< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·
|Oct-04-12|| ||Arcturar: What DO the critics have to say?|
|Oct-04-12|| ||Eyal: <What DO the critics have to say?>|
Well, take a look a couple of kibitzing pages back (FIDE Grand Prix London (2012)): he played "solid" – probably result of his WC prep, he's an old boring guy and a fossil and should just retire already so that Naka, Wang Hao & Giri could take over:-)
|Oct-04-12|| ||perfidious: <Eyal> knows the score-the hasbeenusetawas Anand is still hiding mountains of opening prep for his upcoming match against Fischer, which will take place through a medium in spring 2013.|
For the great Vishy to pound on these so-called top players of today would be no challenge at all; Fischer's the only player, alive or dead, with any hope against him, and all Anand's efforts must be directed towards him.
|Oct-04-12|| ||kia0708: pity we don't have games from the 13th Karpov Poikovsky Tournament 2012.
Among the participants are:
Nigel Short (UK)
|Oct-04-12|| ||Eyal: <pity we don't have games from the 13th Karpov Poikovsky Tournament 2012.>|
Not the right page... try 13th Karpov International (2012)
|Oct-04-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <perfidious>
Thank you for your ideas.
Meanwhile, a few weeks ago Carlsen- leaving himself out of it- claimed that Anand is the strongest in the world. It's a shame that chess journalists do not always "follow up," as even to this diehard Vishy fan it seemed like a strange thing to say in September 2012.
Why does Carlsen think Vishy is stronger than Kramnik or Aronian?
|Oct-04-12|| ||Eyal: <Why does Carlsen think Vishy is stronger than Kramnik or Aronian?>|
If he really said - and meant - that, maybe it has something to do with his own score against him; he finds Anand the toughest to beat among the three (and in general).
|Oct-04-12|| ||drik: <Eyal: so that Naka, Wang Hao & Giri could take over:-)>|
...so this time the comment comes with a smiley?
|Oct-05-12|| ||Eyal: <...so this time the comment comes with a smiley?>|
Since I obviously think it's a ridiculous comment (like all the other comments about Gelfand that I was quoting), then yes.
|Oct-05-12|| ||Appaz: <<Eyal> <Why does Carlsen think Vishy is stronger than Kramnik or Aronian?>|
If he really said - and meant - that, maybe it has something to do with his own score against him; he finds Anand the toughest to beat among the three (and in general).>
Yes, I believe Carlsen made this evaluation relative to himself, with match play in mind: Anand is damn hard to beat when he is motivated and in form, even when he is "hanging in the ropes". Probably one of the best match players in history relative to his own "objective" strength.
|Oct-05-12|| ||AuN1: <Appaz: <<Eyal> <Why does Carlsen think Vishy is stronger than Kramnik or Aronian?>
If he really said - and meant - that, maybe it has something to do with his own score against him; he finds Anand the toughest to beat among the three (and in general).>|
Yes, I believe Carlsen made this evaluation relative to himself, with match play in mind: Anand is damn hard to beat when he is motivated and in form, even when he is "hanging in the ropes". Probably one of the best match players in history relative to his own "objective" strength.>
what makes anand such a great match player? he beat kramnik (who only has two career match victories) topalov (not good in matches either) and he drew against gelfand.
|Oct-05-12|| ||Troller: <what makes anand such a great match player?>|
Well, Anand has after all a decent match history.
He has won 2 knockout tournaments, and I think he reached semifinal in another (out of 3 tries I believe). He won the Candidates tournament qualifying him for the Kasparov match (was eliminated in the contemporary FIDE cycle by the eventual winner, Kamsky). He has now defended his title 3 times in matches.
I am not sure which other current top player would be a "better" match player. Kamsky? But he lost a match against Topalov...
|Oct-05-12|| ||Appaz: <<AuN1> what makes anand such a great match player? he beat kramnik (who only has two career match victories) topalov (not good in matches either) and he drew against gelfand.>|
When you are damn hard to beat you <are> a good match player. You are so kind and give the arguments yourself, his match record (although you in some mysterious way seem to think that even his victories should be used against him).
