|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-09-12 | | Petrosianic: Lasker-Schlechter was a great match. Well played, and every game a long tense fight. |
 |
| May-10-12 | | AVRO38: <since the USSR had the best players in the world from the 1950's on, I would say that each USSR Championship was a Super Tournament...you had players like, Geller, Bronstein, Tal, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Petrosian, Botvinnik and many other great Grandmasters.> Sounds good on paper, but when you look at the actual USSR Championships, you rarely see any all-star line-ups. The sole exceptions are 1955 and 1973, but in 1955 you can't really have a "super-tournament" without Reshevsky and Bronstein. Also, can a 1973 tournament really be called "super" without the reigning World Champion? In short, the USSR Championships and the Candidates Tournaments were all strong, but they fail to rise to the level of a "super-tournament". |
|
| May-10-12 | | offramp: <Whitehat1963: Anand will win going away.> <Petrosianic: "Going away" doesn't really mean anything specific in this sentence. > One of the runner-up prizes is a DVD of the 1896 film <Going Away> which has been kindly donated by Amazon. So <Whitehat1963> is saying that Anand will lose. |
|
| May-10-12 | | NGambit: <offramp: <Whitehat1963: Anand will win going away.>
<Petrosianic: "Going away" doesn't really mean anything specific in this sentence. > One of the runner-up prizes is a DVD of the 1896 film <Going Away> which has been kindly donated by Amazon. So <Whitehat1963> is saying that Anand will lose.> I thought my jokes were bad |
|
May-10-12
 | | nimh: Good to see you're back, but why are you making lies about me? <which I find quite unscientific.> Oh the irony... If analyzing each move and taking into account other factors than assuming that chess skill is the only one that affects the accuracy, is unscientific, then what should we say about bridgeburner's work? :) <He starts with the hypothesis that present-day players are better than past ones, then explains and explains why he thinks so,> It's the conclusion arrived at after analyzing games of the past and the present not a hypothesis. <test it with empirical observations.> I have been analyzing chess games for years.
<What I believe in is that the best chess players from Lasker's time (when the chess clock became a permanent fixture of tournaments) until today played at a similar level in terms of avoiding objective errors. > What do you mean by 'similar level'? It's hard to understand what was meant if one uses vague statements like that. How many elos was Lasker's play weaker compared to today's players? |
|
May-10-12
| | nimh: <On Drik's and his or her Nunn's philosophy of conic sections & chess progress Fischer was close to being a moron at chess and Pholoder was only 1200!!> Actually, having analyzed his games with computer, I believe that Fischer at his peak was on a level comparable to today's 2800-rated players. |
|
May-10-12
 | | moronovich: <ajile: According to another website the first game isn't until May 11 not May 10. Also anyone know what time of day EST the games start?>
>
Should be 1300 CET. |
|
May-10-12
 | | Shams: If Anand were to go up +2 early, press with White the rest of the way and draw comfortably with Black in every game, we could call that "winning going away." Don't think it'll happen though. |
|
May-10-12
 | | Eggman: It'd be interesting to get some predictions here. I read that Gelfand hasn't beaten Anand since 1993. Based on that, and assuming that Anand's relatively poor form of late relates to his holding certain weapons in reserve, my prediction is: Anand 6.5 Gelfand 3.5
But I make this prediction with no great confidence. It's a tough one to call. |
|
May-10-12
 | | Hesam7: My prediction:
Anand will win by the same margin he beat Kramnik (+2). But it will feel a lot closer than that match (which was effectively over by game 6). What interests me most is the opening discussion that we will see in the match. Even what broad opening they choose is hard to guess. Both players have played 1. e4 & 1. d4 with White and their openings with Black are equally diverse: Najdrof, Petroff and semi-slav are played by both of them. So 12 Catalans and 12 Najdorfs are both possible (but not likely). |
|
May-10-12
 | | twinlark: I'm going to stick my neck out and predict a Gelfand win. Why?
