|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 36 OF 40 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-07-07 | | you vs yourself: <Chess Classics> If by losing a bit of his edge, you mean winning amber rapid by 2 points(2.5pts over aronian including a win in their personal meeting), then yeah he lost some edge:) 16th Amber Tournament (Rapid) (2007) |
 |
| May-07-07 | | Plato: <slomarko: Did you stop beating your wife? Yes or no?> This is the level of your "logic," I see. That's ashame. I have tried on many occasions to reason with you, having been far more patient than most, but it was futile... it's abundantly clear now that you are either incapable of logical reasoning or else (what is more likely) completely insincere in your manner of argumentation. You have demonstrated this insincerity on MANY occasions. Since you are unable to answer my question, it's clear that you are biased and inconsistent regarding your opinions on Topalov's default win over Kramnik as compared to Jakovenko's default win over Morozevich. That you would stoop to such a non-sequitor and idiotic question (which is NOT analogous to my question in any way, if that's what you were implying) -- this just shows why nobody here takes you seriously, and for good reason. Unfortunately I'm going to have to stop taking you seriously as well, even though I've tried to give you every benefit of the doubt. But since you insist on maintaining this pathetic level of "reasoning," I have no choice but to join the many others who consider you a mindless troll. |
|
| May-07-07 | | slomarko: And I've explained to you that I care for official results of the matches and tourneys. You weren't happy that the classical part of the match Topalov-Kramnik ended 3:3 and thats why you started this OTB thing. |
|
| May-07-07 | | Davolni: <micartouse> Mexico is where the only winner will play with the champion? OR some other players as well will be in Mexico? So for Aronian first he has to beat Carlsen and then Shirov?? 6 match games? |
|
| May-07-07 | | Plato: <slomarko: You weren't happy that the classical part of the match Topalov-Kramnik ended 3:3 and thats why you started this OTB thing.> Wrong again. The reason I mentioned the OTB result is because *only* OTB results are indications of chess strength. Default wins are not. What happened when I mentioned it? You and completely misconstrued my statement -- knowing full well that what I said was completely true -- and pretended that I was falsifying facts. Then I explained it to you, and you AGAIN reiterated the same misinterpretation of my remarks, so I explained again and you AGAIN proceeded to twist my words and respond in ways that were completely unrelated to my actual claims. Then you tried to twist the definition of what is meant by "OTB," and since I knew you were being biased I confronted you about the Jakovenko-Morozevich case. Instead of giving an honest answer, you proceeded to give this response: <Did you stop beating your wife? Yes or no?> Alas, that is the level of your "logic" and insincerity. Some would say it's inability to reason, but I do think you are *able* to reason, but just prefer to be insincere and illogical when it suits you --- and it is for this reason that you have earned for yourself the reputation of a troll. |
|
| May-07-07 | | Davolni: <Plato> I feel so sorry for your keyboard, your fingers and your time... You are wasting so much time and energy to respond to <slomarko's> comments...... Is it worth it???
