Kramnik is my second favorite player of all time. His intelligence, poise, personality, humor, intensity, and in chess his preperation, style, talent, and incredible thoroughness are just so entertaining to watch. Amazing, legendary player that will always have a special place in my heart. Kramnik Klan!
From the moment I learned Judit Polgar and Vladimir Kramnik would have a conversation about their chess careers, I was wondering whether it would later be made available to the public so that people who didn't have chance to participate in the conference could watch it. I was so happy and excited to see this video, and it didn't disappoint. Both Judit and Kramnik seem to be very interesting characters and to have led quite non-conventional lives (as it usually happens with professional chess players) but they are also balanced, integrated, grounded personalities, and it's a joy to listen to them talk about life. Thanks!
@@TheRdg24 He has a rare form of arthritis which is quite painful and makes it difficult for him to focus at the board in classical games when he is sitting for a long time.
Thank you Judit. You are my chess hero. I grew up watching Kasparov face Nigel Short and Deep Blue and Karpov, but you were the one I always rooted for. Fantastic player and very good analyst now. Loved your work on the Norway chess tournament. I follow Magnus now mainly.
Great memories... I've been out of chess for some time. I fondly remember the impact of the Polgar Sister's had upon chess in general. Judit has always been very sharp, and very aggressive, which went firmly against popular norms. It's good to see you are still here. Vladimir has always been the silent executioner. Very calm, composed, and extremely dangerous. I believe that Garry saw his innate talent very early on. The older talents I remember also contributed greatly to chess: Vishy, Nigel Short, Timmerman The Great Dutchman, I could go on forever. Thanks again for the walkthrough time, you've gained a new subscriber!
Hi Judit, I had no idea that you have your own youtube channel. You have a lovely personality and I really enjoyed this interview with Kramnik. I hope we see more of you in chess circles. Cheers!
I prefer this much over kasparovs video. Kramnik is such a funny gentle guy with very interesting story and being somewhat in the middle, not arrogant at all and it seems to me as he sees also women and men as equal (which i have to admit i don't see in gary). Really nice interview and I always enjoy when kramnik is commentating nowadays
Men and women being of equal value doesnt mean they are equally skilled at every activity, why should it? Men and women are designed to compliment each other, not mirror each other. Men are much more successful at chess, that is a fact. There could be any number of biological and societal reasons as to why, but it makes no sense to assume the answers. That is broadly what Kasparov was saying. Kasparov has the ego of a champion, sure that can grate a little, but he's likeable enough I think. Age has mellowed him somewhat also. Kramnik is refreshingly humble for a champion though, no doubt.
@@coviantlynch6913 - triggered much??????? And no Kasparov (whom I idolize by the way) was not saying that - he begins by pointing out that Judit was an anomaly amongst women because she had powers of concentration - then later on he says women cannot generally concentrate as well as men - two sexist tropes for the price of one there We have the "well she was good but she's not like other women/she's not really a woman is she - more like a man" trope and the "women's heads are all fuzzy and filled with kittens - better not let them be surgeons or do any really important jobs - their minds might wander" trope. I don't know if women are less capable of playing chess at high levels than men - but the time to assess that will be when they have had equal opportunities in the chess world for around a 100 years.
@@honeychurchgipsy6 Unusual way to start a post, but ok. I dont remember him saying half the stuff you have included there. He seemed fairly reasonable from what I remember. I believe men are thought to be better at being single minded which is related to concentration, where as women are thought to be better at multi-tasking. So it wouldnt seem unreasonable if he had said that at least. That Judit polar is an anomaly for women in chess is true so far. I cant say where women will be in chess in 100 years time, I just see no reason to assume they will be equal to men.
