| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
baronderkilt 06-Jul-11, 21:22 |
 Interesting Chess Videos ... any topic This is Kasparov speaking on his view of the possible outcomes of the 1975 WC Match of Fischer vs Karpov, had it taken place. www.dailymotion.com www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rl40_kasparov-on-fisher-chess-match-vs-e_sport *** I have to agree with the "Chess machine" comment, lol. I could easily see someone who faced Karpov during his peak years as feeling like they sat across from the "Mephisto" machine ( an automaton of the early 1900's or thereabouts ... which supposedly played Chess. The reality being that a player was cleverly concealed beneath the board's cabinet. I believe I read that H.N. Pillsbury [!] has been suggested as the actual player beneath the board ... or at least one of them !? ) or even as if they faced a faceless opponent such as against a Chess Computer during a tournament. ( Programs have been allowed in some tournaments. Sometimes with the provision of pairings vs humans who pre-agreed to not object to it. Actually, my friend here that I've mentioned before ... FM Blankenau met the computer "Hi-Tech" in the Expert section of a National Open in Las Vegas and defeated it on his way to winning the section. Playing an Accelerated Dragon against it and winning by King-side attack in a quite interesting game. Hi-Tech was the top mainframe of the time & went on to later defeat GM Joel Lautier of France. Who himself went on to win a game vs Kasparov. So in one way of thinking, maybe our local hero could have made a claim for World Champion !?! ... and why not? Everyone else was, back then ... heheh But modesty prevailed. Oh yes, just for the record; myself I believe that Fischer would have crushed Karpov in that match. Because: Karpov was not yet at his peak, which would have been an interesting contest, imo. At which point, like Kasparov suggests, Karpov was such a technician of converting minor advantages remorselessly; as well as a fearsome attack. Which perhaps some people do not realize. But for eg the two Karpov vs Korchnoi Dragon games of the Yugoslav (aka Rauser) Variation in the mid 70's which defined anti-Dragon play for years to come. But in 1975 ... no way. It seems to me that even his own Federation did not trust the outcome of such a match, to have so strongly pursued non-playment (is that a word?! It is now!) of the match. Of course, your opinion is most welcome. Very welcome in fact, even if not in agreement. This Question of Fischer vs Karpov is quite interesting to me. Regards, Baron }8-D |
||
|
baronderkilt 06-Jul-11, 21:50 |
Oops again, probably en.wikipedia.org) en.wikipedia.org **** As long as I'm here in the Oops posting, just to clarify ... Even tho one of the wins vs Dragon by Karpov was played in a 1975 tournament, I mention those to show his fearce tactical abilities that existed. But not to suggest that he was even yet at his peak, despite that. Yeah, I think he got even better later. But still could not have beaten Bobby in 75. Unless as Kasparov suggests, Bobby cracked. Actually, maybe Bobby did crack but did it before the match started. As one way of looking at it. But on a sad note ... some people claimed Bobby's "wins only" match concept was unfair advantage ??! Yet Karpov later asked for the Same Wins Only match type and GOT IT in a WC vs Kasparov. That match was then actually HALTED by FIDE President when it became apparent that the Strategy of Kasparov, who trailed in wins, but then decided to DRAW games until Karpov was worn down ... was working. And I believe Garri would have won the match, being younger & having the ability to Make those Draws, and started to come back. But in a strange event, President Campomanes took the stage to declare that he just that moment decided the match must halt for health reasons ... shortly after preprinted flyers appeared in the audience saying the Match was being stopped. LOL. At least this is the way i recall it being sited as happening, by GM Evans or Larry Parr I believe. And so one more chapter in the strange saga of WCC's. And why not. 1972 was bizarre. Karpov vs Korchnoi even more so. Wow, who would have thought it could be stranger than "microwave chairs". But YES! K vs Korch it was suggested that Karpov has a hypnotist in the audience to mesmerize Viktor. And even MORE that Karpov was receiving Move Advice by the type of YOGURT being brought to him during the games ! WOW. So, try tho it did ... BathroomGate, the WCC Water Closet Championship of Kramnick vs Topalov probably did not top that !? What you think ... whats the Strangest of the weird WC Matches, to you? |
