Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about chess, but...

[ QUOTE ]
In this case both players and the rest of the chess world were unhappy with the decision. It seems the only one who was happy with it was Campomanes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm a judge, and neither side likes my decision, I know I've made the right one.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's a cute, little phrase. But I don't think it is correct.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The only one of those matches where there was a really significant age difference was Tal-Botvinnik, 1961.

[/ QUOTE ] The age difference between Alekhine and Euwe was 9 years, between Botvinnik and Smyslov 10 years, and Petrosian and Spassky 8 years. I'd say that these are in the same range with the 12-year age difference between Kasparov and Karpov.

[ QUOTE ]
A longer match favored Kasparov.

[/ QUOTE ] I guess this will never end. Those who believe what you just wrote will always believe that Kasparov would score another 3 wins to win the title before Karpov would score another single win. And those who believe that the match should have gone on, will always believe that it was more probable that Karpov scores one more win than Kasparov scores three.

Ah well.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only one of those matches where there was a really significant age difference was Tal-Botvinnik, 1961.

[/ QUOTE ] The age difference between Alekhine and Euwe was 9 years, between Botvinnik and Smyslov 10 years, and Petrosian and Spassky 8 years. I'd say that these are in the same range with the 12-year age difference between Kasparov and Karpov.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't think it's impossible or even improbable to overcome a 12-year age gap--I have never suggested as much. I think people, on average, probably play better at 33 than they do at 21. What I do think is that younger players have more endurance and can withstand longer matches better than shorter ones.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A longer match favored Kasparov.

[/ QUOTE ] I guess this will never end. Those who believe what you just wrote will always believe that Kasparov would score another 3 wins to win the title before Karpov would score another single win. And those who believe that the match should have gone on, will always believe that it was more probable that Karpov scores one more win than Kasparov scores three.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why--I don't think it is a highly (read: at all) controversial point that a longer match was more favorable to Kasparov than a shorter one. And I don't think it is controversial (again at all) that needing three wins instead of one is extremely unfavorable. I believe he could have done it, but I believe Karpov could also have pulled out another win.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Game 41

[/ QUOTE ]33. a6 was a difficult move to find even in normal conditions, and even after 33. a6 the win is still a LONG way off.

[/ QUOTE ]The move was discovered immediately by the GMs watching the game. It was not a difficult move to find - at Grand Master level. It was simply a blunder in severe time trouble.

And I do not know your chess rating but after 33.a6, Fritz gives the position as White having "the upper hand". At world class level, this kind of advantage needs only technique to tranlate into a full point.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Game 41

[/ QUOTE ]33. a6 was a difficult move to find even in normal conditions, and even after 33. a6 the win is still a LONG way off.

[/ QUOTE ]The move was discovered immediately by the GMs watching the game. It was not a difficult move to find - at Grand Master level. It was simply a blunder in severe time trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is that it was difficult to find in time pressure. Given more time a player of Karpov's level would find such a move, but it's also easily overlooked in time trouble.

[ QUOTE ]
And I do not know your chess rating but after 33.a6, Fritz gives the position as White having "the upper hand". At world class level, this kind of advantage needs only technique to tranlate into a full point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a master level player. And Fritz will naturally erroneously evaluate the situation as better than it really is due to having a material advantage. R+3P vs. B+3P is a win, it's true, but it's a pretty difficult one--even with modern theory that has been discovered since 1984. R+2P vs. B+2P is a draw, although Fritz will probably tell you that White is better by +2.00. Karpov had excellent technique, but so did Kasparov. It would have been a long fight to convert the win.

Edit: Typically +/- is not considered a "winning advantage", we use +- to denote winning advantage. +/- means White has a clear edge.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
33. a6 was a difficult move to find even in normal conditions.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]

What I mean is that it was difficult to find in time pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]If that's what you meant, fine, but it certainly appeared that you meant precisely the opposite the first time.

[ QUOTE ]
Given more time a player of Karpov's level would find such a move, but it's also easily overlooked in time trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]Not so easily at the level of a world championship contest. I'm sure you are aware of the fact that Karpov has always been an exceptionally strong blitz player.

Notice also that, as I already said, the GMs in the commentary room saw the move immediately. In other words, it was not time as such that prevented Karpov from playing the best move but the usual psychological factors associated with a championship game in time trouble.

The point being that your Karpov of "total collapse by game 48" was able to get a winning position only 7 games prior. (And be up by 5-1 only 2 games prior!..)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After 33.a6, Fritz gives the position as White having "the upper hand". At world class level, this kind of advantage needs only technique to tranlate into a full point.

[/ QUOTE ] Karpov had excellent technique, but so did Kasparov. It would have been a long fight to convert the win.

[/ QUOTE ]And under these assumptions, do you seriously dispute that after 33.a6 the overwhelming favorite to win the game was Anatoly Karpov, even after a tenacious and all-out struggle by Kasparov to save the game -- and the match ?

