< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 395 OF 395 ·
|Mar-23-14|| ||perfidious: <Meaux> Pity that, of the two posters whom you named, one good one has gone, anyway.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||Meaux: I mean PRICELESS debate, itís pretty late! <perfidious> I remember that <shach> was always so hard on you. Surely you miss being called a troll.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||perfidious: <Meaux> Not to worry-there is another poster who does not like being called out and has also referred to me thus.
Water off the duck's back and all that.
It is regrettable that <Daisuki> seems to have gone-she was quite decent, but made the fundamental error of trying to reason with <shach>, for whom the concept is amorphous at best.
|Mar-23-14|| ||Meaux: <perfidious> She is still posting, just not nearly as often.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||Everett: Who knows.. Anand just might pull a Botvinnik.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||perfidious: <Everett> His chances just improved by one rather large leap today.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||Everett: <perfidious> that fact that the next match is only a year after his loss is a huge help. I don't think he would perform this way three years on, and I imagine Botvinnik would not have been so successful if he also had to wait an entire cycle without the immediate rematch.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||perfidious: <Everett> To succeed as Botvinnik did requires a person with iron self-discipline; there are very few in any discipline who can, whatever one makes of the rules which allowed him automatic rematches, display the type of fortitude to come out swinging at the man who had only recently defeated him in a set match.|
Anand's weakness at top level seems to have been of a psychological nature. If he goes forward, it might be difficult for him due to this, plus he would be facing one tough customer who will not be cowed.
As for what might happen, I wish Anand well, whatever the future holds--he has been nothing but a credit to the game.
|Mar-23-14|| ||Hiarcs: There you go aronian, pay the consequences of accepting the draw against anand.|
|Mar-24-14|| ||offramp: Carlsen must be laughing into his rakfisk at the thought of a replay of this match.|
|Mar-24-14|| ||Rascal Nikov: who will have a last laugh will be decided in November very soon. so wait a little.|
|Apr-03-14|| ||goommba88: hopefully anand dumps e4 for the upcoming match. his score, with white mind you after e4.. 2 draws 1 loss.
|Apr-14-14|| ||Chessinfinite: Carlsen can laugh now, he became WC after only 10 games- he will see what it is to play the same opponent again, this time probably with a difference. |
I don't think he will laugh, the only laugh someone might have had was Kasparov before the 1993 match when he had to face a No 10 player Short in 1993 - and even harder after the match !!
|Apr-14-14|| ||Absentee: <Chessinfinite: I don't think he will laugh, the only laugh someone might have had was Kasparov before the 1993 match when he had to face a No 10 player Short in 1993 - and even harder after the match !!>|
Anand was #8 when he played Carlsen last november.
|Apr-14-14|| ||polarmis: Vladimir Kramnik gives his thoughts on the Carlsen-Anand rematch:|
|Apr-14-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Anand was #8 when he played Carlsen last november.>|
He was also defending champion, proving that he had the ability to reach the top, regardless of what his recent results had been like. Short, Bogo, Janowski, et al never did.
|Apr-14-14|| ||tamar: Kramnik does not rule out working as an Anand second. He says Vishy will have to ask first, then he can consider it.|
|Apr-14-14|| ||Absentee: <Petrosianic: <Anand was #8 when he played Carlsen last november.>|
He was also defending champion, proving that he had the ability to reach the top, regardless of what his recent results had been like. Short, Bogo, Janowski, et al never did.>
Sure. That wasn't in question, though. With the benefit of hindsight we know that Short didn't make it, but one couldn't be sure at the time. If Kasparov was entitled to laugh at Short - something I doubt he did, by the way - then I don't see why other players couldn't do the same under similar circumstances.
|Apr-14-14|| ||Petrosianic: I suppose a challenger could laugh at the champion. It would ring kind of hollow, and probably establish the guy as kind of a boor, but there's no law against it. I can't really think of any time it happened.|
It ALMOST happened in 1963. In Fischer's famous Sports Illustrated article, he did a hit job on Botvinnik as an old man who only kept his title due to (unspecified) rules (we know what he's talking about, but he didn't explain it to the SI audience). But of course, Fischer wasn't the challenger that year. He failed to earn that spot. Had he succeeded, he might have been the first to diss the champion openly. On the other hand, if he'd succeeded, he wouldn't have had any sour grapes to vent.
Otherwise, the only challengers I can think of that were dissed by the champion were Short, and Bogo (the second time; the first time Alekhine was trying to promote him as more deserving than Capablanca).
|Apr-14-14|| ||Everett: Thank you <Polarmis>!|
|Apr-14-14|| ||tamar: Lasker is supposed to have written about Tarrasch "He lacks the passion that whips the blood when great stakes can be gained by resolute and self-confident daring," |
But even so thorough an investigator as Taylor Kingston has been unable to establish a source for that remark. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!t...
|Apr-14-14|| ||Petrosianic: Yeah, I meant to mention that, and forgot. Personally, I see the Lasker/Tarrasch badinage as the chess version of the Jack Benny/Fred Allen Feud. They trashed each other because they were feuding, and they were feuding because they were such hot rivals. Mileage may vary, though. If it happened, you might reasonably consider that to be a champion laughing at a challenger. I don't see it that way, but some might.|
|Apr-14-14|| ||Appaz: <<Petrosianic> I suppose a challenger could laugh at the champion. [...] I can't really think of any time it happened.>|
The "lend him the title" remark comes in awfully close (but still doesn't fully qualify, in my opinion).
|Apr-14-14|| ||tamar: Janowski was the only one who could laugh at the champion while acknowledging he had no idea how to play against him.|
I don't think I will win a game in this match. Lasker plays too stupidly for me to look at the board with any interest. - David Janowski
|Apr-14-14|| ||Petrosianic: <The "lend him the title" remark comes in awfully close (but still doesn't fully qualify, in my opinion).>|
Y......eah, I had forgotten that one, but that very nearly qualifies. I don't know if he meant it to come out as badly as it did, but it's not good.
I wasn't thinking of that one because I thought of it as half Kramnik making excuses for himself. I was really critical of him at Mexico City for not making any efforts to win with Black. I was especially critical of the Grischuk-Kramnik game where, in a Must Win situation, Kramnik played the Petroff Defense, drew in like 14 moves, then tried to claim at the press conference that he WAS playing to win because the Petroff is a very sharp opening, you see. As for why he took the draw so quickly, well, it's because Grischuk offered it!
I thought that was one of Kramnik's worst moments, so when he said that bit about lending Anand the title, my first thought was that he was making excuses for not hussling more at Mexico City.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 395 OF 395 ·