||
|
Concerning the 1975 non-match... FIDE, the Match organisers, the Russian Federation forgot about the other player in the mill: Boris Spassky. By the time Game 3 began, Spassky had mentally gone back to Moscow, such that it took another 10 games or so to get back to a competitive level. I'll say it flatly, and accept any FlaK that comes my way: Fischer cheated. OK, it seems the Soviet Chess Federation was not above jiggery-pokery themselves, so could hardly complain. They didn't... much. But it was predicted by an American psychologist very shortly after his Reykyavik win: Fischer would never, ever, defend his title. Too much to lose. Now had somehow Fischer been dragged at gunpoint to the Match table by wild horses, and had his corpus dilecti nailed to the chair, his great of losing I think would have lost to Karpov. I have read that chessplayers' fear of defeat often went with great ability, and Fischer was very able, no error. But the possession of the title gave him more to fear, to the point, I believe, of paralysis. Karpov might even have tried, with profit, the Reykyavik Gambit - and lost Game One, just to give Fischer something extra to be frightened about: the loss of his one-point lead. No: I'm being facetious here... So Fischer never lost his title: merely mislaid it somewhere. For a long time afterwards, chess journalists (mainly British ones, oddly enough) wrote of Fischer as the 'real' world champion. Nah. A champion fights. Fischer went from Champion to chicken the moment he failed to front against Anatoly Karpov. |
||
|
Mephisto... |
||
|
This will take about half an hour www.youtube.com www.youtube.com www.youtube.com www.youtube.com I found this a few years ago....a play about the Tal-Botvinnik championship.....it's not going to win any Tony Awards, but the subject is fun......enjoy Thomas |
||
|
www.youtube.com |
||
|
tactical_abyss 08-Jul-11, 11:40 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 08-Jul-11, 13:17.
|
||
|
www.youtube.com |
||
|
Does anyone remember... I discovered (serendipitously) that the thing was a master game I think from the 19th century or maybe very early 20th. Unfortunately I can't recall the players (the real ones; the characters playing were Kai - the dead guy - versus the baddy: the baddy had the White pieces). Someone might be able to tell us. The game was well presented for a show like that. You could follow the whole play, which is how, when I stumbled upon the score of the actual game, I recognised it at once. It was a dramatic one, too, with White hurtling into attack on the K-side, and Black seemingly too slow on the other flank. One of those 'turning the tables' sort of games, at least by appearances. Cheers, Ion |
||
|
I do quite well with that defense on Instantchess due to most of the lines going out of book fairly quickly and then I can rely on my tactical abilities,but I was always interested to see if someone actually had a video on that opening defense.Very few books have been written on the Basman as well.In a way,this is a good thing,due to creating suprise weapons,especially in blitz.MCO does happen to mention that black is really only slightly disadvantageous...which is true,and with sharp play can usually equalize by mid game. |
||
|
