online chess

Online Chess

Share and you will gain!
Funky name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
mattafort 138 ( +1 | -1 )
Polgar, Adams, Bareev, Gelfand and Viktor Korchnoi 5th Enghien-les-Bains Chess Tournament (June 13-22 / FRANCE)

Evgeny Bareev 2734
Michael Adams 2723
Judit Polgar 2715
Vladimir Akopian 2703
Boris Gelfand 2700
Joel Lautier 2666
Teimour Radjabov 2644
Viktor Korchnoi 2632
Laurent Fressinet 2595
Christian Bauer 2582

Round 1 (June 13th)

Akopian, V - Bareev, E 0-1 Caro Kann: classical variation 35 moves
Polgar, J - Adams, M 0.5-0.5 Ruy Lopez: Marshall counter-attack 26 moves
Lautier, J - Fressinet, L 0.5-0.5 QGD Semi-Slav 61 moves
Bauer, C - Radjabov, T 0.5-0.5 Sicilian Defense: Pelikan variation 21 moves
Korchnoi, V - Gelfand, B 0-1 English Opening 40 moves

Round 2 (June 14th)

Bareev, E - Gelfand, B 0.5-0.5 Nimzo Indian: classical variation 33 moves
Radjabov, T - Korchnoi, V 0.5-0.5 QGD Slav defense 41 moves
Fressinet, L - Bauer, C 1-0 Ruy Lopez: Berlin defense 28 moves
Adams, M - Lautier, J 1-0 Sicilian Defense: Taimanov variation 48 moves
Akopian, V - Polgar, J 0-1 English opening 43 moves

Official site:
Info and Games download:
cairo 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks mattafort good information!

Best wishes
buddy2 13 ( +1 | -1 )
Korchnoi question Yea, thanks for info, Mattafort. Does anyone know if Korchnoi lost on time or resignation? It was the40th move. I'm rooting for the old guy.
buddy2 62 ( +1 | -1 )
Answering my own question Found out in Alex Baburin's excellent Chess Today that Korchnoi "probably dropped his flag after making move 40 against Gelfland--he was going to be a pawn down in a rook ending with great drawing chances." And Baburin goes on to say his 40th move shouldn't be included in database. But that doesn't make sense because he dropped his flag AFTER making the move. Not having a first hand account, I don't know what happened, only that Korchnoi has always been a fighter. In his 70's now he might not be among the best, but he'll give anyone a run for their money!
bluebabygirl 30 ( +1 | -1 )
re-- Korchnoi in his 70's is rated 2632 . please name all or any in thier 70's that were above 2600 . Seems a high level to play at being over 70. I too root for him because i think in his younger days he was cheated out of his rightful place in chess history - namely the title . yours bluebabygirl.
cairo 36 ( +1 | -1 )
Viktor Korchnoi was and is a fantastic player and to my knowledge, I do not know of anybody else who at this age has an rating over 2600!!!

Your statement: "i think in his younger days he was cheated out of his rightful place in chess history - namely the title"

Could you be more specific please!

Best wishes
blatman 18 ( +1 | -1 )
short Nigel Short has just made 2700 for the first time in his career. Higher rated than he was in '93 when he challenged Kasparov for the PCA World title,

