♚ Don't forget to hit the *Subscribe* *button* if you like the videos and click the bell symbol to get instant notification once a video is uploaded ✔️ bit.ly/powerplaysubscription
I'm looking forward to the Karpov games. Whoever said he is too often overlooked is right. I think he is often underestimated as a champion as well because he didn't have to play the champion to gain the title. As any American boy and chess fan would be at the time, I was a Fischer fan when he became champion. When he subsequently did not defend his title, it was disappointing. It wasn't very long after becoming acquainted with Karpov's play, though, when it became for me an open question of whether or not Fischer would have kept his title anyway. In my mind, Karpov was clearly superior to anyone Fischer had to face on his way to the title. He manhandled everyone for the next decade. Even Kasparov was not up to the challenge the first time around. If not for physical fatigue, Karpov would have won that match. I think he demonstrated that he was the superior player. It was that match that completed Kasparov's development as a player. By their second match he was the better player, but Karpov was no longer at the height of his powers. Karpov's best games have an almost uncanny feel to them, and I enjoy them every bit as much as any Kasparov masterpiece.
i heard a theory that karpov missed out hugely by not playing and learning from fischer, i think if he had, he would have been even stronger, kaprov had no hard competition because he was way ahead of the opposition, he needed those games with fischer and fischer let himself, karpov and every chess an down by chickening out !
mcpartridgeboy It is quite a reasonable thought that playing Fischer may have made Karpov even stronger. If he beat Fischer in a first or second match, it may have made him better simply by giving him even more confidence. I'm not sure it is fair to say that Fischer "chickened out." He had reason to be wary of the Soviet chess and F.I.D.E politics. He made demands for the coming match. One condition was to have draws not count and the match decided by so many wins. I can't recall with certainty if it was 6 or 9 wins, but 9 sounds right. This was rejected by Karpov because he feared the match might become a marathon and not be decided on chess skill but on stamina. This is ironic because he agreed to basically the same thing in his first match with Kasparov, and that is exactly what happened. Karpov went way ahead in that match, but Kasparov, on the advice of Botvinnik, adopted the tactic of making as many draws as possible in order to simply exhaust the more physically frail Karpov, which is exactly what happened. It was a practical but rather inglorious strategy. The F.I.D.E president at the time called the match off. Anyway, it was really unprecedented that a World Champion would not get his way, but F.I.D.E was really in the pocket of the Soviets at the time, so unbelievably the desires of the challenger were supported. Fischer preferred giving the game up to caving to their politics. It's hard to say if Bobby's later mental crises was already at work, but my view at the time is that they should have worked with his proposal to some extent so that at least it became a negotiation rather than an outright refusal. Some may point a finger at Karpov and blame him for not trying to approach Fischer or simply accepting the terms of the champion, but given what the Soviet Union was like back then that may have been very dangerous for Karpov, and I simply cannot blame him in the circumstances. I'm sure without such pressures Karpov would have acted differently and did what he could to make the match happen. It was not Chess's finest hour, but it's all in the irretrievable past now. I personally didn't think Fischer's demands were outrageous. I'm pretty sure it was 9 wins to win the match, and if I'm right about that, that was a bit much. Fewer would have been more reasonable. Ostensibly, Fischer wanted draws not to count for the good of chess, to promote fighting chess, which is plausible given who he was as a chess player. I don't put passed him, though, to have thought that a prolonged match would have been in his favor because even though he was older than Karpov, Karpov wasn't the healthiest specimen. We'll never know if they would have agreed to a format of fewer wins because it simply wasn't discussed. Fischer definitely wasn't chicken, though. It was really him vs. the whole Soviet chess machine. He defeated all the other challengers in very convincing style, and defeated Spassky soundly. It was an amazing accomplishment because he did for all intents and purposes by himself.
Very nice comment. Karpov is already one of the strongest player of all time without receiving any experiences from Fischer, like Kasparov received from Karpov in the first match between them. I wonder had Karpov actually played a match with an extremely tough opponent like Fischer, then how far his chess strength could have developed. I can't imagine. Karpov always regrets about that.
Objectively, Kasparov is the most successful and probably the best player chess in the history of chess till today, but we 'd like to see some videos of "YOU" on Karpov Games. Tnx a lot D.King -- Great Videos
Excellent point about how Kasparov's rock-solid position made the queen much less potent than usual. And even better... the return of the bishops "raking across the board"!!!
As a spectator, I'd be annoyed if players agreed to a draw as Gelfand and Shirov did in the position at 8:12. Maybe some grandmasters can see that it's a dead position and there's nothing to play for, but I'd still like to see it played out.
