Aggressive positional play
Neil Coward
"He often finished off his masterpieces with attractive sacrificial
combinations, but aggressive positional play became the basis of his game"
What is aggressive positional play?
Is there anyone else who played 'aggessive positional' chess
and can you direct me to any example games?
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
(In general "agressive positional play sounds
like oxymoron :-)
Kotov at the start of his 2-volume work on
Alechine has answered your question. Alechine
believed in the classical, Stenitz teaching,
didn't care much for hypermodern chess.
His "positional aggressivness" amounted to
being alert to opening deviations from the healthy
path by his opponents. Then Alechine would play
verty aggressively to make them pay for their
error. His play looked on such occasions unortodox
but Kotov explained that it was a logical outcome
of the classical approach. Other players would
let their oponents get away with inaccuracies,
would switch to familiar patterns, thus missing
their chance. But not Alechine.
Regards,
Wlod
Greg Kennedy
Oversimplified...
Alekhine often essayed the Queen's "Indian"
Defense -- so named because, unlike the
hackneyed, classical lines, a Bishop is
fianchettoed and the center pawns are held
back at first. This may seem routine now,
but back then it was considered to be very
modern, or hyper-modern.
The fact that Alekhine never screwed up the
game in quite the same way as Nimzovich,
has led many pundits to proclaim that Aron
was the founder of hypermodern chess. In
reality, he was preceeded by over a half a
century by players such as Owen. Even if we
ignore this fact, others were playing in this
manner around the same time as Nimzo, and
this includes Reti as well as the great master
himself- Alekhine. But Alekhine did not
stick-like-glue to this style of play -- he also
was a virtuoso of classical chess. Tactics?
Alekhine was your man! Position play? Again,
Alex was a master extroadinaire. The
endgame? Ditto.
What is meant by the phrase "aggressive
positional player?" It simply means that a
player is aggressive, but not so aggressive as
to frequently launch unsound attacks, for the
sake of attacking. Tal springs to mind. :-)
An examplea non-aggressive positional player
would be Petrosian. An anti-positional player?
Sam Sloan. ;-)
Jerzy
Greg Kennedy <gm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nq5X8.12936$A43.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> @knossos.btinternet.com>...
> > > A book I'm reading has described Alekhines style as follows:
> > > "He often finished off his masterpieces with attractive sacrificial
> > > combinations, but aggressive positional play became the basis of his
> game"
> > >
> > > What is aggressive positional play?
> > > Is there anyone else who played 'aggessive positional' chess
> > > and can you direct me to any example games?
>
>
> What is meant by the phrase "aggressive
> positional player?" It simply means that a
> player is aggressive, but not so aggressive as
> to frequently launch unsound attacks, for the
> sake of attacking. Tal springs to mind. :-)
> An examplea non-aggressive positional player
> would be Petrosian. An anti-positional player?
> Sam Sloan. ;-)
Looking at his games from World Open Sam plays quite good tactical chess.
Of course 1.g4 is a very funny opening and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 as well ;-)
As far as Petrosian is concerned: he had many sacrifices in his games e.g.
very aggresive positional sacrifices: rooks for bishops or knights. I would
call them Petrosian` sacrifices ;-)
Positional play is very often the opposite of tactical play. Aggresive
positional play according to me combines such sound tactical operations as
mentioned above.
cheers, JC
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> @knossos.btinternet.com>...
I wouildn't be so quick shouting to Kotov:
oversimplification :-)
>
> Alekhine often essayed the Queen's "Indian"
> Defense -- so named because, unlike the
> hackneyed, classical lines, a Bishop is
> fianchettoed and the center pawns are held
> back at first. This may seem routine now,
> but back then it was considered to be very
> modern, or hyper-modern.
>
> The fact that Alekhine never screwed up the
> game in quite the same way as Nimzovich,
> has led many pundits to proclaim that Aron
> was the founder of hypermodern chess.
I never saw such a claim. Only that Nimzovitz
was one of the founders or that he was the leading
one, meaning that of that Reti-Tartakower bunch
he was the strongest player and the most
ambitious as a theoretical writer (Reti and
Tartakower were more like journalists or
even writers but not that much theoreticians).
> In reality, he was preceeded by over a half a
> century by players such as Owen.
Who is Owen?
If one looks back to history of chess then
one will find hypermodern play in the pre-Morphy
time too. But I'd say that the tru forerunner
(precursor) of the hypermodern school was
Chigorin.
> Even if we ignore this fact, others were playing in this
> manner around the same time as Nimzo, and
> this includes Reti as well as the great master
> himself- Alekhine.
Alechine of course was very familiar with
Chigorin games. Somehow he never mentioned
9as long as I know) that he was impressed with
the great Russian master. I think that by being
raised on Chigorin games he was accepting Chigorin's
ideas as natural, something that U don't have
to mention. Young Alechine had no chance against
the positional masters like Lasker and Rubinstein.
But he had easy time against hypermoderns. This
may explain his respect for the Steinitz classical
school.
> But Alekhine did not
> stick-like-glue to this style of play -- he also
> was a virtuoso of classical chess. Tactics?
> Alekhine was your man! Position play? Again,
> Alex was a master extroadinaire.
It didn't come to him naturally. His talent was such
that it required working at chess. He became
a strong positional player around the time when he
seriously started to think about challenging
Capablanca. Alechine kept his newly acquired
positional skills secret until he won his match
against Capablanca.
But he was a born tacticians. Tactics came to
Alechine by itself, naturally. he was not the
only tactical player who improved his results
and chess class in general by absorbing the
principles of sound, positional play.
> The endgame? Ditto.
Again, not right away. But mature Alechine
indeed was also a superb endgame player.
> What is meant by the phrase "aggressive
> positional player?" It simply means that a
> player is aggressive, but not so aggressive as
> to frequently launch unsound attacks, for the
> sake of attacking. Tal springs to mind. :-)
Tal was rather complicating than simply attacking.
Tal was as good positionally as anybody. But his
temperament was something else. And he loved it
when public would sigh loudly "Oh!". In his match
against his nemesis Korchnoi, Tal started in a dry
style and was getting in his first 3-4 games
clear advantage or even won positions. Korcznoi
had to counterattack but there was nothing to
counter and Korchnoi was getting into difficulties.
But Tal's stamina, concentration, health and his
player's heart were not there. Instead of scoring
he lost a game, switched to his usual way which
was no good against Korchnoi, and Tal lost his match.
