The Chess Mind

Can't believe he repeated the moves. This is not a qualifying or money event, so there is no justification to his decision.

Why did they wear such huge eyeglasses back then? Pretty funny looking now.

I was more disturbed that Kasparov offered the draw and then publicly denigrated Edelman for accepting it. Edelman was given the opportunity to say he held the World Champion to a draw. Not bad for a young player.

Larry: I agree with what you've written in spirit, but Kasparov didn't technically offer a draw; he offered a repetition and Edelman claimed the draw. (See the games link.) And is it really "holding" the world champ to a draw to play a well-known book repetition?

Van west: Wolff's hat was something else, too. I don't recall wearing anything particularly weird (by contemporary standards) in the 80s, but there are some family pictures of me as a kid in the 1970s wearing clothes that looked normal then (somehow) but would be cringe-inducing nowadays.

I think I would've kept playing if I were Edelman, because how many chances do you get to play Kasparov? That said, Danny was completely justified in his decision to take the draw, and the way Kaspy reacted was out of line. It would've been much classier to just shake Edelman's hand and move on with the other games.

Dennis, I thought Kasparov actually offered a draw, my misunderstanding. Kasparov could have been simply gaining time on his clock know it would be of help later on if he needed it. I do think, as you later state, his discussion with Edelman should have been after the event was completed.
In the Big Database 2004 their is also a game with Joshua Waitzkin, was that game actually part of the same event?

I don't see anything bad in Kasparov's behavior. Edelman showed huge disrespect for Kasparov, making Kasparov wonder why he (Kasparov) even came to this event.

Edelman humiliated himself.

Kasparov was testing the players, I believe. Edelman had white, and had a shot at scoring a point for his team. Fishbein was in a similar draw-by-repetition situation, and chose to play on into a complicated position, leading to a long and challenging endgame. I'm sure the experience inspired him to put in the effort required to make GM.

As to Edelman? I will remind you that in part 1 of the video he states that he is more preoccupied with the event, and with the opportunity to create chess art, no matter who wins or loses. He wants to create something beautiful. That he didn't do - it's amusing to study his face as he contemplates the draw situation.

He bows out, in a very cowardly manner, and that is why Kasparov's fuse is lit. Quite justifiably so.

This was very cool chess documentary; it focused on the chess aspect (of the games and what went through each player's minds), which is refreshing.

As for Edelman, I believe he blew an opportunity to gain priceless experience and confidence from playing arguably the greatest chess champion of all time, simple as that. He had nothing to lose by playing on. As far as I know, this tournament was not rated, and no prize money on the line either. The "team" had no realistic chance of actually beating Kasparov, so he shouldn't have been looking to grind out half a point. Even with his draw, the rest of his peers still had to score a 3/5. which I think we can all agree is an unrealistic expectation.

If you want to be a good chess player, you can't be afraid of losing--ever. This is true whether you're playing a very underrated player, an overrated player, or even a world champion. Edelman became afraid of losing, and called it quits--on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a chess player. And all for what? As Vivek Rao said earlier, "the worst that can happen is you lost to a world champion."

As a final thought, although both Fishbein and Edelman got draws against Kasparov, it's pretty obvious that both players really came out completely differently from their experiences. Edelman bowed out in a couple of moves through opening theory (which means nothing). Fishbein refused to bow out, and played Kasparov all the way down to an endgame that ended in a draw. Both players were draws, but only one can claim and believe "I drew the world champion."

If anything, Kasparov wimped out by repeating the moves, effectively offering a draw to Edelman. It's true that Edelman could have played on, and that his decision isn't so consistent with his pregame comments, but there's nothing wrong with taking a draw against a much stronger player versus going into an unclear position -- for all Edelman knew, maybe five of them could draw and Wolff could win, giving the US junior team a win in the simul. Kasparov's behavior was just disgraceful; I've really lost a lot of respect for him. And despite Kasparov's, Fishbein's, and even Edelman's comments, chess players simply do take draws all the time for purposes of a result -- see the '84-'85 World Championship match.

It seems common practice for Grandmasters playing simultaneous to repeat moves in order to win time. Kasparov has an intense dedication to the game, and his spontaneous lecture to Edelman who is his junior, comes from his passion, and Edelman should accept it as a lesson in life. Go for it, this is your chance! A good awakening.