Gary Kasparov versus Magnus Carlsen

[Chrish]

Two giants of the game.. If they played each other at their peak, who would win?

 

[Slog]

you need to specify the sport man?

havent heard of either

 

[Mamoon]

you need to specify the sport man?

havent heard of either

Chess.

 

[hafeezrocks]

you need to specify the sport man?

havent heard of either

Agree, Been wondering who these two guys are and what are they good at.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Sorry to bore you with a longish post.

Classical: In a match format Garry Kasparov would win, Carlsen hasn't yet shown much in his matches. Psychologically Garry is much tougher and he will prepare much better, that will make the biggest difference. The ELO ratings are inflated and I wouldn't read too much into that. Kasparov dominated the 80s/90s more than what Carlsen has done in this era and that era featured 3 top shelf ATGs in Karpov, Anand and Kramnik. Carlsen was lucky that as he hit his peak the mighty older generation (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Ivanchuk etc) was too old to keep up and his generation was yet to bloom. Now in the last 3 years as Caruana, Karjakin, Giri, MVL, So, Naka, Nepo, Ding etc are hitting their strides he is not dominating that much even in super tournaments. What worked in Carlsen's favour was that players born in the 80s didn't achieve their potential and those that did become elite were late bloomers, chokers, unmotivated etc like Aronian, Grischuk, Mamedyarov. After all that remember Carlsen was 1 move away from getting into a very difficult situation against a 45 year old Anand in Sochi (G6), 1 move from disaster against the inferior Karjakin and didn't win a single classical game against Caruana. Contrast that to Kasparov's matches in the 80s and 90s against other ATGs. Kasparov also was not just dominating those days but his creative ideas left a mark on the game, he was the man who took forward Botvinik's philosophy and his work with computers is for all to see. In a hypothetical match up he will make much better use of silicon monsters. Magnus doesn't have the creative juices and that will be a huge handicap against a potential match up against peak Kasparov. Kasparov faced a proto-Carlsen (Karpov) and triumphed but Carlsen has never faced a proto-Kasparov. Carlsen won't be able to make the game physical because Kasparov was one of the fittest persons in his time and those K-K clashes were as physical as it gets. Kasparov has a clear edge in opening, tactical vision, calculation, psychology while Carlsen has an edge in endgame and positional understanding. And I am sure the match will be fought on Kasparov's turf more often than not.

Rapid/blitz: Magnus would be favorite, shorter the time control the more beastly he gets. All players suffer a drop in level with shorter time, but in case of Carlsen the dip is quite small. And players who depend a lot on calculation (Kasparov, Topalov, Caruana) are always at a disadvantage in speed chess. The more intuitive a player is, the easier it is to manage the clock.

 

[Slog]

Chess.

do you follow it?

@OP and others - What do you mean by 'peak'? Isnt peak indefinite in a way till late 50s atleast

 

[Mamoon]

do you follow it?

@OP and others - What do you mean by 'peak'? Isnt peak indefinite in a way till late 50s atleast

I love to play but I don’t follow it extensively.

 

[BlackShadow]

Magnus from a few years ago was scary good, second only to Fischer in my opinion.

 

[BlackShadow]

Sorry to bore you with a longish post.

Classical: In a match format Garry Kasparov would win, Carlsen hasn't yet shown much in his matches. Psychologically Garry is much tougher and he will prepare much better, that will make the biggest difference. The ELO ratings are inflated and I wouldn't read too much into that. Kasparov dominated the 80s/90s more than what Carlsen has done in this era and that era featured 3 top shelf ATGs in Karpov, Anand and Kramnik. Carlsen was lucky that as he hit his peak the mighty older generation (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Ivanchuk etc) was too old to keep up and his generation was yet to bloom. Now in the last 3 years as Caruana, Karjakin, Giri, MVL, So, Naka, Nepo, Ding etc are hitting their strides he is not dominating that much even in super tournaments. What worked in Carlsen's favour was that players born in the 80s didn't achieve their potential and those that did become elite were late bloomers, chokers, unmotivated etc like Aronian, Grischuk, Mamedyarov. After all that remember Carlsen was 1 move away from getting into a very difficult situation against a 45 year old Anand in Sochi (G6), 1 move from disaster against the inferior Karjakin and didn't win a single classical game against Caruana. Contrast that to Kasparov's matches in the 80s and 90s against other ATGs. Kasparov also was not just dominating those days but his creative ideas left a mark on the game, he was the man who took forward Botvinik's philosophy and his work with computers is for all to see. In a hypothetical match up he will make much better use of silicon monsters. Magnus doesn't have the creative juices and that will be a huge handicap against a potential match up against peak Kasparov. Kasparov faced a proto-Carlsen (Karpov) and triumphed but Carlsen has never faced a proto-Kasparov. Carlsen won't be able to make the game physical because Kasparov was one of the fittest persons in his time and those K-K clashes were as physical as it gets. Kasparov has a clear edge in opening, tactical vision, calculation, psychology while Carlsen has an edge in endgame and positional understanding. And I am sure the match will be fought on Kasparov's turf more often than not.

Rapid/blitz: Magnus would be favorite, shorter the time control the more beastly he gets. All players suffer a drop in level with shorter time, but in case of Carlsen the dip is quite small. And players who depend a lot on calculation (Kasparov, Topalov, Caruana) are always at a disadvantage in speed chess. The more intuitive a player is, the easier it is to manage the clock.

How? Based on last title defense against Carauna? It isn't as easy to dominate the classical format now because studies are so extensive and this is obviously leading to draws being much easier to achieve. You think peak Kasparov would force wins against these opponents and their preparation?

 

[TM Riddle]

you need to specify the sport man?

havent heard of either

Carlson I can understand but you never heard of Kasparov?
Even the non chess fans know about him because of that famous match against IBM computer.

 

[Slog]

Carlson I can understand but you never heard of Kasparov?
Even the non chess fans know about him because of that famous match against IBM computer.

Nope. I’m sure I must have read the name somewhere but doesn’t a ring a bell. It’s not really on my radar

I know there was one famous Indian chess player in last decade. Remember a thread

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Sorry to bore you with a longish post.

Classical: In a match format Garry Kasparov would win, Carlsen hasn't yet shown much in his matches. Psychologically Garry is much tougher and he will prepare much better, that will make the biggest difference. The ELO ratings are inflated and I wouldn't read too much into that. Kasparov dominated the 80s/90s more than what Carlsen has done in this era and that era featured 3 top shelf ATGs in Karpov, Anand and Kramnik. Carlsen was lucky that as he hit his peak the mighty older generation (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Ivanchuk etc) was too old to keep up and his generation was yet to bloom. Now in the last 3 years as Caruana, Karjakin, Giri, MVL, So, Naka, Nepo, Ding etc are hitting their strides he is not dominating that much even in super tournaments. What worked in Carlsen's favour was that players born in the 80s didn't achieve their potential and those that did become elite were late bloomers, chokers, unmotivated etc like Aronian, Grischuk, Mamedyarov. After all that remember Carlsen was 1 move away from getting into a very difficult situation against a 45 year old Anand in Sochi (G6), 1 move from disaster against the inferior Karjakin and didn't win a single classical game against Caruana. Contrast that to Kasparov's matches in the 80s and 90s against other ATGs. Kasparov also was not just dominating those days but his creative ideas left a mark on the game, he was the man who took forward Botvinik's philosophy and his work with computers is for all to see. In a hypothetical match up he will make much better use of silicon monsters. Magnus doesn't have the creative juices and that will be a huge handicap against a potential match up against peak Kasparov. Kasparov faced a proto-Carlsen (Karpov) and triumphed but Carlsen has never faced a proto-Kasparov. Carlsen won't be able to make the game physical because Kasparov was one of the fittest persons in his time and those K-K clashes were as physical as it gets. Kasparov has a clear edge in opening, tactical vision, calculation, psychology while Carlsen has an edge in endgame and positional understanding. And I am sure the match will be fought on Kasparov's turf more often than not.

Rapid/blitz: Magnus would be favorite, shorter the time control the more beastly he gets. All players suffer a drop in level with shorter time, but in case of Carlsen the dip is quite small. And players who depend a lot on calculation (Kasparov, Topalov, Caruana) are always at a disadvantage in speed chess. The more intuitive a player is, the easier it is to manage the clock.

Excellent analysis. I agree with your assessment. Kasparov is a monster in the classical format.

What do you think about Capablanca vs Kasparov?

Bro please check out a documentary called 'Alpha Go'; it's not about chess but I am 100% sure you will love it!

 

[Swashbuckler]

How? Based on last title defense against Carauna? It isn't as easy to dominate the classical format now because studies are so extensive and this is obviously leading to draws being much easier to achieve. You think peak Kasparov would force wins against these opponents and their preparation?

So there's a hypothetical match scenario between peak Kasparov (I would choose 1999 when he had a brief resurgent peak even though it was short lived, at the age of 36) and peak Carlsen (2012-13 at age 22/23). Put both of them in a time machine, transport them to a particular year in the future. I say future because Carlsen was brought up with computers, he learnt his chess with the help of powerful chess engines, Magnus Carlsen is a product of the computer age. That is a big advantage over Kasparov who for most part learnt via other means and was instrumental in ushering in computer chess era. Likes of Carlsen benefited because of Kasparov's work and got more out of it because they grew up with their silicon friends. Also the engines keep on getting more powerful thus making analysis more concrete every passing year. Kasparov enjoyed the fruits of his work over his peers in the form of an intimidating opening repertoire but 1999 to 2012-13 means computing power and chess theory has advanced a great deal and analysis is more rigorous than it has ever been in the past.


Give them equal resources (money, seconds, books, computers, training centres etc) to prepare for their match. But before that Kasparov needs to catch up with Carlsen in terms of knowledge. Since his peak is 1999 version, he has missed out on latest theory developments and analysis available to Carlsen. Also he needs some top level sparring partners (elite GMs who faced Carlsen regularly in supertournaments) to get a better understanding of the modern game. That will make the fight fair. Decide on a time frame for him to get into shape and once both parties agree implement the same. For example if Kasparov 1999 is the candidate and he needs 2 years to catch up with Carlsen of 2012-13, use the time machine to put him in the past and ensure he arrives to the match not just at his peak but with no handicap. I am not sure of the physics/maths but what I am trying to convey is that peak Kasparov shouldn't suffer because he doesn't have access to theory development in the game due to the time gap. Remember Carlsen gained not just only by growing up with computers but also having readymade opening analysis in his database created by fellow elite GMs post 1999, most notably Kramnik, Anand but also others. Garry has to have access to that database. Another issue is Kasparov coached Carlsen in 2009-10 period and gave him access to his own database and tricks/ideas/experiences, so someone will have to wipe out that memory from Carlsen since 1999 Kasparov would have no insights about Carlsen's mind and hence would be at a disadvantage. So many things to consider here !!!

Now both are at equal footing and the match commences. Kasparov realizes that getting a big opening advantage isn't that easy anymore. He also realizes his potential weaknesses eg Berlin Defence against which he suffered in the Kramnik match a year later. Likewise with the rest of his opening repertoire. He has more knowledge of holes/flaws in his opening preparation and hence can decide on the optimum strategy to conduct the match. Carlsen loses the surprise element (Berlin) Kramnik had in 2000 and that will be a huge blow to the Norwegian. Kasparov's creativity in the opening phase is part of folklore. His work ethic is unmatched and his ability to come up with ideas will never be paralleled. Carlsen gets overawed by Kramnik and Anand's opening prep, well Kasparov was their guru. Meanwhile Carlsen always aims to get a playable position out of opening, not an advantage meaning he will play most games after surrendering opening advantage (slight to moderate). Kasparov won't have the same advantage out of opening like in 80s and 90s but he would do better and a catastrophe like the 2000 match will be totally avoided. Kasparov was the greatest tactician in his playing days and with engines available in training he will be invincible in that department. His calculation would get slightly better and by sparring with Carlsen's contemporaries his endgame (flavor of this era, greatest legacy of Carlsen) too will improve though he would never be as good as the Viking. What I said in the previous post holds true.

Kasparov has a clear edge in opening, tactical vision, calculation, psychology while Carlsen has an edge in endgame and positional understanding.

While as you rightly said his opening advantage would diminish, his tactics, calculation and endgame would marginally improve thus the total package will still be formidable. Of course Carlsen's positional mastery will be a big plus for him and he will navigate complex strategic middlegames better, I am sure Kasparov will try his level best to decide the turf of battle. It is like tennis, if you have the GOAT serve (white opening) and GOAT return of serve (black opening) on an average you will always get a headstart (service game, white) or be neutral (return game, black) in the rally (middlegame). Now Kasparov will hold an advantage in messy tactical middlegames plus wherever a great deal of calculation is required, also open play is preferrable. Carlsen will want strategically complex positions and closed positions where he can do his maneuvering that only he has the full grasp of. Again in endgames Kasparov has an advantage in heavy piece endgames while Carlsen prefers light piece endgames, rook and pawn endgames, minor piece plus pawn etc. Now it isn't like Kasparov is hopeless in such endgames but he can go wrong and that is what his opponent will hope for. If at all Carlsen has to win the match he will need his endgame form to click. But IMO more often than not Kasparov will avoid playing to Carlsen's strengths successfully. Kasparov is psychologically the toughest warrior in the history of chess (check 1984 against Karpov), he won't choke like most of Carlsen's tough opponents. Their auras will cancel out but Carlsen is still made of weaker nerves relatively speaking (Candidates 2011 pullout, Candidates 2013 final round choke, G12 against Caruana, many other examples where his nerves collapsed). Carlsen can't hope to outlast Kasparov by making the battle physical (check GK's 1984 match and other duels with Karpov).

All things considered I stand by my prediction: if such a match were to occur, Kasparov will emerge victorious after a bloody tough fight.

 

[Swashbuckler]

@OP and others - What do you mean by 'peak'? Isnt peak indefinite in a way till late 50s atleast

Peak=combination of many factors: highest rating, level of play, decision making ability, creativity, tournament performances, experience, energy, technique, motivation

In chess a player these days peaks between early 20s to mid 30s. The peak ages keep coming down with every successive era, for example in the 70s and 80s many top players would continue to be contenders in their late 30s and 40s, some even in 50s. Now chess is a young man's game and barring a few outliers all the top players are youngsters, the average age of top 10 is 20 something and there are only 2 oldies in top 10: Anand (49) and Kramnik (43), same trend in top 100. Only 1 player Boris Gelfand is 50 years old and he is world number 70 !!!!

Nope. I’m sure I must have read the name somewhere but doesn’t a ring a bell. It’s not really on my radar

I know there was one famous Indian chess player in last decade. Remember a thread

Even if you don't know his chess career Kasparov must be a familiar name, for instance his political career. At one point of time he was the leading voice against Putin in Russia, a champion of democracy and human rights there, entered the Presidential race, faced a high profile jail time which created worldwide ripples a few years back. He was involved in that Pu*sy Riot controversy. Later he was forced to leave Russia due to threats, his good friend and fellow Putin critic Boris Nemstov was assassinated shortly after that. While I don't agree with his world views and politics, he has established himself as a reasonably famous human rights activist, political expert and author. Has written some good non chess books and articles, mainly about AI. Remarkable man of modern times !!!

The famous Indian player is Viswanathan Anand and he has been elite level grandmaster for the last 3 decades. In fact he has been in decline this decade due to growing age.

 

[BlackShadow]

So there's a hypothetical match scenario between peak Kasparov (I would choose 1999 when he had a brief resurgent peak even though it was short lived, at the age of 36) and peak Carlsen (2012-13 at age 22/23). Put both of them in a time machine, transport them to a particular year in the future. I say future because Carlsen was brought up with computers, he learnt his chess with the help of powerful chess engines, Magnus Carlsen is a product of the computer age. That is a big advantage over Kasparov who for most part learnt via other means and was instrumental in ushering in computer chess era. Likes of Carlsen benefited because of Kasparov's work and got more out of it because they grew up with their silicon friends. Also the engines keep on getting more powerful thus making analysis more concrete every passing year. Kasparov enjoyed the fruits of his work over his peers in the form of an intimidating opening repertoire but 1999 to 2012-13 means computing power and chess theory has advanced a great deal and analysis is more rigorous than it has ever been in the past.