The Great Blatman
buddy2 18 ( +1 | -1 )
explain yourself Yea, bluebabygirl. Explain yourself. How was Korch cheated out of title? I understand he was beaten by Karpov 16.5-15.5 in the Thrilla in Manila, 1978. Don't get me wrong. I like Korchnoi. He has always been a fighter.
mattafort 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Polgar better than Radjabov ? Final standings.................
1.- Evgeny Bareev 6.5 / 9
2.- Michael Adams 6
3-4 Gelfand, Polgar 5.5
5.- Fressinet 4.5
6.- Bauer 4
7-8 Radjabov, Lautier 3.5
9-10 Akopian, Korchnoi 3
download games..................
buddy2 31 ( +1 | -1 )
Radjabov's Comeuppance I think Polgar's better right now. Radjabov's been cruising on a rep he got blasting Kasparov in one game, the black side of a French at Linares, I believe. he's only a kid. The next time he meets Super K, it'll be a real Donnybrook, and I think he'll get his comeuppance. It reamains to be seen whether he develops into world contender.
bluebabygirl 114 ( +1 | -1 )
to cairo and buddy2 yes the little matter of his family being threatened and held hostage in russia during his match with karpov. he was turned downed when requesting they be granted a visa to exit the country before his match with karpov. the soviet government did this so they could have undue pressure to use on him!!! this is common knowledge --- has been discussed by many top players . believe what you want most do. just tell me again how the soviet government wouldnt do that and how they never interfered to protect thier players how they never tried to use undue influence with FIDE to stop Fischer , how they were the perfect saints when it came to chess and propaganda back then.. after that please tell me another fairy tell,,maybe little red ridinghood!! I study chess history too. too many players nowdays refuse to believe all the info coming out about past bad practices done by the old soviet government . especially one about influence they use on david bronstein to keep thier hero bothead as champion. yours BBG
buddy2 34 ( +1 | -1 )
Korch under pressure Yea, I have no doubt that he was pressured. I'm not naive enough to believe Soviets would stay out of a prestigious championship. On the other hand, I do believe that Karpov was a little stronger (and of course younger) in Manila, and that enabled him to win the match. I don't believe Korchnoi would cave under pressure. He's always been a fighter.
bluebabygirl 57 ( +1 | -1 )
to buddy2 korchnoi lost by one point very close match huh . one point--- guess having his family held hostage and who knows what other threats could make a person decide to throw one game as ordered , never underestimate the power of the soviet government then over fide or its own players as well as other players. I know that if it was me i would have thrown that one game also. look at korchnoi now playing over 2600 rated in his seventies that tells me who was better then . And who was pressured to lose . yours BBG
cuthbert 37 ( +1 | -1 )
mattafort "Polgar better than Radjabov ?"

I hope you just typed the "?" by accident - I'm sure you wanted to type a "!" ;-)

Cuthbert - proud member of Polgars Knights
mattafort 79 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, cuthbert. Should have been "!" Today and so far Judith Polgar is better,
than young Radjabov.
She is actually better than most other players in the World.
Regardless if they are men or women.

Radjabov has a some steps to go, before he reaches
to the level of Experience and Consistency in his play,
that Polgar has.

But why do I put an "?"
See it is a way to leave an opening for discussion
and other opinions.
One thing I have learnt through the years of my life is,
not to be so "deadly sure" in my opinions,
we never know do we?

To be dead sure about things
- belongs to the young, in-mature -
and to rigid persons who always knows "the truth".

Some religious surely belong to this group.
- With God on their side - they're never wrong -

Better stop here, while I am within
some miles from the subject of chess.
buddy2 56 ( +1 | -1 )
beg to differ Beg to differ, Bluebabygirl. Before the match, Korch and Karpov had played 36 times. Karpov won seven, Korch 6, 23 draws. I think that reinforces close result, but Karpov a very slight edge, but enough. Korch is smart enough to know if he did win World Championship, it would provide further leverage with Soviet government, who, as you know didn't like a lot of adverse publicity. In that case, I think they would have just let the family quietly emigrate. By the way, I assume he lives with his family in Switzerland now. Right?
buddy2 56 ( +1 | -1 )
beg to differ Beg to differ, Bluebabygirl. Before the match, Korch and Karpov had played 36 times. Karpov won seven, Korch 6, 23 draws. I think that reinforces close result, but Karpov a very slight edge, but enough. Korch is smart enough to know if he did win World Championship, it would provide further leverage with Soviet government, who, as you know didn't like a lot of adverse publicity. In that case, I think they would have just let the family quietly emigrate. By the way, I assume he lives with his family in Switzerland now. Right?
peppe_l 234 ( +1 | -1 )
Bluebabygirl As usual you love to talk about conspiracies but when someone asks you to give specific information...silence. You study chess history? Then please, share your knowledge. So far your posts have been full of guessing and your own beliefs.

1978 Wch match was played in Baguio, Philippines. Karpov was clear favourite but looking at the games from the match it is easy to see he wasnt playing his best chess (if someone disagrees I assume (s)he has played trough all the games from the match). How much Soviet Union not permitting Korchs family to leave the country influenced his play we dont know. Actually some people who knew Korchnoi believed it only increased his motivation to beat Karpov and therefore made him play stronger than ever. The fact that Korchnoi reached a new peak as a chess player during that time certainly backs up this theory. Nevertheless Karpov won 6-5 (plus 23 draws) and even though Korchnoi has been free to express his views for years, so far he hasnt claimed that he was pressurized to lose. Kinda strange considering the fact that he was willing to mock his fellow Soviets (sometimes for a good reason, sometimes not) in the days when it was extremely dangerous to do so.

