|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 75 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-09-09 | | KKDEREK: <<KKDerek who is playing better chess for you ? Anand, Kramnik? > yes, those two probably, but I was thinking more of people like Karpov, Kasparov. At any rate I am not sure that so many of his games here will be remembered as classics. I won't go into it further because apparently normal people will see it again as a reason to start personal attacks, insinuations and so on.> Whatas your problem? So , my friend stop replying my posts.. See this, I meant (of course) the best chess in the world nowadays..I agree with you Karpov Kasparov Capa etc , thesy still are in another league. At any moment I "went" to the past..I mean he's been playing the best chess even before this tourney, but not the best including the 80's or 90's ..
Got now? |
 |
| Oct-09-09 | | KKDEREK: < SetNoEscapeOn: <Magnus reaching 2900 is not unthinkable. Winning the WC though, is another ballgame.> Unless the ratings experience a major shift and we have several players around 2850, I think it will be much easier for him to become world champion than reach 2900. All he has to do is beat some old man.> But I think he can reach Gk's 2851 rating. |
|
| Oct-10-09 | | ontocaustic: we need a player who can easily at most reach 3200 or the level of the rypka in order to save humans chess carlson is very close to it but i think kasparow need to mold him none of you could do it especially not short even if you were locked in prison with nothing to study but chess books although the first step may be to have get carlson stop play tourmanents and the pointless nakamura and isolate him to study fine principles of chess to the scrutinization of his genuis meanwhile rypka can get stronger as you like it without laying siege to the battling viking carlson |
|
| Oct-10-09 | | KKDEREK: 2013:
Deep Rybka 7 vs Magnus Carlsen
10 million match.. |
|
| Oct-10-09 | | Atking: <Overall, he didn't produce any stunning opening novelties, "only" played the systems he chose very well and efficiently. Just like in the later stages of the games he didn't produce any stunning sacrifices or combinations (well, perhaps with the exception of the way he finished the game against Wang Yue)E"only" played with brutal efficiency, making hardly any mistakes and taking advantage of most of those that his opponents made.> Again totally agree. <Eyal> resumes very well my previous image of iceberg. The danger isn't apparent. Just under the sea. Not one fantastic combination but something more global. For example when Carlsen played 17.Bb5 against Topalov the latter knew how much effective is the move and thought a long time. My impression is that White has nearly a decisive advantage here. Not what a chess programe will put as +0.36... or likely <progrock64: It is a fantastic result for Carlsen but i doubt that he would have achieved the same with a more classical time control.> I'm not agree on this one. Carlsen made dubious move mostly during the last moves of the time control. I could negociate better with black against Jakovenko (And win correctly) and against Wang Yue (On this last one got an half point). In all 8 points out 10 is remarquable but fair. As it was noted by <Eyal> and <Whatthefat> Carlsen's victory should be explain by a deep understanding of the game. Of course Kasparov's training session might help but he didn't select Carlsen by coincidence. He knew what Carlsen will realize. There are many factors here. As I noted previously Kasparov's training annoucement could have a psycholigical impact but one should forget that Carlsen could win some big tournaments previously. He missed only one step at M-Tel. Indeed Radjabov, Leko, Topalov just feel the days Carlsen will win a big event could not be far. Calsen first 2 victory against topalov and his nemesis Leko could have decided that tournament will be the one. |
|
| Oct-10-09 | | squlpt: <Deep Rybka 7 vs Magnus Carlsen> I think even Rybka 3 on good hardware would beat any GM alive today |
|
| Oct-10-09 | | squlpt: With no handicaps of course |
|
Oct-10-09
 | | FSR: Carlsen is the strongest 18-year-old in history, well ahead of the likes of Fischer and Kasparov. IMO, he is very likely both to become World Champion and to best Kasparov's record 2851 rating. By how much, I'm not sure; 2900 is within the realm of possibility. |
|
| Oct-10-09 | | arnaud1959: <Unless the ratings experience a major shift and we have several players around 2850, I think it will be much easier for him to become world champion than reach 2900.> +1 and it shows how much Kasparov's 2851 was an outstanding performance at a time where we could find not so many +2700 level players. |
|
Oct-10-09
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <He missed only one step at M-Tel. Indeed Radjabov, Leko, Topalov just feel the days Carlsen will win a big event could not be far. Calsen first 2 victory against topalov and his nemesis Leko could have decided that tournament will be the one.> However, he did already win Corus 2008 (with Aronian). |
|
| 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> |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 75 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
