I’d love to see him return to competition. Chess hasn’t been nearly as interesting without Kasparov. He’s the guy that motivated me to start playing seriously in a chess club at college.
The trip to South Africa was to launch a branch of Kasparov’s Chess Foundation there.
Sadly I can’t see a chess comeback happening.
Since 2006 he hasn’t played a tournament (and that was blitz) and only a few exhibition matches.
He has recently coached some of the World’s leading players - but even that counts against a comeback since they may have seen some of his legendary opening preparation.
He’s been active in Russian politics for years. (Personally I think it’s rather ‘dodgy’ to go up against Putin. :eek:)
Probably the greatest ever chess player…
That must be one heck of an 11-year-old, to manage to draw against Kasparov.
glee and others who know better, would it be accurate to say that Kasparov’s greatest strength was the psychological angle, of being able to get inside his opponent’s head? I mean, obviously, he’s excellent at all aspects of the game, but it seemed to me that it was the psychology that put him above all of the other grandmasters who excel at all aspects of the game.
Nah, Kasparov wasn’t trying. 
(The publicity from “Kasparov beats kid” is zero.)
Kasparov’s greatest strengths were:
- natural talent
- starting early
- working hard (he used to spend a month on an island each year just analysing openings and his opponent’s games)
- determination not to lose (see World Championship matches v Karpov)
I don’t know if psychology plays much part in chess. You can choose an opening your opponent is unfamiliar with, but chess is about calculation. (It’s not poker - there’s no bluffing.)
It’s obviously not poker, but if you can figure out which lines your opponent is considering, and what he’s planning, it can make it easier to counter. Likewise, some players will be better at preventing their opponent from figuring that out.
I have occasionally worked out what move was coming by seeing which square my opponent was looking at - but this only appplies to inexperienced players.
I’m a Master and try to see 2-4 moves ahead (for both sides). (1)
When I play International Masters (IM) and Grandmasters (GM), they have several advantages:
- they see a move or two further
- they have more experience of various middle-game positions (2)
- they are full-time (and are motivated to work hard as it’s their job!)
(1) You hear claims about players ‘seeing many moves ahead’. These are usually from commentators, not players.
I’m not expecting any surprises in the next 2-4 moves when I settle on my move. (Usually I’m doing well when my forecast actually happens.)
(2) In a recent game as White, I played a4 in this Ruy Lopez-like position:
I don’t play the opening much, but I knew a4 was an idea and played it.
My GM opponent told me afterwards that in this variation a4 weakens the b3 square. (He knew that because he’d played and analysed many, many games in the Ruy.)
Even if I saw him looking at b3, it’s not going to help. (The weakness didn’t appear for several moves.)
This is an example of the depth of knowledge that professional players have.
In my game v Zombywoof:
we have a position I’ve studied a lot (and played for both White and Black.)
Again it doesn’t matter what Zombywoof does or what he thinks I’m planning, because he simply doesn’t know what I know (if you see what I mean.)
In an exhibition, it’s tradition to draw the youngest/lowest rated/most starstruck player. It turns an 11-yr old with an interest in chess into a 20-yr old with a lifetime obsession.
I’d say Kaspy’s greatest strength is not his ability to get into other’s heads, but to get into his own head. Understanding your own weaknesses and being able to control your emotions is a big part of top-flight chess. Kaspy spent a lot of time talking about this in his recent book, “How Life Imitates Chess: Making the Right Moves, from the Board to the Boardroom.”
In the infamous Kasparov-Karpov world championship match, Kaspy fell behind 4-0. He says his nerves were getting in the way, and so he forced himself to relax. Then they played to 17 draws. Both men were exhausted. Kasparov would join his teammates in the hotel room every day to analyze and re-analyze their games to find some sort of weakness. But after the 17th draw, they just drank, played cards, and went to bed early, figuring that there was nothing left to study that they hadn’t already beat to death. The next day, a clear-headed, calm, well-rested Kasparov won the championship.
Psychology can play a big part.
For example, knowledge of your opponent’s strength, playing style etc can influence decisions. Do they prefer closed games? Will they avoid mainline theory? Do they appear intimidated by you? etc
And within chess tactics there are psychological factors e.g. Gambits often work because people will convince themselves that they are winning and will fight to preserve their advantage, even as alarm bells should ring.
and e.g. If my opponent is in time trouble, I look for moves that will force them move a piece backwards. People hate to do this, even where the piece has much more scope on the backward square.
I’ve been rereading a bunch in Kasparov’s “My Great Predecessors” series, including the recent “Kasparov on Kasparov”, and there’s absolutely no doubt, based on his comments, that psychology can play a big part - not just in choice of openings, but in choice of playing style and even behavior away from the 64 squares.
As for his strengths, like a lot of great players he seems to grasp both positional play and tactics very well. He is also IMO the first of the “Botvinnik School” of grandmasters who understood how to make the transition to using a computer for analysis, and that helped extend his reign as champion.
Finally, like Fischer, he didn’t fall into the “white to win, black to draw” mindset that a lot of tournament GMs did. I don’t recall specific dates from chess all that well, but “Linares 1999” will always stick in my head as one of the greatest exhibitions with the black pieces in the history of chess.
I do, but I think it’s something you simply have to experience yourself to really see. I’ve only been playing since last summer, and I’m not horrible (unless you put me on a timer), but I’ve recently been playing a lot of games against people who both as good as I am or better (a few of them far better) at calculation and planning, and – and this is important – substantially more experienced.
