The following is a quote by Kasparov to Mig Greengard, and published on ChessBase:
[In this match] Kramnik did not expect tough, sharp challenges with white and this was the key for Anand. He kicked some sand in Kramnik’s face and hit Kramnik’s weakness: his conservative approach to the game itself. Suddenly Kramnik had to fight in these sharp positions and he wasn’t able to do it. This result ends the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player. London was a unique occurrence and I still stand with Leonid Yudasin as the only players Kramnik has ever beaten in a match! Kramnik now has some work to do. His overly-defensive play seems to represent a general decline in strength.
A great result for Anand and for chess. Vishy deserved the win in every way and I’m very happy for him. It will not be easy for the younger generation to push him aside.”
Oddly enough, it was Kasparov who picked Kramnik to win this match. C’est la vie!
Kramnik is a top player, but his greatness in match play was really an illusion (as I pointed out many times here before). Kramnik has lost more matches than he has won.
Kasparov seems a bit sore still about his 2000 match loss. Kramnik also beat Topalov (not counting the forfeit) which Kasparov deliberately omitted.
Kasparov says “This result ends the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player”.
I think Kasparov means that he was blinded by this illusion himself.
Kamsky has also beaten Kramnik in a match. Kasparov can eat his words now!
Kamsky has also beaten Kramnik in a match. Kasparov can eat his words now!
Well, I was also rooting for Kramnik before the match….but I was totally amazed about Anands performance. To be sincere, Anand showed a performance that made him look at a way superior league than Kramnik’s. This was not even close after game 3. I think Anand will remain as champion for a while. Now, as a chess fan, there are a couple of things I would like to see now that this match is over:
1. That Anand takes a more pro-active approach to the WCC matches than some of his predecesors did. I would like to see a minimum of at least 1 WCC match per year instead of every 3 years (Kramnik, Alhekine, and Fisher as examples). And at the level Anand is playing….this should be piece of cake for him (I’m sure he will get the sponsors).
2. Topalov needs to stop the whinning in the media and has to start training seriously. Really, I would like to see a closer match for the WCC next year. Another one sided beating wouldn’t be entertaining.
3. That Magnus Carlsen (if he keeps playing the way he is) gets a shot at the title before he gets to be 30. And if for some reason Magnus can’t make it….how about Ivanchuk!!
Kasparov is my all time favorite player. But wasn’t he the one who had handpicked Kramnik to take over the mantle from him. Anand was always known as the Kamakize Kid and that approach seems to have helped him in this match. How Fans will wish he had followed his natural style in 95 match against Kasparov as well.
Kasparov is right – in the last 8 years Kramnik earned his money posing as “the man who beat Garry Kasparov” and apparently was arrogant enough to believe himself in the illusion that he was a great match player playing only 2 matches after 2000 – one draw and one win.
Anand was clearly unhappy with the FIDE favoritism that Kramnik and Topalov enjoyed and now all this is over, the number one ranked player is a World champion in every possible format and this is very good for chess.
Kramnik did sit on his reputation after beating Kasparov and milked it to the fullest. He should have lost the match against Leko but Leko’s nerves failed him in the final game. Kramnik also used this match reputation to explain why he didn’t show superiority in most super tournaments. Kramnik is a great player but has never shown real superiority over his compatriots.
Kasparov seems a bit sore still about his 2000 match loss.
I didn’t take it that way. Not that Kasparov is known for his light-hearted self-effacement, but his comment didn’t strike me as sore or self-aggrandizing in any way.
It took a Kasparov to induce a mess in chess for 15 years and it took an Anand to clean up the mess. Kramnik profited a lot from this mess but now everything looks as fair as it can be.
I didn’t take it that way. Not that Kasparov is known for his light-hearted self-effacement, but his comment didn’t strike me as sore or self-aggrandizing in any way.
Who knows, but believe me Kasparov’s losing to Kramnik is still a sore spot with Kasparov, especially since he never got a return match. Like most champions he should have insisted on one, but who back then thought he would lose.
Kasparov seems to have forgotten that Kramnik beat Topalov in a match. I don’t know if that makes him a great match player, but it’s certainly not true to say that Kasparov and Yudasin are the only people Kramnik has beaten in a match. Actually, he beat Topalov twice, scoring 6 points in 11 Classical Games, and then beating him 2½ out of 4 in a Rapids Match.
There was the forfeit, of course, but it’s a little fatuous to say that an unplayed game is a reflection on Kramnik’s ability as a match player. Especially since Kramnik did in fact win the match.
This message adds little to what we know about Kramnik but tells a lot about Kasparov himself. No wonder he’s so unpopular as a politician.
If it was not for Kramnik hoarding the title in 2000, Anand would have been world champion a long time ago. This proves he is the most superior player of all time and that he would have crushed Garry Kasparov in a match had they been allowed to play one after Kramnik’s luck victory over Kasparov.
I agree with the topalov match win, forfeiting a game with white shouldn’t count as having failed to win the match – especially since he ALSO won the tiebreaks as well as holding a 6-5 score without the forfeit game counting.
So that said Kramnik has 3 match wins under his belt. What Bonn 08 has shown however is that the Kramnik bashers do have a grain of truth in their repetative diatribes about Kramnik’s love of vanilla positions. He needs to learn to love complications and become a more universal player if he is to be strong enough to regain both the WldCH and his top position.
I think this match shows that Kramnik underestimated Anand will and strength.
Of the 11 games they played, I am really surprised that Anand got in my opinion 6 games in his favor, of which he scored 3 ( this includes the last game in which Anand can actually won that game had Kramnik not offered draw ).
Kramnik only got 3 games in favor of him, and he scored 1.
The rest 2 games are real draw (game 1 and 4).
Kasparov (the opportunistic, self-centered, and egotistic hand-picked Kramnik to challenge him and lost. He picked Kramnik to win 2008 championship and was proven wrong. Let’s say, he and the rest of the world, in particular, U.S. Chess Community, never paid Anand his due respect. Now, Anand has his last laugh on all these morons!
What you funny old guys speaking about here? Here is whole results between Kramnik vs Kasparov and Anand vs Kasparov if Kasparov is a measurement to measure an opponents strength here is results! Shut up and look at the result it shows who is Kramnik and who is Anand!
Kasparov won 22 games and lost 21 (just 1 difference!) and drew 79 against Kramnik; but Kasparov won 23 games and only lost 8 (difference is 15 lol) and drew 38 games against Anand! So now what are your comments? Please give attention that Kramnik played 122 games against Kasparov and only back with 1 point
, But Kasparov got +15 score against Anand in just 69 games!
Hey you commenters! Don’t look at sides I am talking about you funny guys who are anti-Kramniks!
Volodya is the best!
Kramnik vs Kasparov: +21 -22 =79 and Anand vs Kasparov: +8 -23 = 38
Statistics say that Kramnik’s 2000 win was not a thing of “luck”! He is the only player could play head to head with Kasparov!