Originally posted by KnightloreI read that he never played a match with a friend and the two were still friends after the match. I also read that he put some players down by calling them coffee house players. I took the term the be a negative statement. I did say seems. I do not know any of these players.
What makes you say that about Korchnoi? He comes over like a really nice bloke on the snippets I've seen.
Originally posted by Fat LadyI read that he called himself one tough Cubin and challenged some players then attacked poor Nimzowitch. He is reported to have made a threat to Rubinstein during a game.
Obviously it's all a matter of opinion, but I've never read anything bad about Capablanca.
Some wonderful written portraits of a few of the best known players of the first half of the 20th century is "Grandmasters I have known" by Hans Kmoch. It can be found here: http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/skittarch.htm
Originally posted by gambit3I understand, wasn't saying you're wrong just was interested in your reasoning. I've only seen him in the free clips from Chessbase dvds that you get with Fritz 8 and he really does come across really well. Mind you, I don't know him, either. Have been close to getting his games collection a couple of times which might give some more insight as to what he's like.
I read that he never played a match with a friend and the two were still friends after the match. I also read that he put some players down by calling them coffee house players. I took the term the be a negative statement. I did say seems. I do not know any of these players.
Originally posted by RedmikeBut shouldn't a world champion be the best player in the world? If you only draw matches in the end, wouldn't the challenger be just as good as you, if not better.
I don't know what this has to do with democracy though.
I think it is fair enough to say that, if you have a match against the world champion, you have to beat them to take the title from them.
If you can't do better than draw the match, you don't deserve the title.
Keep in mind that challengers often have stringent selection roads, as well as having to meet all or most of the champion's terms if they wish to even have a world championship match. During this time they often expend some of their secret strategies and variations, which makes them less useful in the future. So the challenger could even be considered better than the champ.
Originally posted by prosoccerWell, the consistent view taken in most, if not all, world championship matches for about a century is that, in the event of a tie, the holder retains the title.
But shouldn't a world champion be the best player in the world? If you only draw matches in the end, wouldn't the challenger be just as good as you, if not better.
Keep in mind that challengers often have stringent selection roads, as well as having to meet all or most of the champion's terms if they wish to even have a world championship match. During t ...[text shortened]... less useful in the future. So the challenger could even be considered better than the champ.
So, Kasparov wasn't making any unusual stipulation.
It is possible to argue that playing in the qualification matches gives the challenger match practise, so making them more prepared than the champion.
Originally posted by RedmikeExcept that who doesn't want the world champion in their chess tourney? The champ can play almost anywhere he likes.
Well, the consistent view taken in most, if not all, world championship matches for about a century is that, in the event of a tie, the holder retains the title.
So, Kasparov wasn't making any unusual stipulation.
It is possible to argue that playing in the qualification matches gives the challenger match practise, so making them more prepared than the champion.
Originally posted by prosoccerYou can't have it both ways.
Except that who doesn't want the world champion in their chess tourney? The champ can play almost anywhere he likes.
If the challengers are at a disadvantage by playing in the qualifaction process because they will "expend some of their secret strategies and variations", then so will the champion in any tournaments he plays in.
And tournaments are very different from matches.
The point, though, is that Kasparov wasn't insisting on anything his predescessors didn't have.
Originally posted by RedmikeYou are assuming that the champion wants or has to win all the tourneys he is in, and that he is playing with players of comparable strength to himself.
You can't have it both ways.
If the challengers are at a disadvantage by playing in the qualifaction process because they will "expend some of their secret strategies and variations", then so will the champion in any tournaments he plays in.
And tournaments are very different from matches.
The point, though, is that Kasparov wasn't insisting on anything his predescessors didn't have.
The challenger DOES have to win the tournaments leading up to the championship, how else would he, not someone else, be the challenger? The championship match is always (or should be) held between the best players in the world, so if the challenger is losing tournaments, he can't be one of the best players.
Since the champion has already proven his worth and holds the title, losing in a couple of tournaments will NOT tarnish his record if he is witholding strategies. These tournaments will probably be ones that champ could easily win if he was in top form, not merely warming up.
We began this argument by speaking of Kasparov's democratic nature, not by talking about past traditions. I have no problem with what champions in the past have done at this point, I was only considering the condition which would have been the most fair to both challengers. Someone who is truly for equality (keep in mind that one definition of democracy is favoring social equality : not snobbish) would want the challenger to be on equal terms with the champion.
Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
Originally posted by wormwoodRead the book "Searching for Bobby Fischer and you will see what unfair advantages Karpov had.
I think it's just really easy to be paranoid about your opponent. we've all been there, and see all the time people thinking their opponent got some kind of unfair advantage one way or another. that's why I think it's completely understandable both karpov and kasparov are inclined to think one had more resources than the other.
and karpov, that gu ...[text shortened]... rov, and still is around today. I think both are heros, but only human at the same time.
Originally posted by prosoccerWell, pardon me if this subject isn't top of my list....
What? No response Red?
I don't really have anything to add, so we'll just have to agree to differ.
I think it is perfectly fair for Kasparov to insist he has to be beaten in a match to lose his title, as practically every other world champion has, you don't.
Just to add my point: Karpov isnt very charasmatic so its harder to empathise with his frustrations and when he played Kortschnoi again the empathy would be with the latter.
Kasparov I think became a bit too powerful in the 90s and thir may have swung him away from 'under-dog' position.
As far as my chess feelings are concerned K vs K WC matches are the standard for titanic struggles. Both got stronger as a result of this.
Nigel Short did really well to beat Kaprov. I couldnt beleive he did that.
As for Fischer vs Kasparov: You need to ask yourself which Kasparov would Fischer play against ?: the pre 1984 Kasparov who attacked fiercley. The Kasparov after 1985 where he picked up more restrained skills. Or the Kaprov-Kasparov of 2000 WC with slow positional play. Kasparov had multiple styles. Fischer didnt.
Sorry, just scanning the gist of the thread here and thought I'd add my, over-priced, two pennies' worth.
Whether democratic or undemocratic, whether aided by a huge team or not, whether a hypocrite or not etc ... Kasparov is and was a genius at the chessboard.
Q1. Who is better Kasparov or Karpov?
Kasparov. Easy, we know this because he beat him.
Q2. Who would have been better between Kasparov and Fischer?
Kasparov. Fischer played in the positional style of Capablanca. There is a strong suggestion that Karpov, a strong positional player, genuinely unnerved him to the extent that Fischer invented reasons for not playing him.
If you consider the mindset of Fischer ... when Fischer lost to Petrosian it devastated him to the extent that he had to disappear for almost a year, (of course he returned to give Petrosian a good whipping en route to the world title!)
Now compare with an anecdote about Garry Kasparov (Fischer apparently calls him that Jew, Weinstein: Kasparov was originally Harry Weinstein but changed his name in an anti-semitic Russia): when Fischer was playing Nigel Short he also played a blitz demonstration against Michael Adams (then an up and coming young English master nicknamed 'tricky Micky'😉. Adams won the game and that was that as only one game was scheduled.Or was it? Kasparov took off his coat, rolled up his shirt sleeves and played Michael Adams winning the next two games.
Now, I know these two anecdotes don't correlate and that Fischer and Karpov are truly world class chess players whose like in the chess world are rare indeed. However, there is a fighting quality and lightning bolt quality to Kasparov's chess that differentiates him from anyone else who has played the game thus far.
It is this quality that has made him the most dominant force, in terms of longevity, in chess since Lasker. But consider the competition that Kasparov faced in the modern era not to mention the increased use of computers.
In short, Kasparov is truly the best player ever to have played the game of chess.