< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 194 ·
|Apr-24-12|| ||Strongest Force: Anand should win but he should also stay way from 1.e4. Gelfy is one of the all-time best sicilian players.|
|Apr-24-12|| ||Sokrates: Totally agree with you <HeMateMe: >. I miss the spectacular games by GK, and I think, with a little training period, he could level with the best of today's chess players and still beat any one of them in single games.|
|Apr-24-12|| ||Maatalkko: <Sokrates> I don't agree that either Anand or Gelfand were at their best when losing to Kasparov. I think Anand is at his best right now. Kramnik agrees with this assessment. In his most recent long interview with Tkachiev, he expressed the opinion that Anand right now is equal to Kasparov at his best. |
Now, Gelfand and Kasparov, we all know that sorry tale....
I was just watching Kasparov's Najdorf DVD last night. He has a clear appreciation for the history and aesthetics of chess, and his segments on the Polugaevsky were great.
Unfortunately, whenever his ego is even peripherally involved Kasparov becomes a total douche :(
|Apr-24-12|| ||witty: While analysing Anand's tournaments performance after he became world champion, we have to consider following points in order to judge him correctly..|
1. No player in the history of chess, had to defend his title so many times in such a short time.
1A. He has proven himself with so many tournaments victories since 1990 onwards, hence it is no surprises that his main attention is to be world champion. Moreover frequent WCC matches restrins him from playing full strength at tournaments.
2. Apart from Carlsen, his record is second to none even in this cold period of 2008-2011.
3. He has been ranked #1 in the world all these years.
4. Even now, his ELO is close to 2800, which testifies his results.
Apart from Kasparov, his tournament as well as overall performance is second to none during last 20 yrs as well as in last 5 yrs.
|Apr-24-12|| ||voyager39: GK did a wise thing by retiring at the cusp of his prime. That way the enigma and legend stays forever and the setbacks and shortcomings are quickly forgotten. Ditto for Fischer.|
If Anand wins this, his best course similarly may well be to retire. That way the next generation would never be able to claim they were greater then him just like Fischer or Kasparov. Anand's legend would then go on and on...and grow. By 2015 people would be desperately wanting the only modern unbeaten champ back again!
Gelfand if he wins doesn't have that option. He'll have to defend once more to cement his legacy.
|Apr-24-12|| ||SamAtoms1980: <voyager39: GK did a wise thing by retiring at the cusp of his prime. That way the enigma and legend stays forever and the setbacks and shortcomings are quickly forgotten. Ditto for Fischer.>|
Kasparov retired at 42, when he held no share of the title. Fischer disappeared under a rock at 30 instead of righteously defending his title. Small difference, you know.
One of the things people remember most about Fischer is the way he "retired", unlike GK.
|Apr-24-12|| ||Jason Frost: <voyager39: GK did a wise thing by retiring at the cusp of his prime. That way the enigma and legend stays forever and the setbacks and shortcomings are quickly forgotten. Ditto for Fischer.> |
That's complete nonsense in regards to Fischer, and fairly ridiculous in regards to Kasparov. Fischer, just won a championship before his 30th birthday and then you're saying it was wise for him to retire? That's like saying, yeah Sebastian Vettel just won his second F1 championship at 22, he has a legacy, so he should clearly retire now.
And Kasparov was still dominant, maybe slightly weaker than he was in his prime, but still the best player in the world by far.
The whole argument, retire when you've built a legacy and while you're still ahead makes some sense for athletes, who get relegated to bench positions and treated as institutions rather than legitimate players post some random age. It doesn't really hold for chess players, who can still keep a high level of chess performance and in some cases even improve late into life.
I mean, would you have Chucky retire 15 years ago? Would you have Carlsen retire if he wins a championship or two in the next couple of years?
|Apr-24-12|| ||voyager39: <witty> I'd like to add to what you say. |
If these were warriors on pristine battlefields, this is how the dialogue would go...
Fischer / Kasparov : I am the King. Come fight me on the ground of my choice.
Carlsen : I am the future King. I'll only fight on a level field.
Anand : You want me to climb that mountain and try get you? I'll be there!
Now I think is Anand's toughest challenge. An opponent much like himself who has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
|Apr-24-12|| ||Jason Frost: <voyager39> Where are you getting the whole, 'I've won 1-2 championships, ergo I have nothing to gain from winning or playing any more'? |
You're essentially using some variation of the argument:
If Player A is:
- Above 30 years old and has a legacy
- Has won 1-2 championships
Player A should retire, because he has nothing else to gain.
Then you're tweaking it with 20/20 hindsight, and saying 'no, no Kasparov shouldn't have retired at 24, when he won his second championship, or at 30, when Fischer apparently peaked, he was perfectly correct to retire in his 40s'.
The problem that approach is that neither the player nor you know when a player is going to peak, except in hindsight, since it's different for every player so you can't modify it for a player whenever you feel like it.
An argument like '*every* player who has achieved some legacy should retire when their 30, because all players peak at 30' is at least an actual argument. Of course, it's wrong because for Fischer, the case you use to justify it, you have no idea how he would've played or how much his legacy would have grown if he didn't retire.
