| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 90
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 90
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Jun-27-17|| ||Everyone: Prejudice is a great time saver. <Everyone> can form opinions without having to get the facts.|
|Jun-27-17|| ||botvinnik64: "Prejudice is a great time saver."
Everyone: well said!
|Jun-27-17|| ||SirRuthless: Too clever.|
|Jun-27-17|| ||Nf8: A question for players from the US – is the Bronstein-delay type of time control that's used in the Grand Tour at all common there? I know that "delay" – rather than increments – is supposed to be more familiar in the US than in other places, but I thought it's "countdown"-delay (i.e., when it becomes a player's turn to move, the clock waits for the delay period before starting to subtract from the player's remaining time).|
|Jun-27-17|| ||Mirovsk: "Kramnik: My influence is usually underestimated. Look at what people are playing these days: Sicilian Sveshnikov, Petroff, the Berlin Defence. Others are playing the openings that were developed by me. I am being copied these days, and so is my defensive playing style. Very few players play like Kasparov in the '90s. The grandmasters consider my style more efficient. It's all about deeper understanding. The more we analyse with computers, the more we believe in defence. I was the first to display this clearly, particularly in my games against Kasparov. You can't play the same way today as people did ten years ago. I admire Kasparov's imaginative attacking victories from the '80s and '90s, but when you check them with a computer, in every other game the machine accepts the sacrifice, defends, and wins. This kind of attack on the edge of a bluff just doesn't work anymore. We are under the influence of computers and we are defending much more precisely. Kasparov himself has adapted his style. He even admits that he now plays like I do."
|Jun-27-17|| ||Mirovsk: Carlsen... 8 tiebreaks since 2007... 8 victories..|
|Jun-27-17|| ||BOSTER: <keypusher>:<Computers make it harder for one player to dominate>.
This is interesting idea.But Q:is this truth?
" We are all equal,but some people are more equal than others".|
|Jun-28-17|| ||Sokrates: Thanks for the quote, <Mirovsk>. This is the Kramnik we know. He constantly needs to tell us how fantastic a player he was and is, often at the cost of others. First he didn't qualify correctly to challenge Kasparov. When he beat him, or rather Kasparov committed suicide, he told everybody that Kasparov really wasn't such a great player. Before his match with Anand, he questioned Anand's rights although Anand had earned his title fair and square. And finally, Carlsen was nothing special when he emerged and rocketed to the top. It is clear that Kramnik is above all of them, he is the greatest chessplayer who either is or should be imitated by all others, since he, the genius, has proved that his way of conducting the game is the best.|
Kramnik IS a great player. But why he needs to underline that constantly, while degrading others, is beyond me. Will chess history recall his reign as a champ as the most memorable? Will he be regarded as the most brilliant of all the champs? I am sure HE would agree wholeheartedly.
|Jun-28-17|| ||BOSTER: "We are defending much more precisely", said Kramnik, who didn't
see mate in one move playing vs computer.|
|Jun-28-17|| ||keypusher: <BOSTER: "We are defending much more precisely", said Kramnik, who didn't see mate in one move playing vs computer.>|
Good cheap shot. Now answer the question: is Kramnik right or wrong? More precisely, <was> he right or wrong, given that he was speaking in 2003, fourteen years ago (and three years before the famous mate)?
|Jun-28-17|| ||Absentee: <Sokrates: Thanks for the quote, <Mirovsk>. This is the Kramnik we know. He constantly needs to tell us how fantastic a player he was and is, often at the cost of others. First he didn't qualify correctly to challenge Kasparov.>|
That interview is from 14 years ago. It's more like the Kramnik we knew.
It's true he didn't qualify, but since there was no qualification cycle at all and Kasparov himself picked Kramnik, on the grounds that he was the second highest rated player at that moment, I wouldn't fault him for it.
|Jun-28-17|| ||Keyser Soze: <absentee> Oi??|
AFAIK, Shirov <was> the qualify winner beating the same hypocrite Kramnik in a qualify match.
This is a very old interview indeed but I find amusing reading Kramnik talking about honor and "principles" after accepting a match that should go to Shirov.
I think he did right accepting the match since wasn't his fault the match was offered to him.
But since he didn't proper qualified to play for the title, I find pathetic when he demands that to Kasparov claiming he was a principle man. yeah, Tell that to Shirov.