Just as the most recent example, someone played the Pirc against me, a defense I’ve never seen before. I played my bishop to the wrong tile in the opening and was caught by a pawn fork shortly afterwards. My opponent actually misplayed it so that material wound up even despite my blunder, but I don’t think I played a non-defensive move after that for the rest of the game, and was handily defeated.
Now the mistake I made could have been calculated by me. Playing it was an avoidable mistake. But the thing is, he didn’t have to calculate it, for his part. He already knew it was bad and why (despite that he rushed and misplayed – probably hadn’t seen someone actually screw that up in ages!).
There’s too much to calculate in chess, and always too many threats to face them all at once, if you’re opponent’s any good at all. Some things you just need to know.
I feel like I must be misunderstanding this because it feels small to me.
It seems glee is using the term “calculate” in a slightly different way from the way most chess commentators do (but an equally valid way).
In a game you need to calculate different lines and it helps to be able to calculate far ahead. In an endgame, masters can talk of calculating 10, 20 or more moves ahead (but really, it’s seldom necessary to calculate each individual move in that sequence).
But in a typical middlegame position, while you can calculate various lines out you can’t be sure which line is actually going to be played.
glee is saying that (s)he is pretty confident of what the next 2-4 moves are actually going to be. This implies glee is pretty good at calculating – to see what the most promising line is – but also that his/her opponents are also typically strong enough to see that line.
Wasn’t there a famous chess player who said something like “I only see one move ahead, but it’s the best move”?
Edit: “I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one. – Jose R. Capablanca”
This ia reasonably true in club chess, but none of the above applies to Kasparov (or indeed at international level.)
I remember watching Alexander Morozevich play for my club (he was rated around the top 10 in the World at the time.)
In the first game he played a sacrificial attack against a strong IM (giving up a rook for an exciting win.)
In the second he delicately won an ending against a GM.
Well first of all that means you need to amend your point to being “I don’t know if psychology plays much part in chess above club level”. Club level chess is still chess.
But in any case, we can ask whether there are psychological elements in the game at the advanced level. And of course, many IMs and GMs detail in length that there are.
If you read the thread, my ‘point’ was in answer to:
Chronos asked if psychology was Kasparov’s greatest strength, not if it plays some part in club chess.
if you would like to discuss psychology in all forms of chess in a new thread, I’d be happy to do so. (I have a copy of ‘Psychology in Chess’ by Krogius, who coached Boris Spassky.)
This is very true!
For example, in the late middle-game, you may have a choice of keeping pieces on or exchanging off into an ending.
If you already know the likely result of the ending, you save a huge amount of time (and make a better decision.)
Erislover, players do see less far ahead than the popular myth of seeing far ahead.
However the idea is that you are very accurate with your 2-4 moves - and have avoided blunders in all variations.
If you understand the position (perhaps have played similar ones before) and know whether it’s more tactical or strategic, then you should be confident in your analysis.
Mijin, I agree that you need to calculate ahead, but I start by instinctively selecting a handful of moves for myself (say 1-4) as the only possibilities I will look at. Then for each of those, there are probably only 1-4 replies to consider and so on.
Even cutting down this much still means a lot of work, so I will stick with my 2-4 move limit.
I have calculated 10 moves ahead in a King and pawn ending, but I would be interested to see examples of Masters calculating 20 moves ahead…
Now I’m semi-retired, most of my opponents are 2000 - 2200 ELO (with the occasional 2400.
P.S. I’m a he!
Here’s an example of how I analyse, from my game with Zombywoof in another thread.
This is the game position
I decided to play 10. … Be7 as generally:
- it developed a piece
- it prepared castling
- it kept my co-ordination
My selection of White’s likely replies was:
(a) g4
(b) Nc3
(c) Nbd2
(d) Na3
(e) Qd3
and my specific analysis of each was:
-
g4 Nh4 12. Nxh4 Bxh4, when the d4 pawn is still under pressure and White’s king-side pawns might become weak
-
Nc3 Ncxd4 winning a pawn e.g. after 12. Na4 Nxf3+ 13. Bxf3 Bxa4 14. bxa4
(or a piece after 12. Nxd5? Nxf3+ 13. Bxf3 exd5) -
Nbd2 - same winning a pawn variations as with Nc3
-
Na3 Nfxd4 and now
-
Nxd4 Bxa3 13. Bxa3 Qxd4 (I’ve won a pawn and unless White exchanges Queens, I win another)
-
Nxd4 Bxa3 13. Nxc6 Bxb2 14. Rb1 bxc6 15. Rxb2 (I’m a strong central passed pawn ahead)
-
Qd3 Rc8 and if 12. Nbd2 (the point of Qd3) Nb4 13. Qb1 Nc2 and Black wins the exchange.
As you can see, I’ve only looked up to 4 moves ahead (for each side) in a few selected variations, but I’m confident that I’ve ‘seen everything’. This is because:
- I’ve played these positions for both White and Black before
- it’s a blocked position, so the tactics are limited
I am not a strong chess player, unfortunately. I am a decent amateur at go, and in go seeing only 2-4 moves ahead is kind of unthinkable after a certain level, you’ve got to read much further ahead than this. Perhaps go players are very aware of tactical lines and so only have a few strategic moves to consider… deep, but not wide. It is not an exaggeration to say I have read over ten moves ahead in some games. But I think chess has far less commonly accepted tactical lines than go so adjusting for this, the comparison is probably correct.