BTW we dont even know was the match vs Karpov the reason they werent allowed to leave the country. Korchnoi wasnt the only one who got negative answer to the same question you know...

"look at korchnoi now playing over 2600 rated in his seventies that tells me who was better then . And who was pressured to lose"

How on earth Korchs playing strength now proves he was better than Karpov 25 years ago??? Why cant you compare Karpov & Korchnoi 1978? Oh now I get it - because Karpov had higher rating and more success in recent tournaments. We certainly dont want to think evil Karpov was stronger player, right?

Oh almost forgot, please share your proofs of someone pressurizing Korchnoi to lose.

If you provide some information to back up your theories, we can discuss more about 1978 Karpov vs Korchnoi match - game by game, move by move. I am anxiously waiting for your answer.

PS. You have accused me and several others of bashing Fischer, are you sure you arent bashing Karpov now? :-)
buddy2 31 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe's right My mistake. The match took place in Baguio City, not Manila. I also agree that Karpov had a slight but enduring edge against Korchnoi. Sometimes bad people play good chess. I like Korchnoi and usually root for him. I would have liked him to win the match for personal reasons, but it was not to be...
peppe_l 316 ( +1 | -1 )
I like Karpov Because he played (and still plays!) great positional chess. But I do not believe in this Karpov = evil, Kasparov, Fischer, Korchnoi = good theory. First of all its way too black and white and secondly, most evidence from the past tends to prove Karpov has always been much more fair than people believe. He wasnt responsible of every single bad act by his countrymen, although it is true in many cases he wasnt talking against them (loud enough?) either. But then again Karpov has always been quiet and modest guy, unwilling to cause too much trouble. Actually, to be fair back in 70s very few were willing to cause trouble in his country ;-) All the evidence tends to suggest the impression of Karpov orchestrating evil plots etc is wrong. To give you an example of how evil and ruthless Karpov was, there were some people who caused him trouble in the past (not chess players). All he needed to do was make a quick phone call to give them one-way ticket to Siberia. But it never happened. How about much-discussed decision to cancel the match vs Kasparov in 1984? Karpov spoke against the decision both in public and private meetings, and still some ignorant people accuse him for the decision (that was made and invented by Florencio Campomanes). The funniest one is Kasparov who in the same book uses audio tape to prove the decision to cancel the match was a surprise to Karpov, who was heavily against it (the tape captured his discussion with Campomanes & others) AND claims Karpov was BEHIND the decision to cancel the match! Not very logical, eh? The truth is Soviets werent complaining too much because they believed Karpov was better player than Kasparov and 24-game match was going to be a piece of cake for him. Yes Karpov had power and influence, but when it was his opinion vs opinion of high-ranked Soviet officials, guess what happened? (P.S In behalf of Kasparov he DID talk about some situations where Karpov was defending him vs Soviets)

But I guess there always has to be the bad guy, and who is better choice than boring Karpov from Evil Empire (quote from Reagan)? Becoming champion after Fischer (returning the crown to Soviets) was lucky for him in Soviet Union, where he got lots of privileges other Soviet masters never had. But it was unlucky for him in West, where he had to keep winning tournaments for years before people realized he was one of the greatest champions ever.

I suggest everyone - even (or especially?) you Bluebabygirl - to study Karpov, both his history and games. There are many things to learn...

P.S Buddy2

Good point - it was clear winning the championship in 1978 was Korchs best hope to get his family out of Soviet Union. You are also correct about their record, although I have to point out most of those games were played when Karpov was still relatively inexperienced player and far from the level he reached later on.

But I just realized this is OT discussion, so if anyone (Bluebabygirl?) wants more in-depth discussion about 1978 Baguio match or Karpov/Korchnoi, I guess we have to start a new thread...

bluebabygirl 103 ( +1 | -1 )
to peppe_l I have more important players to study than Karpov-- you study him he is your hero - because he beat Fischer on a forfeit lol. I will study Bronstein, Tal, Keres and the greatest ever Robert j. Fischer!! maybe then I will go to Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand. When i pass 60 I just might consider to study the little cheater Karpov!! I do not think I can put it any stronger to you than that. I also do not care to discuss either Fischer or Korchnoi with you again . You ARE so obviously biased in your support of the old soviet government and all the dirty cheating tricks they used back then, that I really do not care to discuss any with you again. As you seem to deny all bad things they did . It is your loss that you refuse to open your eyes - not mine . thats all no more to say again concerning this . If or when you reply to this take your best shot because it will be a free one , because I will not answer it!! NONE ARE SO BLIND AS THEY THAT REFUSE TO SEE!!! -- bbg
peppe_l 40 ( +1 | -1 )
Where is All the information I was hoping to see? All I see is your usual ranting about Soviets.

