Tweet
There is a long interview with Vladimir Kramnik given on the website of Natalia Pogonina:
http://pogonina.com/index.php?option...&&lang=english
I like the term “Karpovian weaknesses” in this bit:
“I would say that Carlsen is an improved version of Karpov”
VK: Yes, he reminds one of Karpov a lot. He also has certain weaknesses, which everyone, even the greatest players, have. Karpovian weaknesses, yes. They are hidden and very few, yet they still exist. Their styles are very similar. I would say that Carlsen is an improved version of Karpov. I have heard people say that his style is too dry, too positional. Partly that’s so. However, I believe that a person of his mastery can choose any style he likes. He should ask himself only. With such a high rating and skill, you know, no one should be telling him what to do. He is indeed an outstanding player. Like we say in such cases, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch”. He can play whatever way he likes to.
MM: It is his soul playing…
VK: Yes, that’s the way he is. Cold-blooded, rather pragmatic, somewhat melancholic even. His chess is also swampy, laidback, choky/boa constrictor type. It doesn’t matter. For me personally, mastery is most important. His skills are remarkable. This is great. I think it’s a bonus that all the players have unique styles. I have one style, Aronian has a completely different style. Carlsen has the third variety. It is good for the game. This is interesting.
It is fun thinking of other eponymous chess terms like “Ivanchukian time-trouble” and “Svidlerian loquacity”!
http://pogonina.com/index.php?option...&&lang=english
I like the term “Karpovian weaknesses” in this bit:
“I would say that Carlsen is an improved version of Karpov”
VK: Yes, he reminds one of Karpov a lot. He also has certain weaknesses, which everyone, even the greatest players, have. Karpovian weaknesses, yes. They are hidden and very few, yet they still exist. Their styles are very similar. I would say that Carlsen is an improved version of Karpov. I have heard people say that his style is too dry, too positional. Partly that’s so. However, I believe that a person of his mastery can choose any style he likes. He should ask himself only. With such a high rating and skill, you know, no one should be telling him what to do. He is indeed an outstanding player. Like we say in such cases, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch”. He can play whatever way he likes to.
MM: It is his soul playing…
VK: Yes, that’s the way he is. Cold-blooded, rather pragmatic, somewhat melancholic even. His chess is also swampy, laidback, choky/boa constrictor type. It doesn’t matter. For me personally, mastery is most important. His skills are remarkable. This is great. I think it’s a bonus that all the players have unique styles. I have one style, Aronian has a completely different style. Carlsen has the third variety. It is good for the game. This is interesting.
It is fun thinking of other eponymous chess terms like “Ivanchukian time-trouble” and “Svidlerian loquacity”!
Comment