@@coviantlynch6913 - I have no idea whether men are inherently better at chess than women either, but I begin from a neutral position and I do not assume the answer, whereas you and much of the world seem to be beginning with "I don't know but I assume women will never be equal to men". As for the concentration thing: where is your evidence that men are inherently (i.e. due to an evolved difference in brain structure rather than upbringing) better at concentrating than women? (Again - you might be correct but I don't think this has been established yet) What if it's just that some of us are better than others?? I watched a YT video about world champion GM Tol yesterday that reveals how the ability to concentrate is assumed: In a book about he wrote Tol noted that in one game he wanted to make a particular move but was unsure whether it was the best move. Unable to calculate all the possible outcomes, he allowed his mind to wander for 45 minutes on the subject of getting a Hippo out of water, before making the move anyway. As it turned out the move was excellent and he won the game. The press had a field day going on about his superior powers of concentration!! So, does this anecdote mean men are bad at concentrating? Of course not. The point I am making is that there may be more differences between individual players (no matter the sex) than between male and female players. I have also been thinking about what Garry Kasparov said about how men dislike giving up a pawn to a female player even if it is the best move: it struck me that this shows how emotions and sexism affect all players. Just as a male player might use his male aggression to intimidate other players, a female player might exploit that kind of machismo nonsense to her advantage!! I actually care not if men are inherently better than women at chess - what does that tell us about anything other than chess? Nothing. What I care about are the ramifications of assuming male intellectual dominance. Assumed male intellectual superiority has acted to deter girls from playing, and assists in the continued bias towards male players by chess clubs/schools and trainers; just as it was used historically to justify preventing women from taking part fully in the world outside of the domestic sphere. Let's not forget the reasons women were not allowed to vote/go to university (then, when allowed to go and take the exams they were prevented from being given a degree)/become doctors/astronauts etc. (clue: it was because their biology was considered to make them erratic in their thinking and it was also thought that studying too much would shrivel their reproductive organs and make them sterile and hysterical) Women have a lot of catching up to do before we can make any definitive answers on many subjects of whether men are better at X than women. Sorry for such a long post: I have edited it down amap!!
@@honeychurchgipsy6 My issue is similar to yours: people making assumptions. I agree that men have underestimated womens intellect to a genuinely absurd degree. But I disagree with assuming men and women should be equal in all areas. In most species males compete with other males for the right to mate. That means that men have evolved to be better at fighting than women. But the way to win a fight is not purely through being superior physically, there is a mental aspect as well. Chess is a game which I believe has similarities to the mental side of fighting. That plus mens continued dominance of chess while women have been given more opportunity means that yes, I do believe men are likely better chess players. Im not making a baseless assumption rather giving an opinion in the absense of proof. I dont take any great joy in thinking that on average men are more adept at chess. Im well aware there are plenty of women who would trounce me at the game. It is also no reason whatsoever to want to deny women the chance to play the game. My default position in general is live and let live.
Not the greatest but one of the greatest definitely. He beat Kasparov in a match, something people thought to be impossible at the time, he was at the top of the chess world for almost three decades, always remaining one of the toughest opponents in any tournament he participated in and his contributions to theory in the last decades are unparalleled. Probably the greatest defender of all time who could play any type of position equally well and with almost computer-like precision. The only thing I could criticize about Kramnik is the fact that he didn't give Kasparov a return match, that would have been a match for the ages, Kasparov out for revenge, Kramnik eager to prove that he can slay the dragon a second time.
@@Expizzapie1811 Yeah he did (though 'destroyed' is a strong word for a two-point lead). But I doubt a second match would have been that one-sided. Kramnik won because of his incredible preparation whereas Kasparov, by his own admission, had been a bit lax in his preparation and his match-strategy. Looking at Kasparov's performance in the last 5 years of his career, it's clear that he was still the best player in the world so it would have been a great match. And in those years, he had a positive score against Kramnik, at least if we count Blitz and Rapid games (otherwise it's 1-1 with lots of draws).
This guy is really a good guy, never trashtalking Garri like others and always giving respect to Garri as world champion. Resurfacing the Berlin defense was the only way to beat Kasparow and he found the key even though Kasparow was the better player. Also, very interesting, the top neural networks play Kasparowian chess, not Karpowian. It is like they copied Kasparow and gave him unrestricted calculation power.
man dramnik retired too early i can udnerstand modern computer chess is frustrating to play but he is so good over the board. also weirdly he only has bad records against russian players
@@luisalonso959 there is none. Perhaps Hou Yefan could have but she retired. Notice that we are talking about a woman who was in her prime among the top 10 men players and beating all of them.
Quite an imbalanced score given how strong both were in their primes. It's interesting when they talk about this. I wonder what the figures are when you compare their record against common opponents. I'm pretty sure the margin of difference would be a lot smaller.
