Kasparov's "outdated openings"

You all know already about Garry's 7 move loss, but one thing I wanted to focus on was this article mentioning Kasparov played "outdated openings" that he used 25 years prior:

https://www.ft.com/content/a989464a-519c-4fca-be1a-26c9da96092e

Kasparov won only one game, with three draws and 14 defeats.

I find this interesting because this is a case of of a legend playing against opponents who have thoroughly studied his games, painstakingly examined his openings and read books on his strategies.

Fischer once said he's a better player than Morphy because he knows more theory than Morphy did. Fischer's chess knowledge would include Morphy's own games.

Kasparov retired in 2005, focusing on social and political initiatives, occasionally serving as a chess coach to other greats like Carlsen. It seems Kasparov's game hasn't been updated, frozen in time from his old days. This, in a way, kind of let's us see what would happen if a current pro-chess player went back in time and faced a legend from a bygone era.

Yes, I know Kasparov is both 58 and out of practice compared to his opponents (Kasparov blamed his performance on "rust" ). But I still find this comes as close to fulfilling that fantasy of time-travelling to the past to face a great player from an old era, equipped with modern theory and extensive knowledge of the old great's own games.

I doubt the lines/openings that were played back when Kasparov was number one have been refuted to the point of them being unplayable.
He blundered by playing his knight to f6 which allowed his opponent to play Ng5 attacking f7 with 3 pieces.
He's old and rusty and nowhere near where he used to be and never will be.
Also, 5 minute games against the best players will cause blunders and mistakes to happen.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You're wrong. So utterly wrong. Reread my post.

My entire thread is based on the fact that Barden's assessment is correct, and that Kasparov's openings are indeed "outdated". Your poor reading comprehension continues.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I didn't "imply" that. I said his games have been thoroughly studied, just like Morphy, Just like Capablanca, by all serious chess players. You keep reading things that aren't said.

Having quickly played through the games from that event where Kasparov was Black, I don't understand why Barden says that Kasparov's result was partly attributable to an outdated opening repertoire.

Of the seven games he lost as Black, one was that Queen's Gambit Accepted debacle (certainly not the fault of the opening) and three were Najdorf Sicilians that began 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qc7. Black's seventh move isn't played much, and I'm not aware of Kasparov's having played it previously. Each game continued 8. Bxf6 Bxf6 9. Qf3 b5 10. a3 Nc6, which is playable but strikes me as demanding more accuracy from Black than from White. This seems a formula for disaster in blitz against world-class opposition, even if the opponent hasn't prepared for it.

Two of the other three losses (one a Gruenfeld, the other a King's Indian) seemed to stem from tactical errors.

In the remaining loss as Black (in a closed Sicilian), Kasparov got a good position, but I'm guessing that time trouble was a factor in its deterioration.

In retrospect, I wondered whether I was being fair to Barden. So, I reread the FT article. It includes the statement "Kasparov relied on his openings from his peak years a quarter of a century back, but lost three Najdorf Sicilians in a row."

The implication that his old repertoire failed him would be accurate if Kasparov used the same variation of the Najdorf Sicilian in this event as he had decades ago. But, being that he varied with 7...Qc7 (as I noted in an earlier comment), that implication doesn't seem to apply to any of his games in that blitz event.

I think it would have been fair to say that Kasparov obtained playable positions when using his openings from his peak years, but they were often ruined by time pressure or lack of tactical sharpness.

@FMDavidHLevin

Sounds like you are saying he was old and out of practice.

@eladar said
@FMDavidHLevin

Sounds like you are saying he was old and out of practice.

I can't bring myself to apply the word "old" to Kasparov, being that he's younger than I am. 🙂

But I definitely would say that he was out of practice. And I wouldn't have gone with his choice of 7...Qc7 in the Najdorf. If only he'd consulted me before the event.... 🙂

Kasparov 'prepared' two days before that event with Peter Svidler.
Later Kasparov had this to say:

"I have to say that in the last few days, I was shocked because we looked at some
of the positions that I analyzed before some of the participants in this tournament were born.
And then in one minute, the engine tells you that everything I did, preparing for
Nigel [Short] in 1993, is crap. This was a shocking experience. I probably could have
done a better job preparing, but the problem is it's shifting from totally different
things. Having a speech on cyber security or messages reporting dissidents in Iran.
And then you have to play guys; they're the best guys. This is their job.

And just to show you how me silly things can happen at blitz.
An 11 move loss from Caruana.

Carlsen - Caruana, Norway Chess (Blitz) (2014)

@vivify said
You all know already about Garry's 7 move loss, but one thing I wanted to focus on was this article mentioning Kasparov played "outdated openings" that he used 25 years prior:

https://www.ft.com/content/a989464a-519c-4fca-be1a-26c9da96092e

Kasparov won only one game, with three draws and 14 defeats.

I find this interesting because this is a case of of a legend playin ...[text shortened]... r from an old era, equipped with modern theory and extensive knowledge of the old great's own games.

All of this supports my theory that it's impossible to pick an all time greatest. Too many different era's, styles, players, access to reference material etc. How would Tal preform with access to today's databases and computer tools? How would Carlsen fare in the days of Alekhine? We'll just never know.

Does chess have anything equivalent to the Senior PGA so that big name chess players of years past can compete against each other?

@Eladar

Yes: details here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Senior_Chess_Championship

Smyslov and Korchnoi have won it.

@greenpawn34

Thanks! It looks like there is a movement in the US to develop a "Golden Age" chesst tournament system to offer people 50 and older an opportunity to get back into playing chess. The Saint Louis Club appears to be the driving force.

From what I have been able to find they do not play blitz games, just traditional chess with longer time controls.

@eladar said
@greenpawn34

Thanks! It looks like there is a movement in the US to develop a "Golden Age" chesst tournament system to offer people 50 and older an opportunity to get back into playing chess. The Saint Louis Club appears to be the driving force.

From what I have been able to find they do not play blitz games, just traditional chess with longer time controls.

The St Louis chess club is an excellent place for learning chess for all ages.
Although I haven't been on the website for a while there was on there extensive video lessons and training for both the experienced player ,novices and youngsters and it was all free!
On a related topic, what do we think the future holds for chess?
From what I see and read, it seems to be heading in the same direction as cricket in the UK.Everything has to be at speed under the guise of "being more entertaining".
Also, as in Cricket,Football,Baseball for example everything is analysed minutely by ever more powerful computers.
I fear the days of chess as it was meant to be played are limited,or "outdated" as the title of the thread implies.
I hope the initiative to return to traditional chess you mention is a success, and not just for the over 50's,but I doubt it somehow.