Kasparov on how Kramnik defeated him at World Chess Championship 2000

Follow us on Twitter :)
intent/user?scree...
From the video Garry Kasparov on "Achieving your potential"
Hey Guys,
if you enjoy more chess content don't forget to subscribe to the channel and follow us on Twitter!
THANK YOU! 😃
Stay tuned!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Website ▶️: www.chessgratis.com
Twitter ▶️: / chessgratis
Lichess ▶️: lichess.org/@/MANTEDARIO89
Twitch ▶️: / chessprogress89
#kasparov #kramnik

[@troywakefield9250]

My right ear enjoyed this

[@chessgratiscom660]

:) I believe we have to mix the sound!

[@synchronium24]

It's fixed now.

[@ReinaldosChessLessons]

It’s cause of the mic being on that side.

[@nukmanub3426]

@@ReinaldosChessLessons nope.

[@hitheshs1990]

@@ReinaldosChessLessons 😂

[@erikthehalfabee6234]

Surprisingly honest and modest for Kasparov's standards

[@anderseriksson6445]

He did balance it up in style by suggesting that he had possibly had the greatest winning streak in the history of chess prior to the match.

[@vibovitold]

@@anderseriksson6445 but this part is objectively true, I think. he had had the longest unbeaten streak (only later surpassed by Carlsen.. also in terms of consecutive tournament victories - this record still stands, I believe.

[@JackConners123]

Why should he be modest? He is the greatest in history, and if not greatest definitely among TOP 3.

[@asetr3w45]

@@JackConners123 its not bragging if you can back it up

[@kasparov9]

@@vibovitold Sure does, he won 15 tournaments in a row from 1981 to 1991 a record. Followed by 10 tournaments in a row up to Linares 2002, which is what he's referring to.

[@EclecticSceptic]

There are people who won't be satisfied until Kasparov gets down on his knees and flagellates himself for being the longest reigning chess world champion. He is a champion, why should he flinch from stating his achievements? He earned them.

[@faitesattention5547]

Laskar reigned the longest

[@EclecticSceptic]

@@faitesattention5547 Fair enough, you get my point though

[@Tsukuyomi8]

The years Lasker reigned were highly uncompetitive and unofficial...the Kasparov and Alekhine reigns were far more difficult to maintain

[@dominusdone5023]

@@faitesattention5547 laskars barely had competition

[@mistermonologue2442]

Lol there you guys go comparing two different ages of chess again. The strength of the chess world only rises. It is never fair to the masters of the past when looking back.

[@synchronium24]

For those who don't know, Kramnik ressurrected the now-popular Berlin Defense for this match, leading to a queenless middlegame. Kasparov can be quite a ferocious attacker even without a queen, but there are other elements of the position that are very solid for black.

[@stagna1959]

Noone twisted his hand to play Ruy Lopez 5 times with white pieces . He could choose something else. But he was stubborn to bang his head against Berlin wall / Kramnik wall . Well, the wall stood like a rock and he finished with bloody head(ache) and loss of the title .

[@synchronium24]

@@stagna1959 yes sir

[@nuwandalton]

@@stagna1959 That was part of the strategy, too. Kasparov was Botvinnik's pupil through and through. He HAD to demonstrate his ideas were better. Principled to the death... Kramnik is an outstanding psychologist, he sensed that. He even managed to lure Kasparov into Nimzo-Indian territory. An opening Kasparov was known to handle "poorly".

[@benoitvermot-desroches6774]

Only draws were made by Kapsarov against the Berlin, no losses. He even agreed to a draw after 11 moves in one of his games with the white pieces...

[@nuwandalton]

@@benoitvermot-desroches6774 The 11-move was an English, wasn't it?

[@vibovitold]

Nothing indicated Kramnik had a remote chance of beating Kasparov in 2000. A lesson worth remembering for those who seem 100% confident Carlsen would have had another WC title in the bag if he hadn't forfeited it.

