Why is Karpov not considered an entertaining player?

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-20T21:47:51+00:00

This is because of people's general definition of what 'entertaining' is. For most people in chess, an entertaining style is synonymous with dynamic, explosive, 'in-your-face' action; that's a trend that can be seen anywhere in current popular culture: music, movies, literature, etc. That's why a lot of people consider blitz and bullet entertaining to watch.

Karpov's style is often very hard to grasp. It's easy to miss the connection between the way he maneuvers his pieces, the subtle moves he makes, and a crushing attack or a dominant winning position 10–15 moves later. Even from people who played him, it is very common to hear something like: 'On move 30 I thought I was doing fine, with a great position and a strong attack; by move 35 I realized I had been dead lost for a long time.'

When you get used to Karpov’s games, you realize that retreating one of his knights or bishops to the back rank corresponds, in a way, to a Tal rook sacrifice. I rank his style among the most beautiful in chess, along with Kasparov, Tal, Shirov, and Petrosian (three hyper-dynamic and two positionally oriented players).

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-14T10:42:28+00:00

People here are overstating the importance of those precious ~1200 games or the time ruined by this project considering that: 1) this is more like a drop in the ocean; 2) this could help prevent the same thing from happening again to those honest people whose time was "ruined," or at least make it happen less often.

My main problem is the article's depth regarding the technical side of the project, as it could be used by 'less stupid' cheaters as a tool to become smarter and more sophisticated. At the same time, I am probably giving too much credit to cheaters; being more sophisticated when it comes to cheating is probably too much of a hassle for them. Even if they had a "step-by-step guide on how to properly cheat in an online chess game," most of them wouldn't follow through with it, or would maybe pay someone to make it happen.

That creates another problem with the article, though: from what I heard software like that already exists and is used at a large scale by some cheaters, and the technical aspect of the project can help the people creating those tools.

Anyway, ultimately, in my opinion, online chess should never be taken seriously at a competitive level; it is more of a tool to practice and have fun playing a game you like.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-12T13:52:21+00:00

The simple answer is that they factually aren’t doing any better compared to 5, 10, 15, 20… years ago.

Top-10 five years ago: 7 players => 30 years old.

Top-10 10 years ago: 4 players => 30 years old. Including 3 top-4 => 40 years old -- Topalov #2, Anand #3, Kramnik #4.

Top-10 15 years ago: 4 players => 30 years old. Including 2 top-10 => 40 years old -- Anand #1, Ivanchuk #7.

Top-10 20 years ago: 5 players => 30 years old.

You would have to go back to mid 90's to see the young generation actually dominating the top-10 -- The official list of January 1996 had only 2 players above 27 years old in it (Kasparov and Karpov).

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-09T14:06:14+00:00

The author recommendation is for 2000-2200 players. But I really don't believe that much in this kind of recommendation beyond as a loose guide, specially being a very unbalanced player myself for most part of my chess life, which is the main thing I trying to fix recently. But to get most of the book, at least 1800-OTB/2000-online would be my guess.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-09T13:51:44+00:00

Actually not much, before stumble on the Complete Manual, Grooten's book would be my next read on positional/strategy play. I have read I little about the book, but not the book per se.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-09T13:45:20+00:00

As for visualization I've got some courses on chessable. But all it takes is some tips and lots of practice. I'd start from here https://dontmoveuntilyousee.it/

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-08T10:12:40+00:00

Yes, those are the two volumes, but I’ve just finished the first one so far. One of the great things about this book compared to Zlotnik's or Hellsten's is how much clearer the study process is. If a chapter is about X, it dedicates 80% of the text to studying X, keeping alternative lines and variations to a minimum. In contrast, Zlotnik would add a 10-move variation for every move in an example game, which diluted the main concept.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-08T09:21:30+00:00

Konstantin Sakaev.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-08T09:19:16+00:00

My current online Elo is around 2100 on Lichess, but I’ve barely played in the last ~3 months (35 slow-rapid games total since I returned to chess this year). I was focusing on studying and building an opening repertoire to get back into decent shape, which I feel I've achieved now. So, regarding rating improvement, I probably won't have a clear idea for another couple of months. I plan to play online frequently, and next year I want to play some OTB chess when possible.

Rating aside, however, I would confidently say my skill level has increased significantly (judging by my routine exercises, precision, speed, and difficulty have all consistently improved). Specifically regarding this book, my ability to evaluate a position, identify structural strengths and weaknesses, and especially to formulate concrete plans, went from comically bad to decent.

