< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 72 OF 72 ·
|May-03-05|| ||aw1988: Technically it was a draw, but Kramnik kept the title.|
|May-03-05|| ||Darklight: <Computers> It's just my opinion, but this is why I have much more admiration for the grandmasters of yesteryear---they did all their work and preparation without the use of the computers that we (including myself) are almost dependent on today.|
|May-03-05|| ||aw1988: Because they simply didn't have them. The grandmasters of today don't have a choice: admiration has nothing worthy in this discussion.|
|May-03-05|| ||RookFile: I think chess was more fun then,
too. There was more an element
of art to it. Now a computer looks
at a beautiful move that works in
9 variations out of 10 and instantly
spits out the 10th move at you.
|May-04-05|| ||knightspot: alas, poor rook, the 1970's are over . . .|
|May-15-05|| ||superiorNOshow: Then don't use a computer,lol.|
|May-15-05|| ||superiorNOshow: but of course, since it exists it is a must have.|
|Jul-02-05|| ||Giancarlo: <Because they simply didn't have them. The grandmasters of today don't have a choice: admiration has nothing worthy in this discussion.>|
I very much agree. If the choice is made not to use computers as an aid, you simply will have trouble being one of the best.
So it's true then that admiration isn't in the equation, but I can see on what level it is.
It's like saying old tennis players were more admirable because they used small wooden rackets. If they didn't use the new rackets now, it would be much more diffucult to win.
|Jul-02-05|| ||Darklight: <Because they simply didn't have them.>|
That is my point. Since the subject of computer analysis was hot at the time of my previous post, I just thought that I would share my feeling that I admired players of the pre-computer days more than today's because they had to do all of their research and analysis without computers. Perhaps my comment was a bit ill-timed.
|Aug-01-05|| ||Koster: Some players seem to overuse computers to the point where they're more of a crutch than a tool. I wonder if maybe this is why Kramnik's results have declined.|
|Aug-02-05|| ||SEMENELIN: I agree with you <Darklight> that is why Fischer was considered a legend after fischer was the computer age for chess. Players of the past era only relied on their own. Players formulated their openings and traps. That is why i admire classical openings. They were authentically made by their creators. computers could not formulate such opening. The earliest players of chess had developed their own concepts and techniques. Computers just play chess defensively that is what i can observe. Sacrifices are usually made by players anyway depending on the structure. That is why human players think better than computers. Computers could just mimic what human players could have done because of their data stored on their memory. RAM. heheheh. One example of a genius player in chess before the computer era was Napoleon Bonaparte. Now at this time Napoleon could be compared to etiene bacrot. Chess is really the ultimate sport in testing the thinking ability of man.|
|Feb-10-06|| ||TylerD: SEMENELIN: Surely your arguments come with some irony?
Napoleon was not a strong player.
...Bacrot? What do you mean? How?
"Thinking ability of a man"... well, I can not take that one all too serious either...
In fact, take any top 100 chess player and put him (or her, let us not forget) in the same room with the top 100 fictional writers (authors) - and they would not appear neither "smart" nor "intelligent"... Or put them in the same room as the 100 top philosophers... or musicians... or artists... or actors...
An elite chess player is most often a very special person in many different regards... but their "thinking ability", well...
|Feb-10-06|| ||TylerD: I meant, of course, 1 player in the same room as 1 of any of the other mentioned categories... Or, if u will: 100 chess players in the same room as 100 of any of the other... (A crowded room any way you look at it!)... I did not intend to put one single chess player in the same room with 100 writers... Even though the thought is interesting - maybe those 100 would put together some interesting stuff based on the 1...|
|Oct-17-06|| ||Whitehat1963: Who takes the credit for this super exciting match that included six draws of 23 moves or less?|
|May-20-07|| ||Scarecrow: I see this match is linked to the series of WCC matches now. This was a great match, for the first time in history a Hungarian player had a shot at the world title. It still hurts to recall how Leko lost that last game.|
<chessgames.com> I spot an error in the text above. Leko's second win was not the seventh game but game 8. And, although it's not my task to judge it, he won it not because of his immense preparation but because of Kramnik's preparation errors and his own calculation OTB. The game is special because it's an OTB masterpiece in the era of home prep.
|May-20-07|| ||Plato: <Scarecrow> You're absolutely right, in my opinion, and <chessgames.com> should change their summary accordingly.|
|Sep-24-07|| ||Karpova: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...|
User: offramp became famous
|Dec-14-07|| ||amadeus: 4 wins out of 32 games?|
|Dec-14-07|| ||Illogic: The text in the description is still the same. It was the eighth game Leko won, and Scarecrow and Plato are correct, Leko busted Kramnik's prep OTB, it was not a win with his own prep.|
|Feb-20-08|| ||positionalgenius: A fine match with deep chess.|
|Feb-25-09|| ||WhiteRook48: the match was a tie? Aww...|
|Mar-31-09|| ||WhiteRook48: why didn't they play one more game?|
|Jul-03-09|| ||WhiteRook48: therefore, Leko is better than Kasparov|
|Jul-20-09|| ||dumbgai: Too bad there were so many short draws in this match. But the rest of the games are genuine treasures.|
|Apr-02-13|| ||Xenon Oxide: Remarkable to remember how Leko was considered one of the strongest and most promising talents. He was phenomenally strong back then. Pity he's never been the same since this match. Seems like he peaked rather early.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 72 OF 72 ·