@@philfrei1 There were also 21 draws between them, not mentioning that might've been unfair. Nevertheless, a side note is that Kramnik reached his peak rating in 2016, while one-year-younger Polgar was already retired. Here are Kramnik and Polgar's records against some of the strongest players of their time, with the middle number being draws: Kasparov 22-79-21 Kramnik Kasparov 12-4-1 Polgar Anand 31-139-32 Kramnik Anand 28-18-10 Polgar Topalov 20-50-33 Kramnik Topalov 16-15-15 Polgar Ivanchuk 23-65-25 Kramnik Ivanchuk 10-16-8 Polgar Leko 8-87-22 Kramnik Leko 4-11-2 Polgar Gelfand 12-64-24 Kramnik Gelfand 18-16-4 Polgar Svidler 15-36-27 Kramnik Svidler 5-7-4 Polgar
@@JimmyBoosterCrate Thanks for the stats! Significant difference, floating up and down in top 50 or 100 with a peak at 8 and sitting at or near the top for many years. I do see that her record against the others was significantly better than against Kramnik. Something about Kramnik's patience under fire, I think, must have driven her crazy, given her desire to enter tactic-heavy fighting. I wonder if some of this can be traced back to her childhood training. Am enjoying the book with 1000+ puzzles her father published. His early nurturing of tactical skill may have contributed to that becoming her "go to" method for winning.
Polgar draws less frequently than Kramnik, which does highlight that tendency to push for the win, which can turn out to be fatal overpushing against someone like Kramnik. One cool thing is that she has a 12-5-3 record against Nigel Short (the guy who said women are hard-wired to be worse at chess), which is better than Kramnik's record.
Kramnik is my second favorite player of all time. His intelligence, poise, personality, humor, intensity, and in chess his preperation, style, talent, and incredible thoroughness are just so entertaining to watch. Amazing, legendary player that will always have a special place in my heart. Kramnik Klan!
Who is first?
Lovely interview. Great to see such mutual respect. Thanks Judit.
From the moment I learned Judit Polgar and Vladimir Kramnik would have a conversation about their chess careers, I was wondering whether it would later be made available to the public so that people who didn't have chance to participate in the conference could watch it. I was so happy and excited to see this video, and it didn't disappoint. Both Judit and Kramnik seem to be very interesting characters and to have led quite non-conventional lives (as it usually happens with professional chess players) but they are also balanced, integrated, grounded personalities, and it's a joy to listen to them talk about life. Thanks!
Very sad that such a great player has to retire very early. He'll be remembered as one of the best players in history
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a return. His mention of studying AlphaZero sounds like he still has something more to give to the game.
Why did he have to retire? Didnt follow GM games until recently..
@@TheRdg24 He has a rare form of arthritis which is quite painful and makes it difficult for him to focus at the board in classical games when he is sitting for a long time.
64 likes, as it should be. I cannot with a good conscience like the comment :)
Thank you Judit. You are my chess hero. I grew up watching Kasparov face Nigel Short and Deep Blue and Karpov, but you were the one I always rooted for. Fantastic player and very good analyst now. Loved your work on the Norway chess tournament. I follow Magnus now mainly.
Great interview he's such a great person, as is Judit
Great memories... I've been out of chess for some time. I fondly remember the impact of the Polgar Sister's had upon chess in general. Judit has always been very sharp, and very aggressive, which went firmly against popular norms. It's good to see you are still here. Vladimir has always been the silent executioner. Very calm, composed, and extremely dangerous. I believe that Garry saw his innate talent very early on. The older talents I remember also contributed greatly to chess: Vishy, Nigel Short, Timmerman The Great Dutchman, I could go on forever. Thanks again for the walkthrough time, you've gained a new subscriber!
Jan Timman
8:34 what a picture!
What a great interview . Thank u champs 😍❤️
Hi Judit, I had no idea that you have your own youtube channel. You have a lovely personality and I really enjoyed this interview with Kramnik. I hope we see more of you in chess circles. Cheers!
I prefer this much over kasparovs video. Kramnik is such a funny gentle guy with very interesting story and being somewhat in the middle, not arrogant at all and it seems to me as he sees also women and men as equal (which i have to admit i don't see in gary). Really nice interview and I always enjoy when kramnik is commentating nowadays
Men and women being of equal value doesnt mean they are equally skilled at every activity, why should it? Men and women are designed to compliment each other, not mirror each other.
Men are much more successful at chess, that is a fact. There could be any number of biological and societal reasons as to why, but it makes no sense to assume the answers. That is broadly what Kasparov was saying.
Kasparov has the ego of a champion, sure that can grate a little, but he's likeable enough I think. Age has mellowed him somewhat also. Kramnik is refreshingly humble for a champion though, no doubt.
@@coviantlynch6913 - triggered much??????? And no Kasparov (whom I idolize by the way) was not saying that - he begins by pointing out that Judit was an anomaly amongst women because she had powers of concentration - then later on he says women cannot generally concentrate as well as men - two sexist tropes for the price of one there
We have the "well she was good but she's not like other women/she's not really a woman is she - more like a man" trope and the "women's heads are all fuzzy and filled with kittens - better not let them be surgeons or do any really important jobs - their minds might wander" trope.
