"Everybody knows that the Knight on the edge of the board is wrong. Even Grandmasters know it". (Victor Korchnoi) 14:33 love the quote, I'm going to use it : )
2:13 i disagree with Korchnoi, Bg5 is not the best move, its what he played Bg4 reason been, in this positions you want to castle queen side, and Bg5 will be ahead of the pawn storm, so you will have to waste a tempo to remove the Bishop, also Yuri Averbakh said so and he had a game with Sarvarov 1959
castilng queen side is the weakest plan after Bg5 , main plans are to exchange on d5 and go for minority attack or play on the the centere with f3 and e4 , i mean Bf4 is the new theoritical move to create some complications but Bg5 is still the best move
You’re wrong mate. If white castles queenside with his bishop on g5, then black would ruin his position completely if he would chase that bishop. Why would black do a pawnstorm on the side his own king is?
Tp be fair, in 1981 Karpov had the slight advantage of not having his son locked up in a labour camp, courtesy of the Soviet authorities who obviously supported Karpov in this match. Obviously I agree that it's unlikely for that event to have had much of an impact on Korchnoi's concentration - just an interesting history fact
@@vibovitold Slight advantage? He destroyed Korchnoi, in fact, it is called the Meran Massacre. Korchnoi's son was not in a labour camp (it is a Western media lie). Moreover, Tal said Korcnoi's relationship with his son was not good (Tal talked to Korchnoi's son, and he confessed it).
@@gmarcobarbieri423 He and Smylov were 53 and 62 respectively, when they played in the Candidates semifinal and final in 1983 with Kasparov. Lasker was 52 when we played against Capaplanca in 1920. Anand became champion about 40 years old. Therefore, age is not a factor for a great player. Korchnoi was the second best in the world when they played for world championship.
@@turgaycoruhlu4648Karpov was 20 years younger and, at the time of the "massacre", was clearly the best player in the world, whereas Korchnoi had begun his descendent parable. In Baguio, when Viktor was still in good shape, the match was very balanced... Karpov and his megateam needed 32 games and a lot of psychological tricks to beat him. I don't think Korchnoi was a loser: he was one of the best chessplayers for twenty years and, he won 4 soviet Championship and, in 1978, he deserved more than the second place.
"Everybody knows that the Knight on the edge of the board is wrong. Even Grandmasters know it".
(Victor Korchnoi)
14:33
love the quote, I'm going to use it : )
Thank you so much!!
Refreshing! It's like listening to a grandpa's story! 🙂
Жаль что не по русски
Excellent post, I always wanted to hear Victory , in his Own words ❤ John Barnett 1:45 revisited 16 December 2014
A joy to hear from one of the greats.
Thank you for this.
This is absolutely awesome. Why is the video unlisted?
Simply legendary !
Legend !!
amazing, simply amazing
Kortschnoi came so close in this match.
Wow. Thank you.
Undoubtedly, one of the greatest legends in the history of chess.
I’ve always detested korchnois games as although fighting I thought they’re ugly. But watching him on video analysing I’m becoming a fan of his.
Somehow his games look ugly and lack finesse that we see in dynamic players like Kasparov, Spassky, Anand etc.,
"Ein Springer am Rande bringt Kummer und Schande"...however, exceptions confirm the rule! :-)
2:13 i disagree with Korchnoi, Bg5 is not the best move, its what he played Bg4 reason been, in this positions you want to castle queen side, and Bg5 will be ahead of the pawn storm, so you will have to waste a tempo to remove the Bishop, also Yuri Averbakh said so and he had a game with Sarvarov 1959
castilng queen side is the weakest plan after Bg5 , main plans are to exchange on d5 and go for minority attack or play on the the centere with f3 and e4 , i mean Bf4 is the new theoritical move to create some complications but Bg5 is still the best move
You’re wrong mate.
If white castles queenside with his bishop on g5, then black would ruin his position completely if he would chase that bishop.
Why would black do a pawnstorm on the side his own king is?
i am facinated with this comment, absolutely mainline queens gambit declined.
Unfortunately for him Karpov was superior and beat him in 3 matches.
Karpov beat Korchnoi in 1974 finals, 1978 WC and destroyed him in 1981 WC but he did not respect Karpov. Loser'
Tp be fair, in 1981 Karpov had the slight advantage of not having his son locked up in a labour camp, courtesy of the Soviet authorities who obviously supported Karpov in this match.
Obviously I agree that it's unlikely for that event to have had much of an impact on Korchnoi's concentration - just an interesting history fact
@@vibovitold Slight advantage? He destroyed Korchnoi, in fact, it is called the Meran Massacre. Korchnoi's son was not in a labour camp (it is a Western media lie). Moreover, Tal said Korcnoi's relationship with his son was not good (Tal talked to Korchnoi's son, and he confessed it).
Korchnoi was 51 ...
@@gmarcobarbieri423 He and Smylov were 53 and 62 respectively, when they played in the Candidates semifinal and final in 1983 with Kasparov. Lasker was 52 when we played against Capaplanca in 1920. Anand became champion about 40 years old. Therefore, age is not a factor for a great player. Korchnoi was the second best in the world when they played for world championship.
@@turgaycoruhlu4648Karpov was 20 years younger and, at the time of the "massacre", was clearly the best player in the world, whereas Korchnoi had begun his descendent parable. In Baguio, when Viktor was still in good shape, the match was very balanced... Karpov and his megateam needed 32 games and a lot of psychological tricks to beat him. I don't think Korchnoi was a loser: he was one of the best chessplayers for twenty years and, he won 4 soviet Championship and, in 1978, he deserved more than the second place.