< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 69 ·
|Oct-09-10|| ||acirce: <Mr. Bojangles> That article is embarrassing. Kasparov can't simply be <wrong>, can he? No, whatever he does it has to be everybody else's fault too.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: Kasparov has a far superior career to Kramnik for sure but Kramnik has a superior head-to-head score to Kasparov in classical chess. And of course, clasical chess is where it is at.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||shach matov: <Mr. Bojangles> You still miss the point: Kramnik lost to a teenager Carlsen 4 (!) times and Kasparov only once to Radjabov! You can't just pic and choose, the statistics don't lie. By your standards it should be much more embarrassing to lose 4 times than just once. I don't share this view, by the way.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: < acirce: <Mr. Bojangles> That article is embarrassing. Kasparov can't simply be <wrong>, can he? No, whatever he does it has to be everybody else's fault too. >|
|Oct-09-10|| ||shach matov: <Kasparov has a far superior career to Kramnik for sure but Kramnik has a superior head-to-head score to Kasparov in classical chess.> According to cg.com Kramnik is +1 in classical and or -3 in rapid. This is as even as it gets. There was no superiority in their head to head games. But it is beyond any doubts that Kasparov has astronomically superior career.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: Even idiots dont rely on cg.com stats. They know better lol.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||shach matov: These are the correct statistics. If you can prove otherwise (which you can't) then do it. Stop running at the mouth and provide some real evidence for your lies.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: I understand that Bareev has a vastly superior head to head score againt Kramnik because he won many of their training blitz games too lol.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Bobsterman3000: <That article is embarrassing. Kasparov can't simply be <wrong>, can he?>|
This assertion coming from someone who lauds North Korea as a great, advanced nation... from the safety of his keyboard in a liberal Western country.
|Oct-09-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <acirce>
But who wrote the article? Friedel?
|Oct-09-10|| ||KKDEREK: Man, Kramnik cheerleaders gone wild..|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Kazzak: One major reason why Kasparov achieved his unique career record in chess is the fact that every game mattered, to the point where a loss made blood come out of his eyes.|
When winning is that important, you end up making an occasional ass of yourself, as he did after his game against Radjabov.
Wish I saw some of that fire in Carlsen.
So, is froggy off plotting how to turn the loss into a win? Or is he satisfied with having pointed out a missed draw in the Kramnik-Carlsen game?
I was hoping for more selective career statistics to show why we should ignore today's result.
|Oct-09-10|| ||acirce: <SetNoEscapeOn> I've always thought it was Mig Greengard but not 100% sure.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: <So, is froggy off plotting how to turn the loss into a win? Or is he satisfied with having pointed out a missed draw in the Kramnik-Carlsen game? I was hoping for more selective career statistics to show why we should ignore today's result.>|
|Oct-09-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: It sounds like him, as it does advocate Kasparov's main point. It wasn't the first nor last time they posted unsigned opinions... |
I'm not sure if it's that bad though. The conclusion
<Much will be made of Kasparov's outburst at the closing ceremony. We cannot but agree that there is no excuse for such behavior. It was embarrassing for every player and fan to have the chess world's leading representative explode like this. Kasparov's criticism would have been more effective had he waited and asked to speak his mind. Instead, the fact that he was essentially correct in his allegations will be lost amid the accusations that he is a sore loser. We knew that already, however, and even have a certain degree of admiration for Kasparov's childlike emotional honesty. There is no spin, no false smile. Still, this explosion in front of the young Radjabov and his mother must be censured. Self-control comes late to some, but it must come eventually.>
seems pretty reasonable, even if it fails to acknowledge that in the end there can be no concrete criteria for a tournament "beauty prize" (even if it gives voice to that viewpoint earlier).
|Oct-09-10|| ||KKDEREK: < Kazzak: One major reason why Kasparov achieved his unique career record in chess is the fact that every game mattered, to the point where a loss made blood come out of his eyes.|
When winning is that important, you end up making an occasional ass of yourself, as he did after his game against Radjabov.>
Thats true..I guess Kramnik cheerleaders rather like a 15 move-draw by some Petroff.
|Oct-09-10|| ||acirce: Compare with http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt... that was written the day before.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||Bobsterman3000: <When winning is that important, you end up making an occasional ass of yourself, as he did after his game against Radjabov.>|
Well, he was right about Radjabov not deserving a brilliancy prize even if he did overreact.
|Oct-09-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <winning is the best revenge>|
Yes, almost certainly Mig.
|Oct-09-10|| ||Bishoprick: Shach Matov obviously knows little about the history of chess. The most dominant player in chess was Emanuel Lasker, hands down. 26 years as World Champion has never been matched.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||drnooo: If your term dominant means that you can beat ALMOST everybody then fine, Kasparov fits the bill. But if Kasparov could just not beat Krammnik, then that only makes him, to me ALMOST dominant. Morphy could beat anybody, nobody close. Same for eighT years, Capa. Nobody could beat him. But if you have one player who can beat you in a mATch then how truly dominant are you . I suspect for quite a while Petrosian fit that bill. In his prime likely there was nobody who could beat him, not anybody in the WORLD in a match.
There have been very few ever who culd just flat out beat anybody they would face in a match. For me that's the test and it seems that with almost no exception have there been any to say that. For that matter look at Kasporovs match record with Karpov: they tied in two so called world championships: how dominant was that for either a tie is a tie no matter what laurel or ribbon you put on it: for quite a while neither was really superior to the other. Then Karpov was over the hill and left it to Kasparov. Not only is it matdh play that determines for me who is best but long matches. What if the one betwen Capa and Alekhine had been only 12 games/? And ties dont count. You keep playing after 20 till there is a real decision. But if you feel that a 12 game match is a
real decider fine, only recently with the inflation of points and deflation of interest in chess has the speediness of a match picked up. Easy to forget that even in this last one, had Anand not won the final game, that match wuld have decended into a carnival joke of speed games.
Chess, classical chess really has flown out the window till even matches for the so called world are nothing more a french farce. There is no real world champ and has not been one for several decades.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||AuN1: is carlsen going to be in revenge mode tomorrow against anand, or will he settle for a draw just to avoid going down 0-2?|
|Oct-09-10|| ||acirce: <The most dominant player in chess was Emanuel Lasker, hands down. 26 years as World Champion has never been matched.>|
Considering that he <twice> went more than 10 years without defending his title, number of years is not a very good measure.
|Oct-09-10|| ||shach matov: <Bishoprick> Jeff Sonas provides the most scientific and detailed analysis on chessbase and his conclusion is: "If I had to hand out medals for who were the most dominant players of all time, I would give the gold medal to Garry Kasparov, and the silver medal (fittingly) to Anatoly Karpov. And then the bronze medal goes to either Emanuel Lasker or Bobby Fischer". Sonas's analysis is the most detailed to be found anywhere.|
|Oct-09-10|| ||rapidcitychess: <AuN1>
Carlsen going to have to avoid embarrassment. After that Olympiad, (psychologically speaking), he has something to prove. He is going to try for a win, and I doubt he will play for a draw. On the other hand, he might just hope that Shirov get's beat up the whole time, and play for a draw.
Just my 5 cents.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 69 ·