I don't know if women are less capable of playing chess at high levels than men - but the time to assess that will be when they have had equal opportunities in the chess world for around a 100 years.
@@honeychurchgipsy6 Unusual way to start a post, but ok. I dont remember him saying half the stuff you have included there. He seemed fairly reasonable from what I remember.
I believe men are thought to be better at being single minded which is related to concentration, where as women are thought to be better at multi-tasking. So it wouldnt seem unreasonable if he had said that at least.
That Judit polar is an anomaly for women in chess is true so far.
I cant say where women will be in chess in 100 years time, I just see no reason to assume they will be equal to men.
@@coviantlynch6913 - I have no idea whether men are inherently better at chess than women either, but I begin from a neutral position and I do not assume the answer, whereas you and much of the world seem to be beginning with "I don't know but I assume women will never be equal to men".
As for the concentration thing: where is your evidence that men are inherently (i.e. due to an evolved difference in brain structure rather than upbringing) better at concentrating than women? (Again - you might be correct but I don't think this has been established yet)
What if it's just that some of us are better than others??
I watched a YT video about world champion GM Tol yesterday that reveals how the ability to concentrate is assumed:
In a book about he wrote Tol noted that in one game he wanted to make a particular move but was unsure whether it was the best move. Unable to calculate all the possible outcomes, he allowed his mind to wander for 45 minutes on the subject of getting a Hippo out of water, before making the move anyway.
As it turned out the move was excellent and he won the game. The press had a field day going on about his superior powers of concentration!! So, does this anecdote mean men are bad at concentrating? Of course not.
The point I am making is that there may be more differences between individual players (no matter the sex) than between male and female players.
I have also been thinking about what Garry Kasparov said about how men dislike giving up a pawn to a female player even if it is the best move: it struck me that this shows how emotions and sexism affect all players. Just as a male player might use his male aggression to intimidate other players, a female player might exploit that kind of machismo nonsense to her advantage!!
I actually care not if men are inherently better than women at chess - what does that tell us about anything other than chess? Nothing.
What I care about are the ramifications of assuming male intellectual dominance.
Assumed male intellectual superiority has acted to deter girls from playing, and assists in the continued bias towards male players by chess clubs/schools and trainers; just as it was used historically to justify preventing women from taking part fully in the world outside of the domestic sphere.
Let's not forget the reasons women were not allowed to vote/go to university (then, when allowed to go and take the exams they were prevented from being given a degree)/become doctors/astronauts etc. (clue: it was because their biology was considered to make them erratic in their thinking and it was also thought that studying too much would shrivel their reproductive organs and make them sterile and hysterical)
Women have a lot of catching up to do before we can make any definitive answers on many subjects of whether men are better at X than women.
Sorry for such a long post: I have edited it down amap!!
@@honeychurchgipsy6
My issue is similar to yours: people making assumptions. I agree that men have underestimated womens intellect to a genuinely absurd degree. But I disagree with assuming men and women should be equal in all areas.
In most species males compete with other males for the right to mate. That means that men have evolved to be better at fighting than women. But the way to win a fight is not purely through being superior physically, there is a mental aspect as well. Chess is a game which I believe has similarities to the mental side of fighting. That plus mens continued dominance of chess while women have been given more opportunity means that yes, I do believe men are likely better chess players. Im not making a baseless assumption rather giving an opinion in the absense of proof.
I dont take any great joy in thinking that on average men are more adept at chess. Im well aware there are plenty of women who would trounce me at the game. It is also no reason whatsoever to want to deny women the chance to play the game. My default position in general is live and let live.
Two greats! This was an interesting informative watch.
⚘️
I hope he comes to the next festival. I will be there for sure.
What a sweet guy.
He is super handsome.
He's also a super strong chess player. One of the few to reach the 2750+ club.
@@michaelmcgee335 2800+
Great players
Greatest player of all times, no doubt.
Not sure about that :)
He is not better than Magnus Carlsen, Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Bobby Fischer, Viswanathan Anand.
Not the greatest but one of the greatest definitely. He beat Kasparov in a match, something people thought to be impossible at the time, he was at the top of the chess world for almost three decades, always remaining one of the toughest opponents in any tournament he participated in and his contributions to theory in the last decades are unparalleled. Probably the greatest defender of all time who could play any type of position equally well and with almost computer-like precision. The only thing I could criticize about Kramnik is the fact that he didn't give Kasparov a return match, that would have been a match for the ages, Kasparov out for revenge, Kramnik eager to prove that he can slay the dragon a second time.
