One doesn't win any admirers by saying things to "win friends" than to say things as they are. I have always found Kasparov's opinions to be very substantive, and worth listening to. On the subject of chess at least, there is absolutely nobody who speaks more passionately than he does. His interview after his first WC win at the age of twenty, is something that I've always delighted in. It's just so magnificent to hear a 20-year old talk like that.

Besides, as Anand put it very well once -- 'I have learned with experience that when people oppose you, they actually respect you. And when they praise you, they actually pity you.'

Sometimes it's how you say it as much as what you say. The way Kasparov said it made it seem catty and dismissable. Especially since the evidence didn't seem to lead to an Anand fold-up at all.



I saw no substance in that quote. A dubious conclusion with no argument backing it up. Add to that the fact that Kasparov's beliefs and principles seem to change with expedience, then you have to take his sayings with a lot of salt. Trust, but verify. The verified ones are sometimes very good, but you can't take anything to the bank just on his say so. Trust but Verify. He's a very Wild Card. He's the Let's Make a Deal champion. Behind that curtain might be.... A NEW CAR!!!... Or it might be canned squid.



Then George Bush must be the most repsected man in the world.

Aren't you kinda ignoring the fact that Chess Fan and whole lot of others have high praise for Bush too...?

Besides, I don't think anybody volunteers to oppose Bush. It's just that Bush gets under their skin, and people respond with revolt. Otherwise, Bush brings a lot of comic relief to the world, for which hardly anybody would complain.



There are backing arguments, though they may not always be stated. I'll give you two. The Dortmund tournament of the year the K-K-K deal was made. Anand was just so upset at the fact that despite being the reigning Fide World Champion he was not paid any regard and not consulted, that he came up with perhaps the worst result of his career with a minus 4, and no wins. I do not see a chess reason behind that. It's just losing heart.

Second, Linares the year before Kasparov retired. Anand started with two wins, I think, but the moment Kasparov surged ahead thanks to two free gifts from Vallejo, Anand started to go haywire. He completed messed up a pawn-up Petroff game against Leko and lost. Then, in the final round he again lost to Adams, when he was no longer in the contention.

Therefore, I do believe there is a pattern to Anand's underperformance, if someone else just surges ahead. But, as I said, when it comes to a head-to-head clash, he's a completely different beast. In matches, hardly anyone can claim a better career record than Anand with the exception of Kasparov.

I think Kasparov goes wrong in that he extrapolates tournament behaviour to match behaviour, which has at least on four different occasions (world championship platforms) been proven completely wrong.

I'd also add Anand's folding up against Karpov in the Lausanne rapid tie-breaker as another example. Though, in that case I'd ascribe that more to exhaustion than to psychology. Anand came out of a month-long event at Groningen, with very long semi-final and final fights (I think against Gelfand and Adams respectively, with the match against Adams going all the way to armageddon), and within a week had to play a fresh Karpov. There too he remained level in the classical part, twice coming up from behind. Then he blew a winning first game in the rapid, and after that just completely collapsed in the second one, despite being perhaps the best rapid player in the world. You can be the best, but still there is a limit to the number of games you can play. At some point, there is no further nervous energy left.

I don't see the point. People also respect Anand, but you say that he's the one who came up with the idea in the first place that opposition = respect. So, from what you're telling me, he means that you can get some overt respect, while also getting opposition, and labeling that as respect also...

Are you sure Anand really said this? Somehow when I spell it out this way it sounds an awful lot like a rationalization.




They need to be stated. There's no point arguing a case if you're not going to argue it. If you're Kasparov, you can maybe afford the luxury of tossing out a claim and having people assume "he must know what he's talking about even though he didn't tell us". But in the end, it's a bluff.

Kasparov is a wild card. He's such a heavyweight that he often legitimately has the cards in his hand. But there have also been so many times that he didn't, that some people just won't take his word for anything until he lays them on the table.




That sound plausible. But did he come out and say he was upset about it, or are you inferring that from this result? I see no real reason why he should be upset. He had a title with an "expiration date" in the first place.

But this doesn't sound like what Kasparov was talking about. In this quote, he's talking about over the board results (Topalov shot ahead, so Anand lost heart), not off-the-board maneuvers. I didn't see much evidence that Anand lost heart in that tournament, EXCEPT possibly that as I recall, he didn't press Topalov as hard in their second cycle game as he might have. I felt he really needed to win that game, but didn't go all out.

You remember I had a similar (only much more scathing) comment about Kramnik from Mexico City, when he really needed a win against Grischuk to stay in the running, but played the Petroff and drew quickly. Then had the nerve to tell us he had been playing for a win because the Petroff is a sharp line, yada, yada, yada, and that he had to take the draw because Grischuk offered it. I didn't feel that Kramnik had lost heart there, only that he had completely lost touch with reality. (Or maybe he had lost hope of winning, and really wanted to make sure he finished second, to make next year's match more credible?)



That sounds more like what Kasparov had in mind. I sort of agree with you here, but don't agree with Kasparov, that the same thing happened at San Luis. Anand only broke even in the first half, but finished +3 in the second half. He got stronger after the initial reverses, not weaker.

What a nice list of excuses, excuses and other excuses. I tell you, when nobody is punching me I am a completely different boxer too.

I quoted from memory and couldn't recollect where I had seen it. A Google search funnily pointed out that I had earlier given the link here in chessninja itself! Check this thread:

http://www.chessninja.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=136303

Read up. He's not making excuses, he's saying Anand has some decided weaknesses that he thinks Kasparov is honestly (possibly brutally) pointing out. I half agree with that but also think that Garry's judgements are frequently clouded by his own bias, and that he's not always consistent in his pronouncements.

I say he is making excuses and you are looking for an excuse to to promote your Garry. This is a sad excuse for a debate if you excuse me for saying so.

You might think differently if you actually had read it before commenting on it. LOL, "My Garry", when I've been hammering him the whole conversation! How embarrassing for you.

Anand has put it bluntly finally about Kasparov!

Here it is from chessdom and link to frontline articleYour take on Kasparov’s remarks?

Of course, some people, like Kasparov, really wanted me to lose. He was even clearly trying to cause it. He was trying to come there, see if he could get under my skin and somehow negatively impact my play. For me, it was especially important not to give him that satisfaction.

I found Kasparov’s timing extremely surprising. He came during the sixth round. He was so clearly trying to stir something up about my play. I felt his sympathies were obvious.


I would say if Anand has 3 chess weaknesses, Kasparov has like 100 chess weaknesses!