Speaking of Karpov and rapid chess, another pic from the archives (click the 'pics' tag below for earlier versions). 12th world champion (1975-85) Anatoly Karpov in the second game of the first round of the 2001 FIDE KO WCh in Moscow. (28/11/01) His opponent, who you can see better in the larger version, was China's Zhang Pengxiang.
This turned into the instant karma match. Karpov, days after appearing at a press conference with Kasparov and Kramnik to tout the "3K" Botvinnik Memorial match tournament, suddenly dropped out of that and accepted Ilyumzhinov's baksheesh invitation to play in the KO. The first two games with Zhang were drawn and Karpov was eliminated in rapid tiebreaks. Zhang was eliminated 2-0 by Pigusov in the next round.
...Ok!?
What can you say about someone who promises to play; and then says "never mind" and plays elsewhere for more money?
I'd say that he got a better deal. ;-)
Say, speaking of Karpov and rapid chess, who won the 2002 X3D Times Square match against the sainted Garry Kimovich?
Don't believe it for a moment, geeks - he ain't that sainted. And Mr Koster, I think AK boosted on the 3K tourney because the FIDE counter-offer was enough to pick up that sporty new Lada he had his eye on.
Karpov (as well as Kasparov) knew that he was 'The man' in chess so felt he had the liberty to do pretty much what he wanted (for instance pull out in the last minute and ignore his commitments). Other people saw surely this as primadonna-behaviour, but I am sure (the 2) K(s) felt nothing wrong about it. It all depends on one's point of view...
It's possible that Karpov miscalculated. Maybe he counted on (Kirsan appearance money) + (expected KO winnings), and the expected winnings went up in smoke after the Zhang Zhong defeat. I wouldn't count on it, though. And only Karpov (perhaps his accountant, too?) knows for sure.
Oops, make that "Zhang Penxiang". Apologies.
Still wondering why there is a blog post about a years old story... Is this just bait to see if Rouslan will respond about how mig hates Karpov and Kramnik and is taking shots once again??
All of the trolls already bit, but that wasn't the point. The "pics" items are just photos of mine from my archives, usually related to some current event. You can find them by searching for pics 0 or using the tags, although those aren't complete yet.
It's just one of the better pictures of Karpov I have and there's an interesting story to go with it.
Dear Mig
Not sure that dates are correct - how come 28/11/06 comes into it?
Nigel
Feext
Mig,
Why the angst toward Karpov and Kramnik, two of the best and classiest players ever to grace the World Title?
Eh? What I described didn't happen? It's just an anecdote, sorry if it's not complimentary. I'll dig around to see if I have any pics of Karpov saving a drowning puppy.
Mark G.,
It's nice to have a remarkably uncensored forum for chess talk, but there is a (small) price to be paid: the Mig Rules.
Next to glorifying Kasparov and minimizing his foibles, the second-favorite hobby in this blog is trivializing the accomplishments and magnifying the imperfections of those who would share Kasparov's spotlight.
For example:
If, on the occasion of the recent Zurich blitz tournament, you were to randomly run a high-quality photo of Kasparov in mid-tantrum at Linares 2003, you would, of course, be "trolling."
But if, a week after Zurich and before Miskolc, you randomly ran a photo of Karpov being bought off at Moscow 2001, you wouldn't. You remember the Jordan Rules? These are the Mig Rules.
No, but there are troll rules. Any perceived criticism, no matter how obvious and deserved - especially about troll crush Kramnik (whom they really don't care for but feel they must lionize because they view him as an anti-Kasparov) - must be responded to with attacks on Kasparov, no matter how unrelated and/or specious and/or mindlessly regurgitated.
I post a photo and anecdote about Karpov, no Kasparov in sight. Ta-dah, kostertroll and company right on point: it's all about Kasparov! Wah wah wah! Kasparov Kasparov Kasparov! I say Kramnik has played a lot of short draws in tournament X (you know, a CURRENT one) and it's "Kasparov played two short draws against Kramnik six years ago!!" Relevancy=zero.
The corollary is that anything positive about Kramnik (now they include Karpov too because of his ancient rivalry with Kasparov, which is relevant to the troll conspiracy theory) is ignored. (Which is fine, but indicative.) As are any criticisms they can't trivially blame on Kasparov, who they seem to think reads - or writes - this blog.
E.g., if I say Leko is playing lots of short boring draws or playing conservatively, koster and company are mum, at least on the issue of Kasparov. (Sounds logical enough, but wait.) But if I say the exact same thing about Kramnik, it's time for jihad. Why? Because my criticism can mindlessly be blamed on a pro-Kasparov agenda and allows them to cut and paste the usual Kasparov-is-the-antichrist blather completely off-topic. (Witness the Linares tantrum trotted out yet again.) Nothing to do with observable facts, of course. It's all about their accusations of my supposed agenda, by which they reveal their own.
