Kasparov Blitz

Good thing Kasparov is sitting back, relaxing, doing nothing, and enjoying his retirement :-)

Any info on the DC event, Mig? Is this something I should try to get tickets for ahead of time or is it more of a walk-in thing?

Mig - Garry's Washington DC appearance is at a bookstore called "Politics and Prose" (http://www.politics-prose.com/calendar.htm). Great bookstore with a great tradition!

Here's the link to the theatre where Garry will be appearing in Wash. DC (nothing up on their site just yet): http://www.roundhousetheatre.org/eventcalendar/index.php?monthyear=October2007

OK, I'll clean up the last two posts with this one:

1) Garry's signing is arranged by a bookstore called "Politics and Prose" - http://www.politics-prose.com/calendar.htm

2) They're hosting his appearance at a local theatre called The Round House Theatre - http://www.roundhousetheatre.org/eventcalendar/index.php?monthyear=October2007

"I felt I deserved a rematch against Vladimir Kramnik, who took my title in 2000. I was still the top-rated player in the world, the obvious top challenger."

If only the top-rated players from 1950 onward (esp. Fischer) had the Kasparovian wisdom to demand a straight title-match.

"Then IBM made sure there would be no chance for a rematch. This time everything would be out in the open, no black boxes."

A cheating insinuation based on ONE MOVE rates with Danailov's most spectacular absurdities. Since IBM produced computer print-outs, one might hope Garry would let this one go.

I am always happy to read whatever Kasparovian insights Mig has to offer us. Whether they illuminate a specific situation at hand (e.g., a particular chess position), or, more generally, they give us a glimpse of the way Kasparov engages the world, they're always informative. And so I find the knee-jerk reflex to bash Kasparov really rather silly.

I say this, so that no-one will misunderstand what I say below:

I'm thrilled to have an interesting, thoughtful response from Kasparov to a rather silly, generic question. But I'm surprised that he's still so apparently hung up about what happened between him and Kramnik, and between him and IBM. To state the obvious, of course, these are crucial turning points in his life and career; it would be odd for him to simply forget about them. But I find it strange for him to turn this particular question -- effectively, the chance to pay tribute to his forebears -- into an opportunity to rail against his previous (perceived) injustices. From someone hoping to be a prominent politician, especially in a country like Russia, with all the evident -- and truly horrific -- injustices done to its population on a routine basis, it all seems, well, rather myopic.

"I felt I deserved a rematch against Vladimir Kramnik, who took my title in 2000. I was still the top-rated player in the world, the obvious top challenger."

After the match Kramnik's first, and logical,
interest was to establish himself as the new WCh. It takes few years to do so, to have it "sink" into the "collective consciousness".He got there for good maybe only at the end of the Topalov-match.

Accepting the rematch immediately, as Garry keenly wanted, would have made Garry appear as still the defending champion and, correspondingly, made Kramnik appear as someone still in doubt, still in need to prove himself.
Simply "no go" for Kramnik. To accept such offer would have meant to agree with its implied message.
Kramnik may not be an "expert in living" but he is no fool. He didn't think for a second seriously about such 'auto-dafe'.
Just as Anand does now.

>>> these are crucial turning points in his life and career; it would be odd for him to simply forget about them. But I find it strange for him to turn this particular question -- effectively, the chance to pay tribute to his forebears -- into an opportunity to rail against his previous (perceived) injustices <<<

It merely shows his character. Losing really sucks for him, which is why he is arguably the greatest ever chess player.

"Then IBM made sure there would be no chance for a rematch." Interesting. Kasparov accused IBM of cheating during the match...at the closing press conference...and continuously after that. Who would agree to a rematch under those circumstances? I would say Kasparov made sure there would be no chance for a rematch. I still don't believe he ever really wanted one.

For all Garry's wins and incredible chess accomplishments, it's the bitterness of defeat that seems to linger the most in his minds eye. Is it any wonder why so many top chessplayers of various era's have ended up dysfunctional and/or disenfranchised. Defeats definately cling to the psyche. To borrow from an old expression: It's like a hundred victories doesn't add up to one defeat.

