Sorry trysts, I was talking about heinzie's... 
Studying Karpov
Sort:
No! it's Aron Nimzowitsch
Oh come on, I meant the Omega Man guy!
Anthony Zerbe
Yeah, now you're talking!
blake78613 wrote:
The problem with studying Karpov and Capablanca is that they make it look easier then it is. You study their games and say "why sure". Problem is that you don't see the opponent's plans that they foil with natural looking moves. When you try to imitate their methods, you find your opponents constantly spoiling your strategic plans with tactics. For most players, Playing for the attack works better.
This is a really good point. A natural move can seem as if it was just a result of "oh this looks good, let's play it," move, when it fact it might be the result of an intense calculation, but you finally say "well maybe I'll just prepare it a little first." When Karpov plays natural moves, they are tactically sound, and he has already checked the fancier stuff, but when amateurs play them, they play it because they look good and overlook the tactical problems with them, or play them in favor of a more concrete sequence of moves that puts more pressure on the opponent. It's not always easy to notice the difference if you're nonchalantly playing through the moves; positional moves tend to blend in.
Kasrpov plays moves that are sick.
Whoa, I think he just merged Kasparov and Karpov...
I didn't want to start a "Kasparov vs Karpov" flame war.
[/excuses]
Karpov wins by making his opponent paralyized and hard for opponent to move pieces and then wins.
helltank wrote:
I didn't want to start a "Kasparov vs Karpov" flame war.
Well, at least it would be something different around here (not the flames, but K vs K instead of K vs F).
K vs F is a given... K vs K is not as common as K vs F but still extremely common...
And Kasparov and Karpov were bitter enemies... so let's have a K vs K flamewar.
I think Karpov is better because of his solid position and what I think are windmill-like tactics.
And I think Kasparov was better because his girlfriend was a movie star and he had a couple more letters in his name!
Nov 13, 2011
0
#76
helltank wrote:
K vs F is a given... K vs K is not as common as K vs F but still extremely common...
And Kasparov and Karpov were bitter enemies... so let's have a K vs K flamewar.
I think Karpov is better because of his solid position and what I think are windmill-like tactics.
If they could only play each other once! That would settle things
The only things I don't like about Karpov are that he had poor personal hygiene and allegedly collaborated with the KGB to persecute other chess players who would be his opponents, such as Korchnoi. Does anyone have the book "The KGB plays chess"?
Nov 13, 2011
0
#78
milestogo2 wrote:
The only things I don't like about Karpov are that he had poor personal hygiene and allegedly collaborated with the KGB to persecute other chess players who would be his opponents, such as Korchnoi. Does anyone have the book "The KGB plays chess"?
I've got "The CIA plays chess".
K vs. K is one of the great rivalries of all time. Had they played without adjournments, I think Karpov would have had the advantage because of his endgame skills.
Karpov's KGB code name was "Raoul" according to the book, for which I previewed a sample on Kindle. Bizzare, no? I remember one of the James Bond movies had a chess playing KGB agent. Probably not totally out of the question, since they were allowed to travel out of the USSR. I think the Brits had some also, such as Sir Milner-Bary and probably Harry Golombek in the post WW2 era.
That's "Grandmaster Flash". I don't know who he is, but he doesn't look happy