[@clivethereddevil3178]

Kasparov won at Linares, Sarajevo, Wijk aan Zee and Frankfurt in 1999 with chess of the highest quality.

[@kasparov9]

He won 10 Super Tournaments in a row up to Linares 2002

[@tennisblood]

You forgot, Antwerpian, St. Petersburg, Tomsk, Kansas City, Miami, Tampa, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, London, Paris, Lisbon,....

[@Matthew-bu7fg]

a match between Kasparov at his peak and Magnus now would be the match to end all matches

[@vibovitold]

​@@Matthew-bu7fg Kasparov at his peak would need to catch up to 21st century opening theory first, study Carlsen's games etc. it would be very tough nevertheless. Kramnik described Carlsen as an "improved Karpov", and as we know, Kasparov only had a lifelong narrow margin over Karpov (in classics it's +28 =119 -20, so a performance of 52%). Karpov was also frail and he would get exhausted in long matches - as evidenced by their encounter in 1984, this was his weakness. Carlsen OTOH has an etremely strong nervous system. my money would still be on Carlsen, although i wouldn't bet the farm on it, and i do prefer Kasparov's style.

[@marcuspoosz2190]

his english is so fantastic

[@TheRausing1]

He speaks more eloquently than most native English speakers.

[@hrishantaswani8055]

Idk how he does it. Russian is completely opposite from English which makes speaking both languages very hard, forget speaking both well

[@vibovitold]

@@hrishantaswani8055 if you think Kasparov speaks well, listen to his compatriot Svidler...

[@watasiblah]

Kramnik was a monster at his peak. his finest brilliance lies in positional understanding. obviously Kramnik felt the Berlin offer the least tactical nuisances, which is where Kasparov strive.

[@zaka2630]

Interesting...

[@dollishillwork]

Likewise, back in 1927, Capablanca the favourite at the time, underestimated Alekhine and lost. Never to get a chance for revenge again. Kasparov though did retire of his own volition.

[@user-eg8ou4oi8l]

Vladimir Kramnik too was capable of incredible, exhaustive calculations.

[@EGarrett01]

Capablanca also had his greatest upset in the year when he was the most dominant.

[@arkos1179]

exactly if they both got a rematch they both would have won

[@arshupadhyaya]

@@arkos1179 not capablanca, he was too old and alekhine was too strong

[@arkos1179]

@@arshupadhyaya when they played after the WC , capa won

[@dannygjk]

@@arshupadhyaya Read about how Alekhine studied Capas games and what match strategy he decided to use.

[@bearcb]

@@arshupadhyaya Capablanca was overconfident, bored with chess, and banging an Argentinian ballerina during the match. It’s not without reason Alekhine never conceded a rematch, he knew he would not catch Capablanca off guard a second time.

[@adamhasson8927]

thank you for this

[@RPM2801]

Kasparov GOAT

[@martm216]

Very impressive guy.

[@musical_lolu4811]

And thus began the legacy of the berlin wall.

[@chubychops]

Very well said

[@tomasramos5840]

Amazing

[@sidjdykakjskdnejdif2891]

Please share more like these kind of videos like interviews and like this. At the same time I wonder how did not it got copyrighted you got permission or something ?

[@hosiahjones]

Refreshing to hear such humble statements by the #2 greatest player of all time.

[@danielthehyperboy1]

Kasparov is still greater!

[@classix568]

So basically Kramnik defeated him

[@MrCapsMan]

Yes, due to employing the Berlin Defense, which 20 years later, is still nearly unbeatable.

[@jamiewinter2134]

haha yeah feel like the "how" in the title does not really live up to it's promises :D

[@worlds22]

@@jamiewinter2134 It actually does, he does not mention it's name but he emphasizes the fact that preparation against Kasparov was so important for Kramnik and he was so analytic and hard-working on the subject. Thanks to that dedication, Kramnik invented one of the best (if not the best) openings for black in the game of chess.

[@dannygjk]

@@worlds22 Do you think Kramnik invented the Berlin defense to the Ruy Lopez?