And if Kasparov retired at 30, he would have won 4 championships instead of 6, and would have had a peak rating of 2805 instead of his record setting 2851. So how did he have nothing to play for or hurt his legacy?
|Apr-24-12|| ||RookFile: Every player needs to make their own decision. Take a 2200 guy with a wife and kids. He's got to decide whether it's worth it to spent an extra 15 hours per week studying to try to make 2300. Will his life change forever if he gets there? Probably not. |
In other words, there is a point of diminishing returns, whether you're 2800 or any other rating.
|Apr-24-12|| ||voyager39: <Jason Frost> I respect your views. I am just guessing a hypothetical scenario as to what would happen if Anand retires on a winning note. He'll have a comparable legacy. He's the best judge of course, not me or you. He can well decide to go the Karpov way.|
Likewise the retirement of Fischer or Kasparov. Was it expected? Was the move planned or forced? Did they calculate it down to the last move or did they just blunder into a winning legacy? Could they have made it greater by continuing and for how long? All hypothetical questions where you can have a view and I can have one too.
|Apr-24-12|| ||theodor: <<messachess>: Chance of a life-time for Gelfy. This is it, what he's been working his whole life for, and don't think he's not going to give it all he has. He could win, but unfortunately neither Gelfand nor Anand are likely to play like world champions in tournaments aferwards. But, this is a worthy match-up. Two great old players, playing for the crown.> I cant understand how people, pretending being intelligent (playing well chess), cant see the big manipulation in sports! Since bookmakers became the principal sponsors of nearly all sports, there are no more sports!!! why? Because bookmakers are deciding whom to win, knowing the amount of bettings before the event starts: - so, in case of disbalanced betting, they can offer to the favourit more money, than the first price is giving, to make him lose. It's not a 'conspiracy' theory! You have surely heard or read some revelationes. I remember that, during the world foot champ in Germany 2006, a spanish leading newspaper wrote on two pages an article, revealling the fake!|
|Apr-24-12|| ||AVRO38: <In his most recent long interview with Tkachiev, he expressed the opinion that Anand right now is equal to Kasparov at his best.>|
Since Kramnik beat Kasparov at his best, this just sounds like an underhanded way of Kramnik saying that he's better than Anand.
Has he forgotten 2008 so quickly?
|Apr-24-12|| ||AVRO38: <That way the next generation would never be able to claim they were greater then him just like Fischer or Kasparov.>|
Last time I checked, Kasparov got his clock cleaned by a fellow named Kramnik in 2000.
Only Morphy and Fischer were never defeated after becoming champion. Also, Alekhine died as the reigning World Champion, having vanquished his vanquisher.
|Apr-24-12|| ||erniecohen: I don't know what's going to happen, but this match format is positively nuts. I guess I could see it if they are planning to go to a 1-year cycle.|
|Apr-24-12|| ||Ogma: <theodor: I remember that, during the world foot champ in Germany 2006, a spanish leading newspaper wrote on two pages an article, revealling the fake!>|
Really? Then it must be true of chess then.
|Apr-24-12|| ||messachess: <"By the time Carlsen gets his shot against Anand..."> Carlsen will never play Anand for the wc. If he ever participates at all in a FIDE sponsored wc, Aronian will likely be official wc by then, or Karjakin, or Caruana! Carlsen may never agree to the conditions to become challenger.|
|Apr-25-12|| ||frogbert: i thought that it was considered very likely that carlsen's going to play the 2013 candidates. anand might not be champion at the time, but aronian certainly won't. :o)|
|Apr-25-12|| ||offramp: This will be the first WC match since 1934 with two over-40s as contestants. |
I am a big fan of Anand, but this time I will be supporting Gelfand. I think he will prepare better - specifically to play Anand - and he may have some powerful Russo-Israeli support. If he can hold the black pieces I think he can win. I'll say Gelfand 2-1.
|Apr-25-12|| ||Paraconti: The good news about Kasparov is that in one more year he won't worry so much about dropping his Queen in games.|
|Apr-25-12|| ||HeMateMe: I don't understand the debate about age and ratings. Korchnoi was playing for the world championship in his 40s. Was he somehow unworthy? |
If Magnus Carlsen doesn't like the format, then he can be like Fischer in the 1960s, and just float around until his tender ego thinks he is assured of winning it all. Chess in the 1960s got along just fine without Bobby Fischer participating in zonal events for the WC. And, chess will get along just fine if Magnus Carlsen wants to sit on the sidelines.
Gelfand won the Candidates matches. Lets enjoy the chess.
|Apr-25-12|| ||OneArmedScissor: Gelfand won't win a single game. Calling it.|
|Apr-25-12|| ||Petrosianic: How much money have you bet on that? If none, then you're not calling anything, just wishing.|
|Apr-25-12|| ||Lambda: <If Magnus Carlsen doesn't like the format, then he can be like Fischer in the 1960s, and just float around until his tender ego thinks he is assured of winning it all. Chess in the 1960s got along just fine without Bobby Fischer participating in zonal events for the WC. And, chess will get along just fine if Magnus Carlsen wants to sit on the sidelines.>|
Carlsen wasn't complaining about the format, he pulled out in protest at FIDE going insane, and changing the rules of the cycle <part-way through it>. You can't compare that with Fischer's behaviour.
|Apr-25-12|| ||voyager39: <offramp> I mostly agree with your views <I will be supporting Gelfand. I think he will prepare better - specifically to play Anand - and he may have some powerful Russo-Israeli support> |
Gelfand would certainly find greater support from unknown quarters just as Anand did against Topalov.
Hard to say who has access to better hardware or software.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 194 ·