the final diagnosis.

the results of the kasparov -

kramnik match 2000.
by boris schipkov
garry kasparov became the world champion ("under the version of fide") on november 9,
1985, after a victory in the last game of the second match with anatoly karpov. the score
was 13-11 (+5, -3, =16). kasparov almost invariably won the subsequent matches, only in
1987 he had to end the next fight with karpov in a draw 12-12 (+4, -4, =16). but on
november 2, 2000, upon making peace with kramnik in the 15th game, kasparov for the
first time within almost fifteen-year period lost a match with the score 6,5-8,5 (+0, -2,
=13). vladimir kramnik has become the new braingames world champion. complete
absence of kasparov's victories has become the main and slightly unexpected result of the
match. in the history of the world chess Ñhampionship matches the same happened only
once, when the 52-year-old champion emanuel lasker gave his crown in the hands of 32-
year-old jose raoul capablanca in 1921, having lost with the result 5-9 (+0, -4, =10).
in order to clear up the reasons of what occurred in the kasparov - kramnik match we
shall consider play of the contenders in an opening, middlegame and endgame.
opening.
the opening plays a huge role in the modern chess. quite often the result of a game is
determined already in the opening, if one of the contenders manages to prepare and then
use a novelty changing estimation of a position. in match struggle the course of events is
strongly influenced by unexpectedly used variations or even the entire opening systems,
which did not enter into a repertoire earlier. for example, in the kasparov - anand match,
new york 1995 after the first eight drawn games and anand's victory in the 9-th game
kasparov suddenly applied the dragon variation in the sicilian and won the 11th game. in
the 13th game kasparov again played the dragon and achieved even more stunning
success - anand lost in 25 moves! taking into account that in the 10th game garry tested
on a viswvanathan a strong novelty in the open ruy lopez and earned a point again, the
further course of the match will become quite clear. the dragon was not only unexpected
for the indian, but also well suited to kasparov's aggressive style. the result of kasparov -
anand match was 10,5-7,5 (+4, -1, =13). it should be pointed out here that in 1995 evgeny
pigusov, yury dokhoyan and vladimir kramnik were kasparov's seconds.
in london everything was reflected as in a mirror - kasparov did not have any dragon. on
the contrary, kramnik unexpectedly applied the anti-kasparov berlin defence in the ruy
lopez. the wise and correct decision! in this defence kasparov with white is compelled to
swap queens at once to receive a small advantage. in exchange black gets solid position
and pair of bishops. kasparov could not punch the berlin defence, the arising endgames
did not suit his style. before the match kramnik played this system only once - in wejk
aan zee in 1999 in the game against veselin topalov (draw, 35).
in reply to 1.e4 kramnik usually played either the russian or sicilian defence. all the work
accomplished by kasparov and his team in the period of home preparation of these
openings has gone for nothing since kramnik acted not in accordance with their
expectations. earlier kasparov, most probably, did not play the queen's gambit accepted
with black pieces, but this "surprise" has in no way affected kramnik negatively, on the
contrary, he could won 2 points from 2 scores in this opening.
a wide range of the contenders' opening repertoire is amazing. the berlin defence in the
spanish was played 4 times (1, 3, 9, 13 - draw), the nimzowitsch - 3 times (white -
kramnik, 8 and 12 - draw, 10 - kramnik's victory), the english opening - 3 times (white -
kasparov, 5 and 7 - draw, white - kramnik, 14 - draw), the queen's gambit accepted - 2
times (4, 6 - draw), the gruenfeld - 1 time (2 - kramnik's victory), the new arkhangelsk
variation in the ruy lopez - 1 (11 - draw), the catalan - 1 (15 - draw). kramnik applied 5
novelties (2, 3, 4, 6, 9), whereas kasparov - 3 (8, 11, 14). in general, when garry played
with white pieces he could not achieve appreciable advantage in any game, only in the
last 15th game he was close to this. the struggle inflamed when vladimir played with
white.
in the first two thirds of the match the pretender obviously dominated. he won the 2nd
and the 10th (in 25 moves!) games, had a large advantage and could win the 4-th and the
6-th games. only in the 8-th game kasparov had some winning chances applied a strong
novelty. in the last third of the match the champion collected his faculties, and, probably,
kramnik relaxed a little. vladimir played riskily in the 12th game, sacrificing a pawn, but
garry was unable to realize the advantage. kasparov had an extra pawn in the 14th game
also. specially for mystics and fans of statistics - in the kasparov - karpov, moscow 1985
match the 11th game ended by kasparov's victory with 25 moves. and the nimzo-indian
defence was played with the white's isolated pawn too, as well as in the 10th game of the
match of 2000, when kasparov lost with black in 25 moves.
in the middlegame the contenders have shown approximately equal play. kramnik
outplayed kasparov in the middlegame in the 4th and the 10th games, and kasparov
outplayed kramnik in the 8th and the 14th games. in the endgame kramnik played a bit
more precisely. he managed to end in a draw the endgames, in which kasparov had an
extra pawn.
now let's consider time troubles. if a player gets in a time trouble, it shows his
unpreparedness to opening variations and play in positions not in his style in the
middlegame, though chess players of such level should be universal players. frequently
one of the contenders finds himself in a time trouble, when the opponent puts before him
some complicated problems. kasparov was in time troubles 6 times (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th,
11th, 12th games), and kramnik - 5 times (3rd, 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th games).
mental and physical conditions of vladimir kramnik during the match were high, some
months prior to the beginning of the match he got rid of smoking, did not drink alcohol,
and before the match he practiced special sports preparation including swimming and
playing tennis and volleyball.
garry kasparov's psychophysical conditions lowered after several initial games, when he
found out that his opening preparation was not equal to the task, he had to strain not only
when playing but also after games' termination. the kramnik's team appeared to be
somewhat more professional in comparison with the kasparov's team.
the analysis of the events in the kasparov - kramnik duel (london 2000) results in a simple