Labourdonnais - McDonnell Having watched the thoughtprovoking French Defence play mentioned by Thomas (tag1153), I felt that it did rather less than justice to the subjects and the game, though it was interesting. To be sure, the writer was exploring the supplanting of the old champion by the new, and the attitudes of mind of them both. Tal is portrayed as brilliant, dashing, but perhaps a little cavalier and disrespectful in his style of play; Botvinnik as weighed down and wearied by a lifetime of experience, yet, withal, a formidably wily and guileful opponent. Who defeats Botvinnik is a worthy Champion (even if the playwright has to belittle Smyslov's achievement to make the point). I found rather strange 'Botvinnik's' recollection of the Stalin era as one in which survival meant a stultifying pragmatism. Tal was lucky to be able to flourish in an airier environment, it seems. Yet the explorations and discoveries of the Soviet School in the 1920s through to the 1950s - just about the entire Stalinist epoch - seems far more evocative of an anti-pragmatic, enthusiastic burgeoning of the collective imagination willing to take enormous risks the further to discover the possibilities that lay upon the sixty-four squares. Mischa Botvinnik was as much part of the evolution of chess-playing species as were Tolush, Levenfisch, Bronstein, Kotov, Smyslov, Spassky and Petrosian and hosts of others. The re-absorption of the Baltic States led to an infusion of even more fresh ideas. Frankly, I just can't buy the idea that such a flowering of ideas, of styles, and of experimentation could take place under a regime so repressive that these same masters had to look over their shoulders for the men with dark suits and shadowy faces. But who knows? I wasn't there. Maybe it was in precisely such a narrow field that Joe Stalin was as liberal and open-handed as he was authoritarian and tyrannical as he was in the rest. I would have liked more of the actual game, at that. Somehow the game itself ought to evoked a sense of the old world giving way to the new. There's something of that early on when Tal queries Botvinnik's omission of 11...Nbc6?! But there could have been more. Why 5...Bxc3ch, when 5...Bh5 had been such a feature of the (drawn) 1954 match against Smyslov? Why didn't Botvinnik play 6...Ne7? (He might have explained that the response 7.Qg4 had long seemed to him dangerous for Black) Why did Tal choose the strange-looking 11.Kd1 in response to Black's threatened 11...Qxc3ch? We could go on. The point is, there was a lot of theory being played out here, and that theory was itself continually evolving. I was also intrigued by the view placed in the mouth of 'Botvinnik' concerning what really happens in a game: 'one plays the man, not the board' seemed the essence of Botvinnik's remarks. Now, Mischa Tal, it is my belief, would never have held any contrary view. Yet it is the classic Chess debate, isn't it? Do you play the board, or the opponent sitting opposite? At the Goteborg Tournament of 1956, M. Najdorf is said to have asked a certain Russian GM: 'Are you playing to win?' Whereat the Russian - it might have been Y. Geller, but I could be wrong - replied loftily: 'I am playing to answer the needs of the position.' Do you know, I don't think Geller (or whoever it was) was putting Najdorf down. Mutual respect calls for reciprocating courtesy. Rather, the two were sharing a joke. Mischa Tal definitely was one to 'play the man', whatever the cost to an objective evaluation of the game. Botvinnik strikes me as more inclined to 'play the board'. That seeking after the Chimaera 'Perfection' brings its own pressures upon the person opposite. The dichotomy of styles could to have been a theme of the play (Which will prevail?). It is to some extent, but it's not taken very far at all - certainly not far enough. Well, them's my views, Cheers, Ion |
||
|
|
||
|
I reckon... It would have been close, though - one or two games in it perhaps. Botvinnik's match plan would have succeeded to that extent. Even then, his scheme came a gutzer once or twice. Interesting that Tal faced Botvinnik on just one occasion outside the matches - a team competition in 1966. Botvinnik played the Caro-Kann, which had been a successful weapon against Tal. For the first time ever, Tal played the Panov-Botvinnik attack. Tal won with ease. Why could he not have done that 5 years before? |
||
|
baronderkilt 09-Jul-11, 17:21 |