Even the Gelfand match is convincing. There he was really "hanging in the ropes", out of form, but still defending the title.
|Oct-05-12|| ||Eggman: <<Even the Gelfand match is convincing.>>|
Anand did what he had to do, but if just barely getting through by the skin of your teeth is convincing, then the word "convincing" has lost all meaning. Even Anand conceded that the match could have gone either way. One should expect more from Anand against a player ranked about 20th in the world. But again, yes, he did what he had to do, and deserves credit for that much.
|Oct-05-12|| ||Appaz: <Eggman> Convincing considering his bad form.|
Gelfand is not just another top 20 player, he has been a top 20 player for 20 years. He has tons of experience and is usually rock solid.
The problem in this match was not the quality of the moves but that it was much too few of them before they drew.
|Oct-05-12|| ||Daisuki: Regarding the Carlsen interview (I assume this is the same one I read), he said something like that Anand is the best in the world when he's in form (so presumably the Anand that existed in the first half of this year's Bilbao Masters would not qualify). To be clear (in case anyone misunderstood) he also excluded himself I think just to make his response interesting. It seemed clear to me that he considers himself the actual best in the world (excluding no one, that is).|
On another note, I read a interview with Kramnik where he said that Carlsen was the best (he picked Anand in an interview I read very non-directly before that one). Everyone's free to correct me (or just bicker at me), of course. Kramnik has in general been a pretty objective (or should I say emotionally uninvestedly thoughtful) person whether he's talking about chess, Russia, or whatever, in my experience, but of course I've liked him since before Carlsen was around, so I can appear as biased as you need me to be, if it helps. ;p
|Oct-05-12|| ||fisayo123: <On another note, I read a interview with Kramnik where he said that Carlsen was the best >
Which interview? Because Vlady always picks Aronian above him.|
|Oct-05-12|| ||Daisuki: I've never seen him pick Aronian (although I'm sure he respects him as a great player), but okay. I assume the interviews can be found...somewhere. :/|
|Oct-05-12|| ||Daisuki: To be clear, I meant pick Aronian as best in the world (not just better than Carlsen and/or Anand). I've never seen him pick himself, either, but I of course haven't read every interview.|
|Oct-05-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: While we're on the topic:
|Oct-06-12|| ||Sokrates: What the top GMs say about each other should really be taken with a grain of salt. They may have other agendas, for instance lowering expectations on their own chances. |
Only the last couple of years it has been somewhat pleasing to read interviews with Kramnik. From the time he won the title from Kasparov till he lost it to Anand, he showed very little calibre when mentioning his oponents, especially the two mentioned here. After he lost to Anand he became more gentle and self-critical, and that has suited him well.
As for Carlsen/Anand, Carlsen would appear arrogant and, well stupid, if he made valuations of Anand underestimating his strength. I think Carlsen has an enormous respect for Anand - but that isn't the same as belittleling his chances against him, should it come that far.
Last, but not least: Three cheers for Gelfand, who did a fine job in this tournament.
|Oct-07-12|| ||Eggman: <<Appaz: Convincing considering his bad form.>> We'd assumed he was in "bad form" because Anand was hiding his best preparation for the World Championship Match. This implied that he would return to form against Gelfand, and win handily, but instead he nearly lost the title. So maybe his "bad form" is really more a matter of permanent decline.|
|Oct-07-12|| ||perfidious: <Eggman> We may very well be witnessing Anand's battle with Father Time, the greatest opponent of all-that fellow never loses! Most unfortunate that it happens to all of us, even that great player and gentleman Vishy Anand.|
|Oct-07-12|| ||perfidious: < parmetd: I believe what Jim is trying to say is the $100 bet for Leko to draw to make $120 is a good idea.....
Ie. 11games $100 down or $1100 in the kitty and 10 correct returns of $120 or $1200 and one wrong return of $0 leaves you up $100 dollars. Seems a safe profitable result to me.>|
This is most definitely a bet with what we in poker call a 'positive expectation', as in those eleven bets, your return on investment is just over 9 per cent. If you've the bankroll to withstand the risk of ruin, bet $100 on some other outcome, keep generating analogous results and you're in business. Casinos are built on (generally) far smaller edges than this.
|Dec-03-12|| ||Conrad93: Why did Gelfand win?
It can't be based on rating.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·