[@worlds22]

@@dannygjk Excuse me for my bad phrasing of what I meant, the opening was already invented but it was Kramnik who transformed it to the opening as we know today. Also the opening is probably the most popular opening today, again thanks to Kramnik and his success against Kasparov with Berlin.

[@tudorm6838]

Even more disastrous was the beginning of the first match with Karpov. But Kasparov learned to persevere and adapt. From 0-4, he reached 3-5. Of course, it was a different rules match: you needed six wins to win. With the rules from 2000, Karpov would have won the first match. With the rules of the 80s, Krammnik probably wouldn't have won. It is a bit like the story of the Capablanca Alehin match.

[@dordiwesterlund2528]

It was not only the Berlin. Look at the Grunfeld game that Kasparov lost. He was pushed off the board.

[@tennisblood]

Of course he was, just like in Somu wrestling, the man with a higher weight (Kramnik) wins....

[@Musicrafter12]

I think Game 2 was one of the key reasons Kasparov decided to eventually abandon the Grunfeld. He did keep playing it for another year or two, but then switched to more solid defenses. The only top GM insane enough to continue to relentlessly torture himself with the minefield of tightrope-walking theory and litany of novelties and resulting bad positions one must save that is the Grunfeld today, is MVL. Kasparov had fully intended to make the Grunfeld his main weapon in the match, I think, since it was also his main weapon in most other situations ever since he had given up the King's Indian. Kasparov really was out-prepared. He probably had a ton of novelties up his sleeve for combating the Sveshnikov or the Petrov defenses, which were what Kramnik was usually playing at the time. He also had probably prepared pretty extensively in the Grunfeld. But then he was dragged into fresh territory in Game 1 where his old workhorse the Ruy Lopez was effectively neutralized, and in Game 2 his Grunfeld immediately failed him. He was left essentially completely unprepared for the match after that.

[@user-eg8ou4oi8l]

I can also play chess at a low level. With a LIVE score of around 2000. I also analyzed games... That amount of analysis what Kasparov and other grandmasters did is a very large amount.

[@ReinaldosChessLessons]

Maybe if they put a mic on his other side

[@PChessChannel]

Legend..👍

[@user-eg8ou4oi8l]

He (Kasparov) himself said in an interview that he achieved more success in chess than he would have liked.

[@basehead617]

what year is this talk from? 2005 ish?

[@schizoframia4874]

His voice is so high pitched

[@oghenetegaesedere2082]

Where can I get the full speech?

[@pk-fi1ok]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIG3YamdlK-fbrM

[@DarchrowTheEnigma]

I think my left ear is deaf. Or I dropped it somewhere cause I cant hear Garry from that side.

[@erikskov8759]

It came as a chok to me. What about you guys?

[@dufasaurjoe2899]

An important issue is that a some point the bots start to dominate. How much of the Berlin defense that Kasparov was unable to defeat was in fact developed by a bot. Chess after AI is not the same as before.

[@geometricart7851]

Everyone has access to them. So if you get toasted thank your unpreparedness.

[@rxzileu-6645]

Its not the same bc its better, more skilled and a perfect gane of chess. Back then it was just who had studied chess more.

[@jojojorisjhjosef]

ofc. there's an age difference, but this guy is way more charismatic than the current world champion.

[@geometricart7851]

yeah Garry is a character to say the least. People watch his games just for his reactions.

[@azmiaydn9257]

There is a something about this guy that disturbs me..

[@salmarwow]

I'd like to see now Kramnik's speach, named "why did I refuse to play rematch with Kasparov". Oh, damn, no way that's going to happen. Like, ever...

[@prakashkify]

Kramnik has replied this question in several of his interviews.

[@geometricart7851]

Yeah Kasparov had never been beaten so badly in his career as in his games vs Kramnik

[@henrykaspar3634]

Well Karpov 1985 - if this would have been limited to 15 matches Kasparov would have lost 0-4. Only an absurd format spared him humiliation.

