< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 60 ·
|Oct-24-10|| ||parmetd: Queens Gambit declined Slav is some of the most interesting and intricate games there are! Slav is one of the best openings to see period!|
|Oct-24-10|| ||Kinghunt: Carlsen must still be in poor form. If he keeps playing like this for the second half of the tournament, he'll finish with a 2994 tournament performance, 8 points lower than his performance last year. It's all downhill for him from here, I'm afraid.|
|Oct-25-10|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <blueofnoon>
I have been reading some Bareev interviews regarding the Russian performance in the recent Olympiad. The fellow strikes me as willing to brutally criticize even his own players and himself. There is no effort to be diplomatic at all. His interview regarding Kasparov is also the first one I have read where a GM was not paying lip service to Kasparov. Bareev frankly says to the notion that Kasparov has propagated that he plays at virtually super human levels that Kasparov has not been telling the whole truth, that a lot of the wins that significantly propelled him head and shoulders above the rest were essentially decided in the opening, and due to superb opening prep. Bareev then goes on to say that this superb opening prep is due to computers and Kasparov's own hard work.
I find nothing wrong with success due to hard work. I find nothing wrong in an opinion that states that Kramnik and Anand have more talent than Kasparov, but cannot reach the heights GKK has attained because they do not work as hard or have psychological weaknesses. Contrary to what some fans may allege, this is not Kasparov bashing. It forthrightly states the primary basis for Kasparov's unsurpassed competitive chess performances. The best opening repertoire in chess history, and that is rightfully his due to his own hard work.
I know that you are also a Capablanca fan, like me, and for all his chess talent, IMO the most talented chess player that humanity has ever produced, Capa 'failed' when it came to work ethics. His chess talent was still sufficient enough to secure him the World Title, but in another what if scenario in history, I wished he could have worked as hard as Alekhine did, analyzing openings, middlegames, and endgames often up to 3am nightly.
<it was a very good thing for them to introduce candidate cycle to prevent those accidents happening as a result of direct championship match.>
+++ and Amen
|Oct-25-10|| ||Skakalec: <parmetd><Queens Gambit declined Slav is some of the most interesting and intricate games there are! Slav is one of the best openings to see period!>|
I don't play c6, unless I'm white :-).
|Oct-25-10|| ||percyblakeney: <I find nothing wrong in an opinion that states that Kramnik and Anand have more talent than Kasparov>|
I do :-)
|Oct-25-10|| ||Skakalec: <turbo231<<visayanbraindoctor: Regarding the present Melody Amber blindfold set up, AAA and the other great blindfold chess masters of history would probably regard it as a joke. Any one who has attempted playing blindfold chess would certify that playing a blindfold game with an empty board in front of you (ala Melody Amber) is much easier than playing without sight of board at all, and just calling out your moves. The old blindfold chess masters played their blindfold games without sight of board or player. That's much more difficult to do..>
Yes I agree 100% with that statement.>
But the old masters didn't have 25 minutes for that.
|Oct-25-10|| ||firebyrd: <The old blindfold chess masters played their blindfold games without sight of board or player. That's much more difficult to do.>|
Probably right, but why would that be relevant? You could add difficulty by requiring the players to stand on one leg, recite Shakespeare from memory and listen to Celine Dion; would adopting these additional obstacles make the Amber blindfold less of a joke?
|Oct-25-10|| ||SugarDom: Is not just the work ethics. No matter how hard you work, if you don't have the <talent> to match it, you won't go nowhere.|
Let's take the case of Kasparov. It was said that he worked very hard on opening prep. True, but does not Karpov, Kramnik and Anand work hard as well?
And when you say "work hard", it should invariably include long hours of memorizing opening preps.
So therefore <talent> (i'm assuming that a good memory is part of talent) still plays a huge part...
|Oct-25-10|| ||HeMateMe: The 'old masters' were playing simul patzers, not fellow GMs. Anyway, having a board allows for a higher quality game. We should just be glad that eccentric in Monaco is putting out some prize money for high quality chess.|
I've never heard of a GM refusing to play at Monaco (Melanie Amber). Good money, nice beaches, and a change up from the same old 40 move/2 hr chess. Well, I remember Morovich complaining. He said "what's next--we are asked to play naked?" Lets not go there....
BTW, at Melanie Amber blindfold, do the players get the game score in front of them as they play (are they able to see what moves were played at move 13, 14, etc..)?
|Oct-25-10|| ||Kazzak: <BTW, at Melanie Amber blindfold, do the players get the game score in front of them as they play (are they able to see what moves were played at move 13, 14, etc..)?>|
That wouldn't be blindfold - and then Grischuk wouldn't be reaching for a Rook that wasn't there ...
|Oct-25-10|| ||gus inn: MELODY Amber,please.Though Melanie has written some outstanding melodies.|
|Oct-25-10|| ||jussu: <tpstar>, <KKDEREK>, <shach matov>,|
You are obsessed. No-one in this forum seems to be interested in your rants about Kramnik.
|Oct-25-10|| ||Sokrates: < jussu: > Please speak only for yourself. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion. Personally, I find arguments, analysis and reasonings more interesting than summarily judgements or hasty conclusions. Chess champions, like most of us, are complex human beings with virtues and faults, both in their play and as persons. Saints and devils are religious stereotypes.|
|Oct-25-10|| ||jussu: <Sokrates>,
Of course I speak for myself only, hence "seems".
