|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 15 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-24-12
 | | Eggman: 2 decisive games out of 3 so far. And I had been concerned that the match might feature 6 draws ... |
 |
| Apr-24-12 | | enqwert: Winning a tactical slugfest game against tactical monster Aronian is truly admirable, a great win by Big Vlad! |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | WiseWizard: This match is set-up beautifully for Kramnik, he's allowed to draw his black games quickly and safely in the match since he'll get another white game in the rapids (not that they count towards the score, but the fans will remember the decisive games and who was the winner) and if Aronian wants to avoid this he'll have to push a little harder in the white games, never a great idea against Kramnik. |
|
Apr-24-12
 | | King Sacrificer: We should thank Aronian for today. He "forced" a good game with that Queen sac. Kramnik's defense looks too strong though. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | enqwert: <King Sacrificer> True, they are two great players!, I would prefer this match rather than Anand-Gelfand WC. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | drik: <shach matov: Well that's what I said: talent is rather subjective... but we still can make some observations which would lead to considering one player as more <talented> than another,> So you can make some observations ... but you disregard the opinions of all time greats as 'just opinions'? YOU can. But just remember the relative credibility of those opinions. Incidentally, why don't you provide us with your observations ... instead of just your conclusions? You claim that Aronian's talent is far above Kramnik's ... perhaps. But on what basis? Please give us your evidence, your line of reasoning - if you have any. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | shach matov: <drik: Please give us your evidence, your line of reasoning - if you have any.> You sound like a nice boy <drik> but why demand evidence as though somebody here owes you something? You want evidence, go look for it ;] <YOU can.>
Thanks for letting us voice our opinions on this site, can we post without your permission in the future? Please don't take my opinions so seriously. You sound like a Kramnik fanboy who looks for any sign of "disrespect" to your IDOL! But when I say that Carlsen or Aronian are more talented than Kramnik, it's an educated opinion and not disrespect. A wife is less protective of her husband than you are of Kramnik! Take it easy: nobody is going to take Kramnik away from you ;] |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | Pawn Dillinger: shach matov: I respect your opinion. My own educated opinion tells me that Kramnik is one of only 15 chess players since 1866 who has ever been a linear world champion and one who conquered the great Kasparov. No fanboy here. I respect all great players, including Aronian and Carlsen. I just have even more respect for current and former linear world champions, who transcend Elos and chess fanatics. They've reached even more rarified heights than these other amazing players. The linear title is the ultimate feat, not one's Elo (which you've never claimed), and not how good a player is doing at the moment. Chess history is a tapestry, whose 15 brightest threads have been those who have reached the highest summit. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | shach matov: <Pawn Dillinger> I also respect your opinion and agree with most of your post, it sounds like common sense to me. However, when you say Kramnik "conquered" that sound incorrect to me. Lets remember that the 2000 match was a very short one and Kasparov performed way below his usual strength; we also know that precisely at that time he was undergoing serous family issues which inevitably reflected negatively on his play (we can list all the absolutely unusual behavior, including the Berlin wall banging and the 11 and 14 move draws). It's also a fact that Kranik refused to play a direct rematch (granted he had the legal right to refuse). So we can't possibly talk about "conquering" considering one short match with all the circumstances. Perhaps the term conquer may be applicable to Kasparov against Karpov since he beat him in three matches and drew one, but even here for the most part they were very close. Also, we can't simply shut our eyes on Elo's - they have been the major measuring device for decades now. But otherwise your post sounds like an educated one with common sense. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | AuN1: there isn't any discussions available that don't include shach matov bad-mouthing kramnik and giving excuses for why kasparov got his lunch plate handed to him. grow up kid. kramnik is a bad-ass, and his win today with 1.e4 (something most people thought he'd never play again) proved it 8-) |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | Everett: <drik> <schach> please play nice ;-/ |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | vsaluki: I'm also of the opinion that this is better chess than we will see in the Anand Gelfand match. The only problem is that I like both of these guys, so I don't care who wins. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | shach matov: <aun1> Come on, Kramnik is growing up and has changed his attitude for the better! And has recently acknowledged his gratitude to Kasparov (he was Kasparov's student) and praised him very lavishly... and where did you find me badmouthing him here? not correct! actually you were the one who badmouthed him yesterday: <AuN1: dang. kramnik really embarrassed himself today. losing, with white nonetheless. for shame U_U> Not nice! ;]] |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | Pawn Dillinger: schach matov: Even though it's nothing more than semantics, I'm happy to change my wording vis-a-vis Kramnik-Kasparov from"conquered" to "defeated." That said, Korchnoi was also going through issues when he couldn't defeat Karpov. So I use the bottom line only: What was the result, not the surrounding issues. The bottom line is the end. Once we apply conditions — such as the dreaded word "if" — which to your credit you did not raise, we depart from the purest essence; e.g., what if there was a Game 49 and Karpov actually won? History would be have been changed. But it didn't happen. What if Houdini was around when Fischer was? What if Kasparov and Karpov met if there was no computer prep or adjournments? All fun to contemplate at with a few shots of your favorite libation. But in the final analysis, "if" doesn't cut it. Sorry for the slight digression. As far as Elo, no, we can't completely ignore it, but it is not the absolute bottom line. All I'd add is this, I'd rather be world champion No. 16 than hold the highest Elo. I like your posts. They have spirit without pretense or arrogance. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | shach matov: Makes sense to me. I usually myself do put a bit too much weight on rating, but also critiqued it often. One thing though everybody agrees on: a combination of highest rating and being the world champ is untouchable. In this sense I do differentiate the various world champs: Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov compared to Kramnik or Anand are on a much higher level as far historic legacy of achievement. Vishi was #1 for some time while Vlad for a very short period of time indeed. We can also say a word for how long each champ held the title. So considering this, Kramnik's whole career is very much inferior to Karpov's or Kasparov's who are way ahead in the two aforementioned areas, eg., length of being world champ and dominance of the chess world, including being highest rated. But yea, the rating now a days can be somewhat deceiving, and one can't ignore the notorious inflation. Carslen, for instance, is deservedly #1, but the almost 30 point recent difference between him and the #2 would suggest something much more dominant than it is in reality since - he certainly hasn't shown any dominance over his closest competitors. So certainly some aspects of rating have to be treated with care to avoid misconceptions. |
|
Apr-25-12
 | | Sokrates: I agree completely with you, <shach matov:> But I have wondered, occasionally, why there is so much tendency to view matters in black & white in the chess world. It's "Kramnik-basher" or "Kramnik-fanboy" - it's "Aronian fan-club" or "Aronian hate-club" with interchangable names. While the players themselves try to struggle through life making a living out of their skills, the friends or foes among spectators impose a number of characteristics upon them - of course, without knowing any of them in person. I commit that sin myself now and then, always with a bit of remorse, since I have to say: Who am I to judge player X just from his outer behaviour or a brief interview in New in Chess? I guess we need to personalize the players - it's not enough just to look at their play. But we should always keep in mind that it only can be assumptions and superficial valuations. |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | Lambda: <Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov compared to Kramnik or Anand are on a much higher level as far historic legacy of achievement.> I wouldn't agree with that with respect to Fischer. Kramnik and Anand both defended their titles successfully, multiple times. Fischer never managed this most difficult of feats. The thing is, Fischer's greatest weakness - the strong tendency to become disturbed and unable to continue at the slightest sign of adversity - doesn't show up in ratings. |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | Mr. Bojangles: <AuN1: there isn't any discussions available that don't include shach matov bad-mouthing kramnik and giving excuses for why kasparov got his lunch plate handed to him. grow up kid.> LMAO |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | Mr. Bojangles: <Chess history is a tapestry, whose 15 brightest threads have been those who have reached the highest summit.> Impressive delivery. |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | jussu: <<everyone's> whole career is very much inferior to Karpov's or Kasparov's>. In a way. These two were dominant, but it tells at least as much about their contemporaries as about themselves. Nowadays, we simply don't see such dominance, which makes us undervalue the achievments of modern players who have to pull their wins from the hands of tens of almost equal competitors. Makes me admire Carlsen and Kramnik even more - Vlad wins every second tournament he participates in, and Magnus, unbelieveably, manages to keep even higher winning percentage. |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | Everyone: <rapidcitychess: <Everyone>
You're under arrest!> What Have I done? |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | Illogic: 1/2-1/2 in 25 moves, Aronian unable to muster anything against Kramnik's Berlin Wall |
|
Apr-25-12
 | | Kinghunt: Am I the only one who feels that Aronian is playing to test his skills rather than to try and win the match? First, there was his queen sac yesterday, which I feel like he may not have played in a situation where he felt score was critical. In a way, it reminds me a lot of Kramnik's experiments against Nakamura (Kramnik vs Nakamura, 2011 and Kramnik vs Nakamura, 2010, which incidentally both also ended badly for the experimenter). And then in his white games so far, he's played 1. e4, daring Kramnik to play his famously untouchable Berlin. As Aronian is primarily a 1. d4 player, and he's aware that it'll be extremely difficult to crack Kramnik's Berlin, it seems he has to be playing this to test and hone his skills rather than to try and maximize his winning chances. He's deliberately playing into Kramnik's strengths to get the most out of this match as possible, which I think is a fantastic approach to this match. I haven't thought as much about Kramnik's strategy, but it seems to me that he's treating this more like any other match or tournament. He seems to be playing to win with white and draw with black by playing to his own strengths rather than Aronian's. Anyone else have thoughts on their respective approaches to the match based on what we've seen so far? |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | pubaer: wao cool match. Great from the organizers to sponsor such a nice event so we can watch kramnik playing his exciting Berlin wall.
I wish there were more events like this with exciting new fresh chess. |
|
| Apr-25-12 | | fgh: <pubaer: wao cool match. Great from the organizers to sponsor such a nice event so we can watch kramnik playing his exciting Berlin wall. I wish there were more events like this with exciting new fresh chess.> Do you think anybody cares about your crap-post? |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 15 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