Give them equal resources (money, seconds, books, computers, training centres etc) to prepare for their match. But before that Kasparov needs to catch up with Carlsen in terms of knowledge. Since his peak is 1999 version, he has missed out on latest theory developments and analysis available to Carlsen. Also he needs some top level sparring partners (elite GMs who faced Carlsen regularly in supertournaments) to get a better understanding of the modern game. That will make the fight fair. Decide on a time frame for him to get into shape and once both parties agree implement the same. For example if Kasparov 1999 is the candidate and he needs 2 years to catch up with Carlsen of 2012-13, use the time machine to put him in the past and ensure he arrives to the match not just at his peak but with no handicap. I am not sure of the physics/maths but what I am trying to convey is that peak Kasparov shouldn't suffer because he doesn't have access to theory development in the game due to the time gap. Remember Carlsen gained not just only by growing up with computers but also having readymade opening analysis in his database created by fellow elite GMs post 1999, most notably Kramnik, Anand but also others. Garry has to have access to that database. Another issue is Kasparov coached Carlsen in 2009-10 period and gave him access to his own database and tricks/ideas/experiences, so someone will have to wipe out that memory from Carlsen since 1999 Kasparov would have no insights about Carlsen's mind and hence would be at a disadvantage. So many things to consider here !!!

Now both are at equal footing and the match commences. Kasparov realizes that getting a big opening advantage isn't that easy anymore. He also realizes his potential weaknesses eg Berlin Defence against which he suffered in the Kramnik match a year later. Likewise with the rest of his opening repertoire. He has more knowledge of holes/flaws in his opening preparation and hence can decide on the optimum strategy to conduct the match. Carlsen loses the surprise element (Berlin) Kramnik had in 2000 and that will be a huge blow to the Norwegian. Kasparov's creativity in the opening phase is part of folklore. His work ethic is unmatched and his ability to come up with ideas will never be paralleled. Carlsen gets overawed by Kramnik and Anand's opening prep, well Kasparov was their guru. Meanwhile Carlsen always aims to get a playable position out of opening, not an advantage meaning he will play most games after surrendering opening advantage (slight to moderate). Kasparov won't have the same advantage out of opening like in 80s and 90s but he would do better and a catastrophe like the 2000 match will be totally avoided. Kasparov was the greatest tactician in his playing days and with engines available in training he will be invincible in that department. His calculation would get slightly better and by sparring with Carlsen's contemporaries his endgame (flavor of this era, greatest legacy of Carlsen) too will improve though he would never be as good as the Viking. What I said in the previous post holds true.



While as you rightly said his opening advantage would diminish, his tactics, calculation and endgame would marginally improve thus the total package will still be formidable. Of course Carlsen's positional mastery will be a big plus for him and he will navigate complex strategic middlegames better, I am sure Kasparov will try his level best to decide the turf of battle. It is like tennis, if you have the GOAT serve (white opening) and GOAT return of serve (black opening) on an average you will always get a headstart (service game, white) or be neutral (return game, black) in the rally (middlegame). Now Kasparov will hold an advantage in messy tactical middlegames plus wherever a great deal of calculation is required, also open play is preferrable. Carlsen will want strategically complex positions and closed positions where he can do his maneuvering that only he has the full grasp of. Again in endgames Kasparov has an advantage in heavy piece endgames while Carlsen prefers light piece endgames, rook and pawn endgames, minor piece plus pawn etc. Now it isn't like Kasparov is hopeless in such endgames but he can go wrong and that is what his opponent will hope for. If at all Carlsen has to win the match he will need his endgame form to click. But IMO more often than not Kasparov will avoid playing to Carlsen's strengths successfully. Kasparov is psychologically the toughest warrior in the history of chess (check 1984 against Karpov), he won't choke like most of Carlsen's tough opponents. Their auras will cancel out but Carlsen is still made of weaker nerves relatively speaking (Candidates 2011 pullout, Candidates 2013 final round choke, G12 against Caruana, many other examples where his nerves collapsed). Carlsen can't hope to outlast Kasparov by making the battle physical (check GK's 1984 match and other duels with Karpov).

All things considered I stand by my prediction: if such a match were to occur, Kasparov will emerge victorious after a bloody tough fight.

Damn, that's a lot of insight. Tell me your FIDE rating..

 

[Slog]

Peak=combination of many factors: highest rating, level of play, decision making ability, creativity, tournament performances, experience, energy, technique, motivation

In chess a player these days peaks between early 20s to mid 30s. The peak ages keep coming down with every successive era, for example in the 70s and 80s many top players would continue to be contenders in their late 30s and 40s, some even in 50s. Now chess is a young man's game and barring a few outliers all the top players are youngsters, the average age of top 10 is 20 something and there are only 2 oldies in top 10: Anand (49) and Kramnik (43), same trend in top 100. Only 1 player Boris Gelfand is 50 years old and he is world number 70 !!!!



Even if you don't know his chess career Kasparov must be a familiar name, for instance his political career. At one point of time he was the leading voice against Putin in Russia, a champion of democracy and human rights there, entered the Presidential race, faced a high profile jail time which created worldwide ripples a few years back. He was involved in that Pu*sy Riot controversy. Later he was forced to leave Russia due to threats, his good friend and fellow Putin critic Boris Nemstov was assassinated shortly after that. While I don't agree with his world views and politics, he has established himself as a reasonably famous human rights activist, political expert and author. Has written some good non chess books and articles, mainly about AI. Remarkable man of modern times !!!

Wow thanks for the detailed post. Very interesting.

Why has age been decreasing? Any reason? You would think since it is a game of mind and maturity peak should extend to late 30s early 40s at the very least

The famous Indian player is Viswanathan Anand and he has been elite level grandmaster for the last 3 decades. In fact he has been in decline this decade due to growing age.

Yep. He is the one

 

[Swashbuckler]

What do you think about Capablanca vs Kasparov?

Garry Kasparov will beat the Cuban genius. Just like how the Garry Kasparov of his era, Alexander Alekhine beat Capablanca during the latter's peak. I consider Alekhine to be the earliest proponent of a style of chess which was perfected by Kasparov. In fact apart from Botvinik no other player influenced the young Kasparov as much as Alekhine, the thrust on modern opening preparation, tactics, dynamics, attacking combinations, piece activity etc moulded Garry the player.

Honestly I don't like Garry Kasparov, all my life I have rooted for his opponent. I could never warm up to his abrasive character, gamesmanship, arrogance and his role in the turmoil caused by FIDE split in 1993. Also the fact that he is such a dedicated Western puppet and so biased in his political analysis and world views, hate the person. So praising him so many times in a single day is giving me heartburn . But I will try to be objective in my analysis of such a match up.

What I said about the Carlsen-Kasparov match up (1st 2 paras of post #13) holds true. Match should ideally be set up during Kasparov's time and arrangements will have to be made to get Capablanca to overcome the handicaps because of the huge time gap. For convenience sake let us take the Kasparov of say 1986/87 before chess programs came into the picture. Now that wasn't peak Kasparov (poor defence, impulsive, underdeveloped positional understanding) but we have to eliminate the role of computers in such a match up. Capa was at his peak in the 1920s and died in 1942, computers were not even in the picture back then. I am not sure how Capa would adapt to such a radically different technology, hence it will be unfair to bring chess engines to the picture. Make necessary arrangements to get Capa up to date with later chess theory and analysis till 1986 and ensure he is not just at his peak but also knowledge wise not in a disadvantageous position.

Capablanca IMO was the biggest chess genius of the 20th century just like how Paul Morphy was in the preceding century. The most intuitive player of all time, it is said that he himself didn't know why he made this move or that, he just knew which square to occupy with which piece. He was the proponent of a style of chess later perfected by Magnus Carlsen (positional play, endgame). However there was one big drawback in his game and that would play a decisive role in his hypothetical match against Garry. Capa was the laziest world champion of all time, his natural talent was so immense that he never bothered to work on his game and weaknesses. Also very undisciplined, he loved women and gambling. These negative traits combined to cost him the title to Alekhine who was the heavy underdog in that match. What's worse is that because of overconfidence he came to that match with zero preparation against a motivated, well prepared opponent. This is why I feel skeptical about his chances against the most well prepared, driven, disciplined, hard working, self critical world champion of them all, someone who spent every single hour to strengthen his transient weaknesses, Garry Kasparov.

Following the path of Alekhine and Tal before him, Kasparov always strived to grab the initiative, to relentlessly attack, always looking for tactical traps and high risk combinations. This was one extreme style of chess and as of this date Kasparov is the highest version of such a style. Capablanca belonged to the other end of the spectrum, slow, positional style, strategic maneuvering, risk free, boa constrictor style, endgame specialization etc. Capa was the pioneer of this method, this style was taken forward by Karpov, Kramnik before being given the finishing touches by none other than the current world champion. Because of his negative traits I don't believe that even with a time machine Capa would become the best version of himself.

One can observe some sort of pattern in chess: the adherents of a dry, positional style are succeeded by tacticians. These two extremes have been swaying to and fro for the last 40 years. Karpov (positional) lost to Garry (tactical), Garry lost to Kramnik (positional), Kramnik lost to Anand (tactical), Anand lost to Carlsen (positional). Anand (like Spassky and Fischer) strictly doesn't come under either of these 2 broad categories, he is what we can call a universal player. Universal meaning chameleon like, Anand played a tactical match against Vlad in 2008 but then shifted to positional chess against the highly tactical and more in-form Topalov in 2010. Practically it is easier to win against someone stronger but of the opposite style and very difficult to win against a similar style better player, so theoretically while it is possible for Capa to beat Garry I don't see it happening.

Bro please check out a documentary called 'Alpha Go'; it's not about chess but I am 100% sure you will love it!

I saw the documentary and enjoyed it . It was widely discussed in the chess community and keenly followed, though I don't understand the game I felt sad when Lee Sedol lost the match. I wish to learn about the complex game one day but it is not a global game and dominated by East Asians. AlphaGo's developer DeepMind also developed AlphaZero which smashed Stockfish recently. Are you keeping tabs with its development of late?

DeepMind's founder Demis Hassabis was a pretty handy chess player back in the day and in his age group he was world number 2 behind Judit Polgar. He is quite involved with chess these days.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Wow thanks for the detailed post. Very interesting.

Why has age been decreasing? Any reason? You would think since it is a game of mind and maturity peak should extend to late 30s early 40s at the very least

With age, mostly knowledge increases as does maturity, wisdom, patience and experience. But at the same time there is a trade off with memory, cognitive processes, mental stamina, pattern recognition (all backed by scientific research, mind peaks in early/mid 20s it seems) and these are more vital in chess contests.

What I have seen in top level players is that after they get beyond a certain age (mid 30s mostly) their calculating power declines a little and a small change there drastically reduces their level of play in a very competitive endeavor. You have to calculate like crazy in many chess positions and the decision tree (say I have 6 possible moves, for each of those 6 moves my opponent has 8 moves, then I have 5 counters for each of those....) can get very complex very quickly, game tree complexity (number of possible games) of chess at 10^120 is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80). Chess is insanely complicated and the stressful decision making process can take a big toll on the mind, nerves and body (physical fitness is paramount, this aspect escapes the attention of most casual fans, non fans or those who haven't played a serious FIDE tournament). When it comes to opening (initial moves), again elite players not only need to be great at analysis but have to have a great memory, another important trait that declines with age and causes players to blunder when they mix up move combinations or mess up patterns. Tactical vision which is very energy-intensive again gets more blunder prone with age. Almost every facet of the game suffers as players turn to wrong side of 30s, sometimes earlier.

Of course all this applies to top level professional chess and not amateur chess. I know people who pick up the game very late and improve in their 50s and 60s, but the motive there is leisure/fun and depth of play is extremely shallow compared to what the pros dabble with.

 

[Chrish]

[MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] ,

I wasn't expecting to come across a chess enthusiast on here. I have just begun to learn about professional Chess and have few questions. I understand there are three formats of the game: Classical, rapid and blitz. How are they seen in terms of importance? I would assume Classical format is valued the most?

Also, I already know of your opinion on Kasparov vs Carlsen. What do you think about Kasparov vs Fischer? How would Fischer have gone in current era?

On Carlsen I do think he is being underrated due to his young age. I mean he has a universal game and has been a no. 1 in all three formats. He is kinda like a vastly enhanced version of Karpov. Next 5 years would determine his legacy. His opponents like Caruana are steadily improving but none has come close to reaching his height.

 

[Chrish]

Wow thanks for the detailed post. Very interesting.

Why has age been decreasing? Any reason? You would think since it is a game of mind and maturity peak should extend to late 30s early 40s at the very least



Yep. He is the one

Chess is the game of not only creativity and skill but also immense preparation. New theories constantly keep developing and you need hours and hours of preparation every day at the professional level. It's like studying on the day before final exam except you are doing this every single day!

Majority of the folks would have family by mid thirties- early forties. So, it would be quite difficult to dedicate the same time toward Chess. Lack of preparation would catch up eventually. There is a reason why majority of current top players are in their twenties.

 

[JaDed]

Hmm I guess being from India the Chess players have occupied positions in our newspapers, wonder if anyone heard of GO, apparently only recently could "DeepMind" beat the GO champion, unlike Chess where the computer would beat the Chess Champion.

 

[Swashbuckler]

[MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] ,

I wasn't expecting to come across a chess enthusiast on here. I have just begun to learn about professional Chess and have few questions. I understand there are three formats of the game: Classical, rapid and blitz. How are they seen in terms of importance? I would assume Classical format is valued the most?

Also, I already know of your opinion on Kasparov vs Carlsen. What do you think about Kasparov vs Fischer? How would Fischer have gone in current era?

On Carlsen I do think he is being underrated due to his young age. I mean he has a universal game and has been a no. 1 in all three formats. He is kinda like a vastly enhanced version of Karpov. Next 5 years would determine his legacy. His opponents like Caruana are steadily improving but none has come close to reaching his height.

Classical=test cricket
Rapid=ODI
Blitz=T20/T10 depending on time control, sometimes even like Hong Kong Super Sixes

Classical is the most prestigious but despite its rich history classical chess will meet its death one day (draw death prediction by Capablanca), rapid is the best balance like ODI cricket of 90s. Players take it seriously and I am sure one day it will become the most important format. Trend is pointing towards that direction. Blitz is for fun, nobody cares, nobody takes it seriously, many greats have avoided blitz altogether because bad habits creep in. Actually it isn't even like T20 cricket, it's total waste from player's perspective but a nice time pass especially when games are accompanied with alcohol and in a relaxed environment.

Nobody can be called a great player unless he/she shines in classical, many blitz only specialists lack understanding of the game and play with their reflexes and cheap tricks. There is no creativity or beauty in this format, only cheap blunders that don't suit the status of the GMs. Upsets are common in blitz but as time control increases the difference in level becomes clear. But the problem these days is with excessive preparation, under present FIDE time control (100 minutes for 40 moves, then 50 minutes for 20 moves and then 15 minutes to the end of the game, with a 30-second increment from move 1) it is possible to be more true to engine lines. Rapid eliminates that problem and allows enough space for OTB beauty, also blunders are less.

Fischer would have done well in any era, a champion in one era will always be a champion in another. But he was also a nutcase, so quite unpredictable whether he would have competed or stayed away from title matches.

Fischer vs Kasparov, I choose Kaspy by narrow margin basing on style of play. However Fischer is better in shorter time controls. Fischer was overhyped by Western media even though he is all time top 5 in my book, GK is GOAT. I don't have time to write a long post but I have plenty of reasons for my prediction. An average Kasparov can beat Fischer but for the American to win too many things have to fall in place including preparation, psychology, team work, motivation etc. I am sure Fischer would make 10000 pre-conditions for the match and try his best to avoid it, he was crazy and a coward.

Nobody under rates Carlsen. He is top 3/5 all time in most people's books which is great considering his age. But obviously he has to show more before comparisons with Garry can be made. I have been following professional chess since the time I started following cricket, that is more than 20 years back, so I do not have the recency bias.

In blitz Carlsen is at the worst joint GOAT (with Capa, Tal, Fischer, Grischuk) but nobody seriously cares about this format while judging greatness. Rapid/blitz ratings are a recent phenomenon, and world championships in this format are yearly nowadays as opposed to once in 8-10 years a few years ago. In rapid he is quite behind Anand (rapid GOAT). All greats have been number one in all 3 formats at some points of their career, even if ratings weren't available then. Carlen benefited greatly because of the time he peaked. As I said in another post his peak coincided with Kasparov's generation leaving the chess Olympus and before blooming of the next strong gen. Dominance in classical now for him is much less than it was in 2012-14 and in rapid he is fallible. In the recent World Championship Caruana outplayed him in classical portion and before that Karjakin wasn't any worse. In 2014 had Anand not blundered G6 in a close to won position, the history of chess would have been different. I would avoid exaggerated statements like "none has come close to reaching his height", at least for classical part.

Again "vastly enhanced version of Karpov" is an exaggeration, Karpov is criminally under rated, long post needed and I am running out of time so maybe later. Carlsen is Karpov+Fischer, the positional and endgame mastery of the Russian and the vigor and willingness to win like Fischer. And the cream on top is Kasparov coaching him in 2009-10 plus assisting him in his title matches against Anand. Check his record against Anand, Kramnik and Topalov before Kasparov decided to help him against his old rivals. Also access to Kaspy's opening database was an immense privilege for the Viking.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Hmm I guess being from India the Chess players have occupied positions in our newspapers, wonder if anyone heard of GO, apparently only recently could "DeepMind" beat the GO champion, unlike Chess where the computer would beat the Chess Champion.

Not just India, except East Asia chess is more popular than Go in every single country. FIDE Olympiad in terms of participation is second only to Summer Olympics and the number of chess players number in tens of millions.

In Japan Shogi is much more popular than Go.

In China Go has competition in the form of Xiangqi, Chess, Mahjong, Draughts etc.

Only in South Korea can you say that Go is the most popular mind sport.

There is simply no comparison with chess in terms of global popularity, and even when it comes to famous chess players or its status in culture and society. How many Hollywood movies have we seen with chess as a theme (Seventh Seal, Pawn Sacrifice, Searching for Bobby Fischer, Queen of Katwe, The Dark Horse and many more) or as a tool to offer insights into the human brain (Bond, Magneto, Professor X, Dr Strange, Sherlock Holmes, some Kubrick and Woody Allen characters etc)!!! I am not disrespecting Go or other mind sports but this is the truth. They all have their beauty and complexity but chess has occupied the status of being the eminent mental game for centuries now. Chess games (slightly different rules depending on origin) from ancient era have been recorded and studied. The theory and analysis is unmatchable. I doubt similar work has been carried out by humans in analyzing Go or Shogi.

Programmers have been working with chess players since 80s. Chess programs (by people like Turing, McCarthy, Levy, Ken Thompson, Mestel, Nunn etc ) were written much much before Go programs and it shaped the world of computers, from brute force method earlier to AI today like the ones DeepMind is creating. Famous chess programmers have collaborated with the likes of Botvinik, Larsen, Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Kramnik and the theory and decision algorithm was quite extensive and handy. How many Go players volunteered to help develop Go programs 25 years ago?

Still that IBM match (Deep Blue vs Kasparov) is very controversial where there are serious question marks about human intervention. Deep Blue was hastily dismantled before an investigation, IBM wanted to defeat the world chess champion to revive sagging fortunes those days. Kasparov wasn't in the best frame of mind, started seeing ghosts. In my estimate computers objectively overtook the best human player only 6-7 years later. You are free to believe or disbelieve my assertion.

Besides DeepMind itself was founded by a chess player, Demis Hassabis and involved those who had earlier worked on computer chess. And you can't judge games based on programs, till date there is no computer program that can master poker

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I learnt so much from this thread.

I played chess for my school team but I never followed it like Chess fans do.

Thank you [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION].

What a gun poster.

 

[Sirris]

Isn't professional chess all about memorizing moves and counter-moves and nothing about in the spot strategy thinking. I think that's what puts me off

 

[JaDed]

Not just India, except East Asia chess is more popular than Go in every single country. FIDE Olympiad in terms of participation is second only to Summer Olympics and the number of chess players number in tens of millions.

In Japan Shogi is much more popular than Go.

In China Go has competition in the form of Xiangqi, Chess, Mahjong, Draughts etc.

Only in South Korea can you say that Go is the most popular mind sport.

There is simply no comparison with chess in terms of global popularity, and even when it comes to famous chess players or its status in culture and society. How many Hollywood movies have we seen with chess as a theme (Seventh Seal, Pawn Sacrifice, Searching for Bobby Fischer, Queen of Katwe, The Dark Horse and many more) or as a tool to offer insights into the human brain (Bond, Magneto, Professor X, Dr Strange, Sherlock Holmes, some Kubrick and Woody Allen characters etc)!!! I am not disrespecting Go or other mind sports but this is the truth. They all have their beauty and complexity but chess has occupied the status of being the eminent mental game for centuries now. Chess games (slightly different rules depending on origin) from ancient era have been recorded and studied. The theory and analysis is unmatchable. I doubt similar work has been carried out by humans in analyzing Go or Shogi.

Programmers have been working with chess players since 80s. Chess programs (by people like Turing, McCarthy, Levy, Ken Thompson, Mestel, Nunn etc ) were written much much before Go programs and it shaped the world of computers, from brute force method earlier to AI today like the ones DeepMind is creating. Famous chess programmers have collaborated with the likes of Botvinik, Larsen, Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Kramnik and the theory and decision algorithm was quite extensive and handy. How many Go players volunteered to help develop Go programs 25 years ago?

Still that IBM match (Deep Blue vs Kasparov) is very controversial where there are serious question marks about human intervention. Deep Blue was hastily dismantled before an investigation, IBM wanted to defeat the world chess champion to revive sagging fortunes those days. Kasparov wasn't in the best frame of mind, started seeing ghosts. In my estimate computers objectively overtook the best human player only 6-7 years later. You are free to believe or disbelieve my assertion.

Besides DeepMind itself was founded by a chess player, Demis Hassabis and involved those who had earlier worked on computer chess. And you can't judge games based on programs, till date there is no computer program that can master poker

Thanks for the detailed post, great read.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Isn't professional chess all about memorizing moves and counter-moves and nothing about in the spot strategy thinking. I think that's what puts me off

No. Absolutely not.

Chess games involve three phases: the opening, the middlegame, and the endgame.

Opening: It tests creativity and there is memorization element at the highest levels. But this phase lasts for 10-15 moves, max 20 in some rare cases. Balance between space (good squares) and piece development is extremely important in this phase. It is almost impossible for humans to prepare more than a few moves because of the decision tree complexity, we are talking about trillions of possibilities after just a few opening moves. Even if one prepares a rare line, the opponent can deviate or mix up the move order and we are in uncharted territory. After 15 odd moves we are almost always in uncharted territory where no similar position has been played in chess history, at least by the strong players. If you have an online chess account, use a single standard opening for the next 2 years, you will see that no 2 games of yours proceeded along the same path in the transition from opening to middlegame. At the beginner and amateur levels, memorization is a complete non factor.

Middlegame: The middlegame phase occurs in between the opening phase and the endgame. This is a time when players begin to coordinate pieces and attack their opponent's fortifications. It is usually considered to begin once the pieces have been developed. Again no scope for memorization and lots of on the spot thinking (correct terminology is OTB or Over The Board). Players will have to navigate complex strategical positions, calculate deep lines, solve tactical puzzles, strive for piece activity, play for open files and diagonals, trade off exchanges, ensure king safety, avoid traps, eliminate weak squares, control the centre, liquidate, maneuver, counterattacks, material imbalances etc either to finish off the opponent (by attacking king) or to proceed to endgame with a favorable/defendable position depending on the course of the game. There are so many principles and aims in this phase and it is in general the most exciting part of the game. Whether super GMs or amateurs, there is no room for memorization here. Top players often play like engines but that is because they are that good !!!

Endgame: The endgame occurs when there are few pieces left on the board. The exact line between the middlegame and endgame is blurred, for example if you followed the Kasparov-Kramnik 2000 World Championship match Berlin Defence (of Ruy Lopez) made a grand entry courtesy Kramnik's extraordinary preparation which altered the course of chess history and the way the game is played/understood. Again the problem of interpretation, what Kramnik called the Berlin endgame, Kasparov treated it like a queenless middlegame. The main themes in endgames are promotion of pawn and king activity. Again calculation has to be super precise, in some very simple positions a single inaccurate move can mean instant loss. Also subtlety is key here, especially among the great players, they can play nettlesome moves in objectively drawn/lost positions to throw off opponents. Computers are relatively weaker in endgames (logical reason which requires very long explanation) and top GMs won't improve by training with engines in this phase. A very different type of knowledge, vision and technique is needed, again no memorization.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

This is unrelated to chess but relevant to this discussion.
[MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] Check Deep Mind's AlphaStar owning world's best Starcraft players

In recent years, StarCraft, considered to be one of the most challenging Real-Time Strategy (RTS) games and one of the longest-played esports of all time, has emerged by consensus as a “grand challenge” for AI research.

Our StarCraft II program AlphaStar is the first Artificial Intelligence to defeat a top professional player. In a series of test matches held on 19 December 2018, AlphaStar decisively beat Team Liquid’s Grzegorz "MaNa" Komincz, one of the world’s strongest professional StarCraft players, 5-0, following a successful benchmark match against his team-mate Dario “TLO” Wünsch. The matches took place under professional match conditions on a competitive ladder map and without any game restrictions.

PS: AI is scary it might be a better batsman than Don himself

 

[Chrish]

Played chess against computer on chess.com; got muled over and over again.

World champions have FIDE rating in 2800s while computer can hit 3300 easily; that’s frigging insane.

For someone at my level, rating of 2800 would represent something beyond comprehension!

 

[Swashbuckler]

The 14th world champion Vladimir Kramnik has announced retirement at the age of 43. Could have played a bit longer but who am I to question the decision of the great man?

The man who unseated Garry Kasparov, the man who gave us the Berlin Defence, the strongest analyst of them all. Caissa will be proud of you Big Vlad, best of luck and thank you for being such a great ambassador of chess, you brought honor to the title of World Champion.

While this thread is about the 13th and 16th World Champions, had to pay tribute to 14 whose career overlapped with both of them, Vlad the Impaler quite often had the measure of both Kasparov and Carlsen and influenced both of them immensely. He was a product of the Botvinik-Kaparov Soviet School of Chess, subsequently got picked to the Russian team as a 16 year old by Garry Kasparov in 1992 Chess Olympiad causing a huge controversy but justified his selection by helping his team win gold. Then he assisted Garry in the 1995 world title clash against Anand, later he would beat his once mentor in 2000 (London), when he altered the course of chess theory and history by introducing the Berlin Defence. Similarly he was Carlsen's childhood hero, in fact the Viking has consciously imitated the style of Big Vlad, what higher tribute can a player get? And Carlsen's triumph in the 2013 candidates (which got him a title match against Anand in Chennai) was courtesy co-leader Kramnik's last round defeat to Ivanchuk and the resulting bizarre tie-break scenario. Perhaps that is what fate had in store for both of them, Caissa was done with the Anand-Kramnik rivalry and wanted a new young western champion to represent a changing world.

Kasaprov announced retirement in 2005 Linares after losing the final round to Topalov, Kramnik retired after the final round in Wijk Aan Zee after losing to Samuel Shankland, both of them seemed to rage against the dying of the light overcome by emotions rather than cold blooded logic and reason. His contemporary and close friend Vishy (7 years older) is still playing, but this loss will affect the Indian legend, ultimately when your friends and colleagues start calling it a day that is when the feeling of loneliness strikes a professional. Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Topalov, Gelfand etc all have left the scene leaving a 50 year old weakened tiger to stave off the young hungry wolves.

A great career for Kramnik, one of the 6 living undisputed world chess champions. Has played many memorable games and tournaments but for me his dismantling of Kasparov in London and the vintage run in 2013 candidates will be my most cherished memories of him.

 

[Swashbuckler]

This is unrelated to chess but relevant to this discussion.
[MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] Check Deep Mind's AlphaStar owning world's best Starcraft players

PS: AI is scary it might be a better batsman than Don himself

Thank you for the share. I will check it out even though I am ignorant about video games in general.

Yes AI is scary. I am worried about a Skynet (Terminator franchise) type monster in the future. I wish we slow down the process, we don't completely understand the consequences of these developments, happening too quickly IMO.

 

[Adijazz1706]

This is unrelated to chess but relevant to this discussion.
[MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] Check Deep Mind's AlphaStar owning world's best Starcraft players

PS: AI is scary it might be a better batsman than Don himself

So the AI gets a zoomed out view of the whole map (sth humans cannot do) and has no reaction time or mechanical time issues (time taken for motion of the human hand fingers etc) and this is considered fair? Clear cheating especially considering the AI lost the game where camera angle was changed to the normal camera instead of the zoomed out one.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Magnus Carlsen is about to equal his highest ever ELO rating of 2882. Rating inflation needs to be adjusted for but if he gets to 2900 this discussion will get a new life. We are privileged to watch the genius at the peak of his powers. This year he is playing fun chess, sharp and complicated positions as opposed to 'Boa Constrictor' chess. Kasparov remarked a few days back that the Norwegian was playing more like Tal than Karpov since last year's world title match. So many brilliancies, you can immerse yourself for hours and hours admiring the beauty of his chess. His understanding of the game is so deep, it is not just the colossal intuition.

 

[Chrish]

Chess used to be much more of an art back in the day due to its limited accessibility to general public. But considering the fact that nowadays any Tom, Dick or Harry can become good at it from practicing against computer while sitting in their mom's basement, Carlsen's dominance in this era is just insane.

It wouldn't be scandalous to call him the greatest player that has lived, at this point.

 

[IAJ]

Good to see our Norwegian hero being discussed here. There was another good norwegian Chess player who also was a very good football player; Simen Agdestein. It was actually he who made Chess popular in Norway amongst youngsters.

I see many indians have a lot of knowledge of this game, is Anand the biggest hero there?

 

[Napa]

Sorry to bore you with a longish post.

Classical: In a match format Garry Kasparov would win, Carlsen hasn't yet shown much in his matches. Psychologically Garry is much tougher and he will prepare much better, that will make the biggest difference. The ELO ratings are inflated and I wouldn't read too much into that. Kasparov dominated the 80s/90s more than what Carlsen has done in this era and that era featured 3 top shelf ATGs in Karpov, Anand and Kramnik. Carlsen was lucky that as he hit his peak the mighty older generation (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Ivanchuk etc) was too old to keep up and his generation was yet to bloom. Now in the last 3 years as Caruana, Karjakin, Giri, MVL, So, Naka, Nepo, Ding etc are hitting their strides he is not dominating that much even in super tournaments. What worked in Carlsen's favour was that players born in the 80s didn't achieve their potential and those that did become elite were late bloomers, chokers, unmotivated etc like Aronian, Grischuk, Mamedyarov. After all that remember Carlsen was 1 move away from getting into a very difficult situation against a 45 year old Anand in Sochi (G6), 1 move from disaster against the inferior Karjakin and didn't win a single classical game against Caruana. Contrast that to Kasparov's matches in the 80s and 90s against other ATGs. Kasparov also was not just dominating those days but his creative ideas left a mark on the game, he was the man who took forward Botvinik's philosophy and his work with computers is for all to see. In a hypothetical match up he will make much better use of silicon monsters. Magnus doesn't have the creative juices and that will be a huge handicap against a potential match up against peak Kasparov. Kasparov faced a proto-Carlsen (Karpov) and triumphed but Carlsen has never faced a proto-Kasparov. Carlsen won't be able to make the game physical because Kasparov was one of the fittest persons in his time and those K-K clashes were as physical as it gets. Kasparov has a clear edge in opening, tactical vision, calculation, psychology while Carlsen has an edge in endgame and positional understanding. And I am sure the match will be fought on Kasparov's turf more often than not.