[ QUOTE ]
Typically +/- is not considered a "winning advantage". We use +- to denote winning advantage. +/- means White has a clear edge.

[/ QUOTE ]And I wrote that +/- means "White has the upper hand". It's the same thing with "White has a clear edge". (Link to Chess Informant)

Where did all this about "+-" and "winning advantage" come from?

[ QUOTE ]
R+3P vs. B+3P is a win, it's true, but it's a pretty difficult one--even with modern theory that has been discovered since 1984.

[/ QUOTE ]It is imperative to add that this depends entirely on the kind of position. (If anything, this is still a poker website [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] E.g. rank of pawns, connection of pawns, placement of kings, etc.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is controversial (again at all) that needing three wins instead of one is extremely unfavorable .

[/ QUOTE ] You're right, it is NOT controversial. You know why?

Because Kasparov to win three games to Karpov's one was extremely unfavorable !

Let me put is as simply as possible: There was a maximum of only 4 decisive games, i.e. games with a win for one side, remaining in the match (since draws did not count). Here is the list of all possible sequences in the remainder of the match, had it been allowed to continue :

X = Karpov win
O = Kasparov win

X

O X

O O X

O O O

As you can see, from the 4 possible sequences, only one goes Kasparov's way! Which means that, even if Kasparov has the edge by some 10 percent over Karpov, Kasparov remains a huge and hairy Azerbaitzani dog...

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Punker]

[ QUOTE ]
I submit that the FIDE decision was more beneficial to Kasparov than to Karpov

[/ QUOTE ]

If a rematch is guaranteed, then yes, obviously. It's cannot be debated that it was more likely that Kasparov could win a new match starting from 0-0 than the existing match, regardless of how bad Karpov may or may not have been feeling.

An equally interesting question is whether you would prefer Kirsan or Campo as FIDE president. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
The point being that your Karpov of "total collapse by game 48" was able to get a winning position only 7 games prior. (And be up by 5-1 only 2 games prior!..)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, Karpov was and is an amazing player.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After 33.a6, Fritz gives the position as White having "the upper hand". At world class level, this kind of advantage needs only technique to tranlate into a full point.

[/ QUOTE ] Karpov had excellent technique, but so did Kasparov. It would have been a long fight to convert the win.

[/ QUOTE ]And under these assumptions, do you seriously dispute that after 33.a6 the overwhelming favorite to win the game was Anatoly Karpov, even after a tenacious and all-out struggle by Kasparov to save the game -- and the match ?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I do not--but the game would have been far from over. It certainly wouldn't have ended on move 41.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Typically +/- is not considered a "winning advantage". We use +- to denote winning advantage. +/- means White has a clear edge.

[/ QUOTE ]And I wrote that +/- means "White has the upper hand". It's the same thing with "White has a clear edge". (Link to Chess Informant)

Where did all this about "+-" and "winning advantage" come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your claim was that 33. a6 reaches a won position (and I agree), which we denote with +-. +/- indicates the game is not yet won.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
R+3P vs. B+3P is a win, it's true, but it's a pretty difficult one--even with modern theory that has been discovered since 1984.

[/ QUOTE ]It is imperative to add that this depends entirely on the kind of position. (If anything, this is still a poker website [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] E.g. rank of pawns, connection of pawns, placement of kings, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, the win is made much more difficult by the fact that Black's pawn has already advanced to f4 and White has already advanced h2-h3. This means that he cannot blockade the pawn on f5 and win in the usual manner (as in Radev-Pribyl, 1971), and he also cannot play g2-g3 without recapturing with f2xg3 (under the assumption that Rxg3 also reaches a draw, perhaps I am missing something there though) and reaching the drawn R+2P vs. B+2P endgame. This endgame probably can be won but it is not easy at all.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
R+3P vs. B+3P is a win, it's true, but it's a pretty difficult one--even with modern theory that has been discovered since 1984.

[/ QUOTE ]It is imperative to add that this depends entirely on the kind of position. E.g. rank of pawns, connection of pawns, placement of kings, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]If anything, the win is made much more difficult by the fact that Black's pawn has already advanced to f4 and White has already advanced h2-h3.

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry, I thought you were referring to the ending R+3P vs. B+3P in general and not to the particular ending of game 41.

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim was that 33. a6 reaches a won position (and I agree), which we denote with +-. +/- indicates the game is not yet won.

[/ QUOTE ] I conservatively wrote that "White has the upper hand", since this was the consensus of experts (and not just silicon experts!) on White's chances after 33.a6. As is clear by now, I believe that Karpov would have eventually won the ending had it not been for that time-pressure mistake. The game would have ended much later than move 41, of course, since this was actually a game for the match. If Karpov had won it, that would have been it -- by 6-1 !