After being popular about 15-10 years ago (with Kasparov and Anand playing it regularly), the QGA seems to have fallen out of fashion on the top level. Any ideas on why that happened? Just opening fashion moved on, or some objective reasons?
You can really tell the difference in styles between world champions. Kasparov seemed to have a very dynamic attacking style with tactics that come out of nowhere, whereas Carslen seems like a much more pragmatic style, grinding out small positional advantages until he obtains a winning endgame.
TheBiathanatos Me parece interesante tu comentario, y quiero añadir que, a mi juicio, la diferencia en estilos entre Kasparov y Carlsen posiblemente haya sido influida por la computación. En un mundo moderno donde cualquier imprecisión en la apertura es rápidamente resuelta, el jugador moderno tiende a volverse más clínico y conservador (Carlsen) en lugar de dinámico. Es mi humilde opinión.
Miguel Lorenzo Sí, eso definitivamente pasa.Los jugadores nacidos en los 90 hasta ahora han tenido la computación como medio de entrenamiento desde jóvenes, basta con mirar a las edades con las que sacan muchos chicos las normas de grandes maestros (entre los 13 y los 15 como muy tarde).Un pequeño error de apertura lo pagas carísimo y la técnica influye más que la creatividad para concretar ventajas.Es por eso que en algunos torneos he observado que optan últimamente por líneas de apertura secundarias, no tan estudiadas a fondo, para sorprender a sus rivales y muchas veces les funciona.Carlsen jugó una apertura Ponziani contra Harikrishna y le ganó, siendo esta una apertura que se había dejado en el fondo de un baúl por las últimas décadas, pues había sido desestimada.
The style differences between players are really striking if you study the Karpov - Kasparov matches; in nearly every game Kasparov would sacrifice a pawn for initiative and Karpov would try to hold on to it. Most games ended as a draw!
That is a good idea, although it is all a question of time and at the moment I am busy with other things. Besides, I intend to take a look at a few Karpov games as my next project - as promised.
♚ Don't forget to hit the *Subscribe* *button* if you like the videos and click the bell symbol to get instant notification once a video is uploaded ✔️ bit.ly/powerplaysubscription
Thank you very much, GM King. You're the best commentator :). Can't wait to see some of the best games of Anatoly Karpov, who is my favorite champion.
thank you for the video Dany, great game and great analysis, always a pleasure to see this clips.
Fantastic commentary GM King!
Excellent!
I'm looking forward to the Karpov games. Whoever said he is too often overlooked is right. I think he is often underestimated as a champion as well because he didn't have to play the champion to gain the title. As any American boy and chess fan would be at the time, I was a Fischer fan when he became champion. When he subsequently did not defend his title, it was disappointing. It wasn't very long after becoming acquainted with Karpov's play, though, when it became for me an open question of whether or not Fischer would have kept his title anyway. In my mind, Karpov was clearly superior to anyone Fischer had to face on his way to the title. He manhandled everyone for the next decade. Even Kasparov was not up to the challenge the first time around. If not for physical fatigue, Karpov would have won that match. I think he demonstrated that he was the superior player. It was that match that completed Kasparov's development as a player. By their second match he was the better player, but Karpov was no longer at the height of his powers. Karpov's best games have an almost uncanny feel to them, and I enjoy them every bit as much as any Kasparov masterpiece.
i heard a theory that karpov missed out hugely by not playing and learning from fischer, i think if he had, he would have been even stronger, kaprov had no hard competition because he was way ahead of the opposition, he needed those games with fischer and fischer let himself, karpov and every chess an down by chickening out !
mcpartridgeboy
It is quite a reasonable thought that playing Fischer may have made Karpov even stronger. If he beat Fischer in a first or second match, it may have made him better simply by giving him even more confidence.
I'm not sure it is fair to say that Fischer "chickened out." He had reason to be wary of the Soviet chess and F.I.D.E politics. He made demands for the coming match. One condition was to have draws not count and the match decided by so many wins. I can't recall with certainty if it was 6 or 9 wins, but 9 sounds right. This was rejected by Karpov because he feared the match might become a marathon and not be decided on chess skill but on stamina. This is ironic because he agreed to basically the same thing in his first match with Kasparov, and that is exactly what happened. Karpov went way ahead in that match, but Kasparov, on the advice of Botvinnik, adopted the tactic of making as many draws as possible in order to simply exhaust the more physically frail Karpov, which is exactly what happened. It was a practical but rather inglorious strategy. The F.I.D.E president at the time called the match off.
Anyway, it was really unprecedented that a World Champion would not get his way, but F.I.D.E was really in the pocket of the Soviets at the time, so unbelievably the desires of the challenger were supported. Fischer preferred giving the game up to caving to their politics. It's hard to say if Bobby's later mental crises was already at work, but my view at the time is that they should have worked with his proposal to some extent so that at least it became a negotiation rather than an outright refusal.