That's why I never liked him..
|Jun-28-17|| ||not not: I think big part of Kramnik legacy is being able to draw in 12 moves, and that's direct result of computers' helping him to understand that chess is a draw.|
|Jun-28-17|| ||Absentee: <Keyser Soze: <absentee> Oi??|
AFAIK, Shirov <was> the qualify winner beating the same hypocrite Kramnik in a qualify match.>
Shirov beat Kramnik in a previous cycle (if you want to call it that, it was only one brief match). All proposals for a Kasparov-Shirov match fell through, as did two others (if I remember correctly) for a match with Anand, until Kasparov came to an agreement with Kramnik in 2000.
Basically, after PCA was liquidated in 1996 there was no qualification system, things were organized on the spur of the moment and handled as contracts between individual players. There was no body that could validate or arbitrate matters, much like in the pre-FIDE days.
|Jun-28-17|| ||BOSTER: <keypusher:is Kramnik right or wrong>.
I know that he was speaking about it
<It's all about deeper understanding>.
I don't think that Kramnik really
understand chess better than Kasparov. Talking about Kasparov that he was not such a great player
is too rude considering that Kramnik was like the member of Kasparov's family during the match
Kasparov vs Anand in 1995.So,Kramnik was wrong..
|Jun-29-17|| ||Jambow: Interesting that Kramnik now plays riskier more active chess. Less precise yet his results against humans is a net positive. His style is the polar opposite of what he advocates in the article linked by <Mirovsk>. Kramnik is great probably not so much as he thinks of course. |
He is correct that precision has increased, but complex attacking chess still does very well even at the upper echelon. With complex positions the opportunity for a less than optimal move is offered more frequently, so it occurs with the same regularity.
Kramnik matched very well against Kasparov, but Kasparov did so with everyone that he ever played. Kasparov's style played well would yield great results even now.
|Jun-29-17|| ||Jambow: Kasparov scored 76% against Shirov never losing a single game and Kramnik was only 53%. |
Although the advantage Kasparov had over Leko was minimal 58% vs 56% for Kramnik, he still had the superior record.
|Jun-29-17|| ||Sokrates: Hi <Absentee>. I wasn't aware of the fact that the interview is 14 years old. Thanks for that rectification. |
However, the interviews I have seen with Kramnik over the years, my source being New in Chess primarily, all give the impression of a man who is quite convinced by his supremacy albeit not as strongly expressed as in the interview here. True, Kasparov is and was far from being a saint, but also after he left the scene, Kramnik still showed reluctance of acknowledging some of his strongest competitors.
It would unfair, though, to single out Kramnik as the only ego in the chess-world. Perhaps egocentricity has to be a part of your personality, if you strive for the top. I can testify that many artists are big egoists and not many of them have nice words about their colleagues. I guess Anand might be an exception from the rule. :-)
|Jun-29-17|| ||BOSTER: <Sokrates:many artists are big egoists>.
Some people believe that Kramnik looks like the gentleman, but he never treats other people in proper and polite way.
I'd say that Kramnik is one from "Gentlemen of Fortune".|
|Jun-29-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <Mirovsk: "Kramnik: My influence is usually underestimated. Look at what people are playing these days: Sicilian Sveshnikov, Petroff, the Berlin Defence. Others are playing the openings that were developed by me. I am being copied these days, and so is my defensive playing style. Very few players play like Kasparov in the '90s. The grandmasters consider my style more efficient. It's all about deeper understanding. The more we analyse with computers, the more we believe in defence. I was the first to display this clearly, particularly in my games against Kasparov. You can't play the same way today as people did ten years ago. I admire Kasparov's imaginative attacking victories from the '80s and '90s, but when you check them with a computer, in every other game the machine accepts the sacrifice, defends, and wins. This kind of attack on the edge of a bluff just doesn't work anymore.">|
Quoted from Kramnik's magnum opus entitled "Why I am a Self-Glorifying Chickenshit and how to be more Like Me".
|Jun-29-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Funny just want to put out Stockfish just beat Komodo with Black due to a Bh3 sac.|
|Jun-29-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: PS better watch it here (better for your eyes):|
|Jun-29-17|| ||Mirovsk: Hello Chessgames, Leuven second day is over, where are the games? So is the leader...10 points, Carlsen and Vachier second...8 points...|
|Jun-29-17|| ||Mirovsk: Kramnik was right about the machines in chess...chess has changed a lot because of them...it seems that first you must learn defense..and draw....Giri has done it a lot...So did it in Norway (why risk his place in the candidates tournaments?)...we could say Karjakin in the WC is the perfect example...|
|Jun-29-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Mirovsk>
True dat, however, the fast progress of computer chess also opens the door for more versatility. It seems there is way more to chess than we thought. Especially in closed systems.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC