Kasparov's treatment of Tal Shaked
javier_gil
>The incident, as reported, makes Kasparov appear to be rather a poor sport.
Frankly, I dont think anybody has any doubts about that! :)
>He bemoans expending a theoretical novelty that he had prepared for Karpov
>on such a weak player. It is easy to bluster after you have won
>If I'd been one of the reporters, I'd have been tempted to ask:
>"If you hold your opponent in such contempt,
> why did you think you couldn't beat him
> without using your theoretical novelty?"
I can think of somthing better: Why not keep his novelties for a
return match against Deep Blue? He proved that he needed them!
(Caro-Kann in particular :)
Anyway, I cant recall too many of Kasparov's games where he does
amazing things from inferior positios. Mos of his games are
convertions into victories from better positions achieved out of the
opening (which, admitedly, has a lot of merit also, but you know what
I mean!).
Vincent Musolino
Javier Gil writes:
> I can think of somthing better: Why not keep his novelties for a
> return match against Deep Blue? He proved that he needed them!
> (Caro-Kann in particular :)
Won't happen. IBM has turned down the offer. No rematch.
He he. That leaves Kasparov losing to "someone".
--
Vincent Musolino, IRRMA, PPH-Ecublens, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
http://irrmawww.epfl.ch, phone +41(21)693.46.00, fax +41(21)693.66.55
If nothing ever sticks to TEFLON, how does TEFLON stick to the pan?
Steve Mayer
David Parker (dpa...@ccsi.com) wrote:
: Actually, the score stands at Kasparov 1, Deep Blue 1. We need a third
: match to break the tie. Its too bad that IBM is backing out, a la
: Alekhine.
Perhaps Kasparov could challenge the machine to a "winner take all"
match...or offer to pay his share of the prize fund to charity.
Some of this, at least, is about money. GK behaved like a fool and any
reasonable person can understand if IBM doesn't want him to make another
big chunk of change off of them (all the while accusing them of being
cheaters, of course).
-Steve
Ron Moskovitz
Kasparov made a fool of himself with his tactless behavior after losing
to Deep Blue, which is I beleive what Steve was referring to. After such
a poor display, were I IBM, I wouldn't be in a rush to grant a rematch.
Phil Humpherys
In article <smayerEI...@netcom.com>, Steve Mayer wrote:
> Perhaps Kasparov could challenge the machine to a "winner take
> all" match...or offer to pay his share of the prize fund to
> charity. Some of this, at least, is about money. GK behaved
> like a fool and any reasonable person can understand if IBM
> doesn't want him to make another big chunk of change off of
> them (all the while accusing them of being cheaters, of
> course).
Gari has stated that he will play for free. It isn't about the
money... how has he made a fool of himself?? His statement
about Tal was perhaps arrogant, but that's how he perceives
players when he's standing on top of the hill. Michael Jordan
does the same thing... you have to have that kind of perception
of your compentitors in order to dominate they way they do.
-pH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Humpherys
Systems Administrator/Engineer
DAKCS, Inc. E-mail: ph...@dakcs.com
"I think I will play without a rook today."
- Garry Kasparov, prior to the 10th game of the 1995 World Chess
Championship verses Anand wherein he sacrificed a rook and produced
victory in a stunning fashion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Mayer
Phil Humpherys (ph...@philh.dakcs.com) wrote:
: Gari has stated that he will play for free. It isn't about the
: money... how has he made a fool of himself?? His statement
: about Tal was perhaps arrogant, but that's how he perceives
: players when he's standing on top of the hill.
I meant that GK made a fool of himself following the DB match, though now
that you mention it, the comments about Shaked were also foolish.
-Steve
Charles Blair
What did Kasparov do, exactly? If all he did was express a low
opinion of his opponent's ability, that may be regrettable, but hardly
unprecedented, either by Kasparov or other people. Somebody else in
this thread pointed out the bon mot attributed to Nimzovich
``Why must I lose to this idiot?''
Surely taking back a move against Judit Polgar was a lot worse.
pulgao
ph...@philh.dakcs.com (Phil Humpherys) wrote:
>In article <4sd8ky6...@irrmasg5.epfl.ch>, Vincent Musolino wrote:
>>> you have to have that kind of perception
>>> of your compentitors in order to dominate they way they do.
>>
>>No, respect and politness have nothing to do with greatness, IMHO.
>Name people have have dominated a sport who was *not* arrogant.
Pele.
-- Steve Lopez
Read my book "Battle Royale", serialized at:
http://www.chessbaseusa.com/NY1924/ny1924.htm
I don't like work -- no man does -- but I like what is in the work: the
chance to find yourself. -- Joseph Conrad
Phil Humpherys
In article <4sd8ky6...@irrmasg5.epfl.ch>, Vincent Musolino wrote:
>> you have to have that kind of perception
>> of your compentitors in order to dominate they way they do.
>
>No, respect and politness have nothing to do with greatness, IMHO.
Name people have have dominated a sport who was *not* arrogant.
-pH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Humpherys
Systems Administrator/Engineer
DAKCS, Inc. E-mail: ph...@dakcs.com
"I believe Oswald acted alone." - Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Humpherys
In article <01bcdf23$12c549a0$0f01010a@randy>, Randy Baker wrote:
>Pete Sampras (tennis)
Oh come on... he's arrogant. Don't get me wrong, I like Sampras,
but he's the best and he knows it; and there's nothing wrong with
that.
-pH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Humpherys Fax: +1.801.778.2382
Systems Administrator/Engineer Phone: +1.801.778.2238
DAKCS Systems Software, Inc. E-mail: ph...@dakcs.com
NIC: PH418
PGP Key and WWW: http://zorkmid.dakcs.com/~philh
http://xena.astronnet.com/~humphery
Phil Humpherys
In article <rmoskEI...@netcom.com>, Ron Moskovitz wrote:
>In article <slrn64s8qf...@philh.dakcs.com>,
>Phil Humpherys <ph...@philh.dakcs.com> wrote
>>Name people have have dominated a sport who was *not* arrogant.
>
>Mikhail Tal
1) He didn't dominate. Not at all. The guy was world champion
for a little over a year, but was "just a super GM" aside from
that... enjoying some good results with some poor ones. For
Kasparov, 2nd place in a Category 19 is a poor result.
2) He has actually said some snide things from time to time (I'm
reading his biography). He once offered to sign Fischer's
autograph "on his behalf" since he'd beaten him so much (the
Belgrade Candidates quad round robin where Tal won all 4 games on
his way to becoming Botvinnik's challenger). That's not exactly
humble... Don't get me wrong, I like Tal, but let's call a spade
a spade.
>Orel Hershisher
Don't know anything about Orel.
>Chris Evert
She didn't dominate. She's won some grand slams, but she's been
out-done by her rival Martina Navaratalova.
>Magic Johnson
I wonder if I could dig up something he's said that wouldn't
sound too nice, especially if taken out of context.
>Greg Maddux
same as Orel...
>Ken Griffey, Jr
likewise... must be something about baseball.
>Jerry Rice
Yeah, good example.
> I could go on. These are all people who are (or were) truly
> great at their sport. Did they know they were truly great?
> Certainly. But they are people who almost always treated their
> opponents and the game with respect. They didn't try to show
> people up after beating them.
Yes. But, Kasparov dominates his sport like very few others.
Michael Jordan is one, I suppose Pele in a past generation is
another. But most of whom you list above were greats among other
greats. Kasparov has a 2800+ FIDE rating, and has convincingly
defended his title for 12 years. That's the longest
uninterrupted run since Lasker! He wins tournament after
tournament like the Karpov of the late 70's and early 80's. He's
becoming the greatest tournament champion of all time, as well as
the greatest ambassador for world chess.
I think that to obtain that kind of dominance, *especially* in
chess, you have to have contempt for your opponent.
Also, was Kasparov's comment towards Shaked so bad? He was
illustrating that he used a novelty that he had prepared for
Karpov, and was only able to realize it against Shaked. His
comparison of Shaked to a gnat is not inherently derogatory...
he's simply distinguishing a serious difference between Karpov
and Shaked; the difference of which is huge.
>
>-Ron
Ron Moskovitz
Well, looking up Tal's tournament record, I thoughtwe could talk about
his dominance. Now, I have left some years out, here, because Tal's play
did take some nosedives because of his health, but, neverthless, here's
his tournament performances during selected years:
1957: 2 firsts, 1 tie for first.
1958 4 firsts, 1 third
1959 3 firsts, 1 2-3rd, 1 4th, 1 6th
1960 1 first, 1 second.
1961 2 firsts, 1 4-5th, 1 5th
1964 3 firsts, two ties for first
1970 3 firsts, one tie for first
1972 three firsts, one second
1974 five firsts, two tires for first.
1981 four firsts, 1 tie for first.
(Source: The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal)
Now, this isn't Kasparov-level dominance, but when you consider
that the list of players who Tal went up against regularly includes
Fischer, Botvinnik, Korchnoi, Spaasky, and Petrosian (all in their
primes!)--well, I doubt Kasparov would do much better against such august
competition. Until recently, Kasparov has only had to play one
world title conteer in tournaments--Karpov. And they avoided each other
often during the 80's--tournaments in which they both appeared were rare.
Tal clearly had years where anything but a first place showing was a
disappointing result.
I don't say this to knock Kasparov's play, but merely to point out that
Tal had plenty of "justificaiton" if he wanted to be arrogant. But he wasn't!
Oleg Mezjuev
Phil Humpherys (ph...@philh.dakcs.com) wrote:
> Also, was Kasparov's comment towards Shaked so bad?
> He was illustrating that he used a novelty that he had
> prepared for Karpov, and was only able to realize it against
> Shaked. His comparison of Shaked to a gnat is not inherently
> derogatory... he's simply distinguishing a serious difference
> between Karpov and Shaked; the difference of which is huge.
And you are not Capablanca... There is nothing derogatory
about that, I am "simply distinuishing a serious difference
between" you and him... even if I am not sure that my statement
will make you feel good. But I can tell you that Shaked is most
certainly aware of his difference against Karpov and that he
wouldn't like to be pointed out among others by statements
like "Jesus, what a poor player we have here!". That's exactly
what Kasparov actually said about him.
Oleg Mezjuev
oleg.m...@mailbox.swipnet.se
somebody
Phil Humpherys wrote:
>
> In article <01bcdf23$12c549a0$0f01010a@randy>, Randy Baker wrote:
> >Pete Sampras (tennis)
>
> Oh come on... he's arrogant. Don't get me wrong, I like Sampras,
> but he's the best and he knows it; and there's nothing wrong with
> that.
Sampras has never been anything but classy in defeat and classy
in victory. His refusal to talk trash is one reason he's not
more popular outside of tennis circles.
There's a problem here with definitions of arrogance.
Ron Moskovitz
In article <3451E9...@xworldnet.att.net>,
somebody <qqqq...@xworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Sampras has never been anything but classy in defeat and classy
>in victory. His refusal to talk trash is one reason he's not
>more popular outside of tennis circles.
>
>There's a problem here with definitions of arrogance.
Exactly. All great players probably beleive that they're great--because
they've proven it, to themselves and to us, many times.
But let's come up with some thing analagous to what Kasparov said:
A pitcher in baseball might say, "Wow, I wish I hadn't thrown my best
fastball at him, because I could have stuck him out with a halfhearted
one. I should have saved my arm for another batter."
Have you ever heard a pitcher say something like that? I haven't.
It's ludicrously rude.
-Ron
Staunton
Shaked couldn't hack it among the third division of English chess talent.
As junior world champion, Kasparov gave Shaked the benefit of the doubt
but Shaked's blunder was simply horrible. One can understand Kasparov's
frustration at not being able to crown his novelty with a beautiful
victory in classic style.
Of course, if one has a novelty the temptation to use it must be great;
one never knows if the position will arise again in one's games or if
someone else will play it first.
Recall the strange case when Anand couldn't resist showing Lautier, I
think it was, a great novelty in the English Opening he had found during
1994. Apparently Lautier passed it on to Kramnik of all people.
Now the scene shifts to Monaco and the Melody Amber tournament. Kramnik
with the white pieces against Anand; bang! Kramnik hits him with it,
right between his 'four eyes'. Anand is crushed in 26 moves, in spite of
his familiarity with the idea.
So passing over Shaked, the question is whether McShane will continue his
development or hit a dreaded plateau.
Despite being solely responsible for the Second World War, England and
France may in Bacrot and McShane atone for their 'unending stupidity' and
return the chess crown to it's old haunts.
Phil Humpherys
In article <rmoskEI...@netcom.com>, Ron Moskovitz wrote:
> Well, looking up Tal's tournament record, I thoughtwe could
> talk about >his dominance. Now, I have left some years out,
> here, because Tal's play >did take some nosedives because of
> his health, but, neverthless, here's >his tournament
> performances during selected years:
>
>1957: 2 firsts, 1 tie for first.
>1958 4 firsts, 1 third
>1959 3 firsts, 1 2-3rd, 1 4th, 1 6th
>1960 1 first, 1 second.
>1961 2 firsts, 1 4-5th, 1 5th
>
>1964 3 firsts, two ties for first
>
>1970 3 firsts, one tie for first
>
>1972 three firsts, one second
>1974 five firsts, two tires for first.
>
>1981 four firsts, 1 tie for first.
>
> (Source: The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal)
>
>Now, this isn't Kasparov-level dominance, but when you consider
>that the list of players who Tal went up against regularly includes
>Fischer, Botvinnik, Korchnoi, Spaasky, and Petrosian (all in their
>primes!)--well, I doubt Kasparov would do much better against such august
>competition.
This doesn't follow. First, Fischer and Tal played each other 8
times, and four of them were in one tournament with Tal winning
all 4 games. That was the only time Tal ever beat Fischer. Tal
has a horrible lifetime record against Korchnoi, and a losing
record against Botvinnik... AGain, he's had some great results,
particularly in the brief period from '57 to '60, but aside from
that, his good performances were quite sparse.
Now, to say that Kasparov "wouldn't do as well" is bogus.
Today's players are simply better than the players of the
1950's... and there are more 2700+ players today ( there were
*none* in the 50's).
> Until recently, Kasparov has only had to play one world title
> conteer in tournaments--Karpov. And they avoided each other
> often during the 80's--tournaments in which they both appeared
> were rare.
I think you're way off here. Karpov has not been a world title
contender since 1990. Anand, Kamsky, Kramnik, and Ivanchuk are
all considered title condenders, and Kasparov plays against that
company all the time. I really can't see where you're getting
these ideas... Karpov and Kasparov didn't "avoid each other" in
the 80's.... they played some 140+ games against each other. In
the 90's, Karpov has completely avoided the PCA events for
political reasons... but that's besides the issue.
>
> Tal clearly had years where anything but a first place showing was a
>disappointing result.
Perhaps so, but he had them nevertheless, and his "moment" was
very very short. YOu simply can't favorably compare Tal to
Kasparov. Kasparov is way out of Tal's league.
> I don't say this to knock Kasparov's play, but merely to point
> out that Tal had plenty of "justificaiton" if he wanted to be
> arrogant. But he wasn't!
I've cited previously the statement made by Tal where he said he
could sign Fischer's autograph on Fischer's behalf since he'd
beaten him so much (immediately after the '59 Candidates tourny
where Tal won the only games he ever would against Fischer).
AGain, there is a little bit of conceit here.
>
--
da...@taic.net
shi...@shell9.ba.best.com wrote:
: I think most
: players, if pressed enough, would exhibit the darker side of themselves.
