will soon be crusified by Fischer fans who consider any suggestion that Fischer might not have won 10-0 a blasphemy or at least bashing Bobby "demi-god" Fischer...

I just copy and paste the comments of Kasparov, who knows a lot more about chess than I do :-)
peppe_l 12 ( +1 | -1 )
The full transcript Can be found from www.chessbase.com BTW

Lots of interesting comments on chess history and players, not to forget his new book of course :-)
parrvert 61 ( +1 | -1 )
. "I just copy and paste the comments of Kasparov, who knows a lot more about chess than I do :-)"

Well I seem to remember a while ago in a discussion about who would win in a Morphy v Capablanca match someone quoted Fischer to back up the case for Morphy and you (rightly in my opinion) pointed out that you can't just accept one person's words as truth, no matter how good they are at chess.

It does sound like a very interesting book, I hope he has looked into the games thoroughly. On the chessbase page a review by a GM was mentioned, does anyone know where I can see it or other reviews of the book?
baseline 52 ( +1 | -1 )
Hi peppe nice to hear from you!

Is there some special reason you decided to share this with your friends here? lol

Fischer would certainly have found Karpov a handful, but on the other hand don't you think Karpov would have found Fischer a more difficult opponent than Korchnoi?

Who has a bigger ego than Kasparov? I always take what he has to say with a grain of salt. There has never been a more self-serving champion than Kasparov.




baseline 34 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe How convient that Kasparov has said something you agree with and you can quote him as someone who know alot more than you about chess.

here is a quote of mine you can use

"Everyone has an axe to grind" - baseline

granted I stole the concept from Ben Franklin who told alittle story about a person with an ullterior motive.
peppe_l 283 ( +1 | -1 )
Replies... "Well I seem to remember a while ago in a discussion about who would win in a Morphy v Capablanca match someone quoted Fischer to back up the case for Morphy and you (rightly in my opinion) pointed out that you can't just accept one person's words as truth, no matter how good they are at chess."

...And I still believe in my statement. Please note I never claimed Kasparov was correct/wrong. I simply copied and pasted his statement. About the discussion you were referring to...there some people failed to realize that the comment by Fischer wasnt meant to be taken LITERALLY.

"Is there some special reason you decided to share this with your friends here? lol"

Yep. Kasparov has mocked Karpov several times in the past plus the fact is so have many chess fans. I find his comments interesting.

"Fischer would certainly have found Karpov a handful, but on the other hand don't you think Karpov would have found Fischer a more difficult opponent than Korchnoi?"

If Fischer 75 was still in top form, defitenitely. I believe Karpov 1974 was better compared to his opponents than mere results show. He beat Spassky 4-1 (plus draws) but played some of the games - including the one he lost - in fever. In Korchnoi match he was leading 3-0 but lost 2 games mainly because of inexperience. Still, he was making heavy progress as a chess player and reached his peak only years later. I have pointed out before that I believe Fischer 72 was stronger than Karpov 75, but the truth is I am too far from champion level :-) Therefore my beliefs are nothing more than my beliefs and naturally I am always ready and willing to change them to one direction or another if someone who knows better proves me wrong. Nothing is more idiotic than a patzer like me stating "I say player A was stronger than player B no matter what people who know more than me think"...

"Who has a bigger ego than Kasparov? I always take what he has to say with a grain of salt. There has never been a more self-serving champion than Kasparov."

To give you an example it is true his comments about politics and history often make very little sense (remember his claim that ancient Rome never existed?), but when he talks about chess - leaving conspiracy theories and all the other stuff out - his comments usually have high value IMO.

"How convient that Kasparov has said something you agree with and you can quote him as someone who know alot more than you about chess."

Even when he says things I disagree with I still cant claim he DOESNT know more about chess than I do :-)

"Everyone has an axe to grind"

Speaking of convenience...






superblunder 16 ( +1 | -1 )
good topic. Thanks for posting this, peppe_l. I may just buy Kasparov's new book, it looks interesting.
baseline 47 ( +1 | -1 )
yes "every one has an axe to grind" and no matter how sharp that axe gets it will never be sharp enough to change history. Lasker never played a match against Rubenstein, Nimzovitch never got his match against Alekhine, Keres never got his chance to play Alekhine. Capablanca never got his return match. and because they never happened we can never know for sure what the result would have been and no amount of debate can ever create a result.
peppe_l 21 ( +1 | -1 )
Correct I believe I too have tried to point this out in several threads.

