Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Kasparov Press

| Permalink | 23 comments

Garry Kasparov just left New York for parts west. When the news came out the negotiations for a Kramnik-Topalov match had broken down I mentioned that many have suggested that Kramnik might now come after him. I can see it now: "Garry, I found my to-do list from 2002, it had fallen behind the refrigerator. Right there after "get milk and cigarettes" is "offer Garry Kimovich a rematch". Sorry about that. What are you doing next November?"

Topalov has also expressed interest in a match with Kasparov. Garry's only reply was to joke that there would be no trouble finding sponsorship for either match because someone in Putin's entourage would be glad to put up the money to get Kasparov out of politics and back into chess! He's making a lot of noise lately and in the next week or two will have articles in the Wall St. Journal and Newsweek.

Kasparov also has his column in New In Chess coming up and of course it's about San Luis and the state of the chess world. (I help polish the English of these articles so I get a free preview.) This one tackles world championship history and why Kramnik is no Petrosian. He also goes after FIDE for abandoning the long match, which is perhaps the first thing Kasparov and the ACP have agreed on.

That might not be enough for you to subscribe to NIC, but Kasparov also annotates the wild Leko-Topalov game, the first time he has annotated one of his old rivals' efforts since he retired. Some truly great stuff. I annotated that game for Black Belt and while I didn't do a horrible job, seeing these hundreds of lines and hearing Garry discuss the Najdorf was humbling to say the least. At least I got him to pose in a ChessNinja.com t-shirt, but it was late at night and the poser had eleven o'clock shadow and doesn't want the picture published. Prima donna!


hmm... looks like I will HAVE to subscribe to NIC

So, Kasparov annotated for NIC the worst Topalov's game from San-Luis? A nice idea, what to say... Well, almost all annotators showed two ways how White could have obtained a decisive advantage. 17.f4 and later 20.Nb6. Hopefully, GK will say what was Black's mistake in his opinion. It can be curious, really. (We showed one idea in Chess Today, but I guess that Kasparov is not our subsriber. As a GM he can account for the free sub of course.)

Well, the players get first pick of games to annotate for NIC, and they usually prefer their best games. It was more about this being such an important game for both players that made his decision, and that it was in the first round and is good as a metaphor for the players' respective events. Plus, there are some really cool variations and a nice lecture on the opening.

Yes, I agree: the game was of the high importance. Like Anand-Leko at the last Corus, when Anand lost with White in the beginning of tournament.

Still, Black (Topalov) played too badly in the opening. If, say, someone would have idea to show that Topalov is not such a strong player, then this game certainly looks like an optimal choice. (Maybe also the end of the game vs Anand: but there both players were understandably exhausted).
Topalov expressed desire to play a match vs Kasparov, showed really a lot of respect to GK in his interviews. And what GK does: he annotates Topalov's bad game. Or maybe he is starting to prepare himself for the match is such a way?! :-)

I'm sure if you take a little more time you can find nine or ten other reasons to insult Kasparov for his choice which game to annotate. I'm sure it was all a conspiracy; it always is. Garry has said nothing but positive things about Topalov in all his public comments and does so again in this month's article. But I'm sure that's all part of the conspiracy. Now I'm eager to go back over all the games you've annotated to see who you wanted to show was a weak player.

Hey Mig, Taking a pot shot at Garry is no different than you taking an earlier one at President Bush. After all, they're both politicians now and certainly not above reproach. They should be blamed for conspiracies and or, uum, lack of diplomacy whether they exist or not...know what I mean?

There's a difference between content and an aside or humorous analogy. That so many people are unable to tell the difference adds wonder and amazement to my every day. I'm really quite lucky.

Yeah, and the beat goes on.

Gimme a couple of weeks and I can find you Mig, a lot more lines of that wild game, thanks to the engines. It's very Kasparov, to choose a game where you can find many mistakes in order to show how weak are the players. The same s~@# he does (helped by computers) to the greats players of the past

As if there's a player on the planet who analyzes without a computer. Maybe your computer can also explain the subtleties of the Najdorf. It was a critical game for two of the favorites. Maybe a nice balanced draw you would prefer? Perhaps you should even wait to read it before spouting such silliness. Kasparov has annotated countless games, not to mention the hundreds he's annotated in recent years for the Great Predecessors books. And all this is a conspiracy to show how weak they were? Bizarre. Let me know when a flawless game comes around without any errors by either player so Kasparov can annotate it. In general Garry is generous in his annotations, giving ample praise when it is due. You'd know this if you read the MGP books. And he puts the truth above all in his notes, especially to his own games.