Rapid/blitz: Magnus would be favorite, shorter the time control the more beastly he gets. All players suffer a drop in level with shorter time, but in case of Carlsen the dip is quite small. And players who depend a lot on calculation (Kasparov, Topalov, Caruana) are always at a disadvantage in speed chess. The more intuitive a player is, the easier it is to manage the clock.

How? Based on last title defense against Carauna? It isn't as easy to dominate the classical format now because studies are so extensive and this is obviously leading to draws being much easier to achieve. You think peak Kasparov would force wins against these opponents and their preparation?

Chess has moved on from two decades ago. Not only Carlsen, but also Carauna would probably beat Kasparov (who incidentally was beaten 2-0 by Kramnik in the last match he played). The reason why Carlsen hasn't won his last couple of matches in Classical is that 1) the opponents were very well prepared 2) the matches were ended in 12 games. In contrast Kasparov's matches went on for 30 games or more.

The sort of strength Carlsen has shown in the last couple of months is simply incredible, Kasparov even at his height could not match that. Only 1994 Karpov at Linares showed such strength.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Good to see our Norwegian hero being discussed here. There was another good norwegian Chess player who also was a very good football player; Simen Agdestein. It was actually he who made Chess popular in Norway amongst youngsters.

I see many indians have a lot of knowledge of this game, is Anand the biggest hero there?

You guys are lucky to have Carlsen, GOAT in the making and someone who will inspire a generation in your country. Agdestein was a terrific prospect in the 80s (alongside Anand, Gelfand, Ivanchuk etc) but then stagnated. Great football player as well, and coach of Magnus in his young days. His brother Espen is Carlsen's manager and involved in the Play Magnus app.

Anand is popular in India, much more in 90s and 00s before decline/old age set in. Parallely we have stars rising in other sports, so unless he wins some world title he isn't generally in news. When he won the 2017 World Rapid Championship there was a lot of buzz. Though he may not have great fame or endorsements, he will always be respected and acknowledged as the reason behind India's rise in chess. Almost every month we are producing a new GM and it all started with Vishy in 1988. Anand was the first recipient of Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna (highest sporting honour) which he won in 1991, much before any superstar cricketer. So he does get the recognition and respect. Only Bharat Ratna (highest civilian honour in India) eludes him.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Chess has moved on from two decades ago. Not only Carlsen, but also Carauna would probably beat Kasparov (who incidentally was beaten 2-0 by Kramnik in the last match he played). The reason why Carlsen hasn't won his last couple of matches in Classical is that 1) the opponents were very well prepared 2) the matches were ended in 12 games. In contrast Kasparov's matches went on for 30 games or more.

The sort of strength Carlsen has shown in the last couple of months is simply incredible, Kasparov even at his height could not match that. Only 1994 Karpov at Linares showed such strength.

Respect your opinion even if I may not agree.

Carlsen in 2019 has been incredible, back to around his 2012-13 level. I made the posts in 2018 end and am always ready to change my mind depending on how the future unfolds. Carlsen didn't play well in 2016 and 2018 title matches, I mean compared to his usual standards. Even he agrees, as do many greats of the game.

I don't think you can underplay 1999 Kasparov. Karpov was amazing in Linares 1994 but Kasparov was brilliant whole year, remember Linares and Wijk Aan Zee 1999? Or his 'immortal' against Topalov in Wijk? See I don't hope or intend to change your mind, both of us are entitled to have our opinions and this is a close call. But if you want to bring up Kramnik's 2000 victory on the back of Berlin Defence (full credit), do take into account that he avoided Kasparov for the next 5 years, not remotely interested in setting a rematch. Who did he play? Leko a full 4 years later.

 

[Chrish]

It's important to note that there will be a day when some new talent will emerge who would de-throne Carlsen and people would become obsessed with that new phenomena.

That's how the game of Chess is. No one stays at the top forever. The current champion will grow older someday which would result in declining thought process/ intuition or he simply would loose motivation.

The wheel is eternal.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Lethal Combination of Fischer and Karpov

Maestro said it best. Have to agree, Carlsen has the positional understanding and endgame nous of Karpov, combine that with Ficher's intensity and willpower.Interestingly Fischer's nemesis was Tal while Karpov was brought down by Kasparov. For most of chess history there has been a consistent pattern in chess where the adherents of a dry, positional style are succeeded by tacticians and viceversa. This trend will continue but may take a while to dislodge the Viking who is still at a prime age.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Bad sentence construction previously, damn you 2 minutes rule .

Interesting video below from Kolkata. Most super GMs are good at recalling games/positions of their peers but King Magnus goes into so much detail. Mozart of Chess indeed.

And here I can't remember what I did a day ago .

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Magnus Carlsen is a true wonder of our times! What a beautiful mind.

He's 28 years old and in good health.

How many more years his reign shall last?

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Hey [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] check it out: 16 years old Iranian prodigy Alireza Firouzja beating the champion!

Remember the name!

 

[ManFan]

you need to specify the sport man?

havent heard of either

You can say Carlson because of him being brought up with the advances in strategy and computers.

But that is the fallacy of comparing greats in any field across eras; simply too many factors are at play.

As Kasparov himself said, a 13-year-old today knows more about chess than Bobby Fischer did. But that doesn’t make him Bobby Fischer.

And the single most entertaining player to watch was Mikhail Tal and Paul Morphy.

The YouTube channel agadmator’s Chess Channel is great for a beginner and even intermediate.

 

[Varun]

To use cricketing analogies:

Bobby Fischer: Don Bradman
Gary Kasparov: Sachin Tendulkar
Vishwanathan Anand: Ricky Ponting
Magnus Carlsen: Virat Kohli

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

To use cricketing analogies:

Bobby Fischer: Don Bradman
Gary Kasparov: Sachin Tendulkar
Vishwanathan Anand: Ricky Ponting
Magnus Carlsen: Virat Kohli

Hahaha, good one!

JR Capablanca: IK

 

[Swashbuckler]

Hey [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] check it out: 16 years old Iranian prodigy Alireza Firouzja beating the champion!

Remember the name!

Yes I have been following him for a long time, since he was 12 or 13. He reminds me of a young Anand in his playing style (tactical vision, speed) and the legendary coach GM Sokolov agrees !!!!

"In Alireza Firouzja I see a young Anand" - GM Ivan Sokolov
https://chessbase.in/news/Sokolov-on-Iran-chess

A real pity he and his family fell foul of the Iranian chess federation, he plays under FIDE flag and I am hearing he is going to switch to French flag by the end of this year. Iran has a lot of exciting talent but they will suffer because of their country's rigid policies like no playing against Israelis, hostility towards Jewish players, compulsory hijab even when playing in other countries, restrictions on male coaches for female players etc. They have already lost two bright talents, Dorsa Derakhshani to USA and Firouzja most probably to France, former because she played without hijab once in Europe and latter because he didn't give walkover to an Israeli GM. I talked to a couple of Iranian players when they came to Chennai and they told me that 90% of Iranian players want to change their nationality. I thought they were exaggerating but when I saw the line up for this year's Iranian national championship in January I could see what they were hinting at. Even arbiters and trainers are shifting to Europe. A real pity, so much talent/potential and other countries will benefit at Iran's expense. Why can't their government and national chess federation relax some of the harsh restrictions?

Coming to the banter blitz match I followed it live, I know the guy who played Firouzja in the semifinal and that was a close match, closer than the final scoreline. Thrilling final but Magnus was unrecognizable. Credit to Firouzja for keeping his nerves and getting to the finish line. In general I don't take this format seriously, firstly it is blitz and then the players commentate live. It is more like exhibition stuff rather than serious chess.

I rate Firouzja highly but not because of this. He caught my eye when he finished 2nd in last year's world rapid championship. Even better was his start in Wijk Aan Zee earlier this year, he led the tournament in the first half even beating Anish Giri. Then he had to face Carlsen, Anand, Caruana in consecutive rounds, baptism by fire and he lost all 3 without much of a fight. However his debut in this prestigious tournament (Masters, not Challengers) was more impressive than Carlsen's, I rate classical performances much higher than other formats since it is like test cricket. He showed his potential there, world of difference between online matches and the format under which the world championship cycle is conducted. Let us not get ahead of ourselves, he should stay grounded and build experience in more classical super-tournaments. Kramnik always says that it is better to avoid online blitz if one is serious about being world champion and I agree with him, bad habits develop, Carlsen avoided blitz in his formative years and focused on the longer format. 2020s could be headlined by the Carlsen-Firouzja rivalry. Hopefully the youngster doesn't stagnate like Wei Yi or become an online chess addict like Nakamura.

Apart from Firouzja there are some other exiting talents, even younger than him .This decade could see a real shake-up in elite level chess.

Some other kids to keep an eye on:
Andrey Esipenko (Russia)
Nodirbek Abdusattarov (Uzbekistan)
Nihal Sarin, Gukesh, Sadhwani Raunak and Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa (India)
Vincent Keymer (Germany)
A few others like Jefferey Xiong (USA), Parham Maghsoodloo (Iran), Samuel Sevian (USA), Kiril Shevchenko (Ukraine), Aryan Chopra (India), Abhimanyu Puranik (India) though they are a bit older and stagnating. Still we never know, sometimes teenagers go through this plateau phase before a sudden jump in strength.

 

[Swashbuckler]

*exciting, not exiting

Coming to why I believe Firouzja-Carlsen could be a defining rivalry is the contrast in playing style. While he may never match Carlsen's positional understanding he can surpass him in tactical abilities. Also he is 13 years younger (massive advantage when he peaks and MC starts declining) and no slouch in rapid/blitz in case the match goes to tie-breaks. What we could be looking at is a a redux of Karpov-Kasparov rivalry 40 years later, history repeating itself. Hopefully minus the toxicity we saw back then with the internal politics in USSR.

What I wrote earlier rings true.

One can observe some sort of pattern in chess: the adherents of a dry, positional style are succeeded by tacticians. These two extremes have been swaying to and fro for the last 40 years. Karpov (positional) lost to Garry (tactical), Garry lost to Kramnik (positional), Kramnik lost to Anand (tactical), Anand lost to Carlsen (positional). Anand (like Spassky and Fischer) strictly doesn't come under either of these 2 broad categories, he is what we can call a universal player. Universal meaning chameleon like, Anand played a tactical match against Vlad in 2008 but then shifted to positional chess against the highly tactical and more in-form Topalov in 2010. Practically it is easier to win against someone stronger but of the opposite style and very difficult to win against a similar style better player.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

*exciting, not exiting

Coming to why I believe Firouzja-Carlsen could be a defining rivalry is the contrast in playing style. While he may never match Carlsen's positional understanding he can surpass him in tactical abilities. Also he is 13 years younger (massive advantage when he peaks and MC starts declining) and no slouch in rapid/blitz in case the match goes to tie-breaks. What we could be looking at is a a redux of Karpov-Kasparov rivalry 40 years later, history repeating itself. Hopefully minus the toxicity we saw back then with the internal politics in USSR.

What I wrote earlier rings true.

Great.

Hopefully, Alireza will keep on improving and it will be a pity if Magnus declines when Alireza peaks.

So far, no one has been able to give any real fight to Magnus. Guy dominates his opponents from the get-go!

PS: Where are Pakistani chess players?

 

[Swashbuckler]

So far, no one has been able to give any real fight to Magnus. Guy dominates his opponents from the get-go!

Ding can give a tough fight, he is also younger. Him, Caruana, So and Nepo for another 4-5 years and then the young guns I guess. I doubt those older than MC can unseat him. I don't think MC dominates from the beginning, he comes into his elements in late middlegame and endgame phase. Positional players are like pythons slowly constricting the prey, tacticians are the venomous snakes who kill swiftly by one or two bites. Karpov was nicknamed 'Boa Constrictor' because of his playing style, baton passed from him to Kramnik to Carlsen.

PS: Where are Pakistani chess players?

I am aware of Mahmood Lodhi, an IM in the 2300s, he has played many tournaments in India and is remembered fondly. Problem is he is too old, almost 60 so unlikely to improve and get GM norm. He is still Pakistan's best player. According to him sponsorship is a big problem in Pakistan, also your chess body has quite a bad reputation and if Nigel Short is to be believed extremely corrupt and nepotistic.

Most of your better players are quite old, not much to speak about in juniors or among women. But one thing I can assure is once you produce a GM you will see a chess boom. India was in a similar boat till 80s, a couple of IMs, FMs but no GM. Anand was our first GM in 1988 and then we saw a lot of interest. Now we have close to 70 GMs, all started with that one feat in '88. For Pakistan even if some Pakistani origin guy based in USA or UK can get the highest title, there will be more self-belief, motivation, funding, interest and you will start producing more and more good players.

In India there is a system that if you are a titled player you will get a government job or quota in some reputed university, most of our top players are employed in PSUs like Air India, ONGC, IOCL, GAIL, SAIL etc, a steady source of income and job security. They only need to attend duty for 5-6 days in a month and represent their company in corporate tournaments, wear company logo in tournaments etc. I don't know about the state in Pakistan but there has to be more incentive and job security for players so that they can dedicate themselves to chess and not worry about other things.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Carlsen beat Firouzja in the 4 game rapid match in MC invitational on chess24. But all this is online, quality is low, players can't focus like how they do in proper tournaments.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Carlsen beat Firouzja in the 4 game rapid match in MC invitational on chess24. But all this is online, quality is low, players can't focus like how they do in proper tournaments.

Firouzja beat him in the Banter blitz and another online tourney winning both events, hes very strong in blitz and bullet. Only 16 so not as good in slower time formats but he'll learn.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Firouzja beat him in the Banter blitz and another online tourney winning both events, hes very strong in blitz and bullet. Only 16 so not as good in slower time formats but he'll learn.

Yeah but making transition from blitz/bullet to classical is much harder. All great classical players are good in shorter time control, exceptions being Caruana and Topalov but even their troubles extended only to blitz (not rapid) and had more to do with their style of play which relied heavily on calculations rather than intuition. Can't say the same about the opposite, you know guys like Tang or Meier, many more examples. Similar analogy as test cricket vs T20. As bad is blitz is, bullet is nonsense like Hong Kong Super Sixes, maybe fun to play when someone is drunk and not in the mood of thinking. I can never take bullet results seriously, chess is played in the minds and not by hands which is exactly what bullet does rewarding faster users of the humble mouse.

Firouzja is talented no doubt, but he must avoid this online addiction. When Magnus was his age, luckily there weren't too many online blitz tournaments, max he used to fool around in ICC or PlayChess mainly the former often impersonating other players. He used those formative years in reading books, playing many classical opens, honing endgame skills, developing positional understanding of the game, seconding the world champion and that last bit can't be emphasised enough. Only after he was well established as a top player did we see a boom in online chess platforms. I really wish there is some adviser or mentor to tell Firouzja this, these successes may swell his bank account and some short term fame but ultimate legacy will be decided by the format where he will need to spend 4-7 hours on the chair where clock isn't an additional piece. Nothing original in what I am saying, Kramnik said the same when asked why Russian youngsters of this generation are unable to justify their talent. Nihal Sarin has the same addiction and that bothers me as a well wisher, thankfully Praggu is still going through the hard yards under Ramesh.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Yuzi Chahal playing chess in these 2 videos. Some other top GMs featured.

 

[Kroll]

I got tot learn about the brilliance of Bobby Fischer many decades after his extraordinary feats. If you include chess as a sport then I would rank Fischer's match against Spassky at the World Chess Championships in 1972 as one of the all time sporting peaks.

Why? Well you have to remember that the Soviet players dominated chess in those days and the Soviet Union was an absolute power house in the world of chess. The US, from which Fischer hailed wasn't really known for producing the top players in the world.

So what you really had was like an element of the cold war being played out on the chess boards of Iceland - the location of the match. Against this background, Fischer emerged victorious finally reaching the pinnacle of the game for which he had been swatting aside all that appeared before him.