He's hungrier. He's better prepared. It's the culmination of his existence. Anand has been there, done that. He's nothing further to prove, and won't be quite so hungry, or well prepared. I predict Gelfand 6.5-5.5. |
|
May-10-12
 | | Bridgeburner: <nimh>
One of the reasons I don't have much truck with you and your project is that you sneer at honest attempts by people to do something differently from you or for that matter who disagree with you. No-one who knows about it will ever forget you lecturing a brain surgeon about the human brain, and this fact is not the slightest bit mitigated by your ignorance of who you were lecturing: it displayed a risible blend of ignorance and arrogance. |
|
| May-10-12 | | tabul008: Anand will win!He reserves his energy for world championship! |
|
| May-10-12 | | Lambda: <What do you mean by 'similar level'? It's hard to understand what was meant if one uses vague statements like that. How many elos was Lasker's play weaker compared to today's players?> Nah, you see, those guys seem to actually understand how to apply scientific method. Which (presumably) means they can tell it's impossible to measure this sort of thing with pinpoint accuracy, (how many ELOs), so they should only deduce statements which convey the margin of error involved. It's perfectly easy for another scientist to understand what was meant. |
|
| May-10-12 | | Lambda: Oh yes, and Lasker-Schlechter is a fantastic match. I particularly like Schlechter's victory, and <that> draw. I like hard-fought draws. |
|
May-10-12
 | | The Machine 1: I always support the Challenger. So, go Boris! |
|
May-10-12
 | | wordfunph: i love underdogs, GM Boris "The Juggler" Gelfand rules! |
|
| May-10-12 | | solskytz: I see absolutely no problem with lecturing to a brain surgeon about the human brain. A brain surgeon is an expert in structure. He knows some things about function. If he's honest, he'll tell you that in his discipline, many many many many many things are unknown about the human brain - unknown, not understood, not to say a complete mystery. So if someone comes with ideas or observation on the subject, an arrogant "Shut up, I'm the expert" stance is wildly out of place. Humility please! |
|
| May-10-12 | | solskytz: Of course I'm not referring to the specific content of that brain lecture, which I didn't read... my observation is of a more general nature. |
|
| May-10-12 | | solskytz: And on another note, to ChessGames.com
Hey guys - I really like your site! And I'm not (yet?) a paying member. How about making the live game section available to ALL of your crowd - rather than just for paying members? It will make the site experience more pleasant during the WC match - and I really like your site! I thought it was very wise of you guys to show us, non-payers, the Aronian-Kramnik match live. Why? Of course, because we could see it live anyway, elsewhere... but as we really like this site, it saves us hassle to have to go to another website at the same time. Your splendid website has enough attractions and features which are reserved for paying members, which makes it really worthwhile to invest the small amount that you charge - I'm not being cynical. Guess the move, the database and more feature really make it a very attractive site, and excellent reasons to pay. So - my recommendation, relax it a little with the live coverage of the WC - it's not like you're the exclusive broadcaster or something... :-] Just my threepence |
|
| May-10-12 | | nikolajewitsch: I predict that Anand will win indeed, but that the match will go full distance with a final result of 6.5-5.5 and, as usual, I base that on absolutely nothing... |
|
May-10-12
 | | visayanbraindoctor: <solskytz> You are right. The human brain is the most complex structure known to human science. More on this topic (and consciousness) can be found in <twinlark's> forum. And if you have something interesting to say about brains in general, I would read it with interest, as I do any statement I find here on brains. As for the phenomenon of consciousness, no one understands it. |
|
May-10-12
| | visayanbraindoctor: <MORPHYEUS> The methodology is well explained in <Bridgeburner's> forum. |
|
May-10-12
 | | Richard Taylor: <nimh: <On Drik's and his or her Nunn's philosophy of conic sections & chess progress Fischer was close to being a moron at chess and Pholoder was only 1200!!> Actually, having analyzed his games with computer, I believe that Fischer at his peak was on a level comparable to today's 2800-rated players.> You are full of crap. |
|
May-10-12
| | visayanbraindoctor: Chances are that Anand will win. But if Gelfand does, then I shall congratulate him and accept him as the new World Champion, and he will be fully deserving of the Title. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