Garry's analyses are the best in the business. In fact, he's even better in annotating other people's games as he doesn't have to prove that one side (his) was winning all along and bury us under the piles of computer discharge (as it happened with his ROTW game).

even IF (and that's a big if) GK chose to annotate the Leko-Topalov game and write MGP for the reasons stated above, I see nothing wrong with it at all.

He has earned the right to do so after 20 years as #1 and reaching ELO 2851.

Its not as if some Tom, Dick or Gary oops..Harry is criticizing...

Garry's analyses are indeed a treat. He strikes a good balance between narrative, and as much cold hard analysis as you could possibly stomach. :)

And if that sounds paradoxical, what I mean is that unlike some Informant analysts, he never seems to pile on heaps of irrelevant analysis just for the sheer hell of it. His analysis is always germane to the overall logic and course of the game.

Why would it be good for Garry to prove how bad his opponents were? Shouldn't he rather, if he was annotating for reasons of conspiracy, try to show how great they are and how he was still heads and shoulders above?

Even i must admit that in MGP books (and i do believe in conspiracy theories!) he has always given credit where it's due, also to Bobby Fischer (which really might be part of a conspiracy as in to show that there is no conspiracy, but that's a side point which can be ignored for now :) )

Match with Toppy (or Kramnik) would be great...he wouldn't even have to unretire, just play a match. Hard to believe he'd be covered in too much rust yet.

If Garry comes back he should start with blitz. I watched him whomp some very strong guys on Playchess the other day and we were watching the news at the same time. From six games against two GMs and an IM all with ratings over 2800 (playchess), ONE of them lasted more than 30 moves. Scary. Of course he only plays weird openings, a curious habit to maintain now that he's retired and mostly playing anonymously. I know Hikaru gave him a run for his money in a few blitz games. (Watching Hikaru play 1 0 online using the keyboard could sell tickets.)

omg. That would've been something to see... :(

com'on Mig!!! You gotta spill the dirt what was the score against Hikaru??? And Hikaru plays 1 0 with the keyboard????????????????? Omigawd, I may become a fan yet..

Yeah, give us the score. Don't be a tease.

I wasn't watching for those GK-HN games; they were played a while ago and not all on the same day.

Too bad. Kasparov-Nakamura is heaps more interesting than the WC stuff.

I'm glad that Kasparov comes out in favor of long matches. One can argue that Topalov is currently the strongest player and therefore a worthy champion, but this should be no reason to throw 120 years of chess history and tradition into the dust bin.

Anyone can see that matches are a much more objective way to determine who the strongest player is. In contrast, tournaments always contain an element of chance, which is why so many of the (relatively) weaker players seem to be in favor of abandoning matches: it is perhaps their only chance to get the crown and little do they care that this diminishes and cheapens the title of "chess world champion".

With the benefit of hindsight I have to admit that I was wrong: Kramnik should have granted Kasparov a rematch after the latter had won so many super tournaments. Kramnik at the time argued (for whatever reason) in favor of a qualifying tournament, but now it turns out that many of the participants of said tournament had no respect whatsoever for his title. What's it worth to take a principled stand if those who are supposed to benefit from those principles don't respect them anyway?

Mig: I had no intention to insult anyone, sorry. Just was surprised with the choice. But, as you said, NIC probably will have the best games annotated by San-Luis playes themselves. It is logical in some way that GK annotates Leko-Topalov. A bad game, but of the high importance.

Kasparov takes a lot of criticism mainly undeservedly. The problem is that when people detect a pattern then the wheels of 'conspiracy theories' begin to turn. Having caused the collaps of FIDE and 120 years of chess heritage in the 90's he's under a moral obligation to contribute to reunification even at the risk of undermining personal ego. After San Luis his comments about Kramnik were not helpful at all. He gave boost to FIDE+ Topalov camp who'd love to see Kramnik being discarded. Kramnik who in a rather convinsing manner took the crown from Kasparov.

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on November 15, 2005 3:16 PM.

    Serve, No Volley was the previous entry in this blog.

    The Future of Chess is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.