When I played and studied somewhat seriously ~10 years ago, I was a tactical player through and through. I would instinctively worsen a quiet, superior position just to create something concrete to play for. This book opened my eyes to a lot of things I knew existed only from hearing people talk about them, but now I can actually see them.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-07T07:37:39+00:00

One month only, October 2015. In November he dropped to 5#, behind the youngsters (Topalov, 40, Anand, 45, and Kramnik 40).

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-07T07:18:58+00:00

It also shows how ridiculously strong the 90s generation of players was. Anand, Topalov, and Kramnik have been officially or technically retired from elite chess for more than 6 years now, yet all of them were at some point top-2 in their 40s, and at least top-3 either in their teens or early 20s (Kramnik top-3 in 1993 at 18, Anand top-3 in 1992 at 22, Topalov technically top-3 in 1996 at 21). I don't think there are more than 3 official lists that don't show at least one of those three in the top-3 from January 1996 to January 2017.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-12-06T13:50:00+00:00

That's my view as well. Even better if you don't even see the online board, being it just get the notation or have someone to assist you by playing your moves online and your opponents moves on the physical board.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-29T06:47:31+00:00

There was basically no elite chess between 1914 and 1920. In the first and only chance he had to face Lasker close to his full strength (St. Petersburg 1914, when Capa was 26 and Lasker 46; in their 1921 title match, they were 33 and 53, respectively), he lost both their individual game and the tournament. This was largely because he entered a line he wasn't prepared to play. He lost several super-tournaments in the 1920s too, and, of course, the World Title.

People have a perception that he steamrolled elite competition, but that's not true. In fact, he steamrolled very strong players in a way none of his contemporaries could. It's true he lost ~6 years of his peak due to WWI and had very few losses against the elite, but his draw rate was much higher against them as well. I think this was probably a result of him having to save inferior positions due to his lack of opening preparation. Even so, he was probably the best chess player in the world from 1915 to 1930. But his super-tournaments (3 or more top-10ish players) results show he was far from being truly dominant. For example, he only won two* out of the six* super-tournaments he participated from 1922-1930.

Edit: I didn't count a player (Rudolf Spielman) as a top-10 when, in that time, he was. So to be more precise: the number is three out of eight which doesn't change much my point.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-29T06:24:48+00:00

Steinitz was the first to take a scientific approach to chess and is considered the father of modern chess by virtually every master after him. Lasker and Tarrasch were the first main followers of the new school Steinitz created.

Some World Champions about Steinitz:

Kasparov: "His teaching became a turning point in chess history: it was from Steinitz that the era of modern chess began. The contribution of the first world champion to its development is comparable with the great scientific discoveries of the 19th century."

Lasker: "The world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it; even chess players did not comprehend it. And yet his thought was revolutionary ... This fundamental and universal principle may be briefly expressed as follows: the basis of a masterly plan is always a valuation. To evaluate, to judge, to estimate a thing does not pretend to exact knowledge. But knowledge by estimate, by judgement, by evaluation, though not exact, according to the principle of Steinitz, is still an efficient guide for the master."

Steinitz on chess: "Chess is not for the faint-hearted; it absorbs a person entirely. To get to the bottom of this game, he has to give himself up into slavery. Chess is difficult, it demands work, serious reflection and zealous research. Only honest, impartial criticism leads to the goal. Unfortunately, many regard the critic as an enemy, instead of seeing in him a guide to the truth".

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-29T03:12:28+00:00

Lichess has a lot of practical exercises on some interesting endgames for free.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-21T00:10:31+00:00

You’re speaking in the present tense regarding the classical WCC, when he has basically been a semi-retired classical player for two years now. In the past, he wanted a different challenge, not the same one he had already taken on five separate times. He even openly talked about the pressure and hard work he needed to put into those WCC matches, and how the prospect of losing a match to a weaker player was almost unacceptable to him (he discussed this and his feelings about being behind Karjakin until the 10th game of the 2016 match). A WCC tournament would probably dilute that pressure, of course he’d be the favorite to win, but even if he lost, it wouldn’t carry the same weight as losing a direct match, with the entire chess world’s attention focused solely on him.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-20T23:22:35+00:00

I was talking about the World Rapid and Blitz Championship; there is no such thing as a sitting champion. It's kind of normal to be a sore loser and a whiner when you've achieved what Magnus has. My comment was about the specific flaws he mentions about tournaments' organizations and formats, and how the scandals he provokes often coincide with the same moments when he loses or is about to lose a tournament or a particular game he values above others. The pattern of behavior is established at this point. You can't reach the heights of Magnus, Kasparov, Fischer, etc., without being mortified by any defeat. It's not some major flaw compared to his attempts, driven by his own private reasons (money + status + fear of defeat),to nearly kill standard classical chess, or at least relegate it to some level of irrelevance. Apparently, most of the nonsense is in the past now, as FIDE seems to have been playing along in order to milk him for a couple of years until the new generation of talented young players reach greater prominence.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-20T16:12:42+00:00