Sadly, we we never got to see him in the rematch in 1975 or in another official WC Championship for that matter as he wasn't happy with some conditions for the 1975 World Championship. He had always been an eccentric fella but went completely nuts after 1975 and then disappeared.

[MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION], apologies if I have missed any comments regarding Fischer as I have kind of just skimmed through the thread, what are your thoughts on Fischer? I regard him as a true genius of the game and rank him the highest. Carlsen could may well beat him but then again if Carlsen played in the 60's or 70's then it could be argued that Fischer would be the favourite.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I got tot learn about the brilliance of Bobby Fischer many decades after his extraordinary feats. If you include chess as a sport then I would rank Fischer's match against Spassky at the World Chess Championships in 1972 as one of the all time sporting peaks.

Why? Well you have to remember that the Soviet players dominated chess in those days and the Soviet Union was an absolute power house in the world of chess. The US, from which Fischer hailed wasn't really known for producing the top players in the world.

So what you really had was like an element of the cold war being played out on the chess boards of Iceland - the location of the match. Against this background, Fischer emerged victorious finally reaching the pinnacle of the game for which he had been swatting aside all that appeared before him.

Sadly, we we never got to see him in the rematch in 1975 or in another official WC Championship for that matter as he wasn't happy with some conditions for the 1975 World Championship. He had always been an eccentric fella but went completely nuts after 1975 and then disappeared.

[MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION], apologies if I have missed any comments regarding Fischer as I have kind of just skimmed through the thread, what are your thoughts on Fischer? I regard him as a true genius of the game and rank him the highest. Carlsen could may well beat him but then again if Carlsen played in the 60's or 70's then it could be argued that Fischer would be the favourite.

Robert James Fischer, the eleventh World Champion ranks among the greatest chess masters of all time. All world champions are part of a tradition which has no parallel in any other sport or game, even Euwe who wasn't of the class as the other champs (and many perennial princes most notably Keres and to a lesser extent Korchnoi). Among those who held the crown, Fischer ranks in the top tier, more on that later.

To my mind his greatest legacy was that during his playing career he popularized chess more than any other person in history. Most of it was because of unique circumstances which overlapped with his career but nevertheless even the harshest critic can't argue against him being the reason why money and fan following (beyond the Iron Curtain) flowed into the game, indeed he was the foremost union leader for all chess professionals. His 1972 triumph during peak Cold War still ranks as among the greatest achievements of USA, it won't be an exaggeration to say that at that time, for a couple of years his popularity dwarfed that of all the other leading sportsmen and celebs of America. After all for the first time since the Space Race, USA had the chance to outshine USSR at the latter's area of strength. For long, the Soviets had maintained hegemony over the chess crown and mockingly bemoaned the decadent West's inability to challenge the intellectual superiority nurtured by the Soviet communist regime, away from battlefields and diplomatic meets the playing field had shifted to the chess board. How else can one explain how a certain American recluse's daily activity and mood swings became a topic of fervent discussion in the Oval Office? What else can make sense of Kissinger's frenetic phone calls to Fischer's camp begging, pleading that he go to Iceland when he had threatened to walk out of the match? It was a match like no other, a moment in history like no other, when the pride of the two superpowers rested on two chess masters, a board of 64 squares, 16 pieces, one clock and an arbiter.

Coming to the match, we all know how it unfolded. Fischer won 12.5-8.5 and displaced Spassky to become eleventh world champion, thus ending the Soviet's long stranglehold on the crown. What followed was a period of national mourning in USSR, for the communists the world champion was equivalent of Czar of Imperial Russia. To see that crown slip into the hands of the arch-enemy was something they couldn't cope with. Till then the prize money from chess tournaments wasn't taxed, but Kremlin authorities were so aghast after this humiliation that they created a law which took a huge part of the prize money as tax, something like 90%. Privileges to chess players too were diminished as collective punishment. For the Americans it was a golden highlight of the Cold War, a rare triumph against a fearsome opponent in a discipline where historically they were the weaker party. So many Hollywood movies, documentaries, musicals and books discuss Fischer's life and that triumph, not without reason. In Fischer's words, "Nobody has single-handedly done more for the U.S. than me. When I won the world championship, in 1972, the United States had an image of, you know, a football country, a baseball country, but nobody thought of it as an intellectual country. I turned all that around single-handedly, right?"

But I would like to clear some misconceptions about Fischer's triumph and the many myths that get attached to this seminal event.

Firstly USSR was the superpower of chess but USA was no slouch as many would like to believe. It is often casually remarked that Fischer was the first great American master. Nothing could be further from the truth. After all Paul Morphy was an American, the greatest master of the 19th century and someone who was more ahead of his peers than any other player in history. Chess history didn't start with Steinitz, even Fischer mentioned the Romantic Morphy as his childhood hero and someone who was the first to play modern chess. Then you had Reshevsky, Marshall, Evans and someone who has most influence on the current champion, Reuben Fine. Fine is more known for his work on psychology than chess but no doubt he was a chess genius. During the Holocaust, many Jewish chess players found refuge in USA, one only has to read about the Chess Olympiads of early 20th century to understand the chess legacy of USA many decades before 1972.Even in the 50s and 60s US was consistently the best chess country west of the Eastern Bloc, usually 2nd or 3rd best in the world. There was a thriving chess culture in the country with numerous strong players just in the city of New York. Those who make these frivolous claims about US being a non-entity usually do so to deify Fischer, it has no factual basis. It is like saying Pakistan had no cricket legacy before 1992, utter nonsense.

The second misconception is that Fischer was a lone warrior against the might of Soviet Union. Well, again not accurate. He was well assisted by a group of super strong chess players, physicians, fitness coaches, psychologists, friends, nutritionists and generous donors. Kavalek and Lombardy were his main men, more than enough because Fischer didn't trust people much, always paranoid that his secrets would leak he preferred a small coterie. Spassky didn't enjoy the support of many seconds either, mainly because that was his style, he was someone who preferred to work everything out over the board. He had a team of 3 in Reykjavic: Geller, Nei, Krogius and Krogius was invited not for his chess but because of his degree in psychology. Spassky made a very big mistake before the match when he ended his relations with Bondarevsky who had been his main trainer for many years. Moreover he suffered serious motivation problems before that match because he had dominated the American until then and had already realized his goal of becoming WC. He cancelled his training match against young Karpov and spent most of the time in his camp playing tennis. By then he was a very lazy person, relying only on natural talent and hardly putting the requisite effort. Against any other Soviet player Fischer would have faced the full might of their team of seconds, not so against Spassky. Those days games would be frequently adjourned with resumption the following day. One of the games where Spassky had a winning position, his seconds found the forced execution overnight and when they went with the information to brief him in the morning, he shooed them away assuring that he would find it over the board. It can be argued that Fischer utilized his team better than Spassky and the opening battles proved it.

Thirdly the match was fought as per terms and conditions of the Americans. First they shifted the match to Iceland, then Fischer started his mind games about whether he would participate or not. Till the eleventh hour he remained non-committal and that took its mental toll on Spassky. The match was close to being called off many times, Fischer arrived late for game 1 and gave a walkover in game 2. A walkover meant full point for Spassky but he wasn't someone who liked to win that way. Being a fair guy and a thorough gentleman, that default win threw him off his game for rest of the match. He agreed to Fischer's demands and played with reduced number of spectators, in a small room, without cameras, basically he bent over to all crazy demands of his opponent, a serious psychological blunder. But then again, that was Spassky, someone who joined the audience in clapping for Fischer after the latter's spectacular win in G6. This after Fischer's remark that he wanted to crush the Ruskie's hands till it was reduced to bone powder. We had a gentleman who faced off against a ruthless, psychologically bulletproof maniac who was known for his gamesmanship and Spassky is the bad guy? Western revisionism at its best.

Last point I would make is regarding the quality of the match. People call it the 'Match of the Century' but IMO chess-wise it wasn't so. It was held at a unique junction in history when any American and Russian facing off would have recorded massive interest. I know for a fact that this match was discussed in a small village in Tamil Nadu over the morning paper and tea, my father developed his interest in chess due to this event. But history demands a search for truth, nobody can analyse the course of the match in depth with objectivity and call it Fischer's greatest moment of genius. The blunder he made in G1 where he trapped his own bishop would rank as one of the worst moves in top level chess let alone a World Championship match. Both players missed many wins and ultimately Spassky lost rather than Fischer winning, first because of overconfidence and as the match progressed because he wasn't in a frame of mind to fight. Pressure was huge and it would have made an impact, in cricket terms it was like the Mohali 2011 SF, a low quality match which was decided by who held his nerves better. It must also be noted that Spassky remains one of the weakest champions, certainly the joint weakest from the Soviet side alongside Smyslov. He had a positive H2H against Fischer prior to the match but not a better player by any stretch of imagination, at least in the 1969-72 cycle.

Well then what was Fischer's peak? That is the obvious question. In my mind it was his demolition job of Petrosian a year earlier, final of the candidates cycle to determine Spassky's challenger. In the run up to that match he massacred Taimanov (fun fact: one of the greatest pianists of 20th century apart from being a great chess player) and Bent Larsen 6-0 each. Taimanov was so much in shock that he wrote a book 'How I Became Fischer's Victim' after that match. Soviet officials accused Taimanov of disgracing his motherland, then stripped him of his titles and forbade him from going abroad for a year and a half, even banned his participation in concerts making it impossible for him to earn a living. Bent Larsen who was the West's second strongest player thankfully didn't have to endure any punitive action from Danish authorities. 12-0 was impressive no doubt but what happened next must rank as the greatest chess performance ever. Up next was the Armenian giant Tigran Petrosian, the previous world champ. The greatest defender the game had seen, he was the first to demonstrate that it was possible to defend almost any position. Petrosian brought the defensive element to chess, the element that gains more and more prominence now. He showed that chess is the game with a lot of resources, including defensive resources. He wasn't an ambitious player but even if he lost, it would be by a narrow margin. Petrosian could sense danger from far, far away but against Fischer the great defender couldn't summon his resources as he was swept away by waves of relentless attack. His defence was breached 5 times as Fischer won 6.5-2.5 (5 wins, 1 loss), that was Fischer's greatest chess achievement IMO. His early career had some amazing highs (for want of time I won't discuss them here, maybe a topic for another day) but 1971 against Petrosian was the highest point.

Why Fischer left the chess world after winning the title is an open-ended question. Of course he was a deeply troubled individual. Identity of his father remained a secret till late in his life, his mother had a 900 pages long FBI file, childhood wasn't kind on him and because of his maniacal obsession with chess his mental health wasn't akin to that of a normal person. He strived for perfection in chess all the time and the game is a mental prison if one immerses oneself too deeply. Allegations of Soviet collusion didn't help, he was convinced they were fixing games among themselves to prevent his rise. Whether he was right or wrong about that can be left to interpretation but there was some level of understanding among the Soviet players to help out their fellow comrades, pressure came from the very top. So a great deal of mental trauma for him. Fischer followed the footsteps of his great predecessor Morphy when it came to walking away from the game when he was 29 years old, at the professional summit and when he was at his creative peak. His chapter post 1972 makes for sad reading, less to do with chess and more to do with crazy conspiracy theories, abuses both to others and his own body/mind, a continuous fall towards irrelevance. He made one last attempt at comeback in 1992 against Spassky but that match was like two aged boxers having a bout in the circus, In Kasparov's words that match shattered whatever myth of Fischer that still remained.

We know his mental problems, we know about his terms for the 1975 match against Karpov. The latter was eager to play the American and even met with Fischer many times to seal the match contract. Karpov agreed with almost all demands but Fischer simply made more excuses and walked away. He started believing his myth and in the young Karpov saw a threat that could unseat him. Fischer hated losing and as the chess proverb goes 'He who never plays never loses'. If you ask me I'll tell you he was afraid of Karpov and hence chose to go down as undefeated champion. If not 1975, Karpov would have been favorite in 1977-78, that is my opinion but unfortunately the historically necessary match didn't take place. Fischer lost, chess lost and importantly Karpov lost. Karpov needed a few challenging assignments against Fischer to improve his game, get battle-hardened and prepare himself against a future threat in Kasparov (10 years later), Korchnoi wasn't that big a test. So history would have turned out very differently had Fischer stayed. I think the whole timeline of chess would have shifted by at least 5 years and Kasparov would have become WC only in the early 90s thus shortening his reign. Kasparov benefitted the most, Fischer is rightly seen as someone who never once defended his crown while Karpov is seen as someone who got his crown for cheap and made hay in a weak era (in the 1972-84 period).

Fischer's reluctance to defend his crown determines his legacy. Great peak, ATG player but someone who didn't conquer his younger generation. In any sport to become GOAT it isn't enough to push away the previous generation and dominate same age-group peers, it is more important to do well against the next generation since they have studied your game, understood your strengths/weaknesses and modified themselves accordingly, plus the age advantage. Fischer failed miserably on this front and hence can never be GOAT at least from chess playing pov. As an influential figure he may be top, as an ambassador of chess (long term) little doubtful since after his road to madness many started associating chess with an eventual path towards insanity and its popularity decreased, certain negative stereotypes took centre stage.

Regarding your question about Carlsen vs Fischer it is very difficult to compare a pre-computer era player to someone born in the 90s. You can compare Fischer with Kramnik/Anand but not beyond that. Carslen was born with a chess engine readily available, we have no idea how he would have been moulded 50 years back. Similarities are that both are great fighters, both have immense psychological toughness (even Fischer once he has committed to battle), endgame technique (MC slight edge) and while Fischer's opening repertoire was narrow but deep, Carslen has a wide range but not necessarily very deep. Fischer holds the edge in calculating forced lines, MC has better positional understanding, both excel in shorter time control. Difficult for me to judge them because as I said computers have changed our game forever and MC is a child of this era. Similar players with both holding small edges in certain areas, too tough to call. 1972 Fischer and 2013 Carlsen is 50:50, over a 4 years period Fischer (1969-72) has the edge over MC (2012-15) but in a 5-10 years period MC has the edge. A more interesting match-up is Fischer vs Kasparov (should have happened in early 80s) and I will give the edge to Kaspy, made some points about that previously on this thread. Basing this on how Fischer at his peak fared against Tal and Geller, Kaspy was an upgraded version of Tal with limitless stamina, more hunger/ambition and better psychology. But I can assure you Fischer would make so many preconditions that such matches would never take place. Kasparov and Carlsen don't mind gamesmanship and always look at their own interests, no way would they succumb as easily to his crazy demands like Spassky.

 

[MMHS]

Robert James Fischer, the eleventh World Champion ranks among the greatest chess masters of all time. All world champions are part of a tradition which has no parallel in any other sport or game, even Euwe who wasn't of the class as the other champs (and many perennial princes most notably Keres and to a lesser extent Korchnoi). Among those who held the crown, Fischer ranks in the top tier, more on that later.

To my mind his greatest legacy was that during his playing career he popularized chess more than any other person in history. Most of it was because of unique circumstances which overlapped with his career but nevertheless even the harshest critic can't argue against him being the reason why money and fan following (beyond the Iron Curtain) flowed into the game, indeed he was the foremost union leader for all chess professionals. His 1972 triumph during peak Cold War still ranks as among the greatest achievements of USA, it won't be an exaggeration to say that at that time, for a couple of years his popularity dwarfed that of all the other leading sportsmen and celebs of America. After all for the first time since the Space Race, USA had the chance to outshine USSR at the latter's area of strength. For long, the Soviets had maintained hegemony over the chess crown and mockingly bemoaned the decadent West's inability to challenge the intellectual superiority nurtured by the Soviet communist regime, away from battlefields and diplomatic meets the playing field had shifted to the chess board. How else can one explain how a certain American recluse's daily activity and mood swings became a topic of fervent discussion in the Oval Office? What else can make sense of Kissinger's frenetic phone calls to Fischer's camp begging, pleading that he go to Iceland when he had threatened to walk out of the match? It was a match like no other, a moment in history like no other, when the pride of the two superpowers rested on two chess masters, a board of 64 squares, 16 pieces, one clock and an arbiter.