> But I find it strange for him to turn this particular question -- effectively, the chance to pay tribute to his forebears -- into an opportunity to rail against his previous (perceived) injustices >

for everyone "life sucks and then you die", no matter how many and how great their achievements may be in the eyes of others

"Failure, then, failure! so the world stamps us at every turn. We strew it with our blunders, our misdeeds, our lost opportunities, with all the memorials of our inadequacy to our vocation. And with what a damning emphasis does it then blot us out! No easy fine, no mere apology or formal expiation, will satisfy the world's demands, but every pound of flesh exacted is soaked with all its blood. The subtlest forms of suffering known to man are connected with the poisonous humiliations incidental to these results.
And they are pivotal human experiences. A process so ubiquitous and everlasting is evidently an integral part of life. "
--William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

Kasparov is absolutely right to bring up the Deep Blue experience when asked about his disappointments. And the publication of the printouts was not enough to disprove the allegation that he was railroaded in game 2 by human intervention. He was also right to feel betrayed when IBM dismantled the machine in response to his rubber-match challenge. If IBM had won the match honestly, then why the fearful "destroy the machine!!" response?

I'm with GK on this one. For the only time in his career, he took it on the chin in front of the whole world and IBM got away with it.

Sorry -- not to hammer it home, but, if you're referring to Mig's item, Clubfoot, Kasparov wasn't asked about his disappointments... (That was actually my point in my previous post).

Sorry -- not to hammer it home on you either, Theorist, but Kasparov has been repeating more or less an identical script during his press junket for the book. Check the Amazon interview.

Perceptive fellow that Mr. James.

Well...at least he was a far better writer than his brother.

"If IBM had won the match honestly, then why the fearful "destroy the machine!!" response?"--this makes no sense at all. The RS-6000 was an expensive piece of machinery that IBM had already sold. Why shouldn't they dismantle Deep Blue? They weren't planning to remain in the chess business. And there was nothing to prove by examining the machine anyway. Their actions don't belie fear, but rather lack of concern for Kasparov's wild accusations.

The log printouts, which Kasparov saw TEN YEARS AGO, demonstrate that Deep Blue operated properly during all the games. But I suppose good conspiracy theorists stick to their guns no matter what the facts.

Methinks thou dost etc, Joelyjoel darling. And you're right -- conspiracies don't ever happen, do they? Especially not at the corporate level, where everything and everyone are scrupulously honest. Save your tautology for another documentary.

1) Can log printouts prove or disprove cheating allegations?

2) If it hadn't been disassembled, could Deep Blue have proven anything that couldn't already have been proven by the log printouts?

3) Game Over raises the question of why IBM didn't simply chuckle at Kasparov's allegations and allow an observer to observe Deep Blue and the Team for the rest of the match. What's the Team's response to that question?

For that kind of money, I'd prefer to spend the day at the Bunny Ranch rather than listen to those guys talk.

Kasparov really deserved a rematch after both the Kramnik and Deep Blue matches. As far as Deep Blue is concerned, Microsoft just wanted the headline and claim to fame that their computer beat Kasparov. Once they had that, they had nothing to gain by giving Kasparov a rematch. Sad because I believe Kasparov would have fared better the 2nd time around.

This conspiracy theory is more boring than most.

As for how much and how genuinely Kasparov wanted a rematch, it's enough to recall how "enthusiastically" he reacted when Feng-hsiung Hsu wrote him to suggest one.

Ovidiu hath writ:

"After the match Kramnik's first, and logical,
interest was to establish himself as the new WCh. It takes few years to do so, to have it "sink" into the "collective consciousness".He got there for good maybe only at the end of the Topalov-match."

While not a Kramnik apologist, I can definitely respect what a HUGE accomplishment beating Garry Kasparov in a match for a World Championship really is. In winning that match Kramnik did what the present World Champion was not able to do. For goodness sakes, Karpov had 5 chances to defeat Kasparov and didn't get it done!

I can only believe that those who denigrate Kramnik's accomplishments believe his match victory over Kasparov was a fluke. But in a long match there's no chance for a fluke (hence, why many like the idea of a long World Championship match).

I really don't know the details (like everyone else here), but I understand that not ALL the printouts were provided. There were one or two particular moves that were proven after the fact to be tactically flawed, so the Kasparov team wanted to see how the computer possibly chose them. These are the printouts that were never produced. But, that is just what I have heard.

For an exclusive video interview with Kasparov visit www.caseforfreedom.org

Are you sure about the time for On Point in Boston (http://www.onpointradio.org/). It's on from 10-12 in the morning. I believe it's rebroadcast from 7-9 in the evening.