I have a tremendous respect for Korchnoi but I think
that Tal was still something else, was unique. If
I had to chose one player for the whole period between
the end of WWII and Kasparov, it wouild be no doubt
Tal. No one else have influenced chess during those
decades as Tal did. Then one can mention the B-B
duet: tactical Bronstein and positional Boleslavski.
-- Wlod
Your_Name
> Kotov at the start of his 2-volume work on
> Alechine has answered your question. Alechine
> believed in the classical, Stenitz teaching,
> didn't care much for hypermodern chess.
I am not arguing here, just being curious. Isn't The Alekhine Defence
a very good example of a "hypermodern" defence? Not that that's what
he played all the time but still ...
Greg Kennedy
> Of course 1.g4 is a very funny opening and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 as well ;-)
He is practicing up for his big odds match
with Neil Brennen.
> As far as Petrosian is concerned: he had many sacrifices in his games e.g.
> very aggresive positional sacrifices: rooks for bishops or knights. I
would
> call them Petrosian` sacrifices ;-)
Many beginner books list the values of the
pieces like so:
Q=9
R=5
B=N=3
P=1
Or like this:
Q=10
R=5.5
B=3.5
N=3.2
P=1
Only Petrosian seems to have a different set
of numbers, which gives short shrift to the
Rook, when compared to the Bishop or Knight.
This is why he so often sacrificed the exchange-
because for him, this was not a two-point sac,
but rather a sac of "only" 1 and a half points, so
to speak. Not to say he thought in terms of any
crude beginner's point system, but you get the
point.
> Positional play is very often the opposite of tactical play. Aggresive
> positional play according to me combines such sound tactical operations
as
> mentioned above.
I have quite often been described as a "positional"
player, simply because I do not go miles out of my
way to set cheap traps or to play sharp variations,
the intricasies of which which I have committed to
memory, in advance.
Nevertheless, I have won many a game by simply
taking advantage of a tactical error by my opponent,
and in one such game, I was told afterward by my
opponent, that he lost mainly because he foolishly
went into a tactical type of position. He seemed to
think he could have held his own, if only he hadn't
steered right into the hornet's nest of my awesome
tactical wizardry. LOL! In reality, many players
don't have a clue what they mean when they use
such words.
Max Euwe has been said to have never played an
unsound combination. Does that make him a
tactical player -- via _accuracy_? Or a positional
player, for having never ventured purely speculative
sac's, which are the trademark of the tactician?
Botvinnik once wrote that if Petrosian sac's a piece,
one should decline it. In other words, there is no
real question as to whether or not the "sac" is sound-
it is. Again, accuracy, as opposed to frequency.
If Bottleneck had seen some of my most recent
games, he no doubt would have opined: "If Kennedy
sac's a piece, accept it, for he probably just didn't see
that square was under attack." :-)
Greg Kennedy
> > Alechine has answered your question. Alechine
> > believed in the classical, Stenitz teaching,
> > didn't care much for hypermodern chess.
> I am not arguing here, just being curious. Isn't The Alekhine Defence
> a very good example of a "hypermodern" defence? Not that that's what
> he played all the time but still ...
Be not afraid, even to argue, when the facts
are on your side.
In addition to such hypermodern openings as
the Queen's Indian Defense, Alekhine was also
successful with an opening which was (later)
named after him!
BTW, I think a misconception has resulted
from the fact that Alekhine was particularly
adept at thwomping those players who dared
to experiment with hypermodern openings
_against him_. And not only hypermodern
openings, but any unusual lines or dubious
gambits, were dealt with severely by the
great master. I remember a Budapest gambit
where Alekhine, as White, stomped all over his
hapless opponent, using "active positional play,"
if you will. Far from losing the thread as soon
as the books were left, Alekhine most often
gained the upperhand at such a juncture, vai
his superior understanding of the position.
In the French Defense, Alex went 2-0 against
no less a master than Capablanca -- one game
as White, and one as Black. In the game where
Alex had White, he meticulously avoided
freeing exchanges and left Capa with too many
pieces, and too litle space in which to maneuver
them. In the game where Alekhine had Black,
he spotted tactics which were deeply hidden,
just as one might expect today from a DeepBlue
supercomputer...
Jerzy
> > Looking at his games from World Open Sam plays quite good tactical
chess.
> > Of course 1.g4 is a very funny opening and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 as well ;-)
>
>
> He is practicing up for his big odds match
> with Neil Brennen.
Sorry, I don`t know Neil, but these openings remind me of the well-known
chessmaster Grob ;-)
This is a good explanation of Petrosian` way of thinking.
The value of pieces depend strongly on the type of the position.
Rooks need open lines to be best operative
Bishops need open diagonals, and knights operate best in closed positions
and they need some point of fixation on the chessboard.
So the value of them is a dynamic one and Petrosian knew it perfectly.
>
> > Positional play is very often the opposite of tactical play. Aggresive
> > positional play according to me combines such sound tactical operations
> as
> > mentioned above.
>
>
> I have quite often been described as a "positional"
> player, simply because I do not go miles out of my
> way to set cheap traps or to play sharp variations,
> the intricasies of which which I have committed to
> memory, in advance.
>
Well,a tactical player is usually the player that tries to complicate the
game at any cost to take the advantage of e.g. ability of better calculation
of complicated variations e.t.c.,
a positional player often tries to simplify the position to take the upper
hand from small positional advantages like e.g. more space, better
coordinated pieces, e.t.c.
I would add a description of an endgame player - such a player strives to
the ending at any cost, especially when playing against a good tactician ;-)
> Nevertheless, I have won many a game by simply
> taking advantage of a tactical error by my opponent,
> and in one such game, I was told afterward by my
> opponent, that he lost mainly because he foolishly
> went into a tactical type of position. He seemed to
> think he could have held his own, if only he hadn't
> steered right into the hornet's nest of my awesome
> tactical wizardry. LOL! In reality, many players
> don't have a clue what they mean when they use
> such words.
>
> Max Euwe has been said to have never played an
> unsound combination. Does that make him a
> tactical player -- via _accuracy_? Or a positional
> player, for having never ventured purely speculative
> sac's, which are the trademark of the tactician?
>
> Botvinnik once wrote that if Petrosian sac's a piece,
> one should decline it. In other words, there is no
> real question as to whether or not the "sac" is sound-
> it is. Again, accuracy, as opposed to frequency.
> If Bottleneck had seen some of my most recent
> games, he no doubt would have opined: "If Kennedy
> sac's a piece, accept it, for he probably just didn't see
> that square was under attack." :-)
If there were no mistakes, chess would be a boring game ;-)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
> As far as Petrosian is concerned: he had many sacrifices
> in his games e.g. very aggresive positional sacrifices:
> rooks for bishops or knights. I would call them
> Petrosian` sacrifices ;-)
>
> Positional play is very often the opposite of tactical play.
> Aggresive positional play according to me combines such
> sound tactical operations as mentioned above.
>
> cheers, JC
Indeed, extremely aggressive Petrosian saced many exchanges
to diffuse any tension and get a comfy draw :-) Spassky,
always a capable student, learned that skill perhaps
from Petrosian. In the first game of the candidate match
against American GM Burn (1974 I think) Spassky with black
got an easy draw by sacing exchange. The idea in this case
was (if I remember correctly) setting a fortress.
Petrosian was known for seeing a lot of tactics.
The positional moves often r based also on the tactical
considerations. One could say on tactics in reverse
or counter-tactics. On the other hand tactical options
between equal opponents come most of the time from the
positional advantage, e.g. from center control, which
translates into controling the critical squares so that
your king might be open but still untouchable, safe
from dangerous checks.
Best regards,
Wlodek
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
As long as I know, Alechine played "Alechine Defense"
only once (and I don't think that it was his invention
either).
Certainly Alechine played differently from,
say, Steintitz. He knew hypermodern ideas and even
has contributed to them. But he reacted against
overreaction, he didn't consider hupermodern contribution
as as fundamentasl as the Steinitz contribution.
and he was not impressed with the hypermodern
players (he kicked their ass :-)
-- Wlod
Your_Name
> only once (and I don't think that it was his invention
> either).
>
I found 16 games here http://www.chesslab.com/PositionSearch.html all
tournament and stroong opponents. I am sure we can dig out more if
needed.
Greg Kennedy
;-)
> > He is practicing up for his big odds match
> > with Neil Brennen.
> Sorry, I don`t know Neil, but these openings remind me of the well-known
> chessmaster Grob ;-)
Quick- name a player who plays the Grob?
If you said "Grob," you are correct, but in the
minority here. If you said Sam Sloan, you are
far from the only one. That other guy was just
lucky he developed this blunder into a disgusting
system of play first -- before Sam came along.
> > If Bottleneck had seen some of my most recent
> > games, he no doubt would have opined: "If Kennedy
> > sac's a piece, accept it, for he probably just didn't see
> > that square was under attack." :-)
> If there were no mistakes, chess would be a boring game ;-)
True, but my opponents always took a grim
view of this, explaining that I just got lucky.
It would seem that MY mistakes were inevitable,
while THEIRS were merely freak events, or
flukes, which signified nothing. :-)
Greg Kennedy
> > a very good example of a "hypermodern" defence? Not that that's what
> > he played all the time but still ...
> As long as I know, Alechine played "Alechine Defense"
> only once (and I don't think that it was his invention
> either).
Alekhine played this opening many times, but
his results with it were not so impressive as his
results with some other openings. He allowed
some "weakies" to draw or beat him on occasion,
sometimes due to massive simplification which
could not be avoided, leading to endgames with
no real prospects.
> Certainly Alechine played differently from,
> say, Steintitz. He knew hypermodern ideas and even
> has contributed to them. But he reacted against
> overreaction, he didn't consider hupermodern contribution
> as as fundamentasl as the Steinitz contribution.
> and he was not impressed with the hypermodern
> players (he kicked their ass :-)
True, but this is not the same thing as despising
hypermodern chess, itself. Bobby Fischer is
another example of a player who usually preferred
classical chess, but who was not above stooping
to modern or "hypermodern" stuff, when it suited
his purpose. It could be that Alekhine did not
consider hypermodern chess to be as "significant"
as classical chess, simply because it isn't. ;-)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> > As long as I know, Alechine played "Alechine Defense"
Thank U, and to Greg K., for telling me.
(I never saw any. And I read in literature
about Alechine not playing Alechine Defense
but once. Since it was not such a crucial
issue I allowed myself to repeat that
horrible disinformation uncritically :-).
Best regards,
Wlod
Greg Kennedy
> > tournament and stroong opponents. I am sure we can dig out more if
> > needed.
> Thank U, and to Greg K., for telling me.
> (I never saw any. And I read in literature
> about Alechine not playing Alechine Defense
> but once. Since it was not such a crucial
> issue I allowed myself to repeat that
> horrible disinformation uncritically :-).
I believe I also read this somewhere, which
is quite strange in view of the fact that Alex
himself included multiple games in this
opening in his ever popular books, including
his Best Games of Chess series!
This is another example of why it is silly
for people like Louis Blair to request specific
quotations to "back up" one's views, since such
quotations are merely words, and words are not
any more infallible than people are.
In one of the games with this opening, poor
Alekhine actually _hung a piece_ to a no-name
type player, ala yours truly. In that game, it was
his *opponent* who essayed what was one day to
become known as "Alekhine's Defense"! :-)
Jerzy
Greg Kennedy
> > > > Of course 1.g4 is a very funny opening and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 as well
> ;-)
> If you said "Grob," you are correct, but in the
> minority here. If you said Sam Sloan, you are
> far from the only one. That other guy was just
> lucky he developed this blunder into a disgusting
> system of play first -- before Sam came along.
>
I disagree: the Grob opening in the hands of a skilfull player is a
dangerous weapon, like e.g. the Basman defence 1. ... g5 or 1. ... h6 and 2.
.... g5 ;-)
Everybody underestimate such openings and they make a mistake
Remember how Karpov underestimated Tony Miles` 1. ... a6 ? ;-)
> > > If Bottleneck had seen some of my most recent
> > > games, he no doubt would have opined: "If Kennedy
> > > sac's a piece, accept it, for he probably just didn't see
> > > that square was under attack." :-)
>
> > If there were no mistakes, chess would be a boring game ;-)
>
>
> True, but my opponents always took a grim
> view of this, explaining that I just got lucky.
> It would seem that MY mistakes were inevitable,
> while THEIRS were merely freak events, or
> flukes, which signified nothing. :-)
>
Yes, every chesplayer thinks he is at least World Chess Champion and others
are just patzers ;-)
Greg Kennedy
A clear-cut self-contradiction, by definition!
> Everybody underestimate such openings and they make a mistake
> Remember how Karpov underestimated Tony Miles` 1. ... a6 ? ;-)
No. As I remember that game, old Karpov
got into time pressure -- not the sort of thing
one does when taking the opponent and his
moves lightly. Just the opposite.
BTW, it was not the 1 ...a6 which won that
game for Tony, contrary to popular opinion.
This reminds me of the famous (infamous?)
game in which Paul Morphy lost to Owen,
after 1.e4 f6. Morphy played as if to take
advantage of this "silly blunder," but much to
his surprise, there followed many very good
moves. A hypermodern masterpiece.
Jerzy
> > I disagree: the Grob opening in the hands of a skilfull player
>
>
> A clear-cut self-contradiction, by definition!
>
wanna bet ? ;-)
a good dinner in Philadelphia ;-)
> > Everybody underestimate such openings and they make a mistake
> > Remember how Karpov underestimated Tony Miles` 1. ... a6 ? ;-)
>
>
> No. As I remember that game, old Karpov
> got into time pressure -- not the sort of thing
> one does when taking the opponent and his
> moves lightly. Just the opposite.
>
In those days of Soviet domination over the chessboard, both Tony and
Anatoly were young men
> BTW, it was not the 1 ...a6 which won that
> game for Tony, contrary to popular opinion.
> This reminds me of the famous (infamous?)
> game in which Paul Morphy lost to Owen,
> after 1.e4 f6. Morphy played as if to take
> advantage of this "silly blunder," but much to
> his surprise, there followed many very good
> moves. A hypermodern masterpiece.
>
I remember one game lost by legendary and cold-blooded Ulf Andersson who was
upset by strange style of play of his opponent.
He repeated endlessly his moves in the middle-game, so Ulf wanted to punish
the opponent because of his strange manner of the play ;-)
BTW Ulf is well-known for his excellent positional play where he often wins
or defends very difficult positions by torturing his opponents like in the
history above ;-)
Greg Kennedy
> > A clear-cut self-contradiction, by definition!
> wanna bet ? ;-)
Okay, you get odds of having the first
move (but it has to be 1.g4, of course).
I get compensation for this advantage in
the form of getting a little help in selecting
moves from my pal, whose name is Fritz.
Now, how many millions of deniros did you
wish to play for? ;-)
> > > Everybody underestimate such openings and they make a mistake
> > > Remember how Karpov underestimated Tony Miles` 1. ... a6 ? ;-)
> > No. As I remember that game, old Karpov
> > got into time pressure -- not the sort of thing
> > one does when taking the opponent and his
> > moves lightly. Just the opposite.
> In those days of Soviet domination over the chessboard, both Tony and
> Anatoly were young men
The issue was the word "underestimate."
Even if Karpov was twelve years old when
that game was played, how does this show
that he lost via underestimation? I say he
lost because of weak move(s). :-)
> BTW Ulf is well-known for his excellent positional play where he often
wins
> or defends very difficult positions by torturing his opponents like in the
> history above ;-)
There once was a time where Ulf's style was
compared to Karpov's, and Karpov was one
of the very few players who was better than
Ulf overall. Now such terms are even used
to describe the styles of play of various
computer programs, while back then, they
could all be described as crude tacticians.
Jerzy
> move (but it has to be 1.g4, of course).
>
> I get compensation for this advantage in
> the form of getting a little help in selecting
> moves from my pal, whose name is Fritz.
> Now, how many millions of deniros did you
> wish to play for? ;-)
>
As I`ve already written : a good dinner in e.g. Philadelphia ;-)
Because we cannot meet at the chessboard I suggest e.g. ICC or
Kasparovchess. But I`ll be back in August - so we have to putt off the duel
;-)
> The issue was the word "underestimate."
> Even if Karpov was twelve years old when
> that game was played, how does this show
> that he lost via underestimation? I say he
> lost because of weak move(s). :-)
>
Why did he make those weak moves ?
Because of the age or because of the underestimation of his opponent or
maybe sth else ?
;-)
> There once was a time where Ulf's style was
> compared to Karpov's, and Karpov was one
> of the very few players who was better than
> Ulf overall. Now such terms are even used
> to describe the styles of play of various
> computer programs, while back then, they
> could all be described as crude tacticians.
And they both have uderestimated their opponents in the mentioned games ;-)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
> Jerzy:
> > Everybody underestimate such openings and they make a mistake
> > Remember how Karpov underestimated Tony Miles` 1. ... a6 ? ;-)
>
>
> No. As I remember that game, old Karpov
> got into time pressure -- not the sort of thing
> one does when taking the opponent and his
> moves lightly. Just the opposite.
This shows that Karpov (who was a younh chimp at the time)
underestimated the 1...a6 in his opening preparation.
He simply was not prepared for it. Karpov plays pragmatically,
he is as a rule fast in the opening and in general he was
ahead of his opponent on the clock (certainly he was in those
days).
When Miles played his move Karpov got red on his face.
This once again shows shock. For two reasons: 1.Karpov
felt offended by the opponent's move; and (2) he was
unprepared, hence felt uncomfortable. From what I remember,
karpov actually got upper hand from the opening and in the early
middlegame (just a slight advantage) but went wrong anyway.
Most likely he didn't feel at honme with the kind of the position
on the board while Miles had a good time. Most likely he expected
to get more advantage than he got -- in other words, he
underestimated the 1... a6 move.
> BTW, it was not the 1 ...a6 which won that
> game for Tony, contrary to popular opinion.
I am not aware of any other game in which
Miles won against a world champion.
Being a decent granmaster helped him too.
Of course a rather lousy move like 1...a6
does not win a game against a world chimp.
Unless the chimp underestimates the move!
> This reminds me of the famous (infamous?)
> game in which Paul Morphy lost to Owen,
> after 1.e4 f6. Morphy played as if to take
> advantage of this "silly blunder," but much to
> his surprise, there followed many very good
> moves. A hypermodern masterpiece.
Thus U agree that it doesn't hurt to play
an unortodox opening against a world top
player.
Regards,
Wlod
Remco Gerlich
> "Greg Kennedy" <gm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<h%PY8.24346$A43.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > Jerzy:
> >
> > > Everybody underestimate such openings and they make a mistake
> > > Remember how Karpov underestimated Tony Miles` 1. ... a6 ? ;-)
> >
> >
> > No. As I remember that game, old Karpov
> > got into time pressure -- not the sort of thing
> > one does when taking the opponent and his
> > moves lightly. Just the opposite.
>
> This shows that Karpov (who was a younh chimp at the time)
> underestimated the 1...a6 in his opening preparation.
He was 29, and had been World Champion for eight years. Not a young chimp at
all. I don't think Karpov prepared at all for 1...a6. I think Miles was just
desperate, since he always lost against Karpov, and tried something weird.
> He simply was not prepared for it. Karpov plays pragmatically,
> he is as a rule fast in the opening and in general he was
> ahead of his opponent on the clock (certainly he was in those
> days).
>
> When Miles played his move Karpov got red on his face.
> This once again shows shock. For two reasons: 1.Karpov
> felt offended by the opponent's move; and (2) he was
> unprepared, hence felt uncomfortable. From what I remember,
> karpov actually got upper hand from the opening and in the early
> middlegame (just a slight advantage) but went wrong anyway.
He got a great position and messed it up. Nothing to do with the opening.
> I am not aware of any other game in which
> Miles won against a world champion.
> Being a decent granmaster helped him too.
> Of course a rather lousy move like 1...a6
> does not win a game against a world chimp.
> Unless the chimp underestimates the move!
Unless the champ makes mistakes later on.
--
Remco Gerlich
Dr. Hypermodern
In Fischer-Spassky, 1972
Bobby Fischer showed a good exhibition of aggressive positional play in games 5
and 6:
In game 5, Bobby played
ECO: E41
NIC: NI.14
LONG: Nimzo-Indian: Hubner Variation, 8.e4 e5 9.d5 Ne7
In game 6, he played against
ECO: D59
NIC: QO.10
LONG: QGD: Tartakower, Main Line, 12.Qa4
[Event "wcc"]
[Site "Reykjavik"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "05"]
[White "Spassky B"]
[Black "Fischer R"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6 8.e4 e5
9.d5 Ne7 10.Nh4 h6 11.f4 Ng6 12.Nxg6 fxg6 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.Be3 b6 15.O-O O-O
16.a4 a5 17.Rb1 Bd7 18.Rb2 Rb8 19.Rbf2 Qe7 20.Bc2 g5 21.Bd2 Qe8 22.Be1 Qg6
23.Qd3 Nh5 24.Rxf8+ Rxf8 25.Rxf8+ Kxf8 26.Bd1 Nf4 27.Qc2 Bxa4 0-1
[Event "wcc"]
[Site "Reykjavik"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "06"]
[White "Fischer R"]
[Black "Spassky B"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5
9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6
15.dxc5 bxc5 16.O-O Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4 d4
21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5
27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8
33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 38.Rxf6 gxf6
39.Rxf6 Kg8 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 1-0
"Neil Coward" <Neil....@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<agfbli$hec$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>...
Woodshifter
although Owen, I see, once beat Morphy with 1.e4 g6.
Greg Kennedy
Everybody? You have decided this without
even looking at my game, where I was scared
to death of losing to this killer-move? I am
sure a fellow named Noble Murphy once
played this against me, and you can bet I did
not wish to lose via underestimation.
> > > Remember how Karpov underestimated Tony Miles` 1. ... a6 ? ;-)
> > No. As I remember that game, old Karpov
> > got into time pressure -- not the sort of thing
> > one does when taking the opponent and his
> > moves lightly. Just the opposite.
> This shows that Karpov (who was a younh chimp at the time)
For those who do not already know, this is
a rare type of old-world monkey (not to be
confused with the Orangutan opening).
> underestimated the 1...a6 in his opening preparation.
> He simply was not prepared for it.
Aye. He had not studied all the great games
of the famous masters, in which this debut was
explored in some depth. If only Kasparov had
been there, to show Karpov the "long variation,"
leading to White advantage...
> Karpov plays pragmatically,
One of the seven deadly sins!
> he is as a rule fast in the opening and in general he was
> ahead of his opponent on the clock (certainly he was in those
> days).
>
> When Miles played his move Karpov got red on his face.
This exact same thing happenned to Fischer
once. He ran smack into a prepared line, and
had a terrible time until Petrosian inexplicably
varied from his "preparation." Obviously, a
clear-cut case of underestimating the evil
Russians, who were expected to know little
about chess openings.
> This once again shows shock.
Or embarassment, perhaps.
> For two reasons: 1.Karpov
> felt offended by the opponent's move;
Bingo. This alone would explain a red face.
So any further assumptions are speculative.
Has it never occurred to anyone that Anatoly
may have skipped lunch so as to be able to
memorize his trainer's latest preparation vs.
Miles' expected debut, only to find that this
was all for naught? Anger can turn the face
red, as well as embarassment. Also, strawberry
yogurt, if not eaten carefully, can leave a
pinkish tint.
> and (2) he was
> unprepared, hence felt uncomfortable. From what I remember,
> karpov actually got upper hand from the opening and in the early
> middlegame (just a slight advantage) but went wrong anyway.
What I said. Something about losing due
to weak moves, as I recall.
The theory that Karpov took this opening
lightly, but nevertheless gained an advantage,
which later slipped away, does not make any
more sense than a much simpler explanation.
> Most likely he didn't feel at honme with the kind of the position
> on the board while Miles had a good time. Most likely he expected
> to get more advantage than he got -- in other words, he
> underestimated the 1... a6 move.
A rather strange definition, to say the very
least! Let's ask Karpov about this -- did he
ever annotate this game?
> > BTW, it was not the 1 ...a6 which won that
> > game for Tony, contrary to popular opinion.
> I am not aware of any other game in which
> Miles won against a world champion.
Me neither. Miles was not all that great,
overall, would seem to be the logical
conclusion. And not: playing one offbeat
move leads inevitably to defeating world
champions.
> Being a decent granmaster helped him too.
Perhaps. But I once observed a very weak
player draw a GM, and would describe this as
more the result of the GM messing up, than
the weaker player rising to astronomical
heights, due to the effects of a single move.
> Of course a rather lousy move like 1...a6
> does not win a game against a world chimp.
> Unless the chimp underestimates the move!
I think you are giving this one move all the
credit, when Miles probably followed up with
a few other moves, of no less merit. Sortof
like a monkey trial, where the verdict is decided
in advance.
> > This reminds me of the famous (infamous?)
> > game in which Paul Morphy lost to Owen,
> > after 1.e4 f6. Morphy played as if to take
> > advantage of this "silly blunder," but much to
> > his surprise, there followed many very good
> > moves. A hypermodern masterpiece.
> Thus U agree that it doesn't hurt to play
> an unortodox opening against a world top
> player.
I "agree" that it doesn't hurt to play one unusual
move, if the followup is particularly well done,
as it was in this case, by Owen. In no way can
one accurately state that Owen defeated Morphy
due to 1. ...f6. On the contrary, it was the other
moves which seemd to do the trick! Morphy
appeared to be holding his own after the first
moves: 1.e4 f6, according to no less an authority
than Fritz! :-)
Greg Kennedy
> > game in which Paul Morphy lost to Owen,
> > after 1.e4 f6. Morphy played as if to take
> > advantage of this "silly blunder," but much to
> > his surprise, there followed many very good
> > moves. A hypermodern masterpiece.
> Thanks for pointing out this game. Incidentally, it was Barnes, not Owen,
> although Owen, I see, once beat Morphy with 1.e4 g6.
Hmm- I have repeated this error, repeatedly
even, in my postings! Now I will have to go
and have a look at the ...g6 game.
After seeing the 1...f6 game, it is hard to refrain
from laughing when credit for 'inventing'
hypermodern chess is blindly awarded to
Nimzovich, who was not even yet born.
The point being that it is not as if Nimzo took
crude ideas from his predecessors and
perfected them, for we see that they were
_already_ perfected in this masterpiece. :-)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
> > This shows that Karpov (who was a younh chimp at the time)
>
>
> For those who do not already know, this is
> a rare type of old-world monkey (not to be
> confused with the Orangutan opening).
No. This is the fide type of monkey.
Karpov never was a champion, only a fide chimp.
He enjoyed a too great unfair advantage offered
to him by the Soviets during the championship
1972-1975 cycle. He never said: I want to play
Fisher. The 9:9 drawing clause is nothing.
Alechine played Capa facing a 5:5 drawing clause.
Instead, Karpov cooperated with Soviets to make
sure that the crazy Fischer will not play at all.
For a contrast consider the true champion standing.
Spassky had the right to stop his match with
Fischer more than once. Certainly after he was
ahead 2:0 and Fischer was acting in a very
immature way. Nobody would be able to say with
any certainity that Fischer who never won till
then against Spassky would win the match. Spassky
could say: I have enough of this circus. I came
to play chess not any silly Bobby's games. Bobby,
go back to school, learn some manners.
Instead Spassky simply played. He was a greast
Champion. karpov was a small fide chimp.
When for years Karpov didn't say one human
word about Korchnoy's family he was a small
fide chimp. He "played" Korchnoy under unspeakably
uneven, unfair to his competitor conditions. it was
not sport anymore!
When he lost a candidate match to Short and went
on to play for fide chimpioship, he won his
fide chimp title again.
And when, fresh, he played exahausted Anand, Karpov
once again was true to his chimp personality and
that's what he got, the fide chimp title. He will
honorary fide chimp forever.
-- Wlod
Greg Kennedy
> > For those who do not already know, this is
> > a rare type of old-world monkey (not to be
> > confused with the Orangutan opening).
> No. This is the fide type of monkey.
Some anti fide monkey bias "creeps in."
> Karpov never was a champion, only a fide chimp.
A few severely biased folks have taken this position,
but there are numerous less biased folks who give
Karpov credit, entirely apart from any personal dislike.
Take Andy Soltis, for example. He wrote (at the same
time as a few others were lashing out in anger) that,
like it or not, Karpov was simply the best we had for
ten years. The best chessplayer, that is. You see, it is
important to be able to see things clearly, without all
the clouding and blurring of strong personal bias.
> He enjoyed a too great unfair advantage offered
> to him by the Soviets during the championship
> 1972-1975 cycle.
You are very confused: the cycle to which you
here refer was the one where Karpov took out such
players as Spassky, who had just won the ultra-
powerful USSR championship! He received no
special help in this task. Boris was not ordered to
throw the games.
I think you may have meant the later cycle in
which Karpov, as defending champion, played
Kortchnoi, and barely won.
> He never said: I want to play Fisher.
An interesting way of distorting the facts.
Karpov, ALONE, stated his clear intent to
play the reigning champion by defeating and
thereby eliminating *all others* who stood in
between himself and Fischer. It is the others
who should have declared their "intent" or
desire to play (an exhibition with) Fischer.
Karpov spoke with actions, not mere words!
Anatoly announced to the chessworld that
Bobby could no longer hide behind his victory
over Spassky, for he was no longer unique in
this regard.
> The 9:9 drawing clause is nothing.
Precisely.
> Alechine played Capa facing a 5:5 drawing clause.
Bully for him! He also managed to raise a great
deal of money for that match -- a feat having nothing
whatever to do with skill at chess. Rather than praise
Alex for his determination to "overcome," we should
have a close look at the way in which champions
have abused their power throughout history -- perhaps
something can be learned here.
> Instead, Karpov cooperated with Soviets to make
> sure that the crazy Fischer will not play at all.
Do tell. They poisoned his orange juice (and
that would explain all his mental problems) then?
I know for a fact it wasn't the "standard mind
control method," via radio waves involuntarily
received through fillings in the teeth. Darn that
KGB -- if they don't get you one way, they will
do it another!
> For a contrast consider the true champion standing.
> Spassky had the right to stop his match with
> Fischer more than once. Certainly after he was
> ahead 2:0 and Fischer was acting in a very
> immature way. Nobody would be able to say with
> any certainity that Fischer who never won till
> then against Spassky would win the match. Spassky
> could say: I have enough of this circus. I came
> to play chess not any silly Bobby's games. Bobby,
> go back to school, learn some manners.
The odds of Bobby learning manners at that
late stage, were exceedingly slim. Perhaps
Boris just wanted to add a legitimate win to
his already long list of achievements? Consider
the "blemish" of having failed at his first attempt
vs. Petrosian. A forfeit win would have added
another slight blemish to his impressive record.
> Instead Spassky simply played. He was a greast
> Champion.
You have it backwards- Karpov was the greased
(hair) champion; Boris was famed for his skill at
tennis! One picture had a caption stating that Boris
was "the handsomest world champion since
Capablanca." Okay -- the competition was not so
tough here...
> karpov was a small fide chimp.
I see. So it all boils down to your problem with
"small people." Tell me, did you hate your father?
Are you any relation to Phil Innes, who also has a
thing about people who are under six-three?
> When for years Karpov didn't say one human
> word about Korchnoy's family he was a small
> fide chimp. He "played" Korchnoy under unspeakably
> uneven, unfair to his competitor conditions. it was
> not sport anymore!
Others have put this propaganda into a broader
perspective. See, for example, the writings of
Yuri Averbach, who laid into BOTH Karpov
and Kortchnoi for their "performances" during
this time. Here is one Russian who didn't seem
to feel that Karpov had instigated Victor's son's
troubles with the government.
> When he lost a candidate match to Short and went
> on to play for fide chimpioship, he won his
> fide chimp title again.
You appear to be swatting at flies. Would you
so eagerly attack Timman, in the unlikely event
that he had won instead of Karpov? I doubt it.
In my opinion, it was ludicrous in both of these
matches, in that Short and Timman were way
overmatched. But that is the way the cookie
crumbles. If we wanted finals and semi's to
always include only the highest rated players,
we would simply seed them by rating, and not
allow an open competition for the title. Where
there is a large gap in the ratings, we would
simply assign the title to that player who has
earned the number one ranking.
> And when, fresh, he played exahausted Anand, Karpov
> once again was true to his chimp personality and
> that's what he got, the fide chimp title.
You appear to be suffering from a severe case of
fide chimp jealousy. Even so tired as to nod off
at the board, Anand would have eliminated you
from the running for this covetted title. If you
really despise repeat wins of the same title, you
should turn your jealous, biased eye, toward a
fellow named Bottleneck! That guy appeared to
intentionally lose every first match, with the idea
of winning the rematch and getting his name
listed among the champions, one extra time
thereby.
> He will honorary fide chimp forever.
This "fide" which you clearly despise, is the very
same organization which gave players like Spassky,
Fischer, and Tal their chimpionship titles, lest we
forget.
So often, this is forgotten or ignored in the quest
to attack fide for attack's sake. The list of players
who won or "held" a fide title under less-than-ideal
conditions is a long one.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
> > No. This is the fide type of monkey.
>
>
> Some anti fide monkey bias "creeps in."
>
No. "Fide monkey" should be treated as "fide monkey",
it is that simple.
>
> > Karpov never was a champion, only a fide chimp.
>
>
> Take Andy Soltis, for example. He wrote (...) that,
> [...] Karpov was simply the best we had for
> ten years. The best chessplayer, that is.
>
At the beginning of those ten years Fisher was stronger
than Karpov. In the middle of these ten years Korchnoy
was stronger than Karpov. At the end of those ten years
Kasparov was stronger and had higher rating. And we will
never know exactly how many points Karpov got dishonestly.
> > He enjoyed a too great unfair advantage offered
> > to him by the Soviets during the championship
> > 1972-1975 cycle.
>
>
> You are very confused:
U r very under-informed, should I say ignorant?
Certainly illogical most of the time (whichj in effect
means that U r simply illogical).
> the cycle to which you
> here refer was the one where Karpov took out such
> players as Spassky, who had just won the ultra-
> powerful USSR championship! He received no
> special help in this task. Boris was not ordered to
> throw the games.
Karpov got a huge, unethical help from the Soviet
system here by having Geller assigned as his coach
and assistant. GM Geller was the one who worked
with Spassky before the Spassky-Fischer match.
It is impossible to underestimate the extra odds
which Karpov got. All opening preparation. All likes
Spassky's likes and dislikes. Tremendous psychological
advantage.
> I think
I wish I could say that U can think too.
> you may have meant the later cycle in
> which Karpov, as defending champion, played
> Kortchnoi, and barely won.
In this case the cards were loaded even way heavier.
Karpov also barely won his final candidate match
against Korcznoy at the end of the 1972-1975
candidate cycle. Karpov enjoed better conditions
then too. But three years later he was extremely
disgraceful, even more than during the 1972-75 cycle.
U should know that before the championship matches
Korchnoy and Karpov played the final candidate match,
for a total of three matches. Each time Karpov got
more and more of ugly extra "chances", and ultimately
the beating of Korchnoy's son on the eve of their
third match. That did it, it was indeed no contest.
And no chess either.
It was not Karpov who won against Korchnoy but the
whole gang: Soviet KGB, Campo, Karpov and servile but
world class GMs like that drunkard Tal. I like Tal a
lot but he was not showing any class by befriending
Karpov under the circumstances.
> > He never said: I want to play Fisher.
> Karpov, ALONE, stated his clear intent to
> play the reigning champion by defeating and
> thereby eliminating *all others* who stood in
> between himself and Fischer. It is the others
> who should have declared their "intent" or
> desire to play (an exhibition with) Fischer.
> Karpov spoke with actions, not mere words!
> Anatoly announced to the chessworld that
> Bobby could no longer hide behind his victory
> over Spassky, for he was no longer unique in
> this regard.
What an illogical garbage! Karpov was VERY glad
NOT to play Fischer. He was very happy to get
his chimp title by any means it takes. It was his
attitude during the whole cycle and to the very end.
>
> > The 9:9 drawing clause is nothing.
>
>
> Precisely.
U r "precisely illogical".
>
> > Alechine played Capa facing a 5:5 drawing clause.
>
>
> Bully for him! He also managed to raise a great
> deal of money for that match -- a feat having nothing
> whatever to do with skill at chess. Rather than praise
> Alex for his determination to "overcome," we should
> have a close look at the way in which champions
> have abused their power throughout history -- perhaps
> something can be learned here.
>
U r just making some noise ill related to the issue.
>
> > Instead, Karpov cooperated with Soviets to make
> > sure that the crazy Fischer will not play at all.
>
>
> [Greg's noise]
>
>
> > For a contrast consider the true champion standing.
> > Spassky had the right to stop his match with
> > Fischer more than once. Certainly after he was
> > ahead 2:0 and Fischer was acting in a very
> > immature way. Nobody would be able to say with
> > any certainity that Fischer who never won till
> > then against Spassky would win the match. Spassky
> > could say: I have enough of this circus. I came
> > to play chess not any silly Bobby's games. Bobby,
> > go back to school, learn some manners.
>
>
> [Greg's iloogical noise]
>
> > When he lost a candidate match to Short and went
> > on to play for fide chimpioship, he won his
> > fide chimp title again.
>
>
> You appear to be swatting at flies. Would you
> so eagerly attack Timman, in the unlikely event
> that he had won instead of Karpov? I doubt it.
U r WRONG. Timman would be the same kind of a joke,
a small fide chimp. Both Timman and Karpov lost
their candidate matches to Short. Thus Short was
the Lord of fide chimp and vice-chimp, and Kasparov
was the SuperLord. Timman was quite cynical about
the whole business of fide chimpionship once he lost
to Short. FIDE offers some money hence he took it,
why not, what's the heck?! I wish Timmman would win
but as strong as he was he was never a true world
champion candidate caliber, there was never much danger
of Timman winning the title (except for the post-Short
chimp title). predictably, he lost his match with Karpov
easily he was always an easy client for Karpov.
> In my opinion, it was ludicrous in both of these
> matches, in that Short and Timman were way
> overmatched.