:) |
|
| May-07-07 | | Plato: <Davolni: Is it worth it???> You are absolutely right, <Davolni>. It's not worth it. And yet I do it anyway... that is a case of ME being illogical. <slomarko>'s insincerity, lies, word-twisting, insults against top GMs -- all of these things upset me more than they should, especially since nobody seems to take him seriously anyway. I should not even bother trying to have a reasonable conversation with him. There are some people for whom, after repeated attempts, it is just impossible to take them seriously anymore. <slomarko> is one such person. In the future I will try to avoid dealing with him at all. |
|
| May-07-07 | | micartouse: <Davolni> I just don't know for sure, so I'll just put a link to FIDE's site explaining the process. What we do know is there will be a tournament of 8 players: 4 players are automatically seeded, and 4 will have to earn their way out of a batch of 16 using candidate matches. http://www.chessmexico.com/es/index... However, what I'm not sure about is what happens afterward. I think the winner is simply the World Champion. However, I think Kramnik gets to play the winner in a match assuming he himself doesn't win. If anybody has better info on this, please post it. Thanks. |
|
| May-07-07 | | micartouse: btw, for clarification, Kramnik is 1 of the 4 automatically seeded. |
|
| May-07-07 | | Brown: Not surprised by the chaos of a few of these games. Aronian's chess is a strong positional and tactical mess. |
|
| May-07-07 | | Davolni: Thanks <micartouse>. those website may be some help:::) |
|
| May-07-07 | | veigaman: < Aronian with defeat Carlsen and then Adams to get to Mexico> Aronian has to beat carlsen and adams has to beat shirov first. To predict is not easy but i will bet on carlsen and shirov!. Time is running out and the matches are just around the corner! Good chess is coming! |
|
| May-07-07 | | adair10: <micahtuhy: I think too, that if the games weren't rapid, Kramnik would've found the mates.> ... and if the games weren't rapid, Aronian would've not allowed those mating positions occur. <I don't think Aronian could come close to beating Kramnik in a match at classic controls.> So authoritative. Not even <beating> but <come close to beating>... Why? Is Aronian's previous score against Kramnik 0-10? Kramnik may well be stronger than Aronisn (it is not up to me to judge), but his results since 2005 indicate he can beat anybody from the elite. |
|
| May-07-07 | | Atking: <Brown: Not surprised by the chaos of a few of these games. Aronian's chess is a strong positional and tactical mess.> A bit hard. I think the match was chaotic because Kramnik needed to refresch between this match and the match with Leko. If he did then he was able to draw the 2nd game and the result could be the same as the Leko match. Then Aronian realized that he was not playing the Kramnik of Monaco and won 2 games (The game 4 especially merits great consideration. It's a preparation for the World Championship). Suddendly Aronian (I'm sure he is a very honest player) felt he got an advantage from an unequal situation (Try to imagine if Aronian had to play Morozevich 2 weeks ago and Kramnik one month to prepare) and venture somewhat to give unconsciously a chance to World Champion in the last 2 games. In Monaco Kramnik might have won these 2... but of course Aronian may have play more solid too. These aspects let an impression of exhibition more than a real match even rapid as it was with Leko. I'm a bit sorry somewhere for Aronian. I'm sure that armenian people are happy of this result but I'm not sure that Aronian is. He know he didn't play the Kramnik who played to Leko. But Kamnik is the one who has all the reponsabilty of this mess. |
|
| May-07-07 | | Davolni: <<Atking> I'm a bit sorry somewhere for Aronian. I'm sure that armenian people are happy of this result but I'm not sure that Aronian is. He know he didn't play the Kramnik who played to Leko.> Hello Atking, I tried reading your post couple of times, but still wasn't able to get fully what you were trying to say. I don't know whether it's me that just woke up, or it has nothing to do with me....:::) |
|
| May-07-07 | | DUS: <Atking> thank you, your comments are nice. Indeed Aronian had much longer time to get ready (which he had done). The important thing was that they had a good friendly played games, good for both of them, and they had nice time in Armenia. And the people in Armenia had chance to see the World Champion and their own Levon who also is a very top player already several years. The games were nice even being friendly. Today I read in Russian journal 64 that also last two games were very creative and nice. Here some people say that Kramnik didn't see the victory in both of them, but 64 wasn't saying anything on that. However all we know that Kramnik could have played much better. Also he could have arrived Armenia 1-2 week prior and not 1 or 2 days before to get used with local conditions which perhaps is important too. |
