Kasparov I feel was a pioneer in openings study with computers. Kramnik refined Kasparov's methods and was able to outprepare Kasparov as a result. Kasparov did say after losing to Kramnik that his preparation was busted and felt that he had no openings.
I'd say opening study today is influenced by Kasparov's and Kramnik's methods.
a 1500 can draw that game.
big deal ?
The precise ending at the end yes but get destroyed be either one from the beginning or get outplayed in the major piece endgame starting at move 22. This was a blitz game so keep that in mind. Both sides had breathtaking accuracy considering.
"that was an unlucky game for Carlsen, 99% of the time this position would be won for white. I don't consider it fantastic technique or anything like that."
But black had outstanding defensive technique to whittle the advantage down by keeping his composure and comportment. Keep in mind that Carlsen is a legend on Fischer and Kasparov's level, and either still in his prime or his prime is yet to come.
I would hardly say his career is coming to an end........he's only 39!!
He said he was going to retire when he turns 40. I kinda agree with you guys though. The only thing he really did that was remarkable was dethroning Kasparov
Probably the hottest opening in GM tournaments these days in the Berlin variation against the Spanish. Guess who first started playing this old nineteenth century opening at the onset of the twenty-first century?
Vlad!
His win over Kasparov in the 2000 match was unconvincing, he drew with Leko, he narrowly beat Topalov in a rapid tiebreaks, and lost to Anand (who lost twice to Carlsen). And not to mention a reputation for a "draw master" and boring player. Not a very bright place in the chess history I'm afraid for Kramnik.
This has got to be one of the dumbest posts is chess.com history. All these matches were against the strongest players in the world. I don't know what a weak player like you would consider a "convincing" win over Kasparov. Did Kramnik have to split Karparov's head with an axe to convince you? He beat the strongest and highest rated player in the world in a match without losing a single game. He also single-handedly redicovered and redefined the Berlin Variation, probably the single most important theoretical innovation in the last quarter-century.
Kramnik deserves a spell in prison for crimes against chess for rediscovering and redefining the Berlin Variation; probably the most enervating theoretical innovation in the last quarter century.
I would hardly say his career is coming to an end........he's only 39!!
He said he was going to retire when he turns 40. I kinda agree with you guys though. The only thing he really did that was remarkable was dethroning Kasparov
Probably the hottest opening in GM tournaments these days in the Berlin variation against the Spanish. Guess who first started playing this old nineteenth century opening at the onset of the twenty-first century?
Vlad!
Guess I haven't given Vlad enough credit. I'll be interested to see if he writes any books after he retires from top level tournaments.
The Berlin Defense almost always leads to a complex struggle in the queenless middlegame. There is plenty of scope for both players and the best player generally wins.
I support Nigel Short's sentiments when he said "when i become president of Fide I shall ban the Berlin". This former world title contestant thinks the Berlin is a yawn fest.
He's wrong. He would also make a stalemate into a win for the stalemating side. He's wrong there too
Yes chessmickey he's wrong and you're right .
ALL of you guys are great, as through your arguements with each other, you actually make GMs a fasinating topic
The Berlin Defense almost always leads to a complex struggle in the queenless middlegame. There is plenty of scope for both players and the best player generally wins.
I support Nigel Short's sentiments when he said "when i become president of Fide I shall ban the Berlin". This former world title contestant thinks the Berlin is a yawn fest.
I like Nigel Short, but he's wrong here. I'm sure that he's fine with that. He doesn't aim to be right. He aims to be interesting.
The Berlin Defense almost always leads to a complex struggle in the queenless middlegame. There is plenty of scope for both players and the best player generally wins.
I support Nigel Short's sentiments when he said "when i become president of Fide I shall ban the Berlin". This former world title contestant thinks the Berlin is a yawn fest.
I like Nigel Short, but he's wrong here. I'm sure that he's fine with that. He doesn't aim to be right. He aims to be interesting.
I don't think Nigel aims to be interesting ;it just comes naturally.
To be fair to Nigel. he does try to spark some interesting discussiions when he offers his opinions. It's not clear how serious he is.
I don't think that he takes himself seriously, and that is his strength.
"consider this game he played against Carlsen, look at that game carefully and tell me again that Kramnik is the least impressive world champion"
I don't think he is the least impressive World Champion, but a drawn blitz game doesn't prove much. I'd rank him with Euwe, Petrosian, Spassky among the least impressive World Champions, but not last (that would be Euwe). To me the "worst" things one can say of Kramnik is that he at best shared first on two rating lists and never won a qualification for a title match. For example Anand won several title match qualifications, and most World Champions have been the clearly strongest player in the world for years.
A thread like this attracts almost as much silliness, ignorance and trolling as one about Fischer. Still, I'd like to introduce some sanity into it.
