The Caro-Kann is one of the best positional openings, and is home to some great (B18) Caro-Kann, Classical, 58 moves, Deep Blue vs Kasparov, thegoodanarchist: Caro-Kann Kasparov scored with 3 draws.> Which is the reason why I pronounce the. Karpov discussed these moves at length in his book “The Caro-Kann in Black and White” () citing Geller-Meduna, Sochi and.
|Published (Last):||24 December 2013|
|PDF File Size:||9.8 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
There are 2 clues unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page! Given kaspafov times; par: Copy and paste the FEN into a post to display a diagram. I am neither a fan of Kasparov nor of Karpov. But having played their games assiduously, I could not disagree with you more!
Chess Database Usage
I have kqsparov Karpov’s games in the 60s when he was youngand I have played Kasparov’s games of when he was only 13 ; Kasparov’s brilliance is unique and unmistakable!
It was no surprise he dominated Chess circa 20 years. Karpov on the other hand though kaslarov astute, ground out wins and drew aplenty. I have to be honest and add that I did not see genius in Karpov’s games, just technical mastery. Iasparov you say he “ground out his wins” and talk about positional chess, what do you mean? That’s how Kasparov won his games. Stylistically there is a relatively minor difference but is wasn’t great.
Karpov won some great attacking and combinative games and his games that didn’t feature that so much – stylistically he was quite like Fischer in this sense that he was a “classical” player and while perhaps a little less aggressive they were both “principled players”.
In some ways Karpov, Capablanca and Fischer are in similar orbit Now I used to prefer Tal and Kasparov but it wasn’t until I studied Karpov’s games and lines that I got good enough positions caor beat one IM etc But more recently I have played over the games in his book “Chess at the Top” and those games have beautiful wins against Timman, Korchnoi, Tal and others.
It wasn’t until Kasparov had played, and learnt from playing, Petrosian who could also uncork some great combos – on on this site he calculated 20 move ahead! Karpov and others that he became an all round player Tal never did, he was genius for sure, but he loved tactics too much. While Karpov kasparoov lost to Kasparov in the World Champs not with a huge margin, they were pretty cao matchedduring that time he won a major tournament ahead of Kasparov.
Far from being a “quiet” player, he played some great games as did Kasparov of course.
His use of the Keres Attack led to some fine attacking games. Study these GMs more closely. Kasparov, when we see his best games, like Fischer or Alekhine, combines tactical alertness with deep positional ideas. He had learnt a lot from his matches. This is important as it saves you from thinking that every game requires an attack. Some probably more than we think of Kasparov’s games were very simple positional wins.
It is important to not worry who is “the best” and to learn from the Master players if you can, and enjoy their games and different styles. I agree that it is important to learn from all GMs with their unique talents and styles. I have to agree with you once more in that Kasparov and Karpov were closely matched, and that oann GMs have both aspects masparov the game; that is, deep positional acumen and combinatorial expertise.
However, even though I have observed Karpov play aggressive Chess such as in popularising the Keres Attack and accept that as a mathematician he possesses great combinatorial calculating ability, Karpov’s style is to me more reminiscent of Capablanca; a style that ‘worships’ technique over flashes of genius or intuitive disregard for the rules in pursuit of an objective, which in this case is winning.
This is what I meant when I said that Karpov ground out wins. Karpov does nothing but you lose.
Deep Blue (Computer) vs Garry Kasparov () Tangled Up in Blue
Karpov generally plays many moves whilst seemingly doing nothing until when his opponent realises that they have a lost game and resigns. Kasparov on the other hand is just as technically astute and can do the same, grind out wins. To put in my own words “Karpov wins in 60 moves, Kasparov in 40”. As for Tal, indeed he was very much enamoured of intuitive play but had to tone it down as GMs learnt ways of defending from his attacks. Fischer was perhaps in my eyes, the most well rounded player.
Kwsparov is also rather well rounded. Tal and Karpov, in my view, probably not. Tal and Karpov represented the extremes of Chess styles. But that is not to suggest kaxparov Tal was positionally ignorant nor that Karpov is a tactical novice.
Top GMs appreciate and are well versed in both aspects of the game, and that’s what makes them great.