I'm a Kasparov admirer but this time I'm inclined to agree with the critics' spin on the interview excerpt that heads this thread.

"Theorist's" psychological take is especially convincing. The clear message conveyed by Garry's choice of fantasy opponents, is that he has NOT "moved on" with his life. That is, his self-concept evidently is still built around not only being the greatest chess player ever, but also feeling a constant urge to keep on proving himself (by beating the only two entities who ever beat him in a match).

That mind-set is typically associated not with RETIRED athletes or competitors, but with ACTIVE ones. So, to me his answer above supports the views of those who say his political ambitions are mere dilettantism. Chess, and the hunger to continually renew and reaffirm his own place at the top of it, remains his absorbing passion.

Well, who did you expect him to name out of the current era? Karpov, Anand or Short who he has already beaten in a match? Topalov, Leko or Ivanchuk against each of whom the record is heavily in Garry's favor? I don't think Garry's choice of Kramnik and Deep Blue particularly interesting (anybody else would also probably choose the opponents they haven't decisively beaten out of their contemporaries), what I found more significant was that when asked to name 5 players, Garry named only one legendary competitor, and even that one seemed based more on childhood affection. I would have guessed that while researching and writing about his great predecessors Garry would have felt some interest in finding out how he would do in a face to face battle against some of these men in their prime. Fischer & Capablanca would make particulary interesting choices, and probably Smyslov too. But it sounds like Kasparov isn't one for those type of fantasy matches.

>So, to me his answer above supports the views of those who say his political ambitions are mere dilettantism.

politics is a "profession" for which no much education is necessary (it may actually deter by paralyzing one in moral-analysis) and Kaspy may become a real player eventually. Not a hero but a standard politcian.

He is energic, mean, revengeful, obnoxious, ruthless, aggressive, prudent-calculated, has been betrayed and has had betrayed, and he has a relative good command of the language ( I infer from his interviews)...thus he has the needed qualities and life-experiences.

But by the time he gets there he will be first known/recognized as "a politician with a chess player past".. now he is still known a 'retired'-chessplayer with a dubious political future.

Yes, Yuriy, it is precisely the fact that Garry avoided choosing matches against his great predecessors that is so psychologically revealing. (Aside from Alekhine - who by the way is also my own pick for the most interesting player, as well as the greatest who lived before 1950. I always found it disconcerting that Fischer all but panned Alekhine, said he "couldn't understand" Alekhine's chess, and didn't mean that as a compliment.)

It seems that choosing only greats of the past would be the obvious and natural thing to do, for someone who had made his peace with his own place in the (contemporary) chess world. It also would be more politic.

Fischer (at his peak) would be a natural choice (although since he's still alive and kicking -- and squawking -- it's conceivable that Garry would have deliberately avoided citing him even if Fischer-at-his-peak were his true first choice for a match). Lasker would be another natural, as would Capablanca. Also Smyslov, Botvinnik in 1950, Tal in 1960, maybe even Keres or Bronstein at their peaks. Maybe even Morphy.

In Kasparov's defense, he may hold the view that I have heard on this blog many times: even average GMs from today would have no problem beating even the best from the past due to increased knowledge and theory. If this is true, then how fun would it be for Garry to easily handle Morphy or Capablanca? Why is it bad or "telling" for him to choose two contemporary opponents that got the best of him? It seems to me to show that he is more interested in proving himself than enjoying himself.

Now I think I'm supposed to say something demeaning about him now so I'm not branded as pro-Garry. Hmmm...guess it's not worth it; I happen to like him.

Jon, it is odd to us fans, that somebody would be uninterested in Fischer-Kasparov or Morphy-Tal. But in his books Garry goes into great analysis of more realistic match-ups, such as whether Karpov could have beaten Fischer in 1975 or whether Euwe's triumph was a result of his strength or Alekhine's weakness. He avoids the comparisons of greats from different era altogether, as far as I have heard--his only interest in testing himself against Alekhine stems from his youthful fandom. Perhaps our interest in comparing all-time greats is similar to the childhood curiosity as to who would win between King Kong and Godzilla.

I understand where you are coming from when you say that someone who had made peace would want to play greats of the past. On the other hand, had Kasparov chosen only the greats of the past, somebody could have and would have put forth the argument that Kasparov is so full of himself he has no doubts that he is the greatest of the present era and now seeks to prove himself as the greatest of all-time.