Some may point a finger at Karpov and blame him for not trying to approach Fischer or simply accepting the terms of the champion, but given what the Soviet Union was like back then that may have been very dangerous for Karpov, and I simply cannot blame him in the circumstances. I'm sure without such pressures Karpov would have acted differently and did what he could to make the match happen.
It was not Chess's finest hour, but it's all in the irretrievable past now. I personally didn't think Fischer's demands were outrageous. I'm pretty sure it was 9 wins to win the match, and if I'm right about that, that was a bit much. Fewer would have been more reasonable. Ostensibly, Fischer wanted draws not to count for the good of chess, to promote fighting chess, which is plausible given who he was as a chess player. I don't put passed him, though, to have thought that a prolonged match would have been in his favor because even though he was older than Karpov, Karpov wasn't the healthiest specimen. We'll never know if they would have agreed to a format of fewer wins because it simply wasn't discussed.
Fischer definitely wasn't chicken, though. It was really him vs. the whole Soviet chess machine. He defeated all the other challengers in very convincing style, and defeated Spassky soundly. It was an amazing accomplishment because he did for all intents and purposes by himself.
Anthony Ciulla thanks, i enoyed that history lesson, 1
mcpartridgeboy
You're very welcome.
Very nice comment. Karpov is already one of the strongest player of all time without receiving any experiences from Fischer, like Kasparov received from Karpov in the first match between them. I wonder had Karpov actually played a match with an extremely tough opponent like Fischer, then how far his chess strength could have developed. I can't imagine. Karpov always regrets about that.
Excellent analysis. Thanks!
The presentation is excellent.
Great analysis, easily the best chess channel around
Objectively, Kasparov is the most successful and probably the best player chess in the history of chess till today, but we 'd like to see some videos of "YOU" on Karpov Games.
Tnx a lot D.King -- Great Videos
Excellent point about how Kasparov's rock-solid position made the queen much less potent than usual. And even better... the return of the bishops "raking across the board"!!!
As a spectator, I'd be annoyed if players agreed to a draw as Gelfand and Shirov did in the position at 8:12. Maybe some grandmasters can see that it's a dead position and there's nothing to play for, but I'd still like to see it played out.
After being popular about 15-10 years ago (with Kasparov and Anand playing it regularly), the QGA seems to have fallen out of fashion on the top level. Any ideas on why that happened? Just opening fashion moved on, or some objective reasons?
Does anyone know where can a i find some english video of the 2000 Kasparov Kramnik championship? The one Ive found is in french language
Hey Daniel,
Enjoyed the video. Was just wondering why you haven't covered the recent Blitz and Rapid Championships?
Very simple - I haven't had the time!
You can really tell the difference in styles between world champions. Kasparov seemed to have a very dynamic attacking style with tactics that come out of nowhere, whereas Carslen seems like a much more pragmatic style, grinding out small positional advantages until he obtains a winning endgame.
TheBiathanatos Me parece interesante tu comentario, y quiero añadir que, a mi juicio, la diferencia en estilos entre Kasparov y Carlsen posiblemente haya sido influida por la computación. En un mundo moderno donde cualquier imprecisión en la apertura es rápidamente resuelta, el jugador moderno tiende a volverse más clínico y conservador (Carlsen) en lugar de dinámico. Es mi humilde opinión.
Miguel Lorenzo Sí, eso definitivamente pasa.Los jugadores nacidos en los 90 hasta ahora han tenido la computación como medio de entrenamiento desde jóvenes, basta con mirar a las edades con las que sacan muchos chicos las normas de grandes maestros (entre los 13 y los 15 como muy tarde).Un pequeño error de apertura lo pagas carísimo y la técnica influye más que la creatividad para concretar ventajas.Es por eso que en algunos torneos he observado que optan últimamente por líneas de apertura secundarias, no tan estudiadas a fondo, para sorprender a sus rivales y muchas veces les funciona.Carlsen jugó una apertura Ponziani contra Harikrishna y le ganó, siendo esta una apertura que se había dejado en el fondo de un baúl por las últimas décadas, pues había sido desestimada.
The style differences between players are really striking if you study the Karpov - Kasparov matches; in nearly every game Kasparov would sacrifice a pawn for initiative and Karpov would try to hold on to it. Most games ended as a draw!
Will you make video comments of the recently finished rapid and blitz championship??
Sorry, I haven't time to cover the rapid and blitz championships.
Daniel, i have one question, can you make a playlist about bobby fischer's life and best games
That is a good idea, although it is all a question of time and at the moment I am busy with other things. Besides, I intend to take a look at a few Karpov games as my next project - as promised.