Karpov On A Rampage At Cap d'Agde!
Anatoly Karpov probably hasn't done any serious and sustained work on chess in over a decade, but give him a decent position out of the opening and he can still compete with just about anyone. There was a two-on-two rapid & blitz match this weekend in Cap d'Agde featuring Karpov and Valentina Gunina on the Russian side taking on the French team of Romain Edouard and Marie Sebag. The first two days were rapid chess and the third was blitz, and in each portion of the match a player would face the opponents from the other country with both colors.
The Russians won handily, 11.5-4.5, and Karpov was particularly successful scoring 7-1 overall, 3.5-.5 at both time controls. Of course he was a favorite against Sebag, but he went 3.5-.5 against both Sebag and Edouard, despite the latter's enjoying a higher rating in classical chess. Karpov basically played without openings (his recent advocacy of 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 is painful for me to watch having grown up seeing him at the cutting edge of opening theory*), but once that phase of the game passed he was one dangerous hombre.
There's a nice report on the event here (HT: Allen Becker), with games and videos.
* Yes, I know that was thanks to Semyon Furman and then Igor Zaitsev, but it's painful nonetheless.
Reader Comments (4)
I too remember how Karpov used to play (if not create) novelties in mainstream openings too during his heyday but those days have passed. Why so tough on the Scandinavian, Dennis? Karpov won both games with it, and it seems like the right kind of opening for him now that he isn't a top competitor. He gets Caro-Kann structures with it, and I don't think there's ever been a better expert on the C-K than Karpov. I understand that he's not playing the Zaitsev variation of the Spanish anymore, but how could he? Plus, he used to be one of the leading exponents of the Petroff (another of my favorite openings by the way) and that certainly can't be any worse than playing the Scandinavian (which is my other response to 1.e4). It certainly can't be any worse than being on the cutting edge of the Berlin, can it?
[DM: You've forsaken the French for the Scandinavian? Someone has sold you a bill of goods! The Scandinavian isn't so bad, of course, though considering how few top GMs (the correct answer is "none") play it with any regularity one might suspect that it isn't completely wonderful either. But my main objection to it is aesthetic: it's very dull and tends to give rise to the same structures (read: structure) over and over again. It's a sort of Black equivalent to the London System. I agree with you though, it's a pragmatic choice for Karpov, who studies little and whose poor memory for openings is almost legendary. And you make a very good point about its close family resemblance to the Caro-Kann, which was a big part of Karpov's repertoire during the last part of his serious career.
As for the Berlin, it isn't the Yugoslav Dragon or a Poisoned Pawn Najdorf, but I think there's more action there than in the Scandinavian. There are a lot of different plans for both sides, and 14 years after the Kasparov-Kramnik match Berlin theory has continued to grow rapidly.]
Yes, Dennis, I gave up the French, but not for the Scandinavian. I'm not sure what I started playing instead (but I think it was the Petroff) as I've played numerous openings over the course of my "illustrious" career in chess. Unfortunately, I've not been an expert in any of them. I understand your view of the Scandinavian, but who knows what the future holds. I think the best player to play it on a regular basis is Tiviakov who has been a 2600-2700 GM for quite a long time. The Berlin may be in fashion but before Kramnik used it against Kasparov, I only recall Bisguier as a faithful adherent, and he could hardly be called a top player. As for the London System, I have to agree with you. I played it several times but unless your name is Kamsky, I don't see how you're putting pressure on your opponents with it. I think all openings can be good at the class level if you actually know the plans and move orders. I remember Kasparov in his DVD on the Queen's Gambit saying that all mainline openings are good and I agree with that.
[DM: The last claim is more or less true by definition. (The Latvian isn't a mainline opening because it give Black a desperately bad game.) But what counts as a mainline opening? As for the Berlin, I think after 14 years of "fashion" we can simply call it "established" - it's part of the landscape of contemporary chess.]
Dennis,
If you didn't care for Karpov's 3...Qd6 Scandinavians, have you checked the database for Karpov's games with 3...Qd8? Talk about a Caro-Kann with a vitamin deficiency! And there's even a recent book devoted solely to 3...Qd8, which was buried twice by Bobby Fischer, against Karl Robatsch in 1962 and William Addison in 1970. Both games were instant classics. Karpov actually did a YouTube video on the Addison game with Ron Henley a few years ago.
