< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 72 ·
|Oct-22-04|| ||Willem Wallekers: <acirce> You mean <dwangneurose>?
Long time ago a was in a sort of youth hostel in Turkey. one of the roommates was a Swedish lad who didn't speak English too well.
Suddenly he jumped up and shouted:
O zere ees a dirty leetle animal in my bed!
Me: What sort of animal?
Him: I don't know ze name een Eenglish.
Me: What's it called in Swedish?
Him: O, een Swedish eet ees called <kackerlack>
So I knew which animal he ment.
(I tried the render a strong Swedish acccent in writing.)
|Oct-22-04|| ||acirce: Tvångsneuros, exactly! :-) |
|Oct-22-04|| ||cheski: Not something I would have associated with Leko. I was looking for a chess term, like 'Over the Board'.
A touch of ADD maybe, judging from move 22... in game 14. |
|Oct-22-04|| ||Willem Wallekers: For the rest of you: a kackerlack (is that how it's spelled in Swedish?) or kakkerlak is a cockroach. |
|Oct-22-04|| ||acirce: <is that how it's spelled in Swedish?> Almost, "kackerlacka". It's interesting how Dutch first looks like total nonsense to me (no offense ;-) but if you actually look at it a lot of the words are perfectly recognizable. |
|Oct-22-04|| ||percyblakeney: And they are dirty little animals. :) |
|Oct-22-04|| ||AgentRgent: <Rawprawn: I'd say it would hinder in tight situations by making him take too much time in re-analysing stuff he'd already thought through.> Which could somewhat explain his frequent time trouble. OCD can range from mild to crippling, a mild form could slightly benefit a Chess player by helping him maintain focus. |
But I don't want to get into a discussion on OCD lest Clendenon come after me. ;-)
|Oct-22-04|| ||beenthere240: A compulsion to touch the pieces during a game could complicate one's play -- unless of course the compulsion was to touch the right piece to move. |
|Oct-23-04|| ||Rawprawn: Of course Obsessive Cockroach Disorder would lead to people being compelled to discuss creepie-crawlies when others are speaking of higher things like chess. |
|Oct-25-04|| ||chessgames.com: <If chessgames.com covers the Kasparov match, will it have sufficient bandwidth to cope this time> We're working on getting additional hardware set-up before the match, in the form of a dedicated "live broadcast" server, but whether or not we can get it working in time is still a question. |
|Nov-12-04|| ||JFHALLON: leko is the better player. one touch of grandmaster. |
|Dec-02-04|| ||haha: <JFHALLON> I think Leko will be the World Chamption someday. |
|Dec-06-04|| ||Knight13: I don't like the tiebreak here. |
|Dec-22-04|| ||shortsight: if Leko becomes th echampion one day, will he be the world champion with the fewest defeat, but also fewest wins in his games? |
|Jan-13-05|| ||Stevens: you mean the world champion that draws the most then! |
|Jan-14-05|| ||TIMER: First we must be considering proportions as players play different number of games. A player with the smallest proportion of wins, and the smallest proportion of losses, by implication has the largest proportion of draws. But the player who has the highest proportion of draws, needn't have the lowest proportions of wins or lowest proportion of losses- he could have neither. So some imformation is lost. |
|May-03-05|| ||aw1988: This match essentially showed how useless computers are.|
|May-03-05|| ||maoam: <aw1988>
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
|May-03-05|| ||Cecil Brown: Perhaps the Marshall game that Kramnik lost?
Detailed computer prep on Kramnik's part, apparently didn't leave the computer on long enough and missed a forced winning line for black that Leko found OTB.
Do you blame the deficencies of computer analysis? Or the analysts for not looking at the position hard enough themselves or not leaving the computer on longer?
|May-03-05|| ||maoam: <Cecil Brown>
That's my point, how can you say that computers are useless when in fact they find Leko's refutation given enough time?
|May-03-05|| ||WillC21: <aw1988> Computers are undoubtedly useful. Programs like Fritz 8 on deep analysis can analyze a game much better than the average human and the programs are an essential tool for opening preparation today. Computers have in essence created a new age of chess. Just because Kramnik's handlers turned the computer off too soon and neglected to analyze thoroughly themselves gives no basis to say computers are useless. Kramnik himself conceded his defeat in that game was all the fault of his team and him, not Fritz. Computers today are now essential for preparation to play at the top level. That's all.|
|May-03-05|| ||aw1988: My statement was a bit too harsh; I only half-meant it. I was kibitzing on this page saying they are useless looking at material imbalances like in the first game or the fifth game where it was all theory but dubious. The reason I was in an anti-computer feeling was that I had just played a game as black in the Grunfeld where white played e5 and Fritz said "gaining space", but everyone who plays the Grunfeld seriously knows this is bad and d5 is the move to play.|
|May-03-05|| ||who: Who won in the end?|
|May-03-05|| ||WillC21: Neither. It was a draw.|
|May-03-05|| ||maoam: <who: Who won in the end?> Yes, he did ;)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 72 ·