I just thought since there have been millions of Fischer, Tal and Morphy threads I guess Karpov deserves at least one :-)
baseline 13 ( +1 | -1 )
Why not! and Why not a thread on :

Baron von Heydebrand und der Lasa? or
Louis Paulsen or
William Steinitz
Siegbert Tarrasch or
Arvo Matti Myllyniemi


peppe_l 93 ( +1 | -1 )
No need for sarcasm Although it is true chess public IS forgetting some of the greatest players in history - namely positional players like Smyslov, Petrosian etc. The rule from times of romantic era of chess is still more or less true - "no sacs, no fame"

Karpov may not be the most underrated champ ever but even you must agree the amount of Karpov threads here is nonexistent compared to the amount of Fischer and Tal threads. I may be wrong but I do believe he is sometimes overlooked because of his positional style, or perhaps even because of his personality or political background...?

But then again I have to admit sometimes I get the feeling that chess public wants everything to follow the formula <1.e4 c5 -> Dragon/Najdorf -> sharp attack -> decisive result> Maybe I am wrong. At least here at GK I dont see the usual "Karpov is boring!" all the time :-)

Anyway...

I am looking forward reading your thread on Arvo Matti Myllyniemi :-)
zeroscape 77 ( +1 | -1 )
a book on karpov hi 2 all !

of all the chess champions' playing styles, it is karpov's that i really would like to emulate. he is practical, efficient, and precise. his play may seem boring to many, but when you read his analyses, you will see that his chess is actually very exciting .

now, here is what i propose : all who like karpov's chess can pool their talents and resources and write the book : KARPOV IN THE EYES OF A REGULAR GUY .

the contributors must submit games and his/her own analyses, and possibly the contributor's game(s) which have some elements learned or derived from karpov's games.

also, maybe some anecdotes and trivia n karpov.

wouldn't this be great !

ok! i am in ! who else would like to participate ? we can talk about profit-sharing later .

zero
calmrolfe 62 ( +1 | -1 )
Karpov is pretty cool I have five books covering Karpov’s games, I am sure I could find at least one interesting game to annotate from that little lot !!
;0)

Karpov – Korchnoi by Bill Hartston

Karpov – Kasparov 2 by Raymond Keene

Karpov – Kasparov 3 by Raymond Keene

Battle of the Titans, Kasparov v Karpov by Raymond Keene

The best of Karpov by P R Markland

Hmmm....not too sure about that last one. Perhaps it could have been re-named "How I nearly beat Karpov.....if only I hadn't lost my Queen, two rooks and a Knight !!"

Kind regards,

Cal
peppe_l 102 ( +1 | -1 )
How Karpov Wins By Edmar Mednis is very good book on Karpov. It has all Karpov wins (93 in total) from 71 Alekhine Memorial to 74 Candidates Final (plus second edition has 7 extra games from period after 74). The notes by Mednis are both interesting and instructive, more focused on plans than mazes of variations. Also he covers various aspects of chess game like competition, psychology...Basically you get 100 annotated games, a "thesis" of how Karpov REALLY wins (in reality not all games are perfect masterpieces you find from Best Games books) and a story of how Karpov became top player and eventually world champion.

The book has 400+ pages and I believe you can still find it for a bargain price.

The only flaw of the book is descriptive notation, but you can get used to it quite easily.

This gem may not have his absolutely best games, but it is hard to imagine a book that explains the style of early Karpov better than this one.

To everyone : buy this book and I promise you will learn I lot!
peppe_l 306 ( +1 | -1 )
Zeroscape Nice idea! The difficulty is Im not sure has there ever been a player as difficult to understand as Karpov. It is always easier to analyze & evaluate sacrifices and combinations where you can concentrate on forced lines. For example the games of Tal are easier to understand because you see immediately what is happening - he is going for the king and it is the brilliant execution of a straight-forward plan that makes the game so great (of course I am talking about more or less typical Tal game, naturally he scored many wins via positional play or endgames as well). But why not give it a try anyway? :-)

To others,

Here are 4 example games of Karpov...



Typical Karpov squeeze - he gets slight initiative out of the opening and keeps its till the end despite of several exchanges. This game also decided 1981 Merano championship match.

Karpov, Anatoli - Kortchnoi, Viktor
Merano 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4 11.Bxe6 Nxe6 12.cxd4 Ncxd4 13.a4 Be7 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Ne4 Ne6 16.Be3 0-0 17.f4 Qxd1 18.Rfxd1 Rfb8 19.Rd7 Bf8 20.f5 Nd8 21.a5 Nc6 22.e6 fxe6 23.f6 Ne5 24.Rxc7 Rc8 25.Rac1 Rxc7 26.Rxc7 Rd8 27.h3 h6 28.Ra7 Nc4 29.Bb6 Rb8 30.Bc5 Bxc5+ 31.Nxc5 gxf6 32.b4 Rd8 33.Rxa6 Kf7 34.Ra7+ Kg6 35.Rd7 Re8 36.a6 Ra8 37.Rb7 Kf5 38.Rxb5 Ke5 39.Rb7 Kd5 40.Rf7 f5 41.Rf6 e5 1-0

Look at the position after move 16. You have no lesser guy than Garry Kasparov playing black, surely quick draw must be the result? not if your name is Anatoly Karpov! :-) He finds a way to snatch a pawn but the stiff resistance by Kasparov forces him to play a masterful endgame.

