Is Kasparov a simul chicken?

Isn't it possible he just knows when to quit? If he's really retired, if he has "nothing left to prove", as has been said. I'm really no expert, not by a long shot, but someone mentioned that "we all know he's getting older and isn't in his prime anymore". Well, he may be limiting his opponent's level in order to exit a bit more gracefully.

Let's follow the premise that "he's getting old etc"; if he kept playing in grandiose exhibitions, going up against, say, the top ten players simultaneaously, and he started to lose games, people wouldn't be saying "it's okay, he's just getting old", people would start saying "One of the greatest chess players of all time, and look where he is now. Losing so many matches. Some people just don't know when to quit".

The truth is that no matter what you do, the fandom will never be pleased. He's just doing it his way. No hassle, no training, no drawn out matches, just simple chess every now and then for a quick buck. Does he have to do it for the art? These are people that make a living from chess, you know. It's his job, not his hobby, and he has no reason to not make some quick easy money just for your entertainment.

EDIT: And if you argue that since he's retired, it's not his job anymore and it actually is his hobby, then... why are you complaining? Should I complain that what you do for a hobby isn't entertaining enough?

In a simul exhibition vs the top 10 players Kasparov would be lucky to score 20%, even if he was in his prime.

Kaspy just didn't study up enough in my opinion. He let Kramnik play the Petrov over and over again.

The Kasparov - Kramnik match was odd to me anyway.  Kasparov didn't play like himself at all.  Kramnik quickly losing the title seemed to say to me that Kramnik wasn't that strong.  I don't think Kasparov threw the match, but I think it was nice to retire knowing that the title was being passed to your pupil.  How much was done consciously on Kasparov's part is speculation.

Lol. I'd prefer to retire (or die) with the title. That way people would always wonder....

Kramnik was never a strong enough player, compared to others, where I thought he would hold the title for any real amount of time.  I don't think Kasparov did the best he could. I just think that he needed a break from it all.  I do think that he hoped that Kramnik would hold the title until his return if he were to come back.

This seems like an educated opinion.

Ps: The petrov wasn't played a single time during the match.

Kasparov's tops, though a few (very few) have a plus score against him. One is another great player you all know, Kramnik. Kasparov has played whole teams of GMs and didn't lose. He probably has a reason for not playing people who have ratings higher than 2,000.

Oops! I must be confusing it with some other chess confrontation.... My apologies for misinforming the masses (and I owe myself an apology for this wonderful embarrassment )

Like I said before, it's probably just because he's tired. He's retired! GMs would come to this simul after preparing for weeks. I'm sure Kaspy doesn't want to deal with all that trouble. Quite honestly, I would probably do the same thing (although if was a former best player in the world I might just raise the roof up to 2100-2200 or so...)

Dare I say it again? I think I will. He's retired!

 would you you put your money on that ?! I'll say abit more than that maybe something like 50-60% :-)

 I wonder the same thing for Bobby Fischer 72'-75'

If the other top 9 took the games seriously and weren't too insulted (I guess the prize money would help with that) then I think 20% isn't an unreasonable guess.  It may be higher, maybe 30%

Let's say the lowest of the top 10 is about 2750, Kasparov's peak was 2851.  In regular match play, 1 on 1, he would be expected to score just 64% against such a player (when the rating difference is only 100 points).

The others 8 are marginally higher rated than our imaginary #10 sitting at 2750 and so would each be expected to do a little better.  Let's pretend the #2 is 2800, in a 10 game match Kasparov would be expected to win only one more game than his opponent (with the rest being draws).  The raw % is about 57%

There's no way I know of to figure for simul play, but it's obvious this would drop any one's level of play.  But the figures of 50%-60% represent how well he should do in 1 on 1 matches, so I can't imagine him scoring so highly in a simul.

Simultaneous games are surprisingly hard to play.

I don't think you realise how easy it is to lose to a far lower rated player in a simultaneous game.

I would say compared to Fischer---he was a simul chicken.

In 1964 Bobby Fischer went on a simul tour across America---He needed the money! It was a four month tour.

He took on all comers---everybody could play---class players, experts, masters. Many players felt this would be their only chance to play Fischer. He sold out his exhibitions at $5.00 a board. Spectators crowded the playing sites---$1.00 to watch. Many promoters felt they could make money selling chess books in the lobbies. Nobody was in the lobbies---they were inside playing Bobby or watching him.

Bobby played 1,882 games in his tour that year. He won 1,719. lost 61, and drew 102. Some of his venues---

Chicago  +49 -1 =4

Cleveland  +51 -0 =0

Columbus   +48 -0 =0

Los Angeles +47 -1 =2

New Orleans +70 -3 =2

Little Rock  +36 -0 =0

Bobby Fischer ---Profile of a prodigy. p76 and Bobby Fischer for Beginners p120

Kasparov is a businessman and I suspect that anything is negotiable for the right price. Want a simul with over 2000 rating allowed? The price goes up.

I read his general restriction on simuls and in the info on his/his agent's website is boilerplate. It's an upfront disclosure to the masses of media relations and PR folks who are looking for info to book him at events.

It seems that coward is the next buzz word, meaning "people who do not do something I want them to do just because it is a hassle and inconvience and they have no obligation whatever to do it."

that's coward talk.

I've no idea if Kasparov still could beat Anand, but the reasoning Anand > Kramnik > Kasparov is a bit dubious, after all Kasparov has 15-3 in wins against Anand and that is maybe a better comparison of the two than going the way over Kramnik to evaluate how they would do against each other.