< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 74 ·
|Oct-10-09|| ||Atking: Well <SetNoEscapeOn> I think you understood my point : Carlsen as a sole winner of a big tournament.|
|Oct-10-09|| ||percyblakeney: <Can you imagine the reaction on the internet if Carlsen had won a game this way?>|
Or if Carlsen had won on time on the 40th move as in the mentioned Karpov vs Kramnik, 1994 where <Honza> meant that black had objectively fine chances to save the draw in the final position...
|Oct-10-09|| ||laserlight: <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?>|
<SetNoEscapeOn: 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.>
Actually, a live rating (even one obtained in the middle of a tournament) can be used to meet the minimum rating requirement for (woman) international master and (woman) grandmaster titles, if the relevant authorities agree that it is valid, but this is a separate requirement from a norm. It is the lesser titles that can be obtained purely by rating that require published ratings.
|Oct-10-09|| ||returnoftheking: <percy> If true, it would only make the game more error free ;))
Also chose that game because it wasn't made as "easy" as f.e. Karpov-Topalov 1994 or Carlsen-Topalov 09.|
< So , my friend stop replying my posts..>
KKDerek, I will, but then don't end them with questions to me:) Peace!
|Oct-10-09|| ||kamalakanta: <returnoftheking:>
But something as deep, beautiful and faultless as f.e. Karpov vs Kramnik, 1994 I have not seen this tournament.
<....After 1994 people made up many excuses for Karpov's performance, f.e. that he played everyone 1 round after Kasparov or indeed his game against Baraev. Some people really believe that. It's not necessary hateful talk.>
Indeed, in this interview about past World Chempions, http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie...,
he talks about Karpov...and mentions that very game!
Question: Has Karpov followed the versatile pattern?
Kramnik: "Of course he has. Additionally, there is something mysterious about his play, no one else could cope with things like he did. It is easier for me to talk about Karpov because his collection of games was my first chess book. I studied his work when I was a child, later I played quite a few games against him. He is a versatile chess player, a good tactician who brilliantly calculates lines and positionally very strong. He also has a distinctive feature. Funnily enough, he has effectively denied Steinitz's pronouncement: if you have an advantage you must attack, otherwise, you will lose it. When having an edge, Karpov often marked time and still gained the advantage! I don't know anyone else who could do that, it's incredible. I was always impressed and delighted by this skill. When it looked like it was high time to start a decisive attack, Karpov played a3, h3, and his opponent's position collapsed.
Karpov defeated me in Linares-94 where he scored 11 out of 13. I got into an inferior endgame. However, it did not seem awful. Then I made some appropriate moves and could not understand how I had managed to get into a losing position. Although I was already in the world top ten, I failed to understand it even after the game. This was one of the few games after which I felt like a complete idiot with a total lack of chess understanding! Such things happen very rarely to top level players. Usually you realise why you have lost. This moment defies description - there is something almost imperceptible about it and so characteristic of Karpov."
|Oct-10-09|| ||returnoftheking: <kamala> you don't really think I had that opinion out of myself do you? ;)
Needed a book and read that quote to point out and explain to me how good the game was..|
|Oct-10-09|| ||Eyal: <nescio: Spassky finished 3rd in the 1956 candidates tournament behind Smyslov and Keres (still the greatest achievement by a teenager in the history of chess)>|
Spassky finished shared 3rd-7th, to be exact, with a +1 score, and he was 19 and 3 months old at the time. Fischer, at exactly the same age, finished unshared 4th with a +1 score in the 1962 candidates - and a few months earlier he won the interzonal with a staggering +13 score, 2.5 points ahead of 2nd place. So I'd say Fischer's achievement is still a bit more impressive.
Btw, Kasparov won the 1982 interzonal with a +7 score (1.5 points ahead of 2nd place) at the age of 19 and 5 months, and 5 months later beat Beliavsky at the candidates quarterfinal. He also went on to eventually win the world championship in that cycle, but he wasn't a teenager anymore...
|Oct-10-09|| ||VaselineTopLove: I have a feeling Aronian, Kramnik, and Carlsen are going to play aggressively, without too many inhibitions in the upcoming Tal Memorial, Ivanchuk as well. Morozevich and Ivanchuk will be their usual crazy selves. All players are going to play a little cautiously against Carlsen, thinking that he may be using Kasparov's moves against them.|
I expect Anand to play a little more cautiously in order to hide his preparation. But I think he'll finish above Gelfand, Svidler, Morozevich and Ivanchuk. I expect him to finish 3-4 if he's playing cautiously and 1-2 if he goes all out.
|Oct-10-09|| ||VaselineTopLove: But this time it'll be hard to tell whether Anand is playing cautiously or not as he now plays both d4 and e4 and has been playing different d4 openings this year, so we won't know whether he's really hiding his prep or not...|
|Oct-10-09|| ||zarg: <returnoftheking>
I see you nominated the Leko-Topalov game. I didn't even look at that game, because I was told that Topa had come up with a strong novelty, a home prep, and "blown" Leko off the board afterwards.