Karpov Anatoli - Kasparov Garry
Moscow 1984

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.e3 0-0 8.Qc2 c5 9.dxc5 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Qa5 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 Qxc3 13.bxc3 Nd7 14.c6 bxc6 15.Rab1 Nb6 16.Be2 c5 17.Rfc1 Bb7 18.Kf1 Bd5 19.Rb5 Nd7 20.Ra5 Rfb8 21.c4 Bc6 22.Ne1 Rb4 23.Bd1 Rb7 24.f3 Rd8 25.Nd3 g5 26.Bb3 Kf8 27.Nxc5 Nxc5 28.Rxc5 Rd6 29.Ke2 Ke7 30.Rd1 Rxd1 31.Kxd1 Kd6 32.Ra5 f5 33.Ke2 h5 34.e4 fxe4 35.fxe4 Bxe4 36.Rxg5 Bf5 37.Ke3 h4 38.Kd4 e5+ 39.Kc3 Bb1 40.a3 Re7 41.Rg4 h3 42.g3 Re8 43.Rg7 Rf8 44.Rxa7 Rf2 45.Kb4 Rxh2 46.c5+ Kc6 47.Ba4+ Kd5 48.Rd7+ Ke4 49.c6 Rb2+ 50.Ka5 Rb8 51.c7 Rc8 52.Kb6 Ke3 53.Bc6 h2 54.g4 Rh8 55.Rd1 Ba2 56.Re1+ Kf4 57.Re4+ Kg3 58.Rxe5 Kxg4 59.Re2 1-0

Here is one Karpov classic where it seems clear he attacks on kingside and lets black dominate queenside. But what happens? And how about his famous queen maneuvres? It may look like he is merely moving back and forth, but that is not the case...

Karpov, Anatoli - Kamsky, Gata
Moscow 1992

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 d5 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Ne5 e6 9.0-0 Nfd7 10.f4 Nc6 11.Be3 Nb6 12.Bf2 Bd7 13.e4 Ne7 14.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.e5 Rac8 16.Rc1 a6 17.b3 Rc7 18.Qd2 Rfc8 19.g4 Bf8 20.Qe3 Nc6 21.f5 Ba3 22.Rcd1 Nb4 23.Qh6 Qe8 24.Nb1 Bb2 25.Qd2 Nc2 26.Kh1 Qe7 27.Bg1 Nd7 28.Rf3 Qb4 29.Qh6 Qf8 30.Qg5 Qg7 31.Qd2 b6 32.Rdf1 a5 33.h4 Nb4 34.a3 Rc2 35.Qf4 Nc6 36.Bh3 Nd8 37.Be3 b5 38.R3f2 b4 39.axb4 axb4 40.Rxc2 Rxc2 41.Rf2 Rxf2 42.Qxf2 Ba3 43.Qc2 Nxe5 44.dxe5 Qxe5 45.Qc8 Qe4+ 46.Bg2 Qxb1+ 47.Kh2 Bb2 48.Qxd8+ Kg7 49.f6+ Bxf6 50.Bh6+ Kxh6 51.Qxf6 Qc2 52.g5+ Kh5 53.Kg3 Qc7+ 54.Kh3 1-0

The last one may look like a strange choice - it is not really a typical Karpov game and possibly not even his best game in Linares Super GM tournament 1994, where he finished undefeated 21/2 points ahead of second place finishers, Kasparov and Shirov. His performance rating was almost 3000! So, why this game? Because it shows great positional players are not lousy tacticians, plus its a good example of Karpov accepting the challenge of new generation.

Karpov, Anatoli - Topalov, Veselin
Linares 1994

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Bc5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.e3 Nxf4 12.exf4 Bd7 13.Qd2 Qb8 14.Rfe1 g6 15.h4 a6 16.h5 b5 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Nc5 dxc5 19.Qxd7 Rc8 20.Rxe6 Ra7 21.Rxg6+ fxg6 22.Qe6+ Kg7 23.Bxc6 Rd8 24.cxb5 Bf6 25.Ne4 Bd4 26.bxa6 Qb6 27.Rd1 Qxa6 28.Rxd4 Rxd4 29.Qf6+ Kg8 30.Qxg6+ Kf8 31.Qe8+ Kg7 32.Qe5+ Kg8 33.Nf6+ Kf7 34.Be8+ Kf8 35.Qxc5+ Qd6 36.Qxa7 Qxf6 37.Bh5 Rd2 38.b3 Rb2 39.Kg2 1-0



Hope you enjoyed the games!