Do you like Kramnik’s style? Can you appreciate his approach to chess?
I certainly appreciate and learn from his game. But it seems that many think that it is unexciting.
Will he hold Fritz to 6 draws?
Will it be 1 win each and 4 draws?
What do you think? 
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Our world’s hunger for “exitement” “action” etc. is, to say the least, rather superficial.
The real beauty lays in the truth, even if, or maybe especially if, the thruth is a pragmatic, sportive approach. There is a deep link between positional chess and pragmatism. As soon as i understood that i considered even a Patzer as me a positional player (results increased significantly!).
Surely this first game against Deep Fritz was very dull. But maybe that is what you have to do against such a calculation monster.
Kramnik´s style against human opponents is very subtile and outstanding fine chess. Surely games from Topalov, Polgar or Morosevic are more spectacular but nevertheless I enjoy to watch Kramnik preceise play, especially his endgames.
It’s an exciting style as any style performed in a way to become a world champion. It means it contains enough finesse or poison to be a deadly weapon, performed to (human) perfection, at least of this moment in time.
I think Kramnik will loose from Fritz if he can’t avoid tactics in one game. Fritz won’t fail ion that department, where a human did in e.g. the first part of the Kramnik-Topalov match.
The people Kramnik shakes hands with are making headlines with multi murder accusations. All the leading TV and News Papers are full with headline reports. It brings a dark cloud on Kramnik and world chess does not need his kind no matter how good ?? his chess is. Chess Players from around the world should distance themself from him and his Murdering Thugs
I sincerely think that Kramnik is the most powerful match player of all time. He had beaten Kasparov very convincingly (no wins for Kasparov), defended his title against one of the finest player on eart (Leko) and finally, he outplayed Topalov both in classical and rapid matches. He lost a match against Shirov but he improved a lot from that time.
The problem here is Fritz is not the strongest chess program. Rybka is the best program by a large margin :
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20BestVersion/rangliste.html
I really don’t like this guy after his (and Garry’s) ignored behavior to Shirov in ”no-sponsors-bulls…” talk. Their match was the biggest injustice ever and he had no problems to take Shirov’s place and play it.
I don’t like his style neither but it’s just because I prefer some different kind of play. Some people like Mozart, some people like Springsteen:-)
Arlauk
The photo of Kamnik shows a sad lost forlorn lost soul look as there is no future for him. His only hope is to defect and do it now. The reveal the truth of how he got cought in a black web.
Kramnik is usually described as being logical and having a ‘deep positional understanding’ of chess. I personally don’t have a problem with this at all. In fact, it’s one of the things I like about him.
As an improving player Kramnik’s games are more useful to me than the games of ‘attacking’ super-GMs because of his playing style.
To me, as an improving player, I treat the moves of the best players to be an example of ‘best play’. However I often see players (more on the 2350-2550 level) make moves that look completely illogical to me. The game that Judit lost at Essent (I know the sac was theory but I still don’t like it) is one example of the sort of moves that ‘attacking’ players make that are not useful to players looking to improve their game. Kramnik on the other hand tries to out-manuever his opponent’s using his superior positional understanding to beat them over the board – this makes sense to me. It is possible to learn from his games, from the first move to the last.
Kramnik once said that the Evans gambit makes sense to him and the King’s gambit doesn’t. Although I am much weaker than he is I feel the same way, so he is helpful to me. To people who have a highly tactical/psychological style of playing chess or who are not interested in learning from watching master games he might be boring and irrelevant but to players who work evenly on tactics, endgames and positional play he is a wonderful example.
I love Kramnik’s games.
Shirov is a fine player but I don’t think he can claim to be superiour to Kramnik or Toalov or Svidler or even Leko (infact I think that at least the top 5 are just that bit better …) – his performance is not stable, he did play a great turnament this year but in the most recent one (Tals memorial) his peformance was lacking a lot … I enjoy his games and admire his tactical and positional abilities (even though he is mostly considered a tactitian his positional skils are also awesome). He himself said that it was dissapointing that he culdn’t have played Kasparov, but he at least had his best achivments against the former fide champion Topalov (the best endgame and probably the best midlegame (sicilian swesnikov) were played againt the world n#1 in ranking …
*I liked Kramniks game againt Fritz even if fritz is not the best engine comparing Kramnik against Rybka wuld be probably the same, because of the way both engines are build I think Fritz might have an upper hand when it comes to Comp vs Human matches. Rybka is designed so it doesn’t calculate millions of lines but only piks up the best 10% and goes from them – if you compare this to Fritz youll find that fritz explores abot 12x more posibilities then Rybka – making him a bit more powerful when it comes to tactics (but slowe when it comes to calculating in depth) – and this is the main point of playing against a human – to see if the tactical strenght is enough to win the match or not!
D.K.
P.S. I forgot this – Fritz 10 was specificaly build to play against humans (ok they ofcourse had in mind copm vs copm play also but …) -> if you look at how he spends his time, lets say that you were to make a 12 game match against rybka – you’ll find out that Fritz spends a lot of time in the begining of the game and leaves himself relatively little time to reach move 40 – this is a good tactic when it comes to play agains humans because the computer evaluatin is most likely to error in the begining stages – and the first game againt Kramnik proved just that! Fritz 10 liked his position a lot in the begining of the game his evaluation was =/+ at some point so he thought he had a slight advantage …
D.K.
No I don’t like Kramnik’s style, its boring and not very agressive. I much prefer Topalov.
Btw players these days aren’t that good anymore, all pretty much the same. Most of them play the same openings.
Kramnik’s photo is scaring me just a little.
