Reb: If Kramnik is never in any danger of losing this match there will be nothing strange happening, but if Anand should take an early lead and threaten to beat Kramnik watch for some sort of questionable scandals and accusations against Anand. Ofcourse Anand will be the "goat" should such a thing happen, yet again. 

Well Reb, we've got your Anand-in-the-early-lead scenario... Let's see how your prediction holds up. Personally, I don't think Kramnik will try anything, possibly because he's actually not a bad person... but also possibly because Anand is just too well known and respected by the chess community as a complete gentlemen. Accusations against Anand would make Kramnik look like an ape... whatever one may think of Kramnik, he's not stupid.

What a comment! What a game! You're right about the 'amazingly' part.

Given the huge lead that Anand has built up (3 wins to none so far) I think it would be particularly damaging to Kramnik's reputation if he tried using off the board antics to gain an advantage. He would have to be a lout and a dope to think that would work now.

its a matter of style at the end still petrosian and karpov are great players , being prophylatic doesnt reduce from their greatness and talent, kramnik anyway is not at his peak in this match, it happened to all.............but 2 things to mention here first capablanca is not in the same group as the conservatives by any means, plus .....fischer fighting spirit is unquestionable ,he managed to defeat the whole world in a series of battles like napoleon and alexander the great, no wonder that the guy got tiered, bored, nothing more can excite him, what after smashing the whole world?.......finally we dont get morphy , capablanca , fisher and kasparov every year to give spirit to the game , defencive play happens in all sports , and it needs years to see a star brighting and grip our WOWS

  I have to agree with the last paragraph, it's neither natural nor expectable for us to meet some Bobby, Victor, Anatoly and Garry every ten, twenty or so years... That's an element that glorifies the time of such a manifestation of genuine  gift and exceptional -but human and limited- willpower and virtue!!!

 I also agree that both Petrosian and Karpov were much more prophylactic than Alekhine and Kasparov, I can not speak about Fischer or Korchnoi on this very "simple" matter (!!!!!...), maybe GreenLaser or someone else could afford some help but me, I could not say about...

 I insist that the prophylactic or positional element was just a partial aspect of the style of both Petrosian and Karpov, it's clear to me that Karpov's play was much more ambitious and powerful than Tigran Petrosian's play, they both used Prophylaxis to a great measure but for extremely different purposes... So I consider Karpov's style (and Korchnoi's too...) much more closer to that of Fischer and Kasparov than Petrosian's or Botvinnik's... Karpov-style is neither F-style nor Kasparov-style but it's a citizen of the same City of Ideals.

 Capablanca's devotion to the game was much smaller than that of the aforementioned, maybe some lack of motivation (or whatever...) was the cause of his lack of energy, of his unjustified pessimism etc. Maybe Petrosian was "insecure" or "prisonner-to-his-heart" or slave-minded, anyway he was not Karpov... Karpov's evolution is a phenomenon that possibly none but Korchnoi had foreseen.

Karpov's evolution is a phenomenon that possibly none but Korchnoi had foreseen.

i fully agree....

... before the important match against Anand, kramnik experimentated, relaxed, and surely didn't play with full pace.That is, what most GMs would do in his place.

... Except Bobby Fischer!

from the kramnik game(post #7) -- move 17. c7 is probably the coolest move I have ever seen in my short chess career!  he threatens 3 pieces with one move, the Q and N with the pawn, and the rook through discovery!  Unbelieveable. 

Who are we to criticize the play of Kramnik,Kasparov and Shirov?

 Maybe Kramnik needs to see the back of someone else in order to do his best... Then he has no reason to be insecure or "conservative", on the contrary he has a good motif to fight... Maybe the problem with this great player emerges when he feels that he has but to lose, that he has to defend "his own gain".

 Then Dortmund's last, now Dortmund's first.

So Reb, I remember when you wrote this, and it seems as though nothing untoward happened whatsoever. When you wrote it, I didn't want to believe that anything "bad" would happen - and it didn't - but how, if at all, has your opinion of Mr. Kramnik changed?

Kramnik is my favorite player solely because of his conservative play.  His seemingly conservative and defensive play is an inspiration to terrible players like me who are always losing.  Yes, he's one of the greatest of all-time (top 5 in my book), but his style of play certainly doesn't look like it. 

 My opinion of Kramnik didnt change in this match. He wouldnt dare try any off board antics with Anand as it would only invite the derision of the entire chess world. The recent Dortmund tournament surprised me some what as Kramnik actually won 3 games and he won in the last round when all he needed was a draw.... I am shocked. Perhaps he is tiring of the criticism. Lets face it, he won one game in Dortmund with black and I read it was his first black win ( in classic time controls ) in 3 years !! Even Petrosian I dont think had so little ambition ! The biggest problem I have with him is his ducking Kasparov after their match..  after all Kasparov did for him to boot !

How can anything compare to Kasparov vs Karpov ???????

Kasparov won 21 - Karpov won 19 - 104 games were drawn

And if you don't count the BS games towards the end of the 1984 match, then Karpov actually has a plus score...