The funniest part is that koster doesn't even see the humor of someone referring to Karpov as "classy."
I don't think adding Leko, Kramnik, or the anti-Christ advances the discussion.
Karpov's 2001 Moscow "buy out" is an unsavory episode from his past, irrelevant to any current issue. Isn't that more or less the definition of trolling?
In an attempt to persuade mig to consider his Karpov posting in that light, I asked him to imagine his response should a similarly derogatory and irrelevant item be raised about Kasparov.
Mig,
I haven't been posting much lately, but I find it suprising that you write a blog entry like this and then call people who respond trolls. If anything, you are the one who is trolling. You may find it ironic when someone calls Karpov classy, but a lot of people (myself included) view Karpov (or Kramnik for that matter, or pretty much any top player) as a classier person than Kasparov. I, for one, find it ironic that a person who is close to Kasparov would even question Karpov's moral choices. That is kinda like if Osama Bin Laden's associates questioned the morality of professional boxing because it is too violent. And once you post something like this, how do you expect Karpov fans to respond?
I hate to say it Mig, but it seems like it is part of your deal with Kasparov - you have to be nasty to Kasparov's rivals for him to give you interviews and inside information. As for karma - I don't believe in it, but I would say that a fine example of karma would be Kasparov losing the title in 2000 and not even getting another title shot. I wonder how many times he will have to be hit on the head with a chessboard before his chess karma will balance out. But each such incident will sure bring laughter and happyness to us karma lovers.
Look, it's Mig's blog and he can write W'ever TF he wants to. And there's plenty of Karpov material out there to target.
That said, the hoary Karpov payoff item, coming right on the heels of a DD item chronicling Karpov's recent (2003 to date) sub-par rapid chess performances, looked a little like "piling on."
They didn't respond, Russianbear, they posted a bunch of off-topic Kasparov crap. As always. I consider this bizarre, trollish behavior. Did you read my above comment? In what universe does it make sense to respond to any criticism of one player with criticism of another? If I say Player X blah blah the trolls respond with BUT PLAYER Y BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! Since it's always Kasparov, it's pure trollery.
And no, being friends with Kasparov doesn't mean I can never criticize anyone else for the rest of my effing life. Why are these things even connected? Does making any critical remark about anyone necessitate accompanying it with a long catalogue of similar offenses by every other player in history? Or by Kasparov? Ridiculous. And yet this is what the trolls do here. Something happened yesterday - BUT KASPAROV DID SOMETHING WORSE IN 1994!!! WAH! So and so did this and that today - BUT KASPAROV DID IT TWICE AND ON SUNDAY! Usually entirely off topic and dissimilar.
It would be one thing if these were reasonable statements of relevant comparison, adding perspective or debating the issue at hand. But it's simply "Mig hates Kramnik! Mig hates Karpov! Kasparov is bad! Wahhh!" Over and over and over the same crap any time there is the slightest perceived negative about Kramnik (and now Karpov).
When I criticized a Gelfand game early at Dortmund, the trolls came out and ranted, but only because Gelfand had played Kramnik in that game. My criticisms of Leko's recent performances met little or no such reaction. But the moment I said Kramnik played a typically conservative tournament (a blatantly obvious fact and hardly an insult) oh my, time to go crazy, Mig's attacking Kramnik! Wahh!
Perhaps the freakish rationale they employ is that if Kasparov did it (or something remotely similar), I must think it's okay and therefore it's hypocritical to criticize anyone else for it. This is why koster has posted endless times about Kasparov's two short draws in the London match six years ago. This is a silly fallacy and nothing more than an excuse for trollery and bashing.
Let's say Topalov has a temper tantrum at a closing ceremony. In mentioning that it would be normal to mention that Kasparov once did something similar. Does it mean Topalov shouldn't be criticized for his behavior? Would it be morally wrong not to mention Kasparov's similar act? Why? It would be an omission, but the only reason for saying it's "wrong" would be because I'm a friend of Kasparov's. I.e., if a reporter from Brazil wrote about the Topalov incident without mentioning Kasparov he wouldn't be called a kiss-butt or be accused of an agenda. It's all about what's going on in the head of the accuser. Mig posts an item critical of Karpov, so it must be because blah blah blah. Beats thinking.
So, you hate Kasparov and hope bad things happen to him. And? So? Does this mean he has to be dragged into every thread here? It gets boring and pathetic.