: I know I've been there. Very few of us know what it's like to be at the
: pinnacle of the world. The pressures must be enormous.
: When you are at the top all expectations are on *you*.
I think that the pressure was not probably too high on Kasparov
just after he beat a relatively low ranked player. There probably was no
special need for him to question Tal's very right to even be playing him.
Ron Moskovitz
First, comparings ELOs is tricky, because we don't really know if
there have been inflationary or deflationary effects. Second,
Karpov and Kasparov played each other many times, in World Championship
matches. My comment was that they avoided each other in tournaments.
Third, recently, in the last five years or so, Kramnik, Ivanchuk,
and Anand have emerged as realistic world title contenders. Before
that? In 1992 was anybody other than Karpov considered a threat to
Kasparov's crown?
And I beleive TAl's comment about Fischer's signature was intended
humorously. The two had a friendly give-and-take, as witnessed by
Fischer's reading of Tal's palm, and Tal's response.
ANd no, I don't think Tal's record is better than Kasparov's. But
I do think that Tal had ample reason for arrogance, had he chosen
to be arrogant--which is how we got started on this, wasn't it?
-Ron
Phil Humpherys
In article <rmoskEI...@netcom.com>, Ron Moskovitz wrote:
> First, comparings ELOs is tricky, because we don't really know
> if there have been inflationary or deflationary
> effects. Second, Karpov and Kasparov played each other many
> times, in World Championship matches. My comment was that they
> avoided each other in tournaments.
Well, there is a possibility of inflation, yes. But there still
not reasonable indication that plaayers of 40 years ago were
colectively as strong as they are now. It stands to reason that
the opposite is true.
> Third, recently, in the last five years or so, Kramnik, Ivanchuk,
>and Anand have emerged as realistic world title contenders. Before
>that? In 1992 was anybody other than Karpov considered a threat to
>Kasparov's crown?
Well, yes. Didn't Karpov lose to Short in the Candidates
Semi-final that year ('92)? So, by virtue of being eliminated by
Short in '92, Karpov was no longer a candidate. (The fact the he
still became FIDE champion a year later is meat for another
argument :)
> And I beleive TAl's comment about Fischer's signature was
> intended humorously. The two had a friendly give-and-take, as
> witnessed by Fischer's reading of Tal's palm, and Tal's
> response.
No chance that the Kasparov comment had an ingredient of humor?
> -Ron
Eric M. Ragan
George Szaszvari wrote:
> >>Name people have have dominated a sport who was *not* arrogant.
>
>
> Well said, Steve. Also Puskas in his day...add Ray Reardon, a really
> decent bloke and many times world champion of snooker...there are
> loads of examples.
Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemeiux come to mind.
-Eric
Phil Humpherys
In article <B07A6D4...@38.168.77.73>, Tim Kokesh wrote:
> Karpov hasn't been a world title (that is, the title held by
> Kasparov) _challenger_ since 1990. But I think he could easily
> be considered a contender. He _did_ win Linares 1994 by 2.5
> points over Kasparov.
Yes, he did have the tournament of his life at Linaires in '94,
but on the decade, Karpov's results have been lower than they
were previously. The last two years in particular have been
really bad.
>
>>Anand, Kamsky, Kramnik, and Ivanchuk are
>>all considered title condenders,
>
>And here is why I have the argument with your earlier statement... Kamsky
>is a title contender? Karpov blew him out (6-3 in 18 but 5-1 after 10) in
>Elista. In addition, Kamsky beat Anand and Kramnik in the FIDE matches.
>So how are these four players contenders but Karpov is not?
He's still in the top 5, yes. To answer your question, "Kamsky
is a title contender?" Well.... yes... weren't they playing for
the (bogus) FIDE title in the match you cite above?
>
>>and Kasparov plays against that
>>company all the time. I really can't see where you're getting
>>these ideas... Karpov and Kasparov didn't "avoid each other" in
>>the 80's.... they played some 140+ games against each other. In
>>the 90's, Karpov has completely avoided the PCA events for
>>political reasons...