[DM: Yes, I posted a brief notice of the 3...Qd8 book here: http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2013/11/23/book-notice-lowinger-on-the-3qd8-scandinavian.html. The two Fischer games are very nice, but no longer of any theoretical relevance. Unfortunately!]
Karpov had a bad experience on the white side of the Scandinavian at the famous Montreal 1979 tournament when he lost to Bent Larsen, albeit in the 3...Qa5 line. That's when I first remember the Scandinavian getting some respectability, especially with it's fancy new name - in America it's just the plain old Center Counter, favored by club players everywhere!
One objection to playing it exclusively with Black is the following line: 1 e4 d5 2 ed5 Qxd5 3 Nf3 Bg4 4 Be2 Nc6 and now 5 h3. Black pretty much has to play 5...Bxf3, and after 6 Bxf3 Qe6+ 7 Qe2, who wants to play this?
[DM: Quiet, Greg, you don't want to spill the beans on something missed this year by Carlsen, Caruana, Grischuk, Karjakin, Giri and Andreikin and by Anand last year, do you? If only they had computers...alas. But to answer your rhetorical question, quite a few players, including Scandinavian fanatic Tiviakov and some Russian dude named Kramnik (in the latter case Rowson avoided it with 7.Kf1). White may have a nibble after 7...Qxe2+ and maybe not even that after 7...Nd4.]
In thinking through one's opening defenses, though, it seems to be that the French, Scandi and Berlin are three completely different openings with different objectives that don't compete with each other for adherents. That is, I think the Scandinavian would be considered against the Caro and maybe Alekhine's, while the Berlin would compete with the Petroff. The French would compete against the Caro-Kann or perhaps even the Taimanov Sicilian.
At any rate, Karpov has constructed a well thought out low-maintenance opening repertoire which is very cohesive and interrelated, and geared for success in rapid time controls. His aim is simple equality for Black and small edges for White where he doesn't have to be too ambitious and can play on auto pilot.
[DM: Equality for Black and an advantage for White; isn't that everyone's aim in the opening? I think Karpov is just trying to get a position with play with both sides, where he isn't starting off clearly worse.]
Dennis,
I meant I wouldn't want to play it for either side! I think after 7 Qe2 Nd4! 8 Qxe6 Nxf3+ 9 gf3 fe6, White has almost nothing but Black has even less than that after, say, 10 Nc3 g6 11 Ne4 Bh6. I think this is why Rowson played 7 Kf1 even if he got no edge. Meanwhile, Tiviakov played 7...Qxe2+ 8 Bxe2 Nd4 9 Bd1 e5 against Nakamura but it was only interesting for White's two bishops after 10 0-0 0-0-0 11 d3. It's a tiny edge certainly, but it was Black that made the concession just to keep some life in the position, and Tivi eventually lost. However, I do understand that lines like this exist in many defenses and there's not too much Black can do about it. Yermolinsky calls playing like this for White being a "draw bully."
Of course, my needs are different from super-GMs willing to grovel in the most boring lines possible with Black for their precious half-point, and I'm not very good at playing that way. I want the most interesting possible game every round against anyone if I'm going to travel to a tournament and shell out an entry fee!
[DM: I have no idea what you're talking about! (Overstating a bit there.) Tiviakov and others don't play the Scandinavian to get a draw. There are lines where White can make the game drawish, but so what? That's true in every opening. And whether a game stays boring is almost always up to both players. I remember a story from Dvoretsky, who was in the top 40 or 50 in the world at the time of the events he relates. After a drawn game with Black against some comparatively lower-rated player he complained to Tal that there was nothing he could do to make the game interesting. Tal proceeded to show him idea after idea after idea that would have put all kinds of life into the game and set lots of problems to his opponent. The draw-death of chess is a pseudo-problem, especially for non-super GMs. Even at TCEC it's a pseudo-problem - look at the wins-to-draws ratio in the current stage, and with a lot of pretty "boring" openings, too!]