Misc Chess games topics - G.Kasparov (+ G.K. v. E.Winter) / Re: Parr on Winter on "The Termination"

Author

G.Kasparov (+ G.K. v. E.Winter) / Re: Parr on Winter on "The Termination"

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)

2006-03-10, 11:31 pm

During the first Karpov-Kasparov match
Kasparov was still a youngster, he was
still politically unimportant. On the top
of it he was losing the match 4:0, than
5:0, or 5:1. He had no say until the
very end, when finally, at the most crucial
point, when match after his two fresh victories
was at 5:3 for Karpov, finally he could
make his preference heard and count.

Whatever Kasparov said AFTER the
match is of course very interesting
but not really too important.

Somehow Edward Winter does not seem
to understand these simple truths. He's
hunting contradictions in Kasparov's
statements like they could explain what
had happened before the match. It's
so funny.

I remember a game by young Kasparov
(I don't remember the tournament, nor the
opponent's name) in which it looked like
the middle game was perfectly even, except
that after it was over, Kasparov had pawn
advantage 3:2 on the remote wing, and was
obviously going to promote his pawn. His
opponent immediately resigned.

The game spoke by itself, there was no
need to expplain anything to the readers.

Outside the chessboard Kasparov is much less
rational. He cares a lot about the appearence
(in a contrast to Karpov who doesn't give a damn).
He wants to appear a winner of every battle and
of every stage of the battle and of everything--
philosophically and morally and intellectually and
sport wise. He wants us, the chess public,
to believe that he won the opening and the
middlegame and the ending and every maneuver,
or rather that he understood everything better than
anybody else, that he was in full control (at least
intellectually). Kasparov is a chess genius who
is full of himself.

As the result Kasparov contradicts himself
a lot. But who cares? It doesn't mean anything
since it's mostly psychology. Kasparov wants
to have the cake and eat it too, while being
a moral victim EITHER way! (indeed, he had a
chance to be World Champion earlier, thus
posting still a better record in the Guiness book
of the youngest champions; but then he could
lose the match too).

Thus on one hand the match was stopped to save
Karpov who was exhausted (I understand that
Karpov lost a lot of weight and was at the end in poor
shape/health). On the other hand Kasparov wants
also to claim the high level of his final victories.
To this end he has to say something like: oh, NO,
Karpov was not that exhausted, he still played very
strongly but I played extraordinarily well, I played
magnificantly.

Kasparov tries to tell us that Karpov was afraid
of the high level of chess presented by Kasparov
-- this certainly is an explanation which makes
Kasparov look and feel better (otherwise he is
reduced to a poorer than Karpov chess player,
who just has more physical stamina).

Then comes Edward Winter and tells
Kasparov: hey man, you can't have it both
ways--you may be a chess genius but the
standard boolean logic applies to you all the same.

And what's the conclusion? Not much.
All this tells us something about Kasparov
and Winter, while very little about the
termination of the match.

*****

Wlod

help bot

2006-03-11, 5:30 am

I agree with everything in Wlod's last post, but it must be noted
that people like Kasparov are constantly being quoted to demonstrate or
lend support to certain ideas, and rather than dismiss his foibles
lightly, I would suggest noting well that he is very unreliable, and
often self-contradictory.

Hence, when say, Larry Parr or Larry Evans or others quote something
Kasparov has said or written, they are presenting an authority
argument, wherein the "authority" is a chronic liar (substitute
ephemism if preferred).
This happens quite often in the American chess press, and here for
that matter. So it is not so very wise to take the demonstrations of
Kasparov's "inconsistencies" lightly, unless you can also easily
identify (and dismiss) every authority argument as such. Many people
take such arguments quite seriously, never suspecting that the
foundations are constructed upon quicksand. For many, the invocation
of names like Fischer and Kasparov commands great respect -- and this,
the propagandists know all too well.