conclusion - the score in the match reflects a ratio of forces in accuracy.
somebody thinks that at the end of the match kasparov could win two games and level the
score. but, on the other hand, kramnik could win the 4th and the 6th games and then the
score would be completely devastating.
kasparov came to grief because of excessive self-confidence and overestimating his own
forces supported by the employees of his sites, which sang praises to "great, mighty and
invincible" garry.
one of such contributors, a mathematician, has written that chances of kramnik to win the
match he estimates as 1 to 18, and to draw as 1 to 15. therefore the kasparov's team had
no real understanding what was occurring before the match and in its beginning.
kramnik was not such computer aided, he saw things as they were in reality. in spite of
the fact that in the upshot garry kasparov played more games with white pieces, he has
achieved nothing, vladimir kramnik's insight during preparation was better than
kasparov's.
the fine opening strategy of the pretender, good play both in defence and in attack - all
this led kramnik to win a title of the world champion with an outstanding result - without
a single defeat.
the great sammy reshevsky was born in poland in 1912. by the time sammy was
only eight years old, he toured the world to display his prowess as a child
prodigy of chess, giving exhibitions in europe and the united states.
i quote reshevsky from his autobiography:
"wherever i went, great crowds turned out to see me play. for four years, i was
on public view. people stared at me, poked at me, tried to hug me, asked me
questions. professors measured my cranium and psycho-analyzed me. reporters
interviewed me and wrote fanciful stories about my future. photographers were
forever aiming their cameras at me.
it was, of course, an unnatural life for a child, but it had its compensations and i
cannot truthfully say that i did not enjoy it. there was the thrill of travelling
from city to city with my family, the excitement of playing hundreds of games of
chess and winning most of them, the knowledge that there was something
"special" about the way i played chess, although i didn't know why."
s. reshevsky, reshevsky on chess, 1948
reshevsky's philosophy
when as an 8-yr-old and as a 36-yr-old
in the following quote from his autobiography, reshevsky describes his chess
philosophy, both from the point of view of an 8 year-old child as well as an
accomplished adult player. note that chess has changed more than a dozen times
since philidor of the 18th century, and so the winning philosophy changed also.
so reshevsky's philosophy wouldn't work in today's chess world. but it did when
he was alive. so here is the quote from his autobiography published in 1948:
"when i was a child touring europe and the united states as a chess prodigy, my
performances were the subject of much speculation. everyone was curious to
know "how an eight-year-old boy could beat gray beards at their own game."
people continually pestered me for an explanation. i could not answer their
questions then, nor can i do so now. chess was, for me, a natural function, like
breathing. it required no conscious effort. the correct moves in a game occurred
to me as spontaneously as i drew breath. if you consider the difficulty you might
have in accounting for that everyday action, you will have some inkling of my
dilemma in trying to explain my chess ability.
today, spectators feel another kind of astonishment. it is my practice to spend the
major part of my allotted time on the first fifteen or twenty moves of a
tournament game. as a consequence, i am often forced to play at breakneck
speed to avoid overstepping the limit. after such a game, i am frequently asked
why i took so long considering "obvious" moves. that's a question to which i am
able to give a partial answer.
to a chess master, there is no such thing as an "obvious" move. experience has
shown repeatedly that wins or draws are thrown away by thoughtless play.
careful planning is the essence of chess strategy. every move must be scrutinized
with care. each must be analyzed in the light of the plan under consideration.
nowhere is waste of time more severely punished than in chess."
in 1924, at the age of 12, reshevsky's parents stole him away from chess and he
went to school for the first time of his life. a tutor helped him to graduate high
school level, which reshevsky had no problem doing. reshevsky then went firstly
to university of detroit, and then to university of chicago, where he obtained his
degree in mathematics in 1933.
i quote from his autobiography:
"while i was at school i played very little serious chess ? among musicians, it is a
rule, rather than the exception, that the child prodigy of one generation is the
mature artist of the next.
there are fewer cases in chess. this much, however, is clear: if one decides to
make chess a profession, a childhood devoted to the game cannot possibly be a
handicap. in my own case, chess has always been the medium in which i feel
most at home: at a chessboard i express myself in my mother tongue."
in 1932, reshevsky came in a tie for third in the tournament in pasadena,
california (my birthplace) and lost to the great world chess champion, dr.
alexander alekhine. in 1933, the mature 21-yr-old reshevsky returned to serious
chess for the first time after that loss.
in 1934, after reshevsky tied for first prize at the western championship at
chicago, he won first prize without a loss of a game in the international
tournament at syracuse, ny. here is when he earned the right to play in the
tournament that contained capablanca. in 1934 is where he beat the great, the
great, jose capablanca, whose record is 416 wins, 19 losses in his career, at
margate, england. reshevsky actually came first prize in the tournament.
if you add up all of his wins in the us chess championships, us open
championships, western championships, and american championships, no one
 else even comes close.
in the great 1936 nottingham tournament, sammy was only ? point behind the
lead. for years this was considered the greatest and strongest chess tournament
in history.
he then dropped out of chess, but came back to win the us chess championship in
1938, and then skipped a year, and defended it in 1940. he then dropped out of
chess again, but played gm isaac kashdan for the us championship in 1942,
which reshevsky won.
reshevsky played in the great 1951 candidates tournament that bronstein won. in
1961 he played a drawn match against the most famous chess prodigy, bobby
fischer. when he was almost 60 years old he qualified for the inter zonal at
mallorca and scored 9? points out of a possible 23. he even won a tournament in
the 1990's in iceland, before his death.
-----terry crandall

