Some people just don't get that even Kasparov is only human. What many GMs do is make quick draws, before the fun actually starts.

Markovich wrote on 09/14/11 at 01:10:39:


Indeed. Perhaps a separate USCF titles thread would be helpful explaining.
Actually, do have interest. Seem to play lots of US players (likely due to a US-friendly, Euro-unfriendly time zone and personal schedule) on ICC who have a range of unfamiliar titles.
Don't know what they are supposed to be, just curious.
But, yeah, perhaps just ignore the desire  for us all to dress up and Just Play Chess.

Gambit wrote on 09/13/11 at 14:04:33:


Not so smart.　Am very middling.

Well, I admitted defeat and asked my federation to apply for my FM 'title'. I was reluctant,  but no time these days to get out there to get the IM, least not for a while, so it'll do, it's something I guess.

Am interested. What is the performance rating level for Life Master btw? 300 games at 2000? 2100? 2200? 2300? 2400? A certain percentage versus IMs / GMs?
Those outside US may look somewhat sceptically at such pseudo-titles, wielded by players who do not appear very strong.

If Lev is proud of the 'title' that's good for him, but I was a bit surprised by the whole CM thing when it was introduced. Means as little as all those silly US titles: life master and stuff. Two squares forward, one to the side, congrats you are an 'expert'. Or whatever they have.
My federation wrote that they had put my name forward for CM. Had to write a prompt letter back saying no thanks, is embarrassing and they relented.

(1) These are chess games, since obviously, they were played. Not my fault Kasparov offered a draw early on.

(2) You saw Karpov, not Kasparov. Different player.

(3) Simple. I do have the title of Candidate Master in over-the-board chess. As for correspondence, I do not play much in ICCF, USCF or APCT tournaments. Computers take all the fun out of tactics. You cannot use a chess engine over-the-board, but you can do so in postal chess. That, in my opinion, is not fair.

Hope this answers your questions.

I would like to point out that the BDG begins after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3. That is first.

Second, Kasparov would have, as happened in our games, offer a draw early on. He was not interested in playing serious games, just in getting a rating on chess.net website.

Third, how many non-Grandmasters can say they drew Kasparov? I can. As far as beating GMs on the Internet Chess Club, I do that all the time. At the New Yorker Hotel Blitz tournament in May 2011, I beat GM Mikhail Kekelidze in the very first round. He is from Georgia in the former Soviet Union. That really set people talking!

Last, to be honest, I am not even 100% sure of the game scores! I think it was 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 in the first Zilbermints-Kasparov game, but it has been 12 years!
The only reason I remember the scores (at least I as accurately as I think) is because all games lasted 3 moves! I had it saved in my school email, but that got lost when my access to the school email lapsed. So I am relying on my memory.

As for best player in history, that remains an open question. Some of the new players, like Magnus Carlsen, might eclipse Kasparov soon. Especially since Kasparov is training Magnus!

No, it was not even a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. I think one game went 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 (Zilbermints - Kasparov, chess.net 1999) while the second went something like
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 (Kasparov - Zilbermints, chess.net 1999). I was White in the third game. All three games ended in a draw on move 3. There were no BDGs.

Because he offered a draw after the third move in every game. In fact, he was most likely trying out chess.net website. The handle said "Kasparov" (GM) 2800 . And only one man had that rating in 1999!