@@hansmahr8627 Kramnik won the Championship with no loss. He completely destroyed Kasparov.
@@Expizzapie1811 Yeah he did (though 'destroyed' is a strong word for a two-point lead). But I doubt a second match would have been that one-sided. Kramnik won because of his incredible preparation whereas Kasparov, by his own admission, had been a bit lax in his preparation and his match-strategy. Looking at Kasparov's performance in the last 5 years of his career, it's clear that he was still the best player in the world so it would have been a great match. And in those years, he had a positive score against Kramnik, at least if we count Blitz and Rapid games (otherwise it's 1-1 with lots of draws).
This guy is really a good guy, never trashtalking Garri like others and always giving respect to Garri as world champion.
Resurfacing the Berlin defense was the only way to beat Kasparow and he found the key even though Kasparow was the better player. Also, very interesting, the top neural networks play Kasparowian chess, not Karpowian. It is like they copied Kasparow and gave him unrestricted calculation power.
There is not no one in the universe I respect more then Kramnik
Then you are mad
@@labibanaaz58 Who else?
@@postmasterpez Our parents are entitled to the highest respect, not chess champions if you feel bad then I am sorry
Depends on the parents. Some parents don't deserve any respect.
@@hansmahr8627 very well said
Goat hands down
Go to 10:00 and see his superrrrr memory.
Wow. Four casual rapid games at a hotel 20+ years ago and he remembers the results and the openings. What a legend
My thoughts precisely!
@@shelloshello19 he remembered the games, and she remembered the flowers lol
thank you for this
Beautiful
Hello having comments on a video makes the youtube algorithm make it on the first page more the more the higher the chance of it
FAVOR traducir a Español GRACIAS
man dramnik retired too early i can udnerstand modern computer chess is frustrating to play but he is so good over the board. also weirdly he only has bad records against russian players
2817 in case you don't know ❤
KIITOS!!
We have to wait centuries before another Judith!
Nah. I'm sure new female chess players surpass her
@@luisalonso959 Who? Name one?
@@luisalonso959 there is none. Perhaps Hou Yefan could have but she retired. Notice that we are talking about a woman who was in her prime among the top 10 men players and beating all of them.
Imagine they being husband and wife
I ship them
Cringe
"She's much greater than me", says the guy who thrashes Judit 23-1.
in the certain sense....
Quite an imbalanced score given how strong both were in their primes. It's interesting when they talk about this. I wonder what the figures are when you compare their record against common opponents. I'm pretty sure the margin of difference would be a lot smaller.
@@philfrei1 There were also 21 draws between them, not mentioning that might've been unfair. Nevertheless, a side note is that Kramnik reached his peak rating in 2016, while one-year-younger Polgar was already retired.
Here are Kramnik and Polgar's records against some of the strongest players of their time, with the middle number being draws:
Kasparov 22-79-21 Kramnik
Kasparov 12-4-1 Polgar
Anand 31-139-32 Kramnik
Anand 28-18-10 Polgar
Topalov 20-50-33 Kramnik
Topalov 16-15-15 Polgar
Ivanchuk 23-65-25 Kramnik
Ivanchuk 10-16-8 Polgar
Leko 8-87-22 Kramnik
Leko 4-11-2 Polgar
Gelfand 12-64-24 Kramnik
Gelfand 18-16-4 Polgar
Svidler 15-36-27 Kramnik
Svidler 5-7-4 Polgar
@@JimmyBoosterCrate Thanks for the stats! Significant difference, floating up and down in top 50 or 100 with a peak at 8 and sitting at or near the top for many years. I do see that her record against the others was significantly better than against Kramnik. Something about Kramnik's patience under fire, I think, must have driven her crazy, given her desire to enter tactic-heavy fighting. I wonder if some of this can be traced back to her childhood training. Am enjoying the book with 1000+ puzzles her father published. His early nurturing of tactical skill may have contributed to that becoming her "go to" method for winning.
Polgar draws less frequently than Kramnik, which does highlight that tendency to push for the win, which can turn out to be fatal overpushing against someone like Kramnik. One cool thing is that she has a 12-5-3 record against Nigel Short (the guy who said women are hard-wired to be worse at chess), which is better than Kramnik's record.
Judit needs to lay off the cookies.