[@flavio7180]

Maybe in a match. If we're talking about a single game, Ivanchuk in Linares destroyed Garry in a ruthless fashion.

[@vibovitold]

@@henrykaspar3634 "if this would have been limited to 15 matches" games, not "matches". you are also confusing 1984 with 1985 - the 1985 match was tied after the first 15 games. and if it were limited to 15 games, then both players - knowing this - would have played the match differently from the beginning. so your "what if" scenario doesn't really apply. blaming the "absurd format" is pointless too, given that both players had agreed to the format beforehand. is it even actually absurd? why? longer, even unlimited matches are a better format than the current 12 or 14 games. shorter formats make players avoid risk (because they know if they fall behind, they won't have many chances left to catch up). Carlsen won two of his WC titles (Karjakin, Caruana) on rapid tiebreaks, because the format was too short to bring a decisive result, that's nonsense. the rest of your comment is about correct. their names are indeed Karpov and Kasparov.

[@giggitygoo5623]

The biggest tragedy is Kramnik's short chess career

[@davidmencik9990]

Kramnik was around the top from the middle 90's and he stopped playing classical chess 2 years ago. I would not call a 25 year career a short one, it is like Magnus retires in 15 years.

[@guruvenon]

kasparov's english is good back in the day. Now I can hardly understand his pronunciation.

[@Adreno23421]

An today Kramnik is just a weirdo playing chess saying that whoever beats him is cheating.

[@drnantz]

Fischer won 20 straight games at the interzonals in 1970.

[@clivethereddevil3178]

Not true. He won the last 7 games. He then won 6 against Taimanov and 6 against Larsen and then the first game against Petrosian.

[@kasparov9]

@@clivethereddevil3178 Some of those wins included forfeits....

[@clivethereddevil3178]

@@kasparov9 he won every one of those 20 games over the board. The game against Panno is classed as a win as he played a move before Panno resigned.

[@kasparov9]

@@clivethereddevil3178 Sure, but he didn't beat him in a game did he, so why should it count toward his streak? Seems a cheap way to contribute to the greatest streak ever. I say take the Panno game out, and only have actual full normal games.

[@rickrick5041]

@@kasparov9 What if he lost say the 10th game the same way. Many would say his streak stopped at 10

[@divanoassiro4807]

the reality was that kramnik spanked kasparov in this no world championship

[@clivethereddevil3178]

2-0 with 14 draws is not really a spanking. Kasparov had more or less given up by game 11

[@davidcline471]

Really... the greatest winning streak in chess history??

[@blogattacker]

@@nejileesansenpai No, Magnus didn't outdo the winning streak. Caruana has the greatest winning streak. Magnus has the greatest streak of not losing games, more than 100 but mostly draw after draw, and inside this, Magnus has the highest streak of consecutive draws, more than 20, I guess. Ding is in the second place of not losing games, 94 I guess.

[@AlexanderNevermind888]

I'm a big fan of Kasparov. His humility and honesty here are what make him stand out from every other world champion. He truly is the GOAT.

[@RahulPandey-xb6gb]

Are u serious? Humility?😂

[@AlexanderNevermind888]

Yep...Not during the time of the match of course. At the time of the match, he was annoyed by Kramnik and thought his Berlin approach was bad for the game of chess. But Kramnik and his team had a brilliant strategy. As he got older, I think he recognized how powerful of an effect that strategy had on him during the match and can actually be humble now when he speaks about how effective it was. Make sense to u now? 🤔

[@mumu2635]

It was rigged matches, he agreed to lose... Kramnik was a bullshit gm compare to kasparov

[@geometricart7851]

Humility LMAO. Kasparov "Kramnik plays from the back court"

[@geometricart7851]

@@mumu2635 You can't be serious. Kramnik was one of the few super GMs who could gain a + score vs Kasparov in his prime.

