< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 74 OF 74 ·
|Oct-12-09|| ||siamesedream: Magnificent Magnus by Lubomir Kavalek:
|Oct-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: And he selected Jakovenko-Carlsen to analyze. Who's choice was that!?|
|Oct-12-09|| ||manakin: <Let's take a hypothetical scenerio where a player wins a tournament or match, and his opponent blunders in every game. Is his tournament or match win any less significant than if his opponent made a few minor innacuries or one minor positional innacuracy that led to a win. What does it matter?>|
It does matter ezzy. If you win a game because your oppoent blunders, it is true that Officially it was you who won, but it is more precise to say he is the one who actively lost. I don't think that to define "what matters" as "what people remember afterwards" or rather what they tend to forget, is too bright; so they should have remembered things as they were. If a 1200 were to participate nanjing and to accidentally beat an elite player, cause the guy <had chicken pox, had small pox, had a row with his wife before the game> you and assuredly everyone else will point out that in proper shape, that guy would have never ever lost to the 1200. And it will indeed be an important fact to point out.
this is all theoretically speaking.
<Magnus Carlsen didn't just win a tournament, he annihilated the opposition. He was way far too good for them in this tournament.>
It does appear so ;-)... I also share your opinion that this was a fantastic performance. Now weather one chooses to add to this: "but it could have been better", or instead "hale magnus the king!" is a matter of personal agenda, bias, or simply tendencies (a person may be more critical or pessimistic in nature; another may tend to be more enthusiastic). and so I think your statemet
<To try to find a reason why it wasn't special is verging on the condition of insanity.>
Is more than a little exaggerated. If someone digs hard in order to find faults with which to blame Carlsen's play, I'd say it's probably doesn't show of a very healthy attitude. But then again, I don't think there has been too much of this, and the remarks I encountered by now never seemed to me to be explicitly stemming from some burning desire to rob carlsen of credit for his achievements. As much as I enjoy reading your posts, which are endowed for love for the game and healthy enthsiasm, I can also see how people of another nature ad temperament may speak differently of a player's performance, good as it may be. mentioning or discussing more the inaccuracies or points of shifting in game momentum. That, anoying as it may be, is equally legitimate.
|Oct-12-09|| ||Shams: 1.) Where is the poll that asks if we are tired beyond belief of the discussion engendered by Magnus' win here?|
2.) How many times can I vote?
|Oct-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: Well put manakin! Bravo!|
|Oct-12-09|| ||manakin: Thank you <returnoftheking>, but i am actually on my way to the poll following <shams>...
And then to get some decent good night's sleep
|Oct-12-09|| ||notyetagm: It's just shocking that Carlsen won twice as many games (6!) as the other five players *combined* (3)!|
|Oct-13-09|| ||ycbaywtb: it was black magic:--<It's just shocking that Carlsen won twice as many games (6!) as the other five players *combined* (3)!>|
|Oct-13-09|| ||Eyal: <it was black magic> Or white magic: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
|Oct-13-09|| ||Ezzy: <returnoftheking: < It's not within the realms of common sense to criticise any tournament win by ANY player>|
Are you serious!??>
Absolutely serious. If you feel it necessary to spend time criticising somebody, then criticise the players who didn't win the tournament.
|Oct-13-09|| ||Atking: <siamesedream: Magnificent Magnus by Lubomir Kavalek: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...;
Kotae : Be4!|
|Oct-13-09|| ||whatthefat: <kamalakanta: I do hope Carlsen will publish comments to some or all of his games in this tournament>|
That would be nice. It seems that with the much higher frequency of tournaments these days, we've lost the old tradition of tournament books.
|Oct-13-09|| ||moronovich: I dont see anything wrong in critizising MC. If it is backed in a sober way and if there is something to criticise him for.|
To overprotect him like a buddastatue in a temple with no entrance would only work in a true disneyworld.
|Oct-13-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <whatthefat: <kamalakanta: I do hope Carlsen will publish comments to some or all of his games in this tournament>
That would be nice. It seems that with the much higher frequency of tournaments these days, we've lost the old tradition of tournament books.>|
Good point. However, chessbase magazine does provide excellent coverage of all the top events. It features many annotated games, as well as videos, so Carlsen's biggest fans might want to think about picking up the next issue. I used to have a subscription, but I bought the issue covering the Bonn match after it had expired. It was well worth it.
|Oct-13-09|| ||frogbert: <<The Rocket: btw in terms of grandmaster norms do you have to reach 2500 on the new list? or is it good enough to have reached it provisional and then lose it lets say just a week later in another tournament?>|
[...] And no, I don't think FIDE uses the live ratings for anything. I do not know all of the protocols, but they definitely use the official FIDE lists.>
rocket, setnoescapeon, i haven't bothered to check if anyone else replied to this, but here goes:
the requirement to be rated 2500+ in order to become gm does <not> need to be satisfied on an official list.
a) it can be reached after an event mid-way in the rating period, even if the player drops down below 2500 after a later event.
b) more surprsingly, maybe: it can even be reached <in the middle of an event>, even if the player again is below 2500 after the event.
in other words, fide does indeed use "live ratings" for something, even though the term "live rating" probably was "invented" later. :o)
[the reason for b) is obviously a practical issue: before the rules were changed to allow this, players that needed a 2500+ or a 2400+ rating for gm/im titles, simply would <quit> tournaments half-way when their goal was reached, making all kinds of trouble for chess organizers and <other> chess players. as you probably know, you're never punished rating-wise for a forfeit...]
|Oct-13-09|| ||frogbert: <Errors that were previously imperceptible are now hollered about in chorus by a symphony of patzers.>|
|Oct-13-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: Yes <frogbert>, <laserlight> had corrected me earlier, but you have now added more detail.|
|Oct-13-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: Lol!
My guess is Joel Benjamin.
|Oct-14-09|| ||HeMateMe: tuff call, man. Lots of GMs here. I think we eliminate Nakamura, and Irina Krush...I don't think its Benjamin, he's extremely thin, thinner than soda-can-GM. Also, he's somewhat introverted, this isn't quite his thing, although he would be terrific at it. I'm thinking its one of the fairly recent chess immigrants from Russia, Ukraine or E. Europe. That doesn't do much to narrow it down, but I don't think its a native born american, or an older immigrant.|
When and where will soda-can-GM's identity be revealed? I bet Pepsi got him more $$ money than his last tournament!
|Oct-14-09|| ||magnuschess: it's the greatest performance at category +21 tournament i've ever seen...magnus is the future...|
|Oct-14-09|| ||Tjaika: SetNoEscapeOn: Lol!
My guess is Joel Benjamin.
Could it be Susan Polgar or one of her sisters?
|Oct-14-09|| ||HeMateMe: Who WAS that masked Grandmaster....?|
|Oct-17-09|| ||DiscerningKing: I Love Vishy as World Chess Champion but he's days are numbered. With Kasparov to continue to teach Carlsen and willingness on his part to listen, he will be WCC before hes 25yrs old... Great Probability!!|
|Jun-08-10|| ||hellopolgar: 100 years from now, 2009 pearl spring will be remembered as the tournament where Carlsen went on a killing spree.|
|Jun-08-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: Well if he is remembered at all.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 74 OF 74 ·