< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 74 ·
|Oct-12-09|| ||alexmagnus: Sonas comapres chessmetrics performancs with FIDE ones? Now, that's freaky. I mean, Chessmetrics has even different rankings, let alone ratings, yet he simply calculates Carlsen's performance by substracting 29 points from FIDE ratings.. LOL|
|Oct-12-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <Without meaning to overanalyze the postgame wrap-up, it seems people would rather celebrate Carlsen's achievement without counting all the errors along the way.>|
Yes, and I am definitely one of those. The question of how well a player played in any given event (or period of time) is interesting, but the purpose of a game or tournament is not to "play well", but to win. In that, Carlsen was a success. The crosstable is what I would expect if he had played with five 2500 players.
Since Sonas is obviously still interested in chess and ratings, why do his ratings only cover through 2005? After all, the process is largely automated, and if they were up to date he wouldn't have to resort to making such assumptions. I am also a big fan of the features on his site (especially the graphs) and would like to see how several players performed over the last four years according to his rating system.
|Oct-12-09|| ||keypusher: <returnoftheking>
<It goes like this. Make one post, putting things in perspective. Then some people will respond in an agressive manner, either misinterpreting or not being able to put up with any mild critique. Explain to them what you wrote. Then comes the nex wave, complaining to that post. And that goes on and on and on. My "persistence" is just me answering others. >
More like <unmotivated criticism of Carlsen, accompanied by denuciation of his fans, followed by a lot of crap from all sides>. Gets very old very quickly.
You don't like Carlsen, and you really don't like his fans, especially frogbert, whom you seem to regard much as Ahab regarded the great white whale. That being the case, your pose of disinterested truth teller is grating. If you know what you're doing, you're a troll; if you don't you're a fool. In either case, it's a shame, because you were a good poster a long time ago, who decided he preferred being a jerk.
|Oct-12-09|| ||achieve: <Keypusher> Your story about <rotk>'s intentions is getting pathetic to the point of worthy of a complaint.|
Why don't you keep the crap to yourself, or "go tell it to the one legged man so he can bump it down the road."
<If you know what you're doing, you're a troll; if you don't you're a fool. In either case, it's a shame, because you were a good poster a long time ago, who decided he preferred being a jerk.>
Familiar material, seen it before.
You sound like a dumb, irritated maid. Get it?
If there's anything get back to me on my/your forum, and let's see what we are dealing with here.
The statement I highlighted is beyond worthy of any response. Is it?
Just like this post, I assume.
|Oct-12-09|| ||aragorn69: Well said <keypusher> !|
(Not that I expect this will prevent anyone from acting like a troll/fool/jerk, but it's always nice to read some well-written good sense...)
|Oct-12-09|| ||aragorn69: <Just like this post, I assume.> Unfortunately, <achieve>, one good sentence does not make one good post... ;-)|
|Oct-12-09|| ||keypusher: <achieve> <Your story about <rotk>'s intentions is getting pathetic to the point of worthy of a complaint.>|
Then run along and make one.
|Oct-12-09|| ||achieve: <kp> I just did.|
|Oct-12-09|| ||keypusher: <achieve> OK. A word to the wise: if you want to attack somebody, do it in a language you speak well. That way, you won't babble meaninglessly. Plus if you insult me in Dutch, I won't have to read it. So we'll both be better off.|
|Oct-12-09|| ||achieve: <kp> I do not have to speak English that well in this case, I just have your history with rotk at the touch of a button; It's you doin the talking.|
Plain idiotic to expect me talking in Dutch to you. (Yeah I got it)
My English will be sufficient, if not perfect, or even vital slash crucial in this case.
Thanks, my educated little friend ;)
|Oct-12-09|| ||rogge: <returnoftheking: <zarg> I did look for the flawless games because some fans said that we just have seen a grand exhibition of flawless play. Which is not the case.>|
OK, <rotk>. I checked, like you asked me to. Noone said anything like <a grand exhibition of flawless play>.
|Oct-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: <achieve>, thanks..|
<keypusher> you talk a lot about my intentions but you don't stick to the facts: I did not post negative things about Carlsen and I said that this tournament was interesting primarily because of him. I also have said that I liked the Carlsen-Jakovenko game and the Yue-Carlsen game a lot.
I don't think I have been trolling here.
And over the years it is not so much me who has changed, but more the way that some people are reacting on my posts. Look at the coyote <aragorn> who tries to get in a quick bite as well.
