Weird that he sacked a pawn, to be honest i dont understand it but i think the commentator for the Kasparov Karpov game said that Karpov was more the pawn grabber then the sacrificer.
after all we know Napoleon could also be a genius at chess.
We do know, and he wasn't.
Weird that he sacked a pawn, to be honest i dont understand it but i think the commentator for the Kasparov Karpov game said that Karpov was more the pawn grabber then the sacrificer.
I agree, I read an article about Karpov that one of his role models is capablanca. That explains why he is more of a pawn grabber since Capablanca too often converts a small advantage into a win.
Hate to admit it, but even Kirsan is more skillful at chess than Napoleon ever was.
but Capablanca had such an easy and nice style, Karpovs style looks so incredible heavy at times. Maybe i just watched the wrong games i dont know.
not to mention Capablanca was the idol of Botvinnik and i think Botvinnik wasnt too impressed by Karpov either.
Hmmm. An absence of female dopllegangers so I suggest:
Ulf Andersson = Vera Menchik.
Ulf Andersson, judging by the pictures taken of him, seems quite male.
not to mention Capablanca was the idol of Botvinnik and i think Botvinnik wasnt too impressed by Karpov either.
That's only based on a comment from when Karpov was a little kid.
not to mention Capablanca was the idol of Botvinnik and i think Botvinnik wasnt too impressed by Karpov either.
That's only based on a comment from when Karpov was a little kid.
Well its just guessing, but dont you see already some of the style a person has whe is a kid? Or does the style change completly later??
Did Ljubo have good results against good players? Larsen was almost infamous for winning tournaments by "beating up" the lower rated half of the draw.
I dont have a database so here is an answer i got from my books. In 1978 at Bugojno, Ljubojevic beats then worlds number 10 Larsen and worlds number 5 Spassky . In Tilburg 1980, larsen lost to Hubner. In Linares 1981 Ljubo lost to Bellon. In lInares 1983, Larsen ended at the bottom of the tournament ranking which was won by Spassky. In 1989 World Cup in Barcelona, Ljubo tied for 1st place with Karpov. In Bugojno 1984, Larsen shared the 13-14th place with tounament tail-ender Ivanovich. And in Linares 1985 Ljubo shared 1st place with Hubner in which Portisch, korchnoi, Spassky, Timman and Plogaevsky were playing.
Ivanov = Houdini
Do I win a prize?
yes
Karpov cannot be compared to anyone else. He is the best player of all times...
you know einstein made a mistake, he shouldnt have aksed : "who might be trolling?" he should have asked: "who is not trolling?"
Problem with Reshevky/Kamsky
I believe they were both alive at the same time. They cannot be reincarnations.
Oddly enough, one of the very first chess tournaments I ever took part in was a national open back in 1991 where Reshevesky gave one of his last big simuls and Kamsky made of his first appearences in America. Little did I or anyone else present realize the symbolic significance.
Btw, another pair I forgot might be Howard Staunton and Raymond Keene - both reasonably strong English players who retired from chess relatively early on to engage in occasionally controversial punditry and politics (as well as help organize several fairly important chess events).
Oh, and Reinfeld and Schiller seem, on a certain level, somewhat similar as well.
Btw, another pair I forgot might be Howard Staunton and Raymond Keene - both reasonably strong English players who retired from chess relatively early on to engage in occasionally controversial punditry and politics (as well as help organize several fairly important chess events).
Oh, and Reinfeld and Schiller seem, on a certain level, somewhat similar as well.
well keene might be a nice talker and gentleman(i dont know him ofc i just judge by appearence in video), but i would suggest howard staunton was a different class. He played modern stylei read, i think Fischer said ofc Morphy would have won but it would have been a harder struggle then most think.
Napoleon = Kirsan
Two egotitsts. One thought that he understood chess. The other doesn't understand it and never will.
Well the winners write history, after all we know Napoleon could also be a genius at chess. Also what makes you think he was an egoist?? I wasnt that good in History so thats why i would like to know-