[@hideomituns2184]

He lost like any world champion who reigns long enough. He believed too much in his own abilities. You CANT skip tactics training. Its like a boxer skipping cardio. Sometimes you do so well you stop thinking that you are like everyone else. He started thinking grandiose opening middlegame and endgame strategies. He was indeed working very hard. He just skipped his daily cardio. And credit to Kramnik who didnt believe Kasparov was invincible. Kramnik has a higher accuracy / CAPS score than Kasparov. He was so accurate he was able to play computers until the late 2000s. Kramnik came from the capablanca - botvinnik- Petrosian - Karpov school. To them a win is a win. Beauty is not so important. Of course they all thought of chess as art as well but they were more about the solid calculation and accuracy Kasparov was a proponent of the Alekhine, Bronstein Tal style . Chess is beautiful chess is art. And combinations are the highest form of art. Deep calculation and beautiful swash buckling attacks. Fischer was universal and is the most accurate player who ever lived, but his reign was short just like Morphy. Anyway, for us mere mortals, YOU CANNOT skip daily tactical training. Many grandmasters swear they start with tactics puzzles, move to endgame studies, then finish off with deep analysis of master games which simulates real match play which is analysis with time constraint and pressure. Then they finish off with blitz to test their openings. They do this everyday first then later on work on a particular area. You cant just work particular areas, you will make mistakes in game. The tactics, endgame studies and deep analysis routine keeps you honest, say you are working endgame strategies for a month as specific training, then when you go to match play you think so much of endgame strategies you miss middlegame plans and tactics and lose. Kramnik also said this in a way, there are certain things you MUST do everyday. Like i mentioned above. My guess is Kasparov got distracted and skipped the daily training that works and started working other areas of his game amd his tactics sense became dull after a while. Got this idea from a grandmaster training book. Rewatch Kasparovs video above, what he says will make more sense. Peace.

[@vibovitold]

He didn't "skip tactics training". His tactics were generally superb to Kramnik's. It was opening preparation that did him in. Kramnik steered the game in the direction of solid positions where Kasparov was unable to overwhelm him with his tactics, got frustrated and overpressed. I'm also not sure about your assessment that for the "cold" players Capablanca or Karpov beauty isn't important. It's more accurate to say that their sense of beauty is different. Like Karpov said: "If the opponent offers keen play I don’t object; but in such cases I get less satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of strategy with its ruthless logic". He clearly cared about style, not just winning for the sake of winning. His taste when it comes to style was just different. There's beauty in such computer-like ruthlessness, too. It's just different (and less appreciated) than the beauty of wild attacks, often carried "at the edge of bluff" (like Kramnik said about Kasparov's style, and which certainly applied in Tal's case). "Hot" players don't attack just because they think it looks cool. It's just that it better suits their way of thinking. Rather than playing ultra-correctly, they induce their opponents to make errors by exerting pressure.

[@coolcat23]

Why did he say "I lost the match to Kramnik" when it clearly was "Kasparov" who lost to Kramnik? ;) :)

[@Gengar094]

Kasparov is the guy that is talking

[@coolcat23]

@@Gengar094 I know. It was a joke because he kept referring to himself in the third person so often. Just count how many times he says "Kasparov" instead of "I".

[@vibovitold]

Jaqen H'ghar style. "A man lost the match".

[@jakubly]

@@coolcat23 not a huge fan of him but I have to admit in this context it's actually kinda humble. it's like 'look guys, the great kasparov got simply outplayed'

[@arshupadhyaya]

@@jakubly it doesn’t matter if u are a fan, he can be as arrogant as he wants, he was best in the world for 20 years. Tell me any person who has been on the top for twenty years, much less remained humble

[@barryispuzzled]

Humility isn't one of his strong points. Just in case you have any doubt, he'll tell you he's better than everyone else.

[@vibovitold]

Like Schopenhauer famously put it: "With people of limited ability modesty is merely honesty. But with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy". Not to mention you're saying this under a clip in which he admits he got outprepared, beaten fair and square, and he's making no excuses for himself.

[@barryispuzzled]

@@vibovitold The obvious solution is to avoid the possibility of modesty (and hypocrisy) by not advertising his ability. Someone who has to say "I am better than you" is not a sympathetic figure.