>
> And Kasparov has avoided the (specifically) FIDE events except
> for the Olympiads.
But he has played in them. Name one PCA event that Karpov has
played in. Didn't think so....
Tim Kokesh
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 8:09 AM, Phil Humpherys <mailto:ph...@philh.dakcs.com>
wrote:
>>>Anand, Kamsky, Kramnik, and Ivanchuk are
>>>all considered title condenders,
>>
>>And here is why I have the argument with your earlier statement... Kamsky
>>is a title contender? Karpov blew him out (6-3 in 18 but 5-1 after 10)
in
>>Elista. In addition, Kamsky beat Anand and Kramnik in the FIDE matches.
>>So how are these four players contenders but Karpov is not?
>
>He's still in the top 5, yes. To answer your question, "Kamsky
>is a title contender?" Well.... yes... weren't they playing for
>the (bogus) FIDE title in the match you cite above?
So let me get this straight... Kamsky is a title contender, but the person
who he challenged for the title, the person who blew him out to keep his
title, Karpov, is not a title contender (with respect to Kasparov's title)?
Tim Kokesh
"All biscuits are the property of their respective owners."
jaqu...@telcel.net.ve
Well, perhaps Kasparov is not a very a friendly guide, but he is for
sure the best chessplayer.
Your venezuelan friend,
Luis Matos.
Ari K Makela
In article <rmoskEI...@netcom.com>,
Ron Moskovitz <rm...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> No, I don't see any possible reading of Kasparov's comments which
>could be taken as humorous. If there is one, I'd love to hear it,
>but I simply don't see how saying that Shaked wasn't strong enough
>to be worth a novelty could be anything but insulting.
Back to Tal... I agree with Ron: I've always thought that Tal's
comment concerning autographs was intended humorous and I think it
was, too. And don't forget that Tal said also this:"When I played
Fischer Tal was already Tal but Fischer was not yet Fischer." Could
you imagine Kasparov saying something like that?
--
Ari K. Makela
ha...@iki.fi http://www.iki.fi/hauva/
"Deux fous gagnent toujours, mais trois fous, non!" - Alexander Alekhine
Tim Mirabile
arim...@cc.helsinki.fi (Ari K Makela) wrote:
>Back to Tal... I agree with Ron: I've always thought that Tal's
>comment concerning autographs was intended humorous and I think it
>was, too. And don't forget that Tal said also this:"When I played
>Fischer Tal was already Tal but Fischer was not yet Fischer." Could
>you imagine Kasparov saying something like that?
This would only make sense for Kasparov to say if Shaked were to beat him some
time in the future. But I can't imagine Kasparov saying anything like this,
especially after being beaten. :)
And I agree that the autograph comments were meant to be humorous. In fact, in
Larry Evans introduction to game 17 (Fischer-Tal, CT 1959) in _My 60 Memorable
Games_, he writes:
"In jest the whimsical Tal signed Fischer's name, in addition to his own, when
asked for an autograph. 'Why not?' he quipped; 'I've beaten Bobby so often ...
that gives me the right to sign for him!'"
--
Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.
Sheldon Mandel
> And I agree that the autograph comments were meant to be humorous. In fact, in
> Larry Evans introduction to game 17 (Fischer-Tal, CT 1959) in _My 60 Memorable
> Games_, he writes:
>
> "In jest the whimsical Tal signed Fischer's name, in addition to his own, when
> asked for an autograph. 'Why not?' he quipped; 'I've beaten Bobby so often ...
> that gives me the right to sign for him!'"
>
You also have to remember that Tal and Fischer were friendly. Another
story: Fischer, Tal, and Lombardy were talking, and Fischer, while
reading Tal's palm, predicted that the next world champion would be
American. Tal congradulated Lombardy!
Also, Fischer visited Tal when Tal was in the hospital after a kidney
operation.
Tal was being funny; Kasparov wasn't.
shelly