All in all I accept a lot of what you say. A good answer kasparoov I think you still don’t understand Karpov’s play. Some of Kasparov’s attacks were rather direct some were incredible but the first kzsparov they played I didn’t see Kasparov as significantly better. I know it is harder to like Karpov, but in fact he was always a very genial man who plays bridge and collects stamps.
Kasparov became very arrogant and couldn’t accept that he carl finished. Karpov played on as he loved chess perhaps too much as chess is an albeit fascinating waste of brain time! Smyslov is a greatly underestimated player who played games of all kinds – beautiful attacks and combinations and subtle positional games. But if you fixate on The Ego Kasparov or The Mad One you know who he is you wont learn from these many great chess players all of whom are wonderful players.
It’s a bit like music, you might like Mozart and perhaps Bach, but also say Schnittke and some of the experimental composers of the 20th to 21st Cs from say Charles Ives to Schoenberg and Cage and also perhaps jazz and some pop.
Keep an open mind, worship no one. Kasparov was fallible, flawed, or he would have nothing to offer Karpov vs Topalov, Karpov wss 50 when he played this, so good on him for playing, but he was well past his peak. Didn’t Kasparov say something along the lines of, “I know Karpov better than anyone.
I know all his smells. Kasparov vs Petrosian, The reason I wasn’t sure is because Kasparov also played an incredibly combinatorial game against Topalov; “Kasparov’s Immortal”. My point is that it’s not that Karpov cannot attack or see into tactical motifs, it is kaspraov in my view Karpov has a tendency for defensive, prophylactic thinking, and advancing cautiously, slowly and quietly whilst kapsarov complications and combinations.
He even said so, comparing himself to a python that strangles it’s prey crushing it slowly but surely. With my energetic and impatient nature, one can see why I am not a fan of this kind of style.
However, as you correctly pointed out the genius of Rubinstein, I may have to discard my prejudice against ultra-positional play and accept that there is genius even in this style. I believe it is a matter of taste even though as you suggest, it is best to appreciate all styles and learn something from each. I try as much as possible to be objective, but ultimately it’s a question of taste. Kasparov retired for one reason. He was kicked out of world championship matches. Every time he tried to organize a match, some excuse came up, and that was for one simple reason.
Nobody wanted to sponsor a one-sided match. Maybe a rematch versus Kramnik would have been good, but the sponsors, or maybe Kramnik, didn’t think that. Probably the sponsors figured that people were tired seeing Kaspy for the second straight decade. So they came up with their excuses, which they themselves new were invalid, and that made it impossible for Kaspy to play another match.
Kasparov saw that he was not being allowed to win the title back, so he retired! There is no other reason for his retirement. He was lying, of course, but that was the claim for months. If it was only about the match, he could at least have waited until Kirsan pulled the plug or changed the rules.
I never tire to replay this brilliant game. And indeed, ultimately it is a matter of taste; combinative chess is my cup of tea. Against Karpov’s Caro-Kann Kasparov scored with 3 draws. Kasparov kicks Karpov again Has the issue of why not The Knight at f8 seems to me, as a former CK player, to be at the center of blacks problems. For those of you who are wondering what tournament this game took place in, it was actually Linares not SuperGM In fact, it was the last time that Karpov and Kasparov met in a classical time control.
Linares was a double-round robin, incidentally. The two players drew their other game in this event. To be fair, Kasparov has an impressive score in the CG database against almost any black defence to 1. Caro Kann – In fact the only defence where he seems to be struggling is Admittedly, from only one game: Kasparov vs Short, And before we get too excited about finding a weakness in his opening repertoire, this was a blitz game where he lost on time.
The truth is that choice of opening is not really going to matter all that much if you find yourself sitting opposite either of the two Ks. According to opening explorer, the caro is not that much better or worse than the other choices against 1.
White wins fewer games against the caro Through the not so scientific method of trying to remember their games that I have looked at, it seems that Karpov did best by playing the Spanish against Kasparov when Gary opened with 1. I don’t recall Karpov using the Sicilian much. Karpov really had a tough time with Black vs Kasparov in general. By the time the ’86 match rolled around, Karpov’s Nimzo vs d4 was taking a hit, and soon after that his Zaitsev Ruy was starting to get roughed up.
IMHO, it was only when Kasparov played 1. Kasparov was just a beast with White, but I found him most convincing when he went in for e4 and d4, not c4.