I don't find such games that interesting, the better game for me, is when I see e.g. Ivanchuk taking on a homeprep OTB and go on, not just surviving, but turn the table and win it.
That is awesome and pure display of a genius. I guess, these 90+60 time control make it less likely to happen. I don't know if my hearsay info was correct regarding Leko-Topa, but it came from a 2300+ player.
|Oct-10-09|| ||kamalakanta: <returnoftheking: <kamala> you don't really think I had that opinion out of myself do you? ;) Needed a book and read that quote to point out and explain to me how good the game was..>|
No, I just enjoyed Kramnik's comments and wanted to share them.
|Oct-10-09|| ||kamalakanta: <returnoftheking>
And, by the way, I write here to share good things with others as well.
Other readers here might enjoy Kramnik's comments and interview...why does this bother you so much? Take it easy!
|Oct-10-09|| ||Knight13: <was told that Topa had come up with a strong novelty, a home prep, and "blown" Leko off the board afterwards.> Topa is also known to take risks like that and get completely "blown" off by other players.|
|Oct-10-09|| ||manakin: thanks kamalakanta. keep on doing that.|
|Oct-10-09|| ||returnoftheking: <kamalakanta> I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I was certainly not meaning to offend you. It was more of an attempt to make fun of myself made in a hurry-bad attempt indeed. Point was that relatively I have no clue about chess and needed the commentary of Karpov, Kramnik and others to appreciate that game. So I was in no way disturbed by your post, on the contrary.|
<zarg> TP said something about the novelty as well, but I haven't taken it into account when making my choice because I was looking for the <best> game. It was imo best regarding correctness and strong moves, but the Jakovenko-Carlsen game was the most entertaining (a grand struggle). So I partially share your views.
The game of Topalov was maybe more straightforward, if you can say that for such a game. And dealing with the advanced pawn of Jako f.e. was indeed more "original", imo.
Remember my question was to select the best game-chesswise, meaning winning games with no errors and the least chance for the opponent. Not the best liked game. And that was because of the quote of KKderek about <best chess of the world>
|Oct-10-09|| ||returnoftheking: Zarg, 12..c4 is probably the novelty. It is by no means a winning move, but it gives black the chance to lose a pawn and grab the initiative. I don't know if Topalov's (forced?) exchange sac of Topalov (12 moves later) is prep too, but the game lasted 40 moves. Whether it is prep or not, it doesn't make the game any worse, as prep is part of playing best.|
|Oct-10-09|| ||Atking: Seeing the lucky debate on Carlsen page, I come back to this one and realize that Topalov may have lost vs Radjabov and to say, draw vs Jakovenko, Carlsen may have won his first game vs Yue Wang. Then we will have 8.5 for the leader and 3 second Topalov Jakovenko and Radjabov at 4.5. 4 points of difference. Not a every days in 10 rounds tournament!|
|Oct-10-09|| ||returnoftheking: Atking-there is not really a debate. Just one kibitzer who talks a lot about luck;)|
|Oct-10-09|| ||Atking: Just one kibitzer who talks a lot about luck;) ...and many who answer to him.|
|Oct-10-09|| ||nescio: <Eyal: So I'd say Fischer's achievement is still a bit more impressive.> Considering that Curacao was already his second candidates tournament, you can say that indeed. I had forgotten that Fischer was so young, just as I always picture Tal a few years older than he actually was. |
Nevertheless I don't agree, but we are here in the realm of taste. I have always found Spassky's games more attractive than Fischer's and that influences my judgment when the differences in results and age are so small. Spassky had also some wonderful results before the candidates tournament.
|Oct-10-09|| ||kamalakanta: <returnoftheking>
My apologies. After I sent my reply I noticed the smile on your message....
Sometimes I take things too seriously.
...I like that particular interview with Kramnik quite a bit. His commentaries reveal a certain humility in him, and also how deeply he has explored the games of previous World Champions.
I found his comments about Karpov quite intriguing. Another player who struggled a lot with Karpov was Spassky; Karpov dominated him.
Regarding Carlsen, I have memorized his game with Jakovenko. It looks so easy and simple! Maybe this is one of Magnus' great strengths: he seems to be able to orient himself on the path to victory, whether by direct attack or going into an endgame. I get the feeling that in his mind, everything is very clear. It's the only way I can put it into words. Maybe it is just an impression he creates!
|Oct-10-09|| ||returnoftheking: A good joke should be clear without the smile! so no need. Btw, I assume you have memorized Carlsen-Jakovenko and not Jako-Carlsen ?!|
|Oct-10-09|| ||Softpaw: <progrock64: It is a fantastic result for Carlsen but i doubt that he would have achieved the same with a more classical time control.>|
The shorter the time controls, the less draws...
|Oct-11-09|| ||LaFreak III: I think Magnus will reach a 4000 TPR if Anand, Kramnik, Levon and Moro were present|
|Oct-11-09|| ||vanytchouck: <(...)Calsen first (2) victory against topalov (...)>|
Carlsen has already beaten Topalov twice in Linares 08.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 74 ·