Ion ... * * * He was waiting for the new edition of "Winning With The PB Attack" to come out ?! That must be about as much 'Playing the man' as it gets, eh !!? Tal could play the Caro himself. A bit like asking; "Please now show me, is there anything new I should know about playing against the PBA ?" Tho otherwise the WT side certainly must seem tailor-made for a Tal. Piece activity, undeniable line-openings, etc. So I took a look and startled myself to see the phenomenal Success TAL had vs the Caro using ANY WHITE variation. I knew he played 2.d3 with brilliancy as well. And like Fischer would play 2.Nc3 amazingly well. But also found the classical, the Advance Var & everything. Looks at an eye scanning to be near 70%+ win rate in the 104 games I saw !? Wins vs Karpov (!Perhaps the best Caro-player in history!?), Botvinnik, Portisch, Smyslov all Under 30 Moves. About 1/2 his wins ARE ! Few longer than starting with the digit "4". Phenomenol. I studied Tal extensively 20 years ago and had forgotten how amazing he was in this opening, it seems. ***** |
||
|
Far out... In the 1960 match, Botvinnik played the Caro-Kann 5 times for a -2 score. Botvinnik persevered with it in the 1961 match and though scoring -2 in the first 4 games, brought it back to even in the next 5. I've just taken a look at the coloured ressults, too. In 1961, Tal got a +1 score with the White pieces (+3 =5 -2). His handling of Black was a complete disaster, losing 7 (!) of 8 before winning a couple (Games 17 and 19) back. Finally he crashed and burned at Game 21. Final result with Black +2 =1 -8. Quelle massacre! |
||
|
|
||
|
Perhaps... Back to that play, there was one thing that struck me as evocative of the new supplanting the old. It's the opening ceremony with the two standing side-by-side accepting the applause of the (notional) spectators. The Champion, just a little stooped with age, standing four-square facing an audience he has seen many times. This arena isn't where he lives, but he has visited it often, and and the weight of past victories lies heavy on his shoulders. Tal looks about him and at his opponent with the wide-eyed look of one who, though knowing he's exactly where he ought to be, is yet lost in the wonder of how he could possibly have reached these giddy heights. In the end, I reckon Botvinnik wanted it more than did Tal - he'd had to work so much harder and for longer to achieve the World Championship. For Tal: they could take away the Championship, but the title of ex-World Champion would remain for the rest of his life. He'd made it. I do like his remark in accepting in 1983 (or whenever it was) the World Championship in Speed Chess "I welcome this new opportunity to become ex-World Champion". I feel that if ever I had met Mischa Tal, I would have liked him. Cheers, Ion |
||
|
baronderkilt 10-Jul-11, 23:22 |
TAL vs Kasparian ... With 4.c4 !? ("!" for him) he marks it as being Sooo "TAL" ! "Of course, of course" ... I think upon seeing it. It really IS just so Tal "GM of Open Lines", to play c4, and seeing ... it is like "yes surely, how would there be any other move for Tal"? Does he Always play it that way? Something to checkout now. Unusual for Tal tho!? ... he chooses to prolong the game to win in an artsy 4Queen finale' (2 Queens each, that is) , having a winning initiative from First Queen Getting to Move; rather than liquidate the original Queens & win the race to promote another. Feeling artistic & creative? Proving something to his Opponent ?! It IS enjoyable to see . . . www.chessgames.com www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139318 |
||
|
In my previous posting... I wonder if choosing the double queen ending was Tal's tribute to his opponent - a well-known endgame study composer... |
||
|
baronderkilt 11-Jul-11, 16:31 |
I HAVE STUDIED TOO MUCH TAL ! Remember, "Always Check For Check" Mikhail~! We must remember our FM Blankenau quotes. But i guess you must have gotten it down, to become World Blitz Champion .... "I welcome this new opportunity to become ex-World Champion". Thanks ION ... I Love that quote of his wry humor, it IS so very Tal also. And suits my own funnybone. I find him a very funny GM. (BTW, did Nigel Short die or something? I haven't heard any startling but amusing comments from that direction lately? Have I just missed them? Maybe its time to check-up & update my GM comments. A thread or something.) |
||
|
bullwon 14-Feb-12, 11:01 |
Market Movie |
||
|
rockall 14-Feb-12, 15:53 |
10 yr. old Master beats IM Not very instructive, but very funny. A 10 year old boy, who is a master, beats an IM in an informal game of blitz. The kid is loving every moment of it. |
||
|
this video stands on its own. |
Log in 