Dunno. I value knowledge more than beliefs. Too bad for you it seems to be vice versa.

"I also do not care to discuss either Fischer or Korchnoi with you again"

Because you cant respond to my arguments?


Except they who form opinions before seeking knowledge.

buddy2 58 ( +1 | -1 )
Korch discussion At the risk of beating a dead horse: Many people loathe Fischer; his games are great. Many people love Fischer; his games are great. My point is that you can't decide someone's playing ability on moral grounds. i do understand, however, that some people who have been personally affected by the Soviets do not want to say anything good about one of their own. I am not savvy enough about Karpov's political background. All I know is he plays pretty good chess, enough to whip Kasparov in that recent rapid match in New York.
peppe_l 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Good post, Buddy2 "...Keep his chess career and personality separate"

- Bluebabygirl (talking about Fischer)

I suppose that applies to other players as well?
bluebabygirl 88 ( +1 | -1 )
to peppe OK,, I simply must comment even after saying I would not .One of the big differences between Fischer and Karpov was Karpov had tremendous influence in the communist party and could have had Korchnoi's son released from prison.Fischer couldn't even get himself out of jail. for you to say the imprisonment probably made Korchnoi play better is a new low for you .--you also keep harping on Fischer's lack of longevity. actually he was among the elite for almost 2 decades ,retired for 20 years ,made a sucessful comeback which is unheard of in chess history and most likely to remain so.---------------You also have said one should give more respect to Lasker and his longevity----when was the last time you saw a top ten list without Lasker being on it?? besides longevity isnt so important when a career burns like a comet and then expires such as Morphy,Pillsbury, Charousek and others .--BBG
skeletonkeys 53 ( +1 | -1 )
I'd just like to point out that, while it is obvious that bbg is american, I am shocked to read that peppe is from finland, a country that has (correct me if I am wrong) a deep rooted distrust of russia due to the fact that they have been at war at least once.

so bbg, no disrespect but the following quote from you is unlikely:

"You ARE so obviously biased in your support of the old soviet government"

I think peppe is being very objective in his arguments and you should give them more serious consideration.

baseline 164 ( +1 | -1 )
Objectivity Peppe is far from being objective. Karpov is his hero and he is willing to argue endlessly in Karpov's behalf. The facts are that Karpov and Fischer never held any personal animosity towards each other and had cordial relations on the few times they met and interacted. From their games see can see that they had much in common. Both have been compared to Capablanca. Both could play in a universal style, but both had favored types of positions. For example Fischer preferred the semi-open games resulting from 1.e4 he had a real gift for piece play. Karpov preferred stragetic openings to quote Ljubojevic "nothing much is happening ... then you lose!. Their personal circumstances could not possibly be more different Karpov was a member of the Communist Party the State provided him with a steady income a nice apartment a full time trainer and seconds to work out opening novelties and new middle game stragetys etc. Fischer was from a broken home and depended on chess patrons and tournament prizes to get by. Karpov certainly learned from Fischer's games just as Fischer had learned from from Spassky's games ( don't forget that for most of 60's Spassy was one of the top 2 or 3 players in the world) and Karpov pushed Kasparov to new heights.

Just prior to the the first game in "My 60 Memorable Games" Fischers gives a quote

"On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." - Emanuel Lasker.

I suggest that we all find our truths on the chess board.
peppe_l 334 ( +1 | -1 )
BBG Do you actually read my posts? based on your comments that is not the case.

Now you are saying Karpov was evil because he DIDNT help Korch and his family. We are talking about a man who had offended Karpov several times (I assume you have studied your chess history?). Korch defected and requested Soviet Union to let his family defect as well (I have read his open letter to Brezhnev and I assume you have read it as well). Very few got the permission to leave Soviet Union and it is not surprising that Korchnoi and his family was no exception.

