< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 · Later Kibitzing> May-08-11 Mozart72 : <Jim Bartle> >MatrixManNe0> You got the idea. Make the winner lose, the loser win, etc. May-09-11 MatrixManNe0 : <Mozart72> No, I don't get the idea. Because it's pointless. cf. the Christiansen game. May-09-11 MatrixManNe0 : That is, cf. the Morphy game. Jan-03-12 Bengambit : White's Queen gets to double attack from the start,if,13.....Bf4??,trying to salvage the loss of a piece,14.Qxh4,naturally leaves black short handed and out of position equals,loss of time and material from the opening with no clue of how to win from here,unless white is a pure novice,game over for black........... Feb-19-12 ArtsewS : I made a Youtubevideo on this game a while ago called Karpov is human. It's under 2 minutes. If you like you can view it by clicking the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frpl... May-08-12 vinidivici : why this was the game of the day...? May-08-12 JohnDahl : Pour encourager les autres. May-08-12 sneaky pete : What Karpov said when afterwards Christiansen suggested they'd analyse the game together: Go to l'enfer. Jul-30-12 LoveThatJoker : Guess-the-Move Final Score:

Christiansen vs Karpov, 1993.

YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF CHRISTIANSEN.

Your score: 19 (par = 10)

LTJ Feb-11-13 alachabre : Just a casual response to the Mozart72 kerfuffle. I managed to screw up the White position playing against Houdini. I did alright for about seven moves, but Black threw a nifty bishop capture on g2 that evened the position. The Mozart72 analysis is deeply flawed (yeah I know, Captain Obvious here) by its almost immediate giving up of the dark square bishop on c3. Patzer that I am, I realized the dark squares are the key, and my play against Houdini was centered on the attempt to remove it. Houdini would not bite. Aug-01-14 Ke2 : This Petrosian Variation is the Maroczy bind formation (pawns on c4 & e4), leading to Black shuffling around passively. Sudden thunderbolts can appear when Black lacks a plan. (Not saying it's a bad opening, but just the style of it.) Aug-16-14 Tigranny : Is this the game in which Christiansen asked, "Would you like to go over and analyze the game?" Anyways atrocious blunder by Karpov that early in the opening. Jun-08-15 Ferari : Kasparov said that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in their match, because Karpov never made really bad blunders. I wonder if he ever saw this game, and if he changed his opinion on the subject? Jun-09-15

keypusher : <Ferari: Kasparov said that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in their match, because Karpov never made really bad blunders.> He didn't say either of those things.

<I wonder if he ever saw this game, and if he changed his opinion on the subject?> I'm sure he was aware of the game. Of course, he wasn't writing about a hypothetical Fischer-Karpov match in 1993. The tirelessness of Fischer fanatics on behalf of their recalcitrant hero is really quite enervating. We'll never know what would have happened in a Fischer-Karpov match, because Fischer quit. Get over it. Jun-29-15 alboy89 : If Fischer- Karpov happened, Karpov would have been a much better player!! Oct-30-15

thegoodanarchist : <Ferari: Kasparov said that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in their match, because Karpov never made really bad blunders. I wonder if he ever saw this game, and if he changed his opinion on the subject?> Incredible claim by Kasparov, especially considering that Gary was a spectator for this infamous blunder game: Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974

This game was played when Kasparov was still a boy, and even he saw immediately that 12...Rb8 was a blunder. Jun-27-17 Marmot PFL : I believe that Kasparov did say Karpov would beat Fischer, after seeing the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match which he thought was very badly played. Jun-28-17 Muttley101 : Kasparov's comments about the 1992 Fischer Spassky match were pretty dismissive (calling both "dinosaurs" and saying any 2700 player would have beaten Fischer). Well, a couple of things.

1) check out Fischer's rating performance for beating Spassky. 2) Kasparov annotated the first game, Fischer pointed out that one of Kasparov's suggestions lost out of hand (either get mated or drop a piece, I think), missing the tactics that Fischer had seen in the game. In the 1990s, after not playing for 20 years in international chess, Fischer still saw things Kasparov missed. If only they had played. Chess, Karpov and Fischer would have all won, even if Fischer had lost. Jun-28-17

perfidious : <keypusher....The tirelessness of Fischer fanatics on behalf of their recalcitrant hero is really quite enervating. We'll never know what would have happened in a Fischer-Karpov match, because Fischer quit. Get over it.> I'll sign that. Jun-28-17 Petrosianic : <Muttley101> : <1) check out Fischer's rating performance for beating Spassky.> It was about 2640, which seems to support the claim. Jun-28-17 parmetd : Although do keep in mind that Kasparov is not an unbiased party in that matter either. Jun-28-17

thegoodanarchist : Now I know that I can play like Karpov! Jun-28-17 Howard : Inside Chess, as I recall, gave Fischer's performance rating for the "rematch", but I don't recall exactly what it was. But, it did state that if the match had been FIDE-rated, Spassky would have picked up enough points to place him around 20th in the world! Apr-12-18

Korora : Okay. Where did you hide the real Anatoly Karpov? Feb-23-20 Muttley101 : "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton. Whilst browsing chessgames today I came across a reference to this game (serendipity, I had been thinking of looking it up), and saw I had posted something. Completely forgot, though recently saw one can check for replies. Anyway, I saw <Petrosianic> replied to me. Apologies, Petrosianic (like the name, incidentally- Petrosian one my all time favourites and one of the players I studied a great deal- scored more than a Mastermind contestant who chose him as his specialist subject :D but anyway)- I didn't see your post at the time, so although out of time, there's still a point worth clarifying. Here's the thing: the appropriate comparison would be "any 2700 in 1992" if one is going to set the bar at 2700, not "any 2700" when Kasparov was writing MGP. So, how many were there in 1992? 3. That's right, 3. Here's the FIDE rating list for January 1992: January 1992 - FIDE Rating List

1 . Kasparov,Gary RUS : 2780

2 . Karpov,Anatoly RUS : 2725

3 . Ivanchuk,Vassily UKR : 2720

4 . Short,Nigel D ENG : 2685

5 . Anand,Viswanathan IND : 2670

6 . Gelfand,Boris BLR : 2665

7 . Kamsky,Gata USA : 2655

8 . Jussupow,Artur GER : 2655

9 . Salov,Valery RUS : 2655

10 . Shirov,Alexei ESP : 2655

11 . Bareev,Evgeny RUS : 2635

12 . Nikolic,Predrag BIH : 2635

So apart from himself and Karpov, only Ivanchuk was over 2700 at that point. And I agree, he'd have had to work hard on preparation to play them, though a pushover? I think not. So Fischer would have been close to the top 10, his rating limited by the fact that he was playing someone rated in the 2500s (Spassky was 2545 if memory serves me right). Wins against 2600+ players, which was the 2700 of the early 1990s, would have put him higher in the rating list, and fwiw, I think he was capable of playing against all of them, though a plus score against the top 2/3 difficult. I appreciate it is academic. But all the same, Fischer gets a lot of flak at times. It sometimes feels like he is treated as the 20th century equivalent of Morphy ("he would just be an ordinary player now", "modern players would beat him easily" type of thing) but imho, his legacy is remarkable with many beautiful games, and grasp of chess still world class in 1992. Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 7)

search thread:

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 · Later Kibitzing>