Coming to the match, we all know how it unfolded. Fischer won 12.5-8.5 and displaced Spassky to become eleventh world champion, thus ending the Soviet's long stranglehold on the crown. What followed was a period of national mourning in USSR, for the communists the world champion was equivalent of Czar of Imperial Russia. To see that crown slip into the hands of the arch-enemy was something they couldn't cope with. Till then the prize money from chess tournaments wasn't taxed, but Kremlin authorities were so aghast after this humiliation that they created a law which took a huge part of the prize money as tax, something like 90%. Privileges to chess players too were diminished as collective punishment. For the Americans it was a golden highlight of the Cold War, a rare triumph against a fearsome opponent in a discipline where historically they were the weaker party. So many Hollywood movies, documentaries, musicals and books discuss Fischer's life and that triumph, not without reason. In Fischer's words, "Nobody has single-handedly done more for the U.S. than me. When I won the world championship, in 1972, the United States had an image of, you know, a football country, a baseball country, but nobody thought of it as an intellectual country. I turned all that around single-handedly, right?"

But I would like to clear some misconceptions about Fischer's triumph and the many myths that get attached to this seminal event.

Firstly USSR was the superpower of chess but USA was no slouch as many would like to believe. It is often casually remarked that Fischer was the first great American master. Nothing could be further from the truth. After all Paul Morphy was an American, the greatest master of the 19th century and someone who was more ahead of his peers than any other player in history. Chess history didn't start with Steinitz, even Fischer mentioned the Romantic Morphy as his childhood hero and someone who was the first to play modern chess. Then you had Reshevsky, Marshall, Evans and someone who has most influence on the current champion, Reuben Fine. Fine is more known for his work on psychology than chess but no doubt he was a chess genius. During the Holocaust, many Jewish chess players found refuge in USA, one only has to read about the Chess Olympiads of early 20th century to understand the chess legacy of USA many decades before 1972.Even in the 50s and 60s US was consistently the best chess country west of the Eastern Bloc, usually 2nd or 3rd best in the world. There was a thriving chess culture in the country with numerous strong players just in the city of New York. Those who make these frivolous claims about US being a non-entity usually do so to deify Fischer, it has no factual basis. It is like saying Pakistan had no cricket legacy before 1992, utter nonsense.

The second misconception is that Fischer was a lone warrior against the might of Soviet Union. Well, again not accurate. He was well assisted by a group of super strong chess players, physicians, fitness coaches, psychologists, friends, nutritionists and generous donors. Kavalek and Lombardy were his main men, more than enough because Fischer didn't trust people much, always paranoid that his secrets would leak he preferred a small coterie. Spassky didn't enjoy the support of many seconds either, mainly because that was his style, he was someone who preferred to work everything out over the board. He had a team of 3 in Reykjavic: Geller, Nei, Krogius and Krogius was invited not for his chess but because of his degree in psychology. Spassky made a very big mistake before the match when he ended his relations with Bondarevsky who had been his main trainer for many years. Moreover he suffered serious motivation problems before that match because he had dominated the American until then and had already realized his goal of becoming WC. He cancelled his training match against young Karpov and spent most of the time in his camp playing tennis. By then he was a very lazy person, relying only on natural talent and hardly putting the requisite effort. Against any other Soviet player Fischer would have faced the full might of their team of seconds, not so against Spassky. Those days games would be frequently adjourned with resumption the following day. One of the games where Spassky had a winning position, his seconds found the forced execution overnight and when they went with the information to brief him in the morning, he shooed them away assuring that he would find it over the board. It can be argued that Fischer utilized his team better than Spassky and the opening battles proved it.

Thirdly the match was fought as per terms and conditions of the Americans. First they shifted the match to Iceland, then Fischer started his mind games about whether he would participate or not. Till the eleventh hour he remained non-committal and that took its mental toll on Spassky. The match was close to being called off many times, Fischer arrived late for game 1 and gave a walkover in game 2. A walkover meant full point for Spassky but he wasn't someone who liked to win that way. Being a fair guy and a thorough gentleman, that default win threw him off his game for rest of the match. He agreed to Fischer's demands and played with reduced number of spectators, in a small room, without cameras, basically he bent over to all crazy demands of his opponent, a serious psychological blunder. But then again, that was Spassky, someone who joined the audience in clapping for Fischer after the latter's spectacular win in G6. This after Fischer's remark that he wanted to crush the Ruskie's hands till it was reduced to bone powder. We had a gentleman who faced off against a ruthless, psychologically bulletproof maniac who was known for his gamesmanship and Spassky is the bad guy? Western revisionism at its best.

Last point I would make is regarding the quality of the match. People call it the 'Match of the Century' but IMO chess-wise it wasn't so. It was held at a unique junction in history when any American and Russian facing off would have recorded massive interest. I know for a fact that this match was discussed in a small village in Tamil Nadu over the morning paper and tea, my father developed his interest in chess due to this event. But history demands a search for truth, nobody can analyse the course of the match in depth with objectivity and call it Fischer's greatest moment of genius. The blunder he made in G1 where he trapped his own bishop would rank as one of the worst moves in top level chess let alone a World Championship match. Both players missed many wins and ultimately Spassky lost rather than Fischer winning, first because of overconfidence and as the match progressed because he wasn't in a frame of mind to fight. Pressure was huge and it would have made an impact, in cricket terms it was like the Mohali 2011 SF, a low quality match which was decided by who held his nerves better. It must also be noted that Spassky remains one of the weakest champions, certainly the joint weakest from the Soviet side alongside Smyslov. He had a positive H2H against Fischer prior to the match but not a better player by any stretch of imagination, at least in the 1969-72 cycle.

Well then what was Fischer's peak? That is the obvious question. In my mind it was his demolition job of Petrosian a year earlier, final of the candidates cycle to determine Spassky's challenger. In the run up to that match he massacred Taimanov (fun fact: one of the greatest pianists of 20th century apart from being a great chess player) and Bent Larsen 6-0 each. Taimanov was so much in shock that he wrote a book 'How I Became Fischer's Victim' after that match. Soviet officials accused Taimanov of disgracing his motherland, then stripped him of his titles and forbade him from going abroad for a year and a half, even banned his participation in concerts making it impossible for him to earn a living. Bent Larsen who was the West's second strongest player thankfully didn't have to endure any punitive action from Danish authorities. 12-0 was impressive no doubt but what happened next must rank as the greatest chess performance ever. Up next was the Armenian giant Tigran Petrosian, the previous world champ. The greatest defender the game had seen, he was the first to demonstrate that it was possible to defend almost any position. Petrosian brought the defensive element to chess, the element that gains more and more prominence now. He showed that chess is the game with a lot of resources, including defensive resources. He wasn't an ambitious player but even if he lost, it would be by a narrow margin. Petrosian could sense danger from far, far away but against Fischer the great defender couldn't summon his resources as he was swept away by waves of relentless attack. His defence was breached 5 times as Fischer won 6.5-2.5 (5 wins, 1 loss), that was Fischer's greatest chess achievement IMO. His early career had some amazing highs (for want of time I won't discuss them here, maybe a topic for another day) but 1971 against Petrosian was the highest point.

Why Fischer left the chess world after winning the title is an open-ended question. Of course he was a deeply troubled individual. Identity of his father remained a secret till late in his life, his mother had a 900 pages long FBI file, childhood wasn't kind on him and because of his maniacal obsession with chess his mental health wasn't akin to that of a normal person. He strived for perfection in chess all the time and the game is a mental prison if one immerses oneself too deeply. Allegations of Soviet collusion didn't help, he was convinced they were fixing games among themselves to prevent his rise. Whether he was right or wrong about that can be left to interpretation but there was some level of understanding among the Soviet players to help out their fellow comrades, pressure came from the very top. So a great deal of mental trauma for him. Fischer followed the footsteps of his great predecessor Morphy when it came to walking away from the game when he was 29 years old, at the professional summit and when he was at his creative peak. His chapter post 1972 makes for sad reading, less to do with chess and more to do with crazy conspiracy theories, abuses both to others and his own body/mind, a continuous fall towards irrelevance. He made one last attempt at comeback in 1992 against Spassky but that match was like two aged boxers having a bout in the circus, In Kasparov's words that match shattered whatever myth of Fischer that still remained.

We know his mental problems, we know about his terms for the 1975 match against Karpov. The latter was eager to play the American and even met with Fischer many times to seal the match contract. Karpov agreed with almost all demands but Fischer simply made more excuses and walked away. He started believing his myth and in the young Karpov saw a threat that could unseat him. Fischer hated losing and as the chess proverb goes 'He who never plays never loses'. If you ask me I'll tell you he was afraid of Karpov and hence chose to go down as undefeated champion. If not 1975, Karpov would have been favorite in 1977-78, that is my opinion but unfortunately the historically necessary match didn't take place. Fischer lost, chess lost and importantly Karpov lost. Karpov needed a few challenging assignments against Fischer to improve his game, get battle-hardened and prepare himself against a future threat in Kasparov (10 years later), Korchnoi wasn't that big a test. So history would have turned out very differently had Fischer stayed. I think the whole timeline of chess would have shifted by at least 5 years and Kasparov would have become WC only in the early 90s thus shortening his reign. Kasparov benefitted the most, Fischer is rightly seen as someone who never once defended his crown while Karpov is seen as someone who got his crown for cheap and made hay in a weak era (in the 1972-84 period).

Fischer's reluctance to defend his crown determines his legacy. Great peak, ATG player but someone who didn't conquer his younger generation. In any sport to become GOAT it isn't enough to push away the previous generation and dominate same age-group peers, it is more important to do well against the next generation since they have studied your game, understood your strengths/weaknesses and modified themselves accordingly, plus the age advantage. Fischer failed miserably on this front and hence can never be GOAT at least from chess playing pov. As an influential figure he may be top, as an ambassador of chess (long term) little doubtful since after his road to madness many started associating chess with an eventual path towards insanity and its popularity decreased, certain negative stereotypes took centre stage.

Regarding your question about Carlsen vs Fischer it is very difficult to compare a pre-computer era player to someone born in the 90s. You can compare Fischer with Kramnik/Anand but not beyond that. Carslen was born with a chess engine readily available, we have no idea how he would have been moulded 50 years back. Similarities are that both are great fighters, both have immense psychological toughness (even Fischer once he has committed to battle), endgame technique (MC slight edge) and while Fischer's opening repertoire was narrow but deep, Carslen has a wide range but not necessarily very deep. Fischer holds the edge in calculating forced lines, MC has better positional understanding, both excel in shorter time control. Difficult for me to judge them because as I said computers have changed our game forever and MC is a child of this era. Similar players with both holding small edges in certain areas, too tough to call. 1972 Fischer and 2013 Carlsen is 50:50, over a 4 years period Fischer (1969-72) has the edge over MC (2012-15) but in a 5-10 years period MC has the edge. A more interesting match-up is Fischer vs Kasparov (should have happened in early 80s) and I will give the edge to Kaspy, made some points about that previously on this thread. Basing this on how Fischer at his peak fared against Tal and Geller, Kaspy was an upgraded version of Tal with limitless stamina, more hunger/ambition and better psychology. But I can assure you Fischer would make so many preconditions that such matches would never take place. Kasparov and Carlsen don't mind gamesmanship and always look at their own interests, no way would they succumb as easily to his crazy demands like Spassky.

Wonderful.

I did play the Reykjavik games on laptop several times and you are absolutely spot on - those were just not a chess game; those were part of that Cold War. But me of the games that Fischer won with black in 27 (or 29) moves (probably 12th game), was one that only a tactical genius like Fischer could master.

I think, Chess ranking is a bit relative - players earn their ranking points playing against contemporary players, therefore it’s difficult to judge players only from ranking points. Carlsen indeed holds the highest ever point (& guy is good with his calculations- he was at 4th spot till lock down in EPL fantasy league among millions), but I don’t think at their prime Carlsen will beat Fischer, Kasparov and May be even Karpov in a say 12 game series. Head to head is different thing in chess where you fight with the person, not only his game.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Wonderful.

I did play the Reykjavik games on laptop several times and you are absolutely spot on - those were just not a chess game; those were part of that Cold War. But me of the games that Fischer won with black in 27 (or 29) moves (probably 12th game), was one that only a tactical genius like Fischer could master.

I think, Chess ranking is a bit relative - players earn their ranking points playing against contemporary players, therefore it’s difficult to judge players only from ranking points. Carlsen indeed holds the highest ever point (& guy is good with his calculations- he was at 4th spot till lock down in EPL fantasy league among millions), but I don’t think at their prime Carlsen will beat Fischer, Kasparov and May be even Karpov in a say 12 game series. Head to head is different thing in chess where you fight with the person, not only his game.

Fischer was not as good as Karpov
Anyway Carlsen is like Capablanca in being an endgame genius at grinding but his last 2 WCCs have been disappointing, 1 win, 1 loss and 22 draws do not make for inspiring reading and he plays too safe trying to get to rapid and blitz. As Grischuk said of the 12th game last year, RIP Classical Chess

 

[Swashbuckler]

Fischer was not as good as Karpov

You are entitled to your opinion buddy but Fischer's peak was something else. I know you will bring up Linares 1994 but what Fischer did in the run up to the Spassky match is unmatched in chess history. Karpov dominated in the post-Fischer and pre-GK period sweeping away all tournaments but what was the competition? Oldies like Spassky, Tal, Larsen, Petrosian, Geller? His generation comprising Timman, Hort, Beliavsky, Mecking, Hubner, Ulf etc. not strong enough compared to Fischer's rivals. No wonder Karpov had so many tournament victories, all started drying up when a 19 year old Kasparov took the number one spot in 1982. Not to forget FIDE throwing all its weight behind him, after all he was Kremlin's darling and still is to this day. His matches against Korchnoi, then Kaspy and later against Anand in Lausanne were all rigged in his favor (off the board) by FIDE crooks like Campomanes and later Ilyumzhinov.

Not attempting to change your mind, just a casual discussion. Not often that I interact with dedicated Karpov fans . He is an acquired taste, very subtle. Even the 'Soviet School of Chess' Patriarch Botvinnik didn't understand his playing style when he enrolled under his tutelage. Once famously remarked "The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession". Very tough to understand his game, just makes some moves without forcing anything and soon the opponent runs out of good squares. Great technique, great intuition about which piece must be in which square, truest successor of Capablanca and predecessor of Kramnik, later his style taken forward and improved by Carlsen.

Personally not a fan of dry, technical positional play, I like dynamic chess. But the game is moving more towards a positional nature, the trend is visible at the top level. As Nakamura said at last year's Sinquefield Cup the game has petered out tactically and it is really hard to create significant imbalances. In that way Karpov's legacy is more striking than Kasparov's, many of the latter's ideas will now be refuted by strong engines.

Anyway Carlsen is like Capablanca in being an endgame genius at grinding but his last 2 WCCs have been disappointing, 1 win, 1 loss and 22 draws do not make for inspiring reading and he plays too safe trying to get to rapid and blitz. As Grischuk said of the 12th game last year, RIP Classical Chess

He wasn't his usual self in classical in the 2016-18 period but last year was in scary form (closest to 2012-14 Maximus Magnus), he was finding his mojo in the long format, dominating supertournaments and also a record unbeaten streak. A pity the WCC most probably won't take place this year, who knows by next year his red hot form may desert him !!!

 

[Swashbuckler]

*

Oldies like Spassky, Tal, Larsen, Petrosian, Geller?

Forgot to add Korchnoi, Karpov's toughest rival before the arrival of Kasparov. Now Korchnoi was 20 years elder to Karpov, that really should tell us all we want to know about that era. In comparison Carlsen is 21 years younger than Anand, 15 younger than Kramnik and Topalov, one of them is retired and the other has stopped competing in elite level tournaments.

Korchnoi was fighting against Karpov for the crown at the age of 50 while Soviet authorities had his wife arrested and son put in a labour camp (for almost 3 years) to punish the defector father.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Wonderful.