BTW in 1976 nearly all soviet Grandmasters signed a letter that was supposed to denigrate Korchnoi. Two top players refused to sign - Boris Spassky and Anatoly Karpov.

I am not saying Karpov was an angel but all the evidence hints he wasnt nearly as bad as some people believe. You are a good example of a person who chooses what to believe before knowing the facts.

"for you to say the imprisonment probably made Korchnoi play better is a new low for you"

I am merely quoting some of the people who KNEW Korchnoi and were close to him during that period of time. I believe they know more about the subject than me, let alone you.

"You ARE so obviously biased in your support of the old soviet government"

Considering the history of my country this comment is both insulting and a clear proof that you should concentrate more on your schoolwork. Do you even know where Finland is?


Actually there has been more wars, after Finland became independent there were Winter war and Continuation War.


Karpov is not my hero, no chess player is. And if you claim I am not objective I would appreciate you pointing out where exactly I wasnt objective...

After your claim you give a good explanation about Karpov and Fischer as chess players. The strange thing is we have already discussed about their playing styles in previous threads and pretty much agreed on everything you wrote here...? For example the (rather obvious) fact that Karpov learned from Fischer was pointed out by me in thread where I posted a quote from Karpovs book.

P.S I like the fact that you mentioned Fischer & Capablanca, for some reason many folks compare Fischer to players like Tal...and that is completely wrong. Fischer was logical and objective player, he rarely sacrificed material for unclear compensation. In fact he was often willing to grab a pawn, defend accurately and win the endgame. Not everyone knows one of his favourite champions - maybe even THE favourite champion - was Steinitz. The difference between Capablanca and Fischer had sharper and more scientific playing style. I believe Karpov was a bit more pragmatical than Fischer, less scientific. Plus of course his style was more quiet and positional, more safe...

"The facts are that Karpov and Fischer never held any personal animosity towards each other and had cordial relations on the few times they met and interacted"

I have to admit I dont have all the info concerning the times they actually met so I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me a bit here...? I do know they met few times and got along well though.

PS. I assume you are only referring to the period before Fischer quit his chess career? We all know what he has to say about Karpov & Kasparov nowadays...

baseline 91 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe Your actions speak louder than your words. The way you always defend Karpov and tout his chess prowess is proof enough that you (if hero worship is a bit too strong, then) greatly admire him. I have to admit I admire his play as well. I don't think I would say Karpov was less scientific, his technical precision was astounding. I think the real differences are in style. Fischer was a great attacker, but only (as Steintz taught) when the position called for it, it is intresting that I have played through some fine attacking games of Karpov's.

We all know about what Fischer has said in his few unfortunate media out burst, but do we really know what he thinks? and should we? Karpov has always had a good media presence very political correct but do we know what he really thinks? and should we? We have their games and that is more than enough for me.
peppe_l 193 ( +1 | -1 )
You know "The way you always defend Karpov and tout his chess prowess is..."

But the real question is have I ever exeggerated his playing strength or chess prowess? Honestly, can you find such quote from my posts? If you can, fine. I am willing to admit it if I have exeggarated. But if not, please dont accuse me for the lack of objectivity just because I happen like his chess. Always defend Karpov? Most of such posts have been responses to people who clearly underestimate his playing strength or mock him undeservingly, and yes - sometimes to the people who see Fischer as a chess demi-god who was and always will be 1000 times stronger than Karpov (or Kasparov, or Kramnik) ever was.

The reason I often end up defending Karpov is because lots of people who dont know much about his career keep mocking him. Just look at posts in this forum and tell me how usual Karpov worshipping is compared to Fischer worshipping. Both were great chess players but why only one of these two champions gets all the praise (as a chess player) he deserves - and even more?

Greatly admire him? Hmm...fair enough, IF we are talking about him as a chess player, not as a person. Personality-wise I like folks like Tal a lot more than Karpov, who I see as more or less neutral person (not Evil Karpov some folks keep talking about).

My comment of Karpov being more pragmatic was not at all about attacking vs technical play. What I meant was...for example Fischer was more willing to spend lots time and effort for choosing the absolutely best move, whereas Karpov was more willing to save time or energy by choosing moves that were "good enough" :-) Also, it is well known Fischer studied a lot harder than Karpov, who in his book revealed that 3 hours per day was his goal. Compared to workaholic Fischer that sounds almost like laziness to me :-)