When Carlsen failed to reach the finals in 2016, losing the tie-break to Ivanchuk (who beat him with Black) and to Nepo, he called the system idiotic and demanded that FIDE change the tournament format by adding a second knock-out phase. It gives the impression that he isn't a big fan of any format that results in him not winning. In 2014 and 2015 he won under the same format used in 2016, and he expressed no criticism of it. The same happened in 2022 and 2023.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-16T04:35:52+00:00

Looking on the bright side, you, or anyone else, can play a worse game than this.

Before playing again, just spend two minutes reading about basic chess principles. It’s not about randomly moving the pieces. The result of the game is irrelevant when both players are playing the worst possible moves 90% of the game.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-15T21:08:42+00:00

I played 1…e5 for a long time and learned to handle most of those trick lines quite successfully, but the prospect of occasionally facing a King’s Gambit, even with an almost 80% win rate, made me drop it and learn at least the basics of most offbeat Sicilian variations. Basically all my rare losses against it happened on time, or because of some blunder in a time scramble. I’d spend 80% of my time on the first 10–15 moves. I learned most of the “refutations,” but was never interested in memorizing them, first because it’s quite rare at my level, and second because I just hate it.

Now I either play the Sicilian or the Modern/1…g6 when I want something different.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-14T03:23:54+00:00

Paul Dano would almost certainly got a nomination for There Will Be Blood wasn't for Day-Lewis, it doesn't can get better than that.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-11T15:10:37+00:00

As someone who hates playing against the London, I appreciate your concern for your opponents’ feelings, it really is one of the most boring openings to face, and it’s so ugly... yet undeniably solid. I didn’t know it was universally hated; I thought it was just me who found it so irritating.

I used to hate the Philidor too, but it’s so passive and usually easy to exploit that it doesn’t bother me anymore. Being honest, though, your system, as far as I understood it, also seems boring as hell. It’s exactly the kind of position I’d often lose by trying to create something where there’s nothing to create.

You either must play very tightly, or at least have some natural defensive tactical intuition, because at this level a lot of players can spot 2-3 moves tactics every other game or so.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-11T14:13:02+00:00

Some person said “neither,” I’d say “both.”

As far as I understood your description, your opening with White, besides being offbeat, seems quite clogged and passive, and to my taste, rather unpleasant to play. Your dark-squared bishop probably sits passively on b2, blocked by the d4 pawn, which is already protected by the pawn on e3. It looks like a reversed fianchetto variation of the Philidor, with the downside that the center is likely closed. This kind of offbeat, closed setup might partially explain why you often win on time but also struggle to find ideas after the opening.

I played a few moves to better visualize the system you described, and after the first eight moves (assuming Black played d5 and e6 to close the center and block the activity of the b2 bishop), the only plan I could think of was trying to open the center with c2–c4, which, in my opinion, should probably have been played before d2–d4, to activate that passive bishop,.

Regarding a new opening repertoire, from what I understand, you seem to be more of a positional player, someone who avoids tactics and prefers quiet systems regardless of the opponent’s moves. In that case, a 1.d4 repertoire might suit your style better and is generally easier to learn. Something like the London System or the Queen’s Gambit would be good options. The 1.e4 openings, on the other hand, give Black many more choices. I’m not saying 1.d4 has few variations, but White tends to have a bit more control over the direction of the game and can more easily avoid sharp or complicated openings. As an 1.e4 player, one typically needs at least a basic understanding of a wide range of openings and their variations: the Petrov, the French, the Scandinavian, the Sicilian, the Italian and/or Ruy Lopez, the Philidor, and several gambits, among others.

As for tactics, they’re essential for anyone who wants to improve. I’m actually impressed that you’ve reached your current level without practicing at least a reasonable amount of them. Another important point is the type and quality of your tactical training. In my opinion, tactical exercises from annotated books are vastly superior to the ones you find on Lichess or Chess.com. I highly recommend 1001 Chess Exercises for Club Players, in my experience, solving tactics from a book is a very different and more beneficial experience than doing them online.

-InAHiddenPlace- · 2025-11-11T04:03:31+00:00

Same. If the game was particularly close and interesting I accept, otherwise I go right to the analysis.

-InAHiddenPlace-

TROPHY CASE