I did play the Reykjavik games on laptop several times and you are absolutely spot on - those were just not a chess game; those were part of that Cold War. But me of the games that Fischer won with black in 27 (or 29) moves (probably 12th game), was one that only a tactical genius like Fischer could master.

Great to see a fellow chess fan on PP. All of us have our favorites, all these greats have played some fantastic and unique games over the years. I think there have been superior tacticians than Fischer (including his nemesis, the magician Mikhail Tal) but I can see why you would rate his tactical abilities so high, at that level very small difference, one may be a 99 and the other a 98.5 but for us mere mortals even an 80 looks other-worldly.

Personally I enjoy games where Fischer uses his bishop(s) especially in endgames, complete mastery over that piece. Just like how I like Anand's knight maneuvers (close second will be Morozevich) and Carlsen's rook and pawn endgames. I try to explore these themes rather than studying the full game, usually avoid spending time on openings since it is the toughest to master and priority-wise should come only after one has learnt about middlegame and endgame. The legendary GM and trainer Ulf Andersson said to 'learn chess backwards' meaning endings first, sound advice in my opinion.

I think, Chess ranking is a bit relative - players earn their ranking points playing against contemporary players, therefore it’s difficult to judge players only from ranking points. Carlsen indeed holds the highest ever point (& guy is good with his calculations- he was at 4th spot till lock down in EPL fantasy league among millions), but I don’t think at their prime Carlsen will beat Fischer, Kasparov and May be even Karpov in a say 12 game series. Head to head is different thing in chess where you fight with the person, not only his game.

Yeah his fantasy league performance created quite a buzz, I think he even had a lead at some point. Not so sure about calculations there, because unlike chess there is a huge element of luck in these fantasy games. Another thing I like about chess (especially classical), probably the only sport/game with no element of luck, once the game starts success/failure is entirely under the control of the players, can't blame umpires, ref, judges, weather, net cord, freak accident etc.

Agree with your view on chess ratings, depends on the field and there is inflation as the pool of strong players keeps going up. Useful (but not the only) pointer when one compares players of the same era but cross-era comparisons shouldn't be done based on Elo. Also chess engines have made it so difficult to compare, 1972 Fischer didn't have access to latest computer technology and algorithms while Magnus practically grew up with them.

 

[Adijazz1706]

You are entitled to your opinion buddy but Fischer's peak was something else. I know you will bring up Linares 1994 but what Fischer did in the run up to the Spassky match is unmatched in chess history. Karpov dominated in the post-Fischer and pre-GK period sweeping away all tournaments but what was the competition? Oldies like Spassky, Tal, Larsen, Petrosian, Geller? His generation comprising Timman, Hort, Beliavsky, Mecking, Hubner, Ulf etc. not strong enough compared to Fischer's rivals. No wonder Karpov had so many tournament victories, all started drying up when a 19 year old Kasparov took the number one spot in 1982. Not to forget FIDE throwing all its weight behind him, after all he was Kremlin's darling and still is to this day. His matches against Korchnoi, then Kaspy and later against Anand in Lausanne were all rigged in his favor (off the board) by FIDE crooks like Campomanes and later Ilyumzhinov.

Not attempting to change your mind, just a casual discussion. Not often that I interact with dedicated Karpov fans . He is an acquired taste, very subtle. Even the 'Soviet School of Chess' Patriarch Botvinnik didn't understand his playing style when he enrolled under his tutelage. Once famously remarked "The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession". Very tough to understand his game, just makes some moves without forcing anything and soon the opponent runs out of good squares. Great technique, great intuition about which piece must be in which square, truest successor of Capablanca and predecessor of Kramnik, later his style taken forward and improved by Carlsen.

Personally not a fan of dry, technical positional play, I like dynamic chess. But the game is moving more towards a positional nature, the trend is visible at the top level. As Nakamura said at last year's Sinquefield Cup the game has petered out tactically and it is really hard to create significant imbalances. In that way Karpov's legacy is more striking than Kasparov's, many of the latter's ideas will now be refuted by strong engines.



He wasn't his usual self in classical in the 2016-18 period but last year was in scary form (closest to 2012-14 Maximus Magnus), he was finding his mojo in the long format, dominating supertournaments and also a record unbeaten streak. A pity the WCC most probably won't take place this year, who knows by next year his red hot form may desert him !!!

Im no dedicated Karpov fan da, no idea who told you that I just wanna say that Fischer going on a tear before the Spassky match doesnt make him better than Karpov. He finished miles behind the top 3 in 62 and then went on a crying spree (as he often did) just cuz the Russians were drawing with Petrosian even though he lost 1 game to Petrosian and had 3 draws himself. He also lost 3 games to Geller and Keres. The other allegation about Korchnoi throwing games was shot down by everyone including Korchnoi himself. If Spassky hadnt given in to his stupid demands, he'd have been a footnote in history. Anyway Karpov beat Spassky worse in the next candidates then Fischer in the WCC. My fav player is Capa (check out his saga by agadmator on YT) but I also love Tal's games (MatoJelic has you covered on that) Peace out machan

 

[Swashbuckler]

Im no dedicated Karpov fan da, no idea who told you that I just wanna say that Fischer going on a tear before the Spassky match doesnt make him better than Karpov. He finished miles behind the top 3 in 62 and then went on a crying spree (as he often did) just cuz the Russians were drawing with Petrosian even though he lost 1 game to Petrosian and had 3 draws himself. He also lost 3 games to Geller and Keres. The other allegation about Korchnoi throwing games was shot down by everyone including Korchnoi himself. If Spassky hadnt given in to his stupid demands, he'd have been a footnote in history. Anyway Karpov beat Spassky worse in the next candidates then Fischer in the WCC. My fav player is Capa (check out his saga by agadmator on YT) but I also love Tal's games (MatoJelic has you covered on that) Peace out machan

Oops sorry man, I think I had a conversation about Karpov with you earlier here or maybe I am confusing you with someone else.

Agree with you about Fischer being a crybaby, also a bully in that 72 match, wish Spassky had stayed firm instead of succumbing to his crazy demands.

 

[MenInG]

Strange times these. In a parallel universe, middle-aged men with middle-aged bellies are still frothing over Arsenal’s controversial Premier League winner against Liverpool. Saracens have somehow snuck into another Champions Cup final. And Pinatubo, or “Pina-turbo” as the tabloids are calling him, has just been christened the greatest horse since Frankel after his 2,000 Guineas triumph.

In the real world, meanwhile, the biggest and richest sporting event over the weekend – with all due respect to Belarus’s premier league – took place on the internet in a chess match dubbed el clásico.

On one side of the virtual board sat the Norwegian world champion, Magnus Carlsen, who had created a $250,000 online tournament which also carried his name, the Magnus Carlsen Invitational. Facing him was the American Hikaru Nakamura, the world’s top-rated blitz player, who once likened his opponent to Sauron, the dark ruler of Mordor in the Lord of the Rings. The pair, unsurprisingly, do not exchange Christmas cards.

The action was fast, frenetic and tense. When Carlsen defended his world title against Fabiano Caruana in London in 2018, each tussle lasted up to seven hours. But in rapidplay games are done and dusted in under an hour. The format has proved a revelation: pressure is intensified, mistakes magnified. Often the computer evaluation resembles cardiac oscillations, swinging wildly from one side to the other. Never has chess looked more like an adrenaline sport. No wonder Nakamura was once sponsored by Red Bull.

It took a fortnight for eight players to be whittled down to two for Sunday’s final. But the sober conventions of normal chess – polite handshakes and poker-faced silence – were discarded far more quickly. During his semi-final against the Chinese player Ding Liren, Carlsen swore and scowled after blundering into checkmate – but less than an hour later he was doing double fist‑pumps after coming back to win the next game.

“I haven’t felt this kind of tension in a long while,” he admitted after his victory in the series. “It is not pleasant for the players at all.”

The final was just as tense and Carlsen was understandably shattered after holding off Nakamura to win a seesawing thriller to claim the $70,000 first prize – a decent return for a few hours’ work by anyone’s standards. But there was another silent battle raging behind the scenes: the one for hearts and minds. According to the organiser chess24.com, more than 10 million people have watched the tournament. Meanwhile its biggest rival, chess.com, has in excess of 35 million members who play more than five million games a day. Another popular website, lichess.org, has around 60,000 people playing at any given time.

These are serious numbers and for all three the lockdown represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity – alongside the cold war by proxy contest between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky in 1972 and Nigel Short’s doomed attempt to wrest the title from Garry Kasparov in 1993 – for chess to lurch towards the mainstream.

It helps that the commentary has been so punchy. One Carlsen blunder was described as “a howler of unbelievable proportions” by the Russian grandmaster Peter Svidler – a comment matched by the English international master Lawrence Trent, who suggested Ding might be a “choker”. On the Spanish broadcast, meanwhile, Pepe Cuenca’s machine-gun delivery made every stunning combination sound like a Lionel Messi golazo.

Things have, it is fair to say, moved on from the coverage of Kasparov v Short. Writing in the New Yorker, Julian Barnes noted that one TV analyst, the grandmaster Raymond Keene, is “nicknamed the penguin for his well-lunched stomach and rather Antarctic set of his head on his shoulders”, while the much-loved grandmaster Jon Speelman was described as “the ultimate boffin, a sports marketer’s worst nightmare” and “an emblematic bar to the populariser’s dreams”. “For all his great savvy on the board and the affectionate respect in which he is held,” Barnes concluded, “Speelman is never going to be the [Andre] Agassi of the 64 squares.”

Carlsen has been the Federer, Djokovic and Nadal of chess since becoming world No 1 in 2010. Even now he is the game’s great white shark, with an unnerving ability to detect weaknesses. There was relish, too, when he admitted he had “wanted to crush” the 16-year‑old prodigy Alireza Firouzja in the preliminary rounds.

But, impressively, Carlsen has been brutally honest about his failings, too. On one occasion he described his play as “terribly bad”. On another he admitted: “I got away with something akin to murder.” In a world where big-name sportspeople rarely stray from the anodyne or the bland, the Norwegian has been a revelation.

And that is not the only preconception he has shattered. Martin Amis once wrote that chess genius lives, or windmills its arm, on the outer rims of sanity. Inevitably, he invoked Fischer’s descent into madness. The American, who used to get a discount at his local antisemitic bookstore so valued was his custom, was also so paranoid he had his fillings removed because he did not want anything metallic in his head in case he picked up radio transmissions.

But the more we see chess players up close, the more it is obvious Fischer was a gargantuan outlier. Over the course of the past fortnight the world’s best have never seemed more human. Including Carlsen himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...mura-transform-chess-into-an-adrenaline-sport

 

[Kroll]

Robert James Fischer, the eleventh World Champion ranks among the greatest chess masters of all time. All world champions are part of a tradition which has no parallel in any other sport or game, even Euwe who wasn't of the class as the other champs (and many perennial princes most notably Keres and to a lesser extent Korchnoi). Among those who held the crown, Fischer ranks in the top tier, more on that later.

To my mind his greatest legacy was that during his playing career he popularized chess more than any other person in history. Most of it was because of unique circumstances which overlapped with his career but nevertheless even the harshest critic can't argue against him being the reason why money and fan following (beyond the Iron Curtain) flowed into the game, indeed he was the foremost union leader for all chess professionals. His 1972 triumph during peak Cold War still ranks as among the greatest achievements of USA, it won't be an exaggeration to say that at that time, for a couple of years his popularity dwarfed that of all the other leading sportsmen and celebs of America. After all for the first time since the Space Race, USA had the chance to outshine USSR at the latter's area of strength. For long, the Soviets had maintained hegemony over the chess crown and mockingly bemoaned the decadent West's inability to challenge the intellectual superiority nurtured by the Soviet communist regime, away from battlefields and diplomatic meets the playing field had shifted to the chess board. How else can one explain how a certain American recluse's daily activity and mood swings became a topic of fervent discussion in the Oval Office? What else can make sense of Kissinger's frenetic phone calls to Fischer's camp begging, pleading that he go to Iceland when he had threatened to walk out of the match? It was a match like no other, a moment in history like no other, when the pride of the two superpowers rested on two chess masters, a board of 64 squares, 16 pieces, one clock and an arbiter.

Coming to the match, we all know how it unfolded. Fischer won 12.5-8.5 and displaced Spassky to become eleventh world champion, thus ending the Soviet's long stranglehold on the crown. What followed was a period of national mourning in USSR, for the communists the world champion was equivalent of Czar of Imperial Russia. To see that crown slip into the hands of the arch-enemy was something they couldn't cope with. Till then the prize money from chess tournaments wasn't taxed, but Kremlin authorities were so aghast after this humiliation that they created a law which took a huge part of the prize money as tax, something like 90%. Privileges to chess players too were diminished as collective punishment. For the Americans it was a golden highlight of the Cold War, a rare triumph against a fearsome opponent in a discipline where historically they were the weaker party. So many Hollywood movies, documentaries, musicals and books discuss Fischer's life and that triumph, not without reason. In Fischer's words, "Nobody has single-handedly done more for the U.S. than me. When I won the world championship, in 1972, the United States had an image of, you know, a football country, a baseball country, but nobody thought of it as an intellectual country. I turned all that around single-handedly, right?"

But I would like to clear some misconceptions about Fischer's triumph and the many myths that get attached to this seminal event.

Firstly USSR was the superpower of chess but USA was no slouch as many would like to believe. It is often casually remarked that Fischer was the first great American master. Nothing could be further from the truth. After all Paul Morphy was an American, the greatest master of the 19th century and someone who was more ahead of his peers than any other player in history. Chess history didn't start with Steinitz, even Fischer mentioned the Romantic Morphy as his childhood hero and someone who was the first to play modern chess. Then you had Reshevsky, Marshall, Evans and someone who has most influence on the current champion, Reuben Fine. Fine is more known for his work on psychology than chess but no doubt he was a chess genius. During the Holocaust, many Jewish chess players found refuge in USA, one only has to read about the Chess Olympiads of early 20th century to understand the chess legacy of USA many decades before 1972.Even in the 50s and 60s US was consistently the best chess country west of the Eastern Bloc, usually 2nd or 3rd best in the world. There was a thriving chess culture in the country with numerous strong players just in the city of New York. Those who make these frivolous claims about US being a non-entity usually do so to deify Fischer, it has no factual basis. It is like saying Pakistan had no cricket legacy before 1992, utter nonsense.

The second misconception is that Fischer was a lone warrior against the might of Soviet Union. Well, again not accurate. He was well assisted by a group of super strong chess players, physicians, fitness coaches, psychologists, friends, nutritionists and generous donors. Kavalek and Lombardy were his main men, more than enough because Fischer didn't trust people much, always paranoid that his secrets would leak he preferred a small coterie. Spassky didn't enjoy the support of many seconds either, mainly because that was his style, he was someone who preferred to work everything out over the board. He had a team of 3 in Reykjavic: Geller, Nei, Krogius and Krogius was invited not for his chess but because of his degree in psychology. Spassky made a very big mistake before the match when he ended his relations with Bondarevsky who had been his main trainer for many years. Moreover he suffered serious motivation problems before that match because he had dominated the American until then and had already realized his goal of becoming WC. He cancelled his training match against young Karpov and spent most of the time in his camp playing tennis. By then he was a very lazy person, relying only on natural talent and hardly putting the requisite effort. Against any other Soviet player Fischer would have faced the full might of their team of seconds, not so against Spassky. Those days games would be frequently adjourned with resumption the following day. One of the games where Spassky had a winning position, his seconds found the forced execution overnight and when they went with the information to brief him in the morning, he shooed them away assuring that he would find it over the board. It can be argued that Fischer utilized his team better than Spassky and the opening battles proved it.