[@PeaceFORever-]

He was crushed by Kramnik . That’s it . Move on

[@PounceKW]

Kramnik used engines, that's why he out prepared Garry

[@vibovitold]

1. engines didn't decide for him which openings to choose against Kasparov specifically. engines aren't capable of such strategical reasoning, let alone over 20 years ago. 2. Kasparov also used engines. he was one of the earliest adopters of computer assistance in preparation. for example: "In 1995, in my match against Anand, the famous game ten was the first time I used an opening novelty checked by a - not very sophisticated, by modern standards - chess engine, that gave me confidence that the idea was very good." so he was using engines before they actually surpassed (top) humans, and before it had become a standard in chess. i can't see how this leaves much validity to your argument

[@PounceKW]

@@vibovitold they train and prepare for certain high level openings and lines such as nimzo, ruy lopez, king's indian, Kasparov used engines that's right, but he didn't use engines as a main tool like what Kramnink did, masters prepare openings for months and years, 14 hours a day, for example, berlin defense wasn't popular until Kramnik prepared very well using engines, meanwhile Gary was preparing in the traditional way. Old school masters like gary and karpov believe that using engines is not sportsmanship, it's like some sort of cheating according to them. in top level, best players are who prepare the most, there is no creativity and experience here. and that's what kramnik did, even kramnik said: "It's true I beat Gary, but that doesn't mean I am better than him."

[@vibovitold]

@@PounceKW Kasparov was among the pioneers of computer use, and he talked about it openly. if you claim he regarded it as poor sportsmanship, please provide some quote / source. i don't know what you are basing this statement on.

[@forevercu]

Kasparov , Karpov and Fischer are the highest level of chess in the 20th century, and in that order, because chess develops.. Fischer dominated highest because he beat older generation that was collapsing “ sick Tal older boring Petrosian, and lazy Spassky “ Kasparov took advantage of Karpov because of age difference, harder preparation and spending times analyzing games and authoring books , computer preparation, stronger physical stamina, Despite all these factors they have almost equal strength till Karpov reached age of 45 “ check Fide rating list July 1996, they had only 10 points difference “. Fischer clearly was afraid to meet Karpov . While he boldly and publicly announced he would crush Spassky before the match , he shut up with Karpov and was not confident to achieve 12-12 with him to retain the title . Karpov was the idol of Kramnik , and he managed to beat Kasparov . Carlsen is a lethal combination of Karpov and Fischer ; he usually plays like Karpov until he sense flow of tactics in the game , then he proceed to be tactical and with high energy as Fischer .

[@dannygjk]

There are a couple of points which almost everyone including you don't take into consideration.

[@forevercu]

@@dannygjk what are they ?

[@dannygjk]

@@forevercu For one imagine you just beat the world champion and one of the factors was you used a different repertoire from what you normally used in your tourneys and matches. What do you think the Soviets would have done after that? Naturally they would be more thorough and prep extensively for all reasonable lines. Fischer would be at a big disadvantage with regard to opening prep. That was one reason he wanted the winning condition to be the first to win ten games. That would give him a better chance to overcome the prep of dozens of Soviet GMs. Dozens of Soviet GMs prepping for 3 years to make sure Fischer wouldn't be able to do the same thing to Karpov.

[@forevercu]

@@dannygjk He didn’t ask for this with Spassky. Fischer cannot put the policy according to his own desires. You talk from point of view of Soviet and Americans; I talk from neutral standings. Super grand masters like Carlsen , Aronian , Kasparov didn’t believe that Fischer will have sweet journey like he had with Spassky . I know you will continue the argument forever , just for the fact that Fischer is American .FYI, Karpov beat Spassky 16-1 in their life record .

[@dannygjk]

@@forevercu I did not say what you implied I said.

[@Raghuveer2798]

Fischer must have been laughing in heaven when Garry said he had the greatest winning streak in chess history.

[@kopzukusaft]

Not really

[@arshupadhyaya]

In hell?