And indeed I hold frogbert primarily responsible for the packs of dumb and tiring people that follow me, because he asked others to do that-both here and on mail. Still I wonder why you just made two consecutive posts, bringing up my history with frogbert here.
That was not a quote (" or < >"), but in line with what some people said.
<best chess of the world> was a quote and marked as such.See my post at the beginning-I think the intention is both clear and not so bad.
But if you don't believe me fine, my bad, and let's move on.
|Oct-12-09|| ||Ezzy: It's not within the realms of common sense to criticise any tournament win by ANY player, especially one as momentus as Carlsen's.|
Nobody looks at histories of tournaments and matches, and criticises the achievement. How can you?
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?
Tournament and match histories are full of big errors, small errors. There are hardly any tournament and match victories that are 'so called' perfectly played.
This isn't 'ice dancing' where a panel of judges give you points for your performance. You earn them points by beating players who start the tournament on a level playing field. I personally don't care if a player didn't play well because he was - drunk, had a headache, had chicken pox, had small pox, had a row with his wife before the game, had the plague or whatever.
Who knows why a player doesn't seem to play his best in any given game, but there's one thing for sure, it happens in every tournament and match i've ever seen.
The only thing that's relevent in a tournament victory is your points tally. You enter a tournament and it means you're prepared and fit to meet your opponents. Full stop. No excuses.
Your opponent blunders or makes mistakes, well tough for him, he obviously couldn't keep his concentration, or handle the pressure, or handle the position.
Nobody cares whether Tiger Woods would not have won the Masters if his opponent wouldn't have missed a one foot putt at the 18th. Or whether a team wins the worls cup because of an opponents own goal. You don't celebrate any the less. The history books show that you are the champion.
Magnus Carlsen didn't just win a tournament, he annihilated the opposition. He was way far too good for them in this tournament. To try to find a reason why it wasn't special is verging on the condition of insanity.
|Oct-12-09|| ||moroloser: <Eyal:> I agree. You explained it way better than me (btw your chess knowledge is by far better than mine). Carlsen didn't propose spectacular novelties but came out the opening phase equal or better than and afterwards he used his superior talent to wipe out the opponent. thx Eyal, as usual your post is very instructive.|
|Oct-12-09|| ||rogge: <<best chess of the world> was a quote and marked as such.See my post at the beginning-I think the intention is both clear and not so bad. But if you don't believe me fine, my bad, and let's move on.>|
So it boils down to one kibitzer writing "best chess of the world", meaning "right now".
That's not even controversial.
|Oct-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: Rogge, there were more comments like that. But I made just 1 post about it, no big deal. The rest were replies on people twisting my post (panzerkampf, keypusher, kkderek) I did not want to make a big deal about it. If it's not controversial I don't see the reasons of the problematic replies. Maybe those were indeed for other reasons (everything of kibitzer x is bad so let's whine about it)|
Just tell me : what post of me is a problem, unreasonable, wrong or trollish to you?
|Oct-12-09|| ||kamalakanta: <Atking:> <kamalakanta>, <yes a great game too. Nearly perfect. As always> <Eyal> <gave some pretty analysis about this game and I agree with him when he compared this game to some great acheivement of Fischer "effortless" "a la Capablanca". (Ps Alas not "a la Kamalakanta") ;(>|
Thank God "not a la Kamalakanta"...I have become quite a patzer...rusty as heck!
|Oct-12-09|| ||Rolfo: Thanks Ezzy|
|Oct-12-09|| ||Rolfo: <..And if it pisses them of if I say the truth, all the more reason to say it.>|
rotk, you are wondering what is wrong. May be I have a clue, but you asked rogge, not me
|Oct-12-09|| ||Ezzy: <Rolfo: Thanks Ezzy> Thanks Rolfo|
|Oct-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: <rolfo> shoot! Show me one of the "overly critical" Carlsen posts to which you object.|
|Oct-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: < It's not within the realms of common sense to criticise any tournament win by ANY player> |
Are you serious!??
|Oct-12-09|| ||Rolfo: rotk, you don't need any examples from me or my opinion by now, better discuss it with yourself to start with. As long as you mean it is ok that people feel pissed off by you telling them the truth, well there is a clue to start with|
|Oct-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: If I don't need examples (you don't have them of course) and your opinion I wonder why you addressed that post to me..|
|Oct-12-09|| ||siamesedream: Magnificent Magnus by Lubomir Kavalek:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 74 ·