Thirdly the match was fought as per terms and conditions of the Americans. First they shifted the match to Iceland, then Fischer started his mind games about whether he would participate or not. Till the eleventh hour he remained non-committal and that took its mental toll on Spassky. The match was close to being called off many times, Fischer arrived late for game 1 and gave a walkover in game 2. A walkover meant full point for Spassky but he wasn't someone who liked to win that way. Being a fair guy and a thorough gentleman, that default win threw him off his game for rest of the match. He agreed to Fischer's demands and played with reduced number of spectators, in a small room, without cameras, basically he bent over to all crazy demands of his opponent, a serious psychological blunder. But then again, that was Spassky, someone who joined the audience in clapping for Fischer after the latter's spectacular win in G6. This after Fischer's remark that he wanted to crush the Ruskie's hands till it was reduced to bone powder. We had a gentleman who faced off against a ruthless, psychologically bulletproof maniac who was known for his gamesmanship and Spassky is the bad guy? Western revisionism at its best.

Last point I would make is regarding the quality of the match. People call it the 'Match of the Century' but IMO chess-wise it wasn't so. It was held at a unique junction in history when any American and Russian facing off would have recorded massive interest. I know for a fact that this match was discussed in a small village in Tamil Nadu over the morning paper and tea, my father developed his interest in chess due to this event. But history demands a search for truth, nobody can analyse the course of the match in depth with objectivity and call it Fischer's greatest moment of genius. The blunder he made in G1 where he trapped his own bishop would rank as one of the worst moves in top level chess let alone a World Championship match. Both players missed many wins and ultimately Spassky lost rather than Fischer winning, first because of overconfidence and as the match progressed because he wasn't in a frame of mind to fight. Pressure was huge and it would have made an impact, in cricket terms it was like the Mohali 2011 SF, a low quality match which was decided by who held his nerves better. It must also be noted that Spassky remains one of the weakest champions, certainly the joint weakest from the Soviet side alongside Smyslov. He had a positive H2H against Fischer prior to the match but not a better player by any stretch of imagination, at least in the 1969-72 cycle.

Well then what was Fischer's peak? That is the obvious question. In my mind it was his demolition job of Petrosian a year earlier, final of the candidates cycle to determine Spassky's challenger. In the run up to that match he massacred Taimanov (fun fact: one of the greatest pianists of 20th century apart from being a great chess player) and Bent Larsen 6-0 each. Taimanov was so much in shock that he wrote a book 'How I Became Fischer's Victim' after that match. Soviet officials accused Taimanov of disgracing his motherland, then stripped him of his titles and forbade him from going abroad for a year and a half, even banned his participation in concerts making it impossible for him to earn a living. Bent Larsen who was the West's second strongest player thankfully didn't have to endure any punitive action from Danish authorities. 12-0 was impressive no doubt but what happened next must rank as the greatest chess performance ever. Up next was the Armenian giant Tigran Petrosian, the previous world champ. The greatest defender the game had seen, he was the first to demonstrate that it was possible to defend almost any position. Petrosian brought the defensive element to chess, the element that gains more and more prominence now. He showed that chess is the game with a lot of resources, including defensive resources. He wasn't an ambitious player but even if he lost, it would be by a narrow margin. Petrosian could sense danger from far, far away but against Fischer the great defender couldn't summon his resources as he was swept away by waves of relentless attack. His defence was breached 5 times as Fischer won 6.5-2.5 (5 wins, 1 loss), that was Fischer's greatest chess achievement IMO. His early career had some amazing highs (for want of time I won't discuss them here, maybe a topic for another day) but 1971 against Petrosian was the highest point.

Why Fischer left the chess world after winning the title is an open-ended question. Of course he was a deeply troubled individual. Identity of his father remained a secret till late in his life, his mother had a 900 pages long FBI file, childhood wasn't kind on him and because of his maniacal obsession with chess his mental health wasn't akin to that of a normal person. He strived for perfection in chess all the time and the game is a mental prison if one immerses oneself too deeply. Allegations of Soviet collusion didn't help, he was convinced they were fixing games among themselves to prevent his rise. Whether he was right or wrong about that can be left to interpretation but there was some level of understanding among the Soviet players to help out their fellow comrades, pressure came from the very top. So a great deal of mental trauma for him. Fischer followed the footsteps of his great predecessor Morphy when it came to walking away from the game when he was 29 years old, at the professional summit and when he was at his creative peak. His chapter post 1972 makes for sad reading, less to do with chess and more to do with crazy conspiracy theories, abuses both to others and his own body/mind, a continuous fall towards irrelevance. He made one last attempt at comeback in 1992 against Spassky but that match was like two aged boxers having a bout in the circus, In Kasparov's words that match shattered whatever myth of Fischer that still remained.

We know his mental problems, we know about his terms for the 1975 match against Karpov. The latter was eager to play the American and even met with Fischer many times to seal the match contract. Karpov agreed with almost all demands but Fischer simply made more excuses and walked away. He started believing his myth and in the young Karpov saw a threat that could unseat him. Fischer hated losing and as the chess proverb goes 'He who never plays never loses'. If you ask me I'll tell you he was afraid of Karpov and hence chose to go down as undefeated champion. If not 1975, Karpov would have been favorite in 1977-78, that is my opinion but unfortunately the historically necessary match didn't take place. Fischer lost, chess lost and importantly Karpov lost. Karpov needed a few challenging assignments against Fischer to improve his game, get battle-hardened and prepare himself against a future threat in Kasparov (10 years later), Korchnoi wasn't that big a test. So history would have turned out very differently had Fischer stayed. I think the whole timeline of chess would have shifted by at least 5 years and Kasparov would have become WC only in the early 90s thus shortening his reign. Kasparov benefitted the most, Fischer is rightly seen as someone who never once defended his crown while Karpov is seen as someone who got his crown for cheap and made hay in a weak era (in the 1972-84 period).

Fischer's reluctance to defend his crown determines his legacy. Great peak, ATG player but someone who didn't conquer his younger generation. In any sport to become GOAT it isn't enough to push away the previous generation and dominate same age-group peers, it is more important to do well against the next generation since they have studied your game, understood your strengths/weaknesses and modified themselves accordingly, plus the age advantage. Fischer failed miserably on this front and hence can never be GOAT at least from chess playing pov. As an influential figure he may be top, as an ambassador of chess (long term) little doubtful since after his road to madness many started associating chess with an eventual path towards insanity and its popularity decreased, certain negative stereotypes took centre stage.

Regarding your question about Carlsen vs Fischer it is very difficult to compare a pre-computer era player to someone born in the 90s. You can compare Fischer with Kramnik/Anand but not beyond that. Carslen was born with a chess engine readily available, we have no idea how he would have been moulded 50 years back. Similarities are that both are great fighters, both have immense psychological toughness (even Fischer once he has committed to battle), endgame technique (MC slight edge) and while Fischer's opening repertoire was narrow but deep, Carslen has a wide range but not necessarily very deep. Fischer holds the edge in calculating forced lines, MC has better positional understanding, both excel in shorter time control. Difficult for me to judge them because as I said computers have changed our game forever and MC is a child of this era. Similar players with both holding small edges in certain areas, too tough to call. 1972 Fischer and 2013 Carlsen is 50:50, over a 4 years period Fischer (1969-72) has the edge over MC (2012-15) but in a 5-10 years period MC has the edge. A more interesting match-up is Fischer vs Kasparov (should have happened in early 80s) and I will give the edge to Kaspy, made some points about that previously on this thread. Basing this on how Fischer at his peak fared against Tal and Geller, Kaspy was an upgraded version of Tal with limitless stamina, more hunger/ambition and better psychology. But I can assure you Fischer would make so many preconditions that such matches would never take place. Kasparov and Carlsen don't mind gamesmanship and always look at their own interests, no way would they succumb as easily to his crazy demands like Spassky.

Fantastic post, well done! Thanks for the time and effort that went into this.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Fantastic post, well done! Thanks for the time and effort that went into this.

Glad you liked it. Time/effort is not an issue because I love chess and enjoy writing about it, so my pleasure. Sorry I replied to your post a couple of days after you tagged me and not earlier, I knew that once I started typing it would be like an essay , I have the habit of sometimes writing very long posts and going into details.

 

[Swashbuckler]

So Magnus beat Nakamura in the final to win his chess24 invitational. Personally enjoyed the semis more, especially the all-American duel. Still not a fan of this format, since it doesn't have the serious vibe about it. But the prize money is good !!!!

Now chess.com has the online (rapid) Nations Cup featuring 6 teams: Russia, Europe, USA, China, India, Rest of the World. Each team will field 4 men and 2 women players, don't know why they have to include women, would love to see a parallel women's nations cup exclusively for them. Some high profile team captains, Kasparov for Europe and Kramnik for India.

Good to see online chess activity surging during this otherwise boring phase, hope Caissa attracts many new players, enthusiasts, fans, followers, patrons.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Carlsen won the Steinitz Memorial organized on chess24 while Grischuk's partner Lagno won the women's edition.



Pretty weak field but he can only play who is put up in front of him. Dubov was impressive as he usually is in faster time controls, he is an underachiever. Carlsen didn't play well, was lucky to win it in the end, his aura is enough for many of his opponents to melt even when he is playing not that good.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Lindores Abbey Rapid Challenge SF (online chess24): Nakamura beats Carlsen in the second SF, after losing first match 0-3, great comeback in the last 2 days. Watching MC lose is fun fun fun.

Naka vs Dubov in the final, the Russian has been on fire this event smashing Karjakin and Ding on the way.

 

[Chrish]

<iframe src="https://clips.twitch.tv/embed?clip=ObedientBenevolentBasenjiNinjaGrumpy&parent=www.example.com" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" scrolling="no" height="378" width="620"></iframe>

Carlsen is doing things that even great players only dream of. During previous era, Chess was pretty much a niche; you had to train under professionals to become really good so not many people could afford that level of dedication. But now in the era of Chess engines, anyone can practice from their basement against the strongest possible opponent ie machine and become really really good.

So in this machine era, competition is infinitely higher and yet Carlsen is domineering! He is GOAT IMO even if he hangs up his boots now.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Carlsen is doing things that even great players only dream of.

You will be surprised to know what great players are capable of, hell even the 2700+ category. Just because they aren't visible on streaming platforms doesn't mean they are any less. Coming to this thread title, Kasparov won simul aganst Israeli national team in 1998, it was a demolition. Couple of years later he defeated the Czech national team. Not just him all world champs have extraordinary feats in their resume, Kramnik beat the German national team, Vishy beat the Polish side in a clock simul. Many other examples, all this and more covered in his books by Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, including juicy tidbits of training simuls which didn't make it to the database. Carlsen hasn't given such strong simuls, in fact he avoids 2200+ players even in his smaller simuls, much prefers 1200-2000 simuls. Don't blame him, in 2013 when he was at his peak he gave a simul in Chennai against our kids some of them as young as 6, won 10, drew 6 and lost 4, one of those losses to Praggu's sister who was 10 or 11 that time and probably a 2000 strength player.

During previous era, Chess was pretty much a niche; you had to train under professionals to become really good so not many people could afford that level of dedication. But now in the era of Chess engines, anyone can practice from their basement against the strongest possible opponent ie machine and become really really good.

Name one player in the top 1000 who reached that level without help of instructors or what you called professional trainers, just one. Carlsen at worst may have to deal with top 100 players (mostly top 30 in supertournaments and world championship cycles), each of those 100 players has dedicated trainer(s) and some even seconds/teams working around the clock. Practising from basement and becoming really good, yeah when your ceiling is 2000 or maybe 2200 if you are once in a generation genius like Carlsen, have quit education/job and dedicated your life to only chess. All these popular streamers you see, each one of them received old school training to reach where they did, even the 1900-2000 rated people. I know a couple of IMs in India who claim they did it without coaching in interviews, all lies , they wouldn't dare make such statements before their peer group unless they want to be ridiculed .

 

[Swashbuckler]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Garry Kasparov doesn't think Magnus Carlsen faces the same level of competition as he faced in the 1990s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/c24live?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#c24live</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChessLegends?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ChessLegends</a> <a href="https://t.co/RA1Umor2Yw">pic.twitter.com/RA1Umor2Yw</a></p>— chess24.com (@chess24com) <a href="https://twitter.com/chess24com/status/1289600229008793600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ManFan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Garry Kasparov doesn't think Magnus Carlsen faces the same level of competition as he faced in the 1990s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/c24live?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#c24live</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChessLegends?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ChessLegends</a> <a href="https://t.co/RA1Umor2Yw">pic.twitter.com/RA1Umor2Yw</a></p>— chess24.com (@chess24com) <a href="https://twitter.com/chess24com/status/1289600229008793600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Says every old person ever.

 

[Chrish]

Love Kaspy but that’s bunch of bull..

 

[Swashbuckler]

In case you guys are interested some wonderful chess video archives from Soviet Union.

Russian language, subtitles not that great but plenty of rich content including the K-K duels, footage of many world champs. I had great fun in identifying the masters in those videos.

https://www.youtube.com/c/gtrftv/search?query=%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82

Look at the crowd then
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Here are some great extended footage scenes from the end of the 1985 world title match between Karpov and Kasparov, courtesy of the Soviet television archives. <a href="https://t.co/ztqb2mzPiD">https://t.co/ztqb2mzPiD</a> <a href="https://t.co/Kzv7rq36hJ">pic.twitter.com/Kzv7rq36hJ</a></p>— Olimpiu G. Urcan (@olimpiuurcan) <a href="https://twitter.com/olimpiuurcan/status/1302139445219487744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 5, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ManFan]

The greatest chess match of all time?

My pick is when Casablanca beat Marshall after he had prepared a seemingly impossible-to-counter plan, now known as the Marshall Attack, for the first time.

Just goes to show you that chess GM’s minds operate at a computer-level frequency.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Not often that chess makes it big in mainstream popular culture. Netflix's miniseries 'The Queen's Gambit' based on Walter Tevis' 1983 novel (fiction) of the same name has been well received and many are calling it the best TV show of the year. With chess as its subject, who would have thought it would become the number one show? Hats off to the creators, actors, all those involved in the project.

Kasparov was chief consultant for the chess part (did a great job), along with the famous coach Bruce Pandolfini (played by Ben Kingsley in Academy Awards nominated 1993 movie 'Searching for Bobby Fischer').

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Not often that chess makes it big in mainstream popular culture. Netflix's miniseries 'The Queen's Gambit' based on Walter Tevis' 1983 novel (fiction) of the same name has been well received and many are calling it the best TV show of the year. With chess as its subject, who would have thought it would become the number one show? Hats off to the creators, actors, all those involved in the project.

Kasparov was chief consultant for the chess part (did a great job), along with the famous coach Bruce Pandolfini (played by Ben Kingsley in Academy Awards nominated 1993 movie 'Searching for Bobby Fischer').

Binged it a few days ago. Well said! It might be the best show of the year.

 

[ManFan]

More interesting is, Fischer vs. Kasparov?

Very difficult to judge.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Kasparov recently played in the Croatia(Zagreb) rapid and blitz tournament, one of the legs of the Grand Chess Tour. He was a wildcard and played only the blitz event while a Croatian GM Ivan Saric played rapid.

Garry did terribly, finished last, 2.5/18, lost both his games against another member of the 50+ club, Vishy Anand. Worst performance of his life, shows how much chess has changed since his retirement. His opening ideas gone stale, pathetic time management, inability to calculate, going on tilt etc. He wasn't just losing to the big names, even the weaker GMs in the field toyed with him. Hope he stops playing these events, don't want the younger generation to have this picture of the legendary former world champion.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sorry I couldn’t do better for the fans who gave me so much support at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CroatiaRapidBlitz?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CroatiaRapidBlitz</a>. But time is undefeated, and Caissa is a jealous mistress who punishes anyone who ignores her as much as I do! Congrats to MVL and Vishy on their great results. And Saric! ����</p>— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) <a href="https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1414278123995205634?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Anand did well after a long hiatus, clear second ahead of a number of elite players including the next challenger to Carlsen, Russian GM Ian Nepomniachtchi who he beat on the final day. Now Anand is playing a 'No Castling' match against 14th world champion Kramnik in Dortmund. Presently ahead after 1st 2 games, 1.5-0.5. Chess fans should check that event, some dynamic ideas in that variant, enjoying the Dortmund duel more than the Sochi World Cup (16th world champion and top ranked Magnus Carlsen playing).