Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik have played 49 classical chess games, of which Kramnik 21, Kramnik, Kasparov, , ½–½, 37, Wijk aan Zee, D85 Grünfeld Defence · [21]. 22, Kasparov, Kramnik, , ½–½, 21, Linares, C Oct 23, Against Kasparov’s 1.e4, Kramnik used the Berlin Defense, specifically Prior to the match, this line in the Berlin was hardly considered a. Nov 5, So successful was Kramnik that Kasparov gave up his favorite A version of this article appears in print on November 5, , on Page.

Author: Togis Arashira
Country: Mauritius
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 19 April 2006
Pages: 282
PDF File Size: 8.49 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.82 Mb
ISBN: 162-5-87853-886-1
Downloads: 30108
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kigul

Classical World Chess Championship 2000

There are 2 clues unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page! Kasparov vs Kramnik, London, England. Kramnik left plays Kasparov for the title.

D27 Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Classical. A31 English, Symmetrical, Benoni Formation. Kamnik Catalan, Closed, 5. Really, Shirov was foolish. He should have just played for the lower stakes and gone down in history as a challenger. He’d have made a lot more money later on, and found his marketability increased, just as Short became more valuable for playing and losing.

Khalifman probably enjoys a slight bump even from holding the worthless FIDE title, but it’s hard to tell. Nobody’s heard from him in years.

At the time he rejected the American offer, how could he know that Kasparov would unilaterally declare the match null and void? What was the particular hurry?

At the press conference on the eve of the match, Kasparov announced that his WCC title match with Shirov had been cancelled due to lack of sponsorship and funding. Assuming these dates are correct, that’s a mere three months. It can certainly be argued that Shirov overvalued his market worth, and should’ve pragmatically accepted the American deal, and that Kasparov was simply being realistic in reneging on the match, but the greatest untruth in the whole affair was his claim that: The collapse of the Kasparov match was connected with the failure of the autonomous government of Andalusia to live up krsmnik its oral promises.

At that time, he did not have the requisite guarantees from the Andalusian government, but that only became apparent later. It was against Rentero that I filed a lawsuit in municipal court, but because of the extreme financial risk I did not pursue it to kadparov higher level. I described the role kramnok Kasparov in this story in my book Fire on Board 2, and I have no desire now to return to this theme and stir up bad memories. I can only say that if there had not been some manipulation of the information that prevented me from finding out in time what was actually happening in Spain, and later in California, then we probably would have been able to agree [on a match].


Anand also didn’t trouble himself – a boring match was the result.

In addition, the Kramnik-Leko match ofwhich resulted kranik a draw, was actually rated the best match of all 2000. Part 2 is such sweet sorrow. Had he tried a bit harder Gelfand might have won another game in normal time. But there was no effort there at all. And Anand-Gelfand came closer to that than any other match. I think that one of most colossal matches was match. Very close to match. In same area as match.

A match in which every game was a 10 move draw that never left the book would rate perfectly on the scale you’re talking about, but it would be foolish to recommend it as a good match on those grounds. The study looked at several WCC matches over the years, and their findings indicated Anand to be, overall, a more “accurate” player than any of his predecessors.

Kasparov – Kramnik Classical World Championship Match ()

Within this context, the fact that the match was lacking in drama, doesn’t really mean they were playing poorly. It was a game match, and both players were being pragmatic, avoiding unnecessary risks. Kasparov says in his book that his preparation was was narrow and inflexible. He may mean that when Kramnik produced the Berlin defence Kasparov lacked an alternative first move such as 1 c4 or 1 d4, and when Kramnik found a way to gain the advantage against Kasparov’s Gruenfeld defence, Kasparov once more lacked an alternative defence.

Tal was pretty much guilty of the same thing in the Botvinnik rematch, but you don’t expect that from Kasparov. Kasparov says in his book that his preparation was narrow and inflexible. I don’t know if he should’ve prepared for the possibility of a Berlin Wall defense but it seemed like you could almost feel like in each progressive game Kasparov was getting nearer to solving it over the board. What really must’ve of been disappointing and kind of showing a little rust was in his two losses Kasparov came up short on what seemed tactical combinations.

Very surprising for a guy who’s known as a great calculator. If you were wrong about that, couldn’t you be wrong about the other? It was in fact Kasparov who ducked the rematch for reasons that are well known. If you really don’t know what they are, I’ll be glad to tell you, but you’re going to feel pretty silly. This match is famous for the Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez, but it didn’t win one game. It’s kind of a tribute to how feared Kasparov’s KP game was before this.


When you’re losing and are arguably the greatest player since Fischer, it would have been nice to see greater efforts from Garry in the 11 and 14 move games. I don’t understand that.

After Game 10, Kasparov remarked that he hadn’t been in a “great mood” throughout the match. A sad and embarrassing example of how the mighty have fallen. A era Kasparov would not have played as badly. For Kasparov to wait until the last game to try 1.

Was there ANY game in this match where Kasparov had decent winning chances? Of course 8 and 14, and possibly also Kasparov is just a bad looser. He always tries to find excuses. In this match he was not prepared and he was also in a bad mood. But I think that his main weapons, openings and intimidation, didn’t work as well in this match as against Anand. It is true that later Kasparov was able to crack the Berlin defense beating Kramnik.

But it was just a game and it doesn’t prove much. Also, Kasparov didn’t really dominate Karpov. All their matches were close and Karpov was really unlucky in Karpov was 12 years older and it was clear that his main weakness was long matches. I lived in a former communist country and every time when I hear Kasparov talking I remember about that. His character is really unpleasant.

You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community! If you already have an account, you should login now. Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts. No personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No posting personal information of members. See something that violates our rules?

Blow the whistle and inform an administrator. Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.