"They didn't respond, Russianbear, they posted a bunch of off-topic Kasparov crap. As always. I consider this bizarre, trollish behavior. Did you read my above comment? In what universe does it make sense to respond to any criticism of one player with criticism of another? If I say Player X blah blah the trolls respond with BUT PLAYER Y BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! Since it's always Kasparov, it's pure trollery."
- Well, have you ever thought that Player Y is always Kasparov for them, because Player X is never Kasparov with you? Whenever you criticize someone, it is NEVER Kasparov. And let's face it, Kasparov has given enough reason for criticism - probably much more than anyone else among the top players - more than Karpov, who has been semi-retired for quite sometime, more than Kramnik or Anand, who seem to be more consistent and less controversial than Kasparov. It is this imbalance in the amount of criticism that a lot of people are noticing in this blog, especially given that the one player who probably deserved the most criticism in recent years, never seems to do anything wrong, at least according to you.
I know that to you it may seem like everyone is picking on Kasparov, but if you consider people who are not Kasparov fans (such as myself), it seems like you are picking on everyone but Kasparov. And yes, you say criticism of Kasparov may be irrelevant, but I would say that criticism of Karpov for something he did in 2001 you find objectionable is at least as irrelevant as some of the Kasparov things people may bring up.
If one based his view on Karpov on what you post in your blog, I strongly doubt one would get a more objective idea of him than if one judged Kasparov by what the "trolls" write about him in response to you. I always thought you were overly critical of Kramnik while Kasparov has never done anything wrong, at least that's the impression one gets from this blog. But with Karpov, it is probably much worse than with Kramnik, you basically seem to hate the guy. Yea - he withdrew from a tournament 5 years ago - big deal. Compared to some things Kasparov did it is a very harmless thing :) If you are thinking I am bringing up Kasparov to defend Karpov once again - you miss the point. The point is we have to look at the context - Karpov withdrawing from a tournament is one thing. Kasparov withdrawing from FIDE and sending chessword into chaos for 13 years and counting is a totally different matter. Karpov's withdrawal hurts one little tournament. Kasparov's withdrawal from FIDE will probably be felt for many years to come and it may be the single biggest thing that is resposible for the possible death of classical world championship as we know it (and you seem to be as big a fan of classical tradition as I am). That's my point - not that when Player Y does something "bad", it excuses Player X doing it. the point is the blame is misdirected and the criticism is not proportional to what the players have done. The reality is - on Karpov's watch classical world championship tradition gained credibility and prestige, and chess was gaining popularity, and on Kasparov's watch - and in large part, thanks to Kasparov's efforts, it all fell apart, and chess world fell into chaos.
But who knows, maybe you are right - let's bring up that Karpov's withdrawal from Botvinnik tournament, because maybe THAT was the defining chess moment of our times and maybe it was THAT, that ruined chess and led to universal confusion in the chess world and it was the single most important event on a path to complete destruction of the classical title. We are friends with Garry, afterall, so maybe every single thing that is wrong in the chess world can be blamed on people Garry dislikes.
It's really not that complicated, mig.
This morning let's say a guest blogger, a friend of Karpov, randomly posted on your site a photo of Kasparov mid-tantrum at Linares 2003.
There are four possibilities:
a) For taking out-dated, irrelevant and derogatory shots at an ex-world champion you and the guest blogger are both trolls. (russian bear)
b) For taking out-dated, irrelevant and derogatory shots at an ex-champ neither of you are trolls.
c) He's a troll but you're not. (Mig's rules)
d) You're a troll but he's not.
Can you all please stop? This is exactly the reason I stopped reading Usenet.
And if I may inject my own view, any host is always due a certain leeway, and the feedback here exceeds control purposes into doing more harm than good.
I was remarkably able to read Mig's blurb without thinking of it as taking a shot at what is perhaps my all-time favorite chess player. Karpov is back in the news and Mig likes posting photos he took in the past, so he posts this one. Then he puts a little explanation for the story at the bottom.
And posting a great photo you took of Kasparov tantrum is NOT the same as changing the subject of every thread to Kasparov tantrum. Has Mig complained because somebody STARTED a thread in the forums about Kasparov's misbehavior? Especially a thread accompanied by/in response to some new content?
e) one of the acts is an out-dated, irrelevant, derogatory (and other words you can find in Thesaurus) shot while the other one is not.
More to the point, anyone actually got a photo of Gazza's tantrum? Or better still, a video? With a link. Now that would be worth watching - where's youtube.com when you need them?
I wonder how much Karpov works at chess these days, how much time he spends in front of a chessboard each day? Maybe he doesn't do anything and being able to draw Garry in a blitz match is just residual genius from back in the day?
kasparov vs bobby fisher!
This thread is like deja vu all over again.