tradition has to be maintained. anthony corrales is doing just that for the game of chess. at
age 35, he is the scholastic director for the oldest chess club in the country, the
mechanics’ institute library and chess room. on the fourth floor at 57 post street the chess
club spreads its chessboard inlaid tables over a blue expanse of rug that has been the
place for many a mortal battle.

from this vantage point the chess master teaches children and adults the finer points of
the most popular board game in the western world.
at 6 feet 4 inches corrales is an imposing figure. with his long hair and steven seagal
build, he could have been a martial arts teacher. he is physically able to withstand the
tension created in tournament chess that often has opponents battling for hours and using
as much energy in matches equal to the expenditure of energy of some players in a
professional football game.

but his intellectual background lent him more readily to chess. raised in orange county in
a house full of books, corrales was the son of an engineer father and a psychologist
mother.

“i just happened to be in a neighborhood where there was a lot of chess being played. in
my neighborhood there were three masters who lived within four blocks of me and
another five or six boys who later became masters,” corrales said.

speaking in front of a photograph of a pensive gary kasparov, former world chess

champion, corrales is the product of modern chess philosophy that considers the game a
mind-body experience. with an average chess match lasting 2.5 hours, the energy burned
through the tension is substantial.

corrales deals with this by staying physically active with baseball. his strategy is not
unlike other chess greats, who use sports to keep themselves fit for rigorous matches. the
reclusive bobby fischer played tennis and swam as part of his climb to the world
championship in 1972, while kasparov played competitive soccer and danced.

“i am not as strong a player as i was 10 years ago, but i do know more about chess than i
did 10 years ago,” corrales said.
the reason for this is that chess and its physical demands favors youth. fischer was 29
when he won his championship. he never defended it.
corrales became a master at age 20.

corrales, who has taught at the mechanics’ institute for seven years, said that teaching and
training is his forte. he teaches mostly junior players who play chess in the state and
national level for team tournaments. he also teaches free chess to kids ages 5 to 16 twice
a week and has seen some of them go on to his teams.

a former mission resident of six years before moving to richmond, corrales said that this
game of pure skill helps teach problem-solving skills, patience, planning and self-
reliance, among other things.
“in chess you learn to interpret something and make it work. it is one of those games that
basically comes back to you,” he said.
he said that when he was a kid only about 8 percent of the players in the chess federation
for the united states were children. now the number is about half, thanks partially to
support offered by corporations so that clubs can provide free classes to youth.

because children are naturally rambunctious, chess teaches patience and discipline. it
teaches a line of attack.
on a recent free thursday night class, one young boy was overhead saying, “chess is cool.
i hope to be a master some day. i’m starting to win more now.”

unlike the squares of a chessboard, the game is not separated into black and white.
“it is one field of endeavor where a stockbroker or an accountant will play someone who
is a working class person … chess helps break down prejudices,” corrales said.

“one of my friends is a peruvian of indigenous descent who is a grandmaster and people

who play him respect his talent and treat him well.”

for many, with its beauty and dimensions, chess is a metaphor for life.

page 1 of 1