At this point of time (Kramnik playing against Fritz) it is definitely not the time for Kramnik to play an exciting, interesting, attacking chess. He knows what most of us knows, that there has to be a special strategy to beat the best computer programs. And that is not going in with full blast and trying to wipe the computer off the board. That no longer works.
Even for me (a very lousy chess player) it seemed obvious that Kramnik played for a draw from the very beginning. And it seems and obvious strategy. Play for draw and if the computer “slips” take advantage of that and try to win. This is likely to lead to most games to be drawn, and perhaps one Kramnik win or one Fritz win. If it will be one Kramnik win first, the rest will be drawn for sure. If Fritz wins first, then it maybe a totally different story, hence Kramnik will have no choice but try to win from the beginning.
Some gut feeling suggests to me that there will be 5 draws and 1 Kramnik wins.
Gabor
“People like to believe that the truth is beautiful, and the beautiful true. Alas! Truth seldom dresses in fine garb,” — Emanuel Lasker.
I rather like Petrosian, Karpov, Spassky style a lot more than Cram-nick
I think we can learn from players of all styles. Petrosian’s games certainly aren’t my style, but I can still get something from them. Kramnik strikes me as similar: first secure the draw, then, if possible, get the win.
Yes, I indeed dislike Kramnik’s style.
This style of playing on a world champions level should be abolished by law.
as an endgame lover i like kramniks style (lot’s of analysis to do 🙂 )- by my experience – most “boring chess players” are tactical wizards (often seen in blitz or rapid games) – that makes it very difficult to beat them – no tactical weakness – great positional understanding – and monsters in the endgame …
(what a pity that there is an opening before the middlegame can be transformed to an endgame … LOL – this fact – and my laziness to learn openings systematically – doomed me to be a patzer. however, i accepted my fate!)
As I said before,Kramnik will loose the match.
No all draws,or one win for each side.Probably,4:2 for Fritzy.
Kramnik can’t win a single game against 18 ply deep engine and good program like Fritz 10.
OTOH,Kramnik will probably make at least one single mistake which is enough for computer to crash his defense down
I am just an amateur chess player but I have a lot of Master, IM and GM friends. What they told me about this match and Kramnik is this: Fritz 10 is such a tactical monster you are not going to get it in that matter. Also, because of this strength, Fritz 10 will play an extremely solid game with no weaknesses and the only way to defeat it would be by some long range strategy which go beyond the computer’s horizon of analysis. And it is here where they say Kramnik excels, he also is tactically very strong and rarely leaves himself open to tactical shots albeit First two games of Topalov match notwithstanding. I think Kasparov in an interview before the Topalov match said Kramnik is a very deep chessic knowledge player and he should know, he lost the World Championship Crown to him! All this said to answer Susan’s query, YES I appreciate his style and without Rybka’s assistance would not understand his games at all!
I absolutely admire Kramnik for his class of playing. The talk of “exciting”, “interesting”, etc. is completely subjective. What I find exciting, others may find boring, and vice versa. He deserves respect and admiration. Everything else is not really important.
Kramnik’s style is very solid he takes absolutely no risks and works on a samll positional advantage. There is a game where he draws with a rook and bishop vs a Queen against Karjakin (regarded as one of his best games) it ends in a draw. I was impressed with his endgame technique. Chess moves in Ssyles Capablanca Vs Alekine. Kasparov now Kramnik. I think he is a worthy champion and is supreme in match play. I can’t see him being beaten in a match for many years to come. Tactical players will have a hard time against him and he reminds me of Petrosian. He grinds players down in match player. If FIDE goe back to matches for world championship he would be champion for at least a decade. Also he plays the man as well as the board. He studies his oppenents and works out their weakness and plays on them. To beat Kasparov and not get beaten in match play is pretty good. The only thing that is an impediment is his health.
ANSWER TO:
“The photo of Kramnik shows a sad lost…”
In case you haven’t noticed, he is in his future and it is brilliant!
3 Hoorays for the King of Chess!!!
Kramnik style is good and okay…
No probem with it…
But with his style he is no Karpov or Capablanca…
and can he play e4?
After his match at Bahrain he was playing poorly and did little for chess on the board or outside the board. Even his draw with Leko was lucky.
Maybe after his championship (topolov n fritz) the real Kramnik will stand up(I doubt it).
Dear Susan,
Kramnik is my favourite Chess Champ and it doesn’t seem to me he is a boring player! He is a good attacker and also a Risk- Taker; for example when he tries to coordinate the two rooks ( or the two bishops ) in different attacking patterns.
As far as it concerns the Duel vs. Machine, I think Deep Fritz will blunder ( Kramnik – Computer 3-2 )
Flavio Weis ( Black-Bishop )
Kramnik’s style?
What is most important is that he plays the style he is the best at and the most comfortable with.
Kramnik’s opponents need to develop a strategy designed to lead him away from his strengths, much alike Alekhine did vs Capablanca in their 1927 World title match.
You can do it…I know you can…
I hope he comes up with a book that covers his best games including the matches with Kasparov, Topalov and Fritz.
Kramnik will come in the history books as the first person in the world who uses a toilet equipped with internet (UTP-8) cable.
Dear Susan, I don’t consider Kramnik as a very great champion. He is an excellent defender but the result is that his matches are ending most of the time in draws ! But the purpose of chess is to “win” !!! For me really great champions were Fischer, Tal and Kasparov. And in the past of course Morphy, Alekhine and Capablanca. And for women of course your sister Judit Polgar ! I prefer the style of “attacking” players. So,I hope there will come soon a new world champion. Perhaps Carlsen or (I hope) Judit ! René