|
| May-08-07 | | Davolni: Lav Dus jan, mersiner, du vonc es? Mi kich nnjeci, nor artnaca aseci tesnem hech ovker en stex im anune shoshapel....:) En myus angliaci xaxacoxi ejum mi kani ban greci, tesel es yerevi. Tenc Dus jan. uraxanum enk mer lav ardyunknerov:) |
|
| May-08-07 | | Dr.Lecter: This result is really surprising. Since when did Krmnik lose three games in a row? |
|
| May-08-07 | | Atking: <DUS> and <Davolni> You are welcome! I know the good relationship between Kramnik and Aronian. No doubt they want to fight on the board at their best. They love chess and there is no more pleasure than to play a game in which both player are doing their best. Kramnik didn't here and as I said he is totally responsible of that. <Davolni> I'm sorry I don't understand armenian. Surely an interesting language. To say that I have not enought talent or time to learn it. |
|
| May-08-07 | | alicefujimori: <Plato><That's tends to be the opinion of Kramnik's detractors such as yourself, but it minimizes (intentionaly, I believe) Kramnik's huge achievement.>This belief of yours is typical of fanatics that are over-sensitive on issues relating to their idols. There's a difference between Kasparov being out of form and Kramnik's own play, preparations and so on. Kramnik prepared very well and played better than Kasparov overall in that match, so he deserved the win and that's a big achievement. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean that Kasparov could not be out of form and/or he was maybe having outside problems during that match. Besides, I'm not the only one that sees Kasparov being out of form in that match. Some GMs also have this view. Even Eric Schiller, the arbiter during that match, had expressed in this site before that Kasparov was looking disturbed before and after game 5. So that should give you something to think about too. <There is no reason to assume he went into that match in very bad form -- a number of the games were of high quality, and even Kasparov himself didn't make the excuses that you are now making, but gave full credit to his opponent.>Would you care to point out which games Kasparov was playing at a very high quality? If you're talking about the game where he saved a draw in the endgame being a piece down then you can save the time replying back. If you seriously believe Kasparov being a piece down and later only managed to save the game due to Kramnik's blunder is high quality chess by Kasparov, then you obviously have a problem understanding the word "quality". Also, it is not just an assumption that Kasparov was out of form. Just compare his opening prep and his play with his previous matches then you'll see what the difference is. <I think it is the opinion of many that Kramnik earned the victory, having prepared better, played better, and eventually (as happens in many matches) having managed to break his opponent's resolve.>I don't think anyone is disputing this here. What I disagreed with was your quote regarding "it is the opinion of MANY that Kramnik's win over Kasparov ranked among the best match performances that has ever been seen". Did you forget how Fischer demolished his opponents 6-0? Besides, if a +2 is enough to be ranked among the best match performances that has ever been seen, then Shirov's +2 -0 win over Kramnik in 1998 must also be as well. Not to mention all those WCC matches where the winner won by more than +2. |
|
May-08-07
 | | keypusher: Just in case this hasn't been posted
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/mai... |
|
| May-08-07 | | yalie: <micahtuhy: I think too, that if the games weren't rapid, Kramnik would've found the mates.> was the match against Fritz rapid?
|
|
| May-08-07 | | yalie: Excellent point by alicefujimori.
While the kramnikphiles are quick to trumpet his 2-0 victory over Kasparov as a comprehensive victory, they never acknowledge that, by their own logic, Shirov's 2-0 whitewash was equally one-sided. That said, it is nice to see Kramnik back to being close to his best. I'm looking forward to the WC in Mexico. |
|
| May-08-07 | | yalie: Kasparov beat Anand 4-1 in 18 games (20)
Anand beat Shirov 3-0 in 4 games (6)
Shirov beat Kramnik 2-0 in 9 games (10)
Kramnik beat Kasparov 2-0 in 15 games (16) |
|
May-08-07
| | keypusher: <While the kramnikphiles are quick to trumpet his 2-0 victory over Kasparov as a comprehensive victory, they never acknowledge that, by their own logic, Shirov's 2-0 whitewash was equally one-sided.> Who are these kramnikphiles? The impressiveness of a 2-0 victory depends on the identity of the loser. A 2-0=13 victory over the best player in the history of chess is impressive. Simple, really. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 36 OF 40 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