Nothing like analysis from those three. They have only been whining about people talking about Kramnik in a wrong place, while there are very few references to Kramnik in this page here, apart from the ones posted by them.
|Oct-25-10|| ||Caissanist: I don't have an opinion myself on the Kasparov/Kramnik/Anand trifecta, but it's worth mentioning that Fischer offered opinions about his successors that were pure nonsense. The (former) OTB strength of a GM apparently doesn't validate his opinion about anything, even chess.|
|Oct-25-10|| ||arnaud1959: <....that a lot of the wins that significantly propelled him head and shoulders above the rest were essentially decided in the opening, and due to superb opening prep.> So what Bareev? What's wrong with that? Those who have a good prep., do they have better ideas at home then then otb ? I don't think so. They have the same ideas. The only difference is that at home they can check if tactically their plan can be countered. If I have a good plan, I would be unhappy losing because of a tactical oversight. So good players have a good prep. Now, imo Kramnik and Karpov are more gifted at chess then Kasparov. But I have more respect for Kasparov who made more efforts and deserved fully the good results he got.|
|Oct-25-10|| ||madlydeeply: I like this discussion. Because Kasparov and his career are very similar to Botvinnik! WC for fifteen years...meticulous, obsessive opening preparation...and a shared obsession with computers. There is a difference in that Kasparov also won all those tournaments... but maybe Botvinnik would have too, if he had rybka to train with. Oh, yeah, and Kasparov went to Botvinnik School as a tot. |
|Oct-25-10|| ||madlydeeply: Also when Botvinnik retired when he could no longer out-prepare his opponents...just like Kasparov! Maybe in chess...if one relies on opening preparation..there is a fifteen year window of success before being swamped by evolving standards...|
|Oct-25-10|| ||turbo231: I think Naka's next victim is a girl rated at 2200. And Naka has white. Should be fun.|
|Oct-25-10|| ||turbo231: She has 2 minutes and Naka has 22|
|Oct-25-10|| ||turbo231: She just let her time run out I would have done the same thing. How you like to be rated @2200 and playing the greatest rapid chess player in the world. |
I'm going to recheck her rating I was reading all of the contestants ratings at the start of the tournament I think hers was 2200. I could be wrong. Naka still had 22 minutes left when she ran out of time.
Earlier today he beat Judit Polgar that was a hard fought game. He should be playing Ivanchuk very soon.
|Oct-25-10|| ||nathanschulz: It seems highly unlikely that Anand and Kramnik are as talented as Kasparov, but I'd like to make the case for Karpov. His 1996 match win over Kamsky was arguably more convincing than Kasparov's 1995 win over Anand. Kamsky/Anand were the stars of both candidate cycles. I don't think the fact that Kamsky hasn't aged as well as Anand detracts from Karpov's tremendous accomplishment in trouncing 1996 Kamsky. And Karpov was 44-45! Kasparov lost the title to Kramnik at 37. It seems unbelievable that someone could place Fischer as all time #2, IMO.|
|Oct-25-10|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <arnaud1959: Now, imo Kramnik and Karpov are more gifted at chess then Kasparov. But I have more respect for Kasparov who made more efforts and deserved fully the good results he got.>|
I can understand this. I have respect for Kasparov for his unsurpassed diligence in his era; and his brilliant games and colossal performance records. On the other hand, it is difficult to respect some of the self-serving things he has said, or his insistence in getting an automatic re-match after he had pledged that the new Championship cycle would begin featuring qualification events. An automatic re-match could have permanently slid the institution of the World Chess Championship right back into the pre-WW2 era, where the Champion selects his Challenger.
|Oct-25-10|| ||visayanbraindoctor: It may sound crazy to a lot of people that a few kibitzers (or GM Bareev for that matter) would imply or state that Kasparov, the King of chess, is slightly less talented than Anand or Kramnik. So perhaps concrete games can serve to back up a such crazy idea.|
Most of Kasparov's tactical brillancies are seen in games where he has the initiative or is on the attack. Has he ever produced similar tactical brilliancies when he has been on the defense? Many masters note that tactical wizardry takes its most humanly difficult form when a defender is defending a position in which a single inaccuracy would doom him. This is the reason why many masters regard Petrosian as one of the best tacticians in history.
In the following game, Petrosian walks a knife's edge against the King himself, and not only survives but beat him.
Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1981
Even in this game, where Kasparov missed a win, Petrosian shows his defensive abilities.
Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1981
The question is: has Kasparov produced many such 'reverse brilliancies'? I am not certain myself, because practically all of Kasparov's brilliancies that I have replayed are games where he has almost always been on the attack nearly from the opening.
This is what Bareev must have been referring to when he said that Kasparov does not tell the whole truth, that may of his won games were decided right in the opening. Kasparov as an attacker could easily display his great tactical abilities and bring home the win.
But what about Kasparov the defender? Does his tactical wizardry mostly work only when he is the one on the attack?
GM Carlsen, the great chess viking, is now the #1 rated player in the world. We have all witnessed that in positions where he has the initiative, he is nearly unstoppable. Stopping such a strong player on the attack must take a lot of tactical wizardry. I can present a game each by Anand and Kramnik wherein they did exactly that.
Carlsen vs Anand, 2008
Carlsen vs Kramnik, 2010
Although Carlsen may have missed wins, both Anand and Kramnik in the above games were likewise walking on the edge of the precipice, where single errors of miscalculation or misjudgment of a potential position would have quickly doomed them. It's even possible that only Anand and Kramnik among present players could have survived such 'reverse brilliancies' against the Viking. If it were Kasparov playing Black, IMO he would have gone down against Carlsen in these games.
And here comes the outraged protests... (",)
|Oct-25-10|| ||turbo231: The city of Cap d'Agde is also famous as the "world capital of nudity" (Google it yourself for full details). That could make it hard to concentrate on chess.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 60 ·