[@Bartooc]

Why would he laugh at truth?

[@Raghuveer2798]

@@Bartooc Fischer's streak from 1970-72 is the greatest in chess history and nothing even comes close to that. He crushed some of the top GMs of that time like he was playing some patzers.

[@Raghuveer2798]

@@arshupadhyaya Nah I am not gonna disrespect a legend like that.

[@nicbentulan]

Wesley So is like Bobby Fischer in a good way. Magnus is like Bobby Fischer in a bad way. Bobby Fischer would agree with me. SAYNOTO2900 GOD BLESS AMERICA Why are Magnus and Garry compared to Bobby Fischer? Can you be valedictorian if you cheated in school? - Garry Kasparov cheated Judit Polgar in the 1994 Linares. - Magnus Carlsen cheated Alireza Firouzja (2019 blitz WCC), Danya Naroditsky (2021 & 2022 lichess) and Ian Nepomniachtchi (2021 WCC). Wesley So is like Bobby Fischer in a good way: W1 - Each 'is a prodigy, had a rather dark childhood and is American', but they have great moms. (This also applies Beth Harmon and Hans Niemann.) W2 - Betrayed by their home country, they got citizenship elsewhere. W3 - 1st American world champions: Bobby was 1st American-born WCC. Wesley So is 1st WC (and played for the US at the time but wasn't citizen until 1.5 years later). W4 - Unjustifiably lose their world titles 3 years after gaining them because FIDE was favouring a European over them. W5 - Hate chess and love 9LX. W6 - Have a lot of friends from the Philippines including Eugene Torre and Lotis Key. W7 - Met a corrupt president in the Philippines. Bobby met Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. Wesley So met NCFP president Prospero Pichay Jr. W8 - Correctly accuse Tigran Petrosian of cheating. Magnus is like Bobby Fischer in a bad way: M1 - Ra()st against Americans & Jews (source: ZS4ZPF ) - M1.1 - (Bobby is kinda like Sergey Karjakin though: Has the 'right' to discriminate in the sense that they're born the nationality they're discriminating against. What's Magnus' 'right'? Magnus can discriminate only against Norwegians and maybe gentiles.) M2 - Likes 9LX but never really played it M3 - Is mentally unhealthy M4 - Unrelated: European citizens of Nordic countries. Beat a Russian in their last WCC which was controversial: Magnus cheated Nepo, and Bobby resigned a game. . . . . . P.S. Please help get Wesley So on Lex Fridman's podcast. See xcdhgq

[@vibovitold]

are you pasting this bullshit everywhere? it's like the 10th time i see this spam, and it's not like i'm browsing chess videos for hours every day

[@nicbentulan]

@@vibovitold this is a 5 month old comment. lol. thanks for being such a fan!

[@vibovitold]

@@nicbentulan if you have stopped this since, I'm a fan of that

[@nicbentulan]

@@vibovitold I haven't stopped. I modify my copypasta's accordingly. Which part of what I said would Bobby Fischer disagree with?

[@anyDasein]

so arrogant

[@carlosdumbratzen6332]

As he has always been, even now in exhibitions he takes the game extremely serious. He has all right to be so arrogant though

[@Bartooc]

He just acknowledges the fact that he is the best chess player in history. Nothing arrogant about that.

[@drnantz]

Huh?

[@markjordan8919]

I agree with everything he says here. He's not being arrogant, what he is saying is objectively true, and he give due credit to Kramnik.

[@josephjoestar4633]

He is the goat. Give it a rest damn it

[@hyzercreek]

Who cares about Russian draw snooze fests? Typical Russian chess Kramnik 2 wins 0 losses 24 draws. Put Bobby Fischer back and Kasparov loses 6-0

[@markusgarcia4136]

Fischer more talent than Kasparov

[@nishantintouch]

Somewhat similar happened to Magnus in Tata steel 2021. He did not win, not even 2nd position. Anyways , those upsets don't make Kasparov and Magnus any less G.O.A.Ts that they are.