When assessing how great Kramnik is, most people will start (and finish) by looking at his results in World Championship matches. Kramnik's victory over Kasparov was a great feat, one which no human had achieved before. Though some dismiss it and call it an "aberration", it's worth noting that going into that match, Kramnik had an even head-to-head score against Kasparov.
In 2004, Kramnik was already starting to experience problems with his health, due to a type of arthritis knows as ankylosing spondylitis. Despite that, he defended his title against a Lékó who was more or less at the peak of his powers. (Just to give an example, he won Corus 2005 ahead of Anand, Topalov, Kramnik and other top players.)
Kramnik had some lacklustre results in 2005; as a result, he left chess to seek out treatment for his arthritis. He returned in 2006, getting the highest rating performance at that year's Olympiad and winning Dortmund. This was followed by his match with Topalov, where he drew the classical part and won the rapid tiebreaks. However, since Topalov won game 5 due to Kramnik forfeiting it, one could argue that Kramnik won the classical part too. Needless to say, Topalov, just like Lékó in 2004, was pretty much at the peak of his powers back then.
In 2007, Kramnik lost his title at the World Championship tournament held in Mexico, and he failed to regain it when he faced Anand next year in Bonn, Germany.
In 2013, Kramnik tied for first (but was second on tiebreak) along with Carlsen in a Candidates Tournament. This result was praised by many, including Kramnik's former rival Kasparov.
Kramnik's tournament record is that of a top player, and is reflected in his rating achievements. For much of the late 90s and early 2000s, he was ranked second in the world behind Kasparov and won many tournaments. Although some people might misinterpret what I've just said and state, "See, he was never the best in the world", Kramnik actually shared first with Kasparov on a 1996 rating list (and with Anand on a rating list from 2008).
Kramnik was the second player in history to achieve a rating over 2800—another remarkable feat. Though many people talk about how Caruana won "the highest-rated tournament of all time", it's easy to forget that just a few years ago, the Wikipedia article on Kramnik said: "He has also won the two strongest tournaments (by rating strength) in chess history: the 2009 Mikhail Tal Memorial and the 2010 Grand Slam Masters Final." In any case, I don't think it's fair to dismiss Kramnik for being inferior to Kasparov, arguably the greatest chess player in history.
Kramnik has also had a profound impact on opening theory. Anand acknowledged this in an interview for WhyChess, saying, "I don't know exactly how many lines he's established, but you get the impression that for the last 10 years we've only been using his ideas. ... His stamp on opening theory is much more significant than mine." In spite of the insipid and predictable nonsense posted in this thread, many aggressive players, such as Aronian and Nakamura, have played the Berlin; in fact, the former said that he plays the Berlin if he wants to win and the Marshall Attack if he does not mind a draw.
Overall, I'd put Kramnik among the weaker World Champions, probably behind Anand but ahead of Euwe, Petrosian, Spassky and Smyslov. Though he obviously doesn't have the stature of an Alekhine or Karpov, he is one of the most accomplished chess players of modern times and deserves far more respect than trolls with no chess careers or achievements to speak of give him.
Kramnik was Kasparov's student during the early 90s. As a result he always had a psychological insight into Kasparov's style, which was the main reason that he was so successful against Kasparov in the match and had a good record against Kasparov in their overall careers.
I have to give Kasparov some credit also. He could have easily played Shirov (who was the challenger he was supposed to play anyway) and won easily, similar to the non-contest with Short in 1993. It was also true that Kasparov had about 20 wins against Shirov with Shirov never scoring a win against Kasparov -- but Fischer had also similarly never beaten Spassky before the 1972 match, so you never know. But instead he picked the better player (Kramnik) and received a loss. Kasparov also had some personal issues during the 2000 match, I believe he was going through a divorce.
C'mon! The possible sponsors weren't interested in a Kasparov-Shirov match.
"I have to give Kasparov some credit also. He could have easily played Shirov (who was the challenger he was supposed to play anyway) and won easily"
I don't think Kasparov deserves much credit for that. Shirov won the Candidates by beating Kramnik, to then give Kramnik the title match instead of Shirov just because sponsors pay you more for that, and come up with some faint excuse that the previous qualification had become invalid, is quite dubious. Shirov didn't even get any money for beating Kramnik, who was well paid for losing the match.
A thread like this attracts almost as much silliness, ignorance and trolling as one about Fischer. Still, I'd like to introduce some sanity into it.
...
Well said. Excellent essay.
I would only add that many chess enthusiasts with an interest in the endgame continue to root for Kramnik every time he plays.
Thanks at least for attempting to keep things real. Also of note is that he won the Fide World Cup in Tromso recently. I'll be sad to see him retire, but then again I understand why he would stop. I remember someone telling me his training schedule and it was outrageous. Something like 10hrs a day everyday except Sunday when he put in 6. If I had that schedule for 20+ yrs and I had as much money as Kramnik I'd retire too.
Haha, troll much? Like, very?
P.s: I agree, not a big deal with NEGTB in your pocket, pff.