Short has beaten Karpov, no sweat.
So, who was overmatched? What was ludicrous?
You like to muddy waters; your credo: the less logic
and more noise the better.
> > And when, fresh, he played exahausted Anand, Karpov
> > once again was true to his chimp personality and
> > that's what he got, the fide chimp title.
>
>
> You appear to be suffering from a severe case of
> fide chimp jealousy. Even so tired as to nod off
> at the board, Anand would have eliminated you
> from the running for this covetted title.
Anand would eleminate U too. What does it have
to do to anything? U make your idiotic personal
remarks but U can't stick to the point.
It is worthless to have a discussion with U,
and I will stay away from exchanging arguments with U.
Too much nonsense, and U r quick into getting
into another person's personal sphere. Forget it.
Spill your nonsense on others. No more on me.
To summarize, chess for decades had it's share of
glory not thanks to fide but DESPITE fide. Karpov
was not part of the glory but of the shame which
became part of the chess history.
-- Wlod
Greg Kennedy
> > Some anti fide monkey bias "creeps in."
> No. "Fide monkey" should be treated as "fide monkey",
> it is that simple.
That simple. You have no bias whatever with
regard to Karpov, whom you merely despise?
> > Take Andy Soltis, for example. He wrote (...) that,
> > [...] Karpov was simply the best we had for
> > ten years. The best chessplayer, that is.
> At the beginning of those ten years Fisher was stronger
> than Karpov. In the middle of these ten years Korchnoy
> was stronger than Karpov. At the end of those ten years
> Kasparov was stronger and had higher rating.
Excuuuuse me, but our BOBBY also had
a higher rating! The speculation about
Victor might be aided by some sort of
supporting evidence, however.
Let us have a look at Steinitz. He also
is rated lower than both a predecessor
and his sucessor, than Morphy and Lasker.
This proves nothing.
> And we will
> never know exactly how many points Karpov got dishonestly.
I could tell you plenty about cheating, right
here in America. You appear to target Karpov
very selectively. How "objective" of you.
> Karpov got a huge, unethical help from the Soviet
> system here by having Geller assigned as his coach
> and assistant. GM Geller was the one who worked
> with Spassky before the Spassky-Fischer match.
> It is impossible to underestimate the extra odds
> which Karpov got. All opening preparation. All likes
> Spassky's likes and dislikes. Tremendous psychological
> advantage.
LOL!
This sword cuts both ways. Only if Spassky
did not know, would this be the unfair advantage
you maintain above. Unless you assume that
Boris was incapable of adapting, that is.
Having the same fellow who "helped" Boris
lose to Bobby as an aid -- what more could one
possibly ask? Well, it does beat having those
seconds used by Taimanov and Larsen, I suppose. ;-)
> Each time Karpov got
> more and more of ugly extra "chances", and ultimately
> the beating of Korchnoy's son on the eve of their
> third match. That did it, it was indeed no contest.
> And no chess either.
On the contrary, the matches were very close,
and the theory that beating Victor's son would
break his spirit seems unbelieveable, unless you
are of the opinion that he would otherwise have
THRASHED Karpov with ease. See Averbach's
writings for a more rational perspective on this.
> It was not Karpov who won against Korchnoy but the
> whole gang: Soviet KGB, Campo, Karpov and servile but
> world class GMs like that drunkard Tal. I like Tal a
> lot but he was not showing any class by befriending
> Karpov under the circumstances.
I have heard that KGB "victories" are of a
rather permanent nature, and never consist
in merely squeaking by, as Karpov did vs.
Kortchnoi.
If Victor had been found dead of a "heart
attack," you would have a much better case
here.
> What an illogical garbage! Karpov was VERY glad
> NOT to play Fischer. He was very happy to get
> his chimp title by any means it takes. It was his
> attitude during the whole cycle and to the very end.
Dufus! Karpov had no clue that Fischer
was not going to play, until after he had
progressed through every stage of the cycle
in question. Of course he was glad to get
the title, but that in no way supports the
luny idea that he liked the way in which he
got it.
> > You appear to be swatting at flies. Would you
> > so eagerly attack Timman, in the unlikely event
> > that he had won instead of Karpov? I doubt it.
> U r WRONG. Timman would be the same kind of a joke,
> a small fide chimp. Both Timman and Karpov lost
> their candidate matches to Short. Thus Short was
> the Lord of fide chimp and vice-chimp, and Kasparov
> was the SuperLord. Timman was quite cynical about
> the whole business of fide chimpionship once he lost
> to Short. FIDE offers some money hence he took it,
> why not, what's the heck?!
As I said, you hesitate to attack Timman in
the same way reserved especially for your
favorite target, Karpov.
> I wish Timmman would win
> but as strong as he was he was never a true world
> champion candidate caliber, there was never much danger
> of Timman winning the title (except for the post-Short
> chimp title). predictably, he lost his match with Karpov
> easily he was always an easy client for Karpov.
Something is rotten in Denmark. You are
maintaining that Karpov was always "helped"
by the Russkies to overcome other Russkies.
But when Karpov takes on a non-Soviet
player, he _still_ wins. Coincidence? Hardly.
This same kind of swill has been marketted
by the two Larrys, with regard to their own
favorite targets -- and always with zero in the
way of substantive evidence. Deja vu.
> Short has beaten Karpov, no sweat.
> So, who was overmatched?
Short and Timman.
> What was ludicrous?
The idea that Kasparov was playing Short,
who was not even a challenge; and the idea
that Karpov was in a similar situation, at
the same time. For years, only one player
could give Kasparov a run for his money,
and I am not talking about Booby Fischer...
> > You appear to be suffering from a severe case of
> > fide chimp jealousy. Even so tired as to nod off
> > at the board, Anand would have eliminated you
> > from the running for this covetted title.
> Anand would eleminate U too.
Speculation -- my style on play would take
him aback. It is called "fighting without
fighting."
> What does it have to do to anything?
The money. I would play him purely for
the money!
> U make your idiotic personal
> remarks but U can't stick to the point.
> It is worthless to have a discussion with U,
> and I will stay away from exchanging arguments with U.
Good. For you are not really arguing anyway--
you are propagandizing.
> To summarize, chess for decades had it's share of
> glory not thanks to fide but DESPITE fide. Karpov
> was not part of the glory but of the shame which
> became part of the chess history.
Another issue is raised, quite apart from
lambasting Karpov. A few readers here are
still aware of the fact that these two entities
are not one and the same -- contrary to the
popular propagada of our time...