Is Kasparov a simul chicken?

I hope they are just trolling, otherwise it's just embarrassing. OK, maybe it's embarrassing also if they are trolling :)

To the guys still yammering away: Kasparov agrees with me on this. Albeit, it took a GM to laugh at his face for him to admit it's time to change his simul policy, I give the guy credit for being man enough to correct his ways. You're still bitter and I can't help you there. Get over it. You lost. By the way, Garry called and said there is no more epidermis left on his behind so if you would kindly remove your lips, he would be most grateful.

If he is such great friends with you why are you crying about not getting to play in his simuls? Why should all the experts get seats while people who just want one chance to be around him are blocked out so that he doesn't look "cowardly"?

Contacted Garry's agent. You can have a 5 player simul for $25,000 and include people over 2000. Garry adds: "Suck it, comrade."

If Kasparov gives exhibitions in which no opponent can be within 800 points of him it  seems clear to me he just wants to " pad " his exhibition results. I have given exhibitions and at 2200 I guess I shouldnt let any over 1400 play but I never imposed any rating limits on my opponents. Kasparov gave an exhibition in Lisbon some years back and I wasnt allowed to play because my rating was over the limit but I would have loved to play. My wife was allowed to play and their game was an exchange french and ofcourse she lost. 

He doesn't win more money if he wins more games does he?  That would be pretty contradictory given the strength of the players he's playing.  It's a given he's doing it for the money, so the money is most likely guaranteed, independant of the result (correct me if I'm wrong). 

His primary short term motivation is probably the money, but long term I think it would look good on his "resume".  I'm thinking along the lines of some Wikipedia article or book giving a table of Garry Kasparov's simuls with a simple "win-lose-draw" score.  Look at this for example:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=43198

No mention of strength, so it makes it look much more impressive.  The strength of the simul participants will likely be forgotten as history goes forward, as we've read in many books.  The only thing that will be remembered is the date and the result.  Good strategy by Kasparov in my opinion. ;)

If you were as good as Kasparov and dominated chess for 2 decades, wouldn't it be fun to make a career with set time odds for various ratings for cash?  I wonder how good business is for him and if he prepares any for these things.

In fact, who below 2000 has beaten him in a simul? 

I know I'd crush him in a match.   That chicken$@!+ top 5 player of all time is too scared to play me without me giving him money, even one on one.  If he challenges me and we play a match for free, I'll rescind my comment publicly and honor him as the greatest non-Cuban chess player ever.     

I don't know, but Natan Sharansky (the famous dissident) beat Kaspy in a 1996 simul. As I recall he was exactly 2000.

The way many exhibitions work is that the player is paid X amount to play an agreed upon number of boards, usually between 20-40 . In this type of exhibition the strength of the opponents makes no difference at all except to the likely outcome of the exhibition. In some exhibitions a certain number of boards is played with a fee that must be paid by the opponent to get a board. In short, Kasparov will be making the same amount of money for an exhibition no matter what the strength of his opponents..... unless he charges those with higher ratings more money to get a board...... He insists on a minimum 800 rating point advantage over his opponents and then people make a big deal out of his scoring 100% in such exhibits !?  Ok, if I play 20 boards with none of my opponents over 1400 ( same 800 point gap )  I am pretty sure I can score 100% ........ BIG DEAL ! I would be ashamed if I didnt. 

I didnt read through all the posts from this thread but I saw someone ask about the standard strength limit for GMs giving simuls. I thought Id add in my own experience to the matter.

I remember back in 2006 Korchnoi, at the time 75, played a simul against 40 (!) players. Amongst the players was also a fair amount of strong young players: I won the U14 swiss championships just a few months later, but there were still about 8 players in the simul stronger than me, for example my friend Marco Gähler, at the time rated about 2250 (Now he is between 2350-2400). In other words Korchnoi had several oponents within 400 points.

With google I was able to find the following link: http://www.londonchessclassic.com/festival_events/korchnoi_simuls.htm

Korchnois official limit was 2300 (only 250 points below his rating!) as of 2010.

I played in the Zurich Jubilee simuls vs Topalov (admittedly not one of my better games). At the time he was rated 2800 and of his 25 oponents he had several strong players. Among them Mohajerin, rated at the time 2350 but playing clearly stronger he is now rated 2421 according to fide.

I also went fairly recently to watch my dad play Shirov in a clock simul. One of the oposition was sick so there was an empty seat, I would never have sat down, as I figured it would be incorrect with my current 2350 rating (Shirov is barely still above 2700) but in fact after a short hesitation Shirov not only let me play, but was quite encouraging. He even gave me the white pieces (half the players had white, half had black). Despite this he demolished the field and won quite a nice game against me (after a complicated struggle, in a position Houdini claims equality despite a 2 pawn edge for me(!), I made a mistake which was ruthlessly punished). Final score 19.5-0.5! (My dad, a 2200, scored the only draw...)

So it seems 2000 is a normal rating limit for maybe an active, normal 2400 (or a Korchnoi-like 2250   ) , but I suppose Kasparov is neither normal nor active, even if he was 2850 in his prime.

epic post

Well, said, uhohspaghettiocompletely misunderstands how much stronger these top players are.

I played GM Michael Stean around 1980 in a 20 board simultaneous display. I was just a kid and the £20 fee meant that I had to deliver a lot of newspapers to pay for the privilege. He moved around the tables so quickly that a couple of times he was good enough to pass my game, when I wasn't ready to move. After he'd crushed me in about 28 moves, he stopped for a "lightning post-mortem". A nice man and a good chess player that earned his money that day.

One of uhoh's ideas is that it wouldn't matter how well either player played for the most part because obviously he plans to call Carlen on the clock by using a lot of premoving.

But I agree with every other person who has ever read his claim.  Specifically that uhoh fails to recognize the difference in strength.

Do these GM's just have a bunch of sophisticated traps memorized against less knowledgeable players or are they really instantaneously conjuring up elite positional understanding in exponentially less time than a 2300 player in unfamiliar situations?  I wonder how much "new" material these GM's see against these far more inferior players in these simuls. 

I'd be more interested in chess960 or some other chess variant simuls between GM's and 2300's and see if that makes any difference.  Although strictly, there is so much similarity between chess960 and regular chess (in spite of what Fischer thinks) that it may not make a difference (pawn structure and castling are identical and that already makes both games essentially identical in terms of strategy, positional play, piece play, king safety, and endgames).  

You people are pathetic... trying so hard to overcompensate for your own insecurities. Does it make you feel smart being able to nitpic faults in Kasparov's psyche. Trying to point out that his ego is the reason he is not doing it, while clearly its your ego that is making you think this way. Do you feel a sense of superiority for a short moment? You guys are sad. really. 

Why is there a limit? I don't know, I don't care. Kasparov was one of the most heartless, fearless players in his time. It is his choice. He doesn't need to justify his actions to the chess world, hes retired. Hes just another person now. I'm just saddened at the pathetic mentality of some of these posters. Kasparov was more of a warrior, more of a man, than any of you will ever be. You guys are coming off as hypocrites and mental weaklings. :(

 Kasparov is probably the greatest chess player of all time and has the right to do whatever he wants. I could care less if he plays nobody but USCF rated 800 players in simuls. Your assertion that he is more of a man than any of us can be earnestly debated though. I met him and don't think highly of him as a human being. The "evil" Karpov is actually much better person IMO.

Has anyone ever asked Garry? We make up all these ideas based on our own judgement of Garry. In my opinion, with all that Garry is doing to build up chess in the schools and build up an interest in chess, it would make more sense to offer simuls to what I would consider more of an amatuer level player. Someone who is Expert level or above in the US chess rating system would really be a wasted table if his intent is to build interest in the game. A 2000+ rated player, unless they are a really good beginner, would probably already have a keen interest in the game to have reached such a proficient level.

Stop whinging, Kasparov is the greatest of all time and has nothing left to prove. He has annihilated entire national teams in simul displays (Czech team 2001, Israel 1998 etc).

The man has done it all, and frankly, his brain probably hurts from dishing out so much collective whipass!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1016404