| page 1 of 8; games 1-25 of 185
| page 1 of 8; games 1-25 of 185
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jan-06-18|| ||zborris8: <Rolfo> ROFL! I was merely exaggerating when I said that I wasn't exaggerating. ;)|
<Keypusher - There's an obvious difference between <he was dominating most of the games> in one phase of a particular segment of the match and <<Nakamura> was clearly better in the majority of these games>.
I have no intention of playing through all the games, but the chess.com story points out two Nakamura losses from won positions...etc.>
<KeyPusher> - I watched all of the games and many times, not "some" times, the IM and GM commentators thought Nakamura was about to bring home the point. But then he would lose these games. It was clear that he was losing games in winning positions. And I went over each of the games with Hou1.5/d12. With this method, I found that Nakamura had 10 games in which he either blundered or held the advantage heading into the endgame, but lost. I scored these games as a loss for Nakamura and not as a win for Carlsen.
I admit that I don't have the ability to discern the difference between the strength of Carlsen's endgame vs. Nakamura suffering poor technique at speed. I simply followed the flow of the engine's evaluation graph throughout the game. But despite the shortcomings of engine evaluations, the results support Carlsen's statement that he had been outplayed in several of those games with Nakamura dominating most of the games. I do think that Carlsen was being sincere when he said this,<john barleycorn>, because he was answering a point made by the commentators, so there was no need to badger Nakamura with mockery.
Here's the engine evaluation summary, you all may disagree, or find different results from a different method, but this is what I had done to draw my own conclusion that something other than chess was responsible for Nakamura's results against Carlsen - playing the player and not the board, syndrome.
CARLSEN WON 4 GAMES:
TOTAL DOMINATION IN THESE ROUNDS: 13,18,19,21
CARLSEN LOST 3 GAMES:
SQUANDERED ADVANTAGE, BLUNDER, ETC ROUNDS: 3,11,23
NAKAMURA WON 0 GAMES:
NEVER HELD AN ADVANTAGE TO CLOSE THE WIN.
NAKAMURA LOST 10 GAMES:
SQUANDERED ADVANTAGE, BLUNDER, ETC. ROUNDS: 1,4,5,7,8,10,16,20,22,24
BOTH HAD 7 DRAWN GAMES
|Jan-06-18|| ||keypusher: <zborris8> Thanks for that response. Not only did you spend way more time on the match than I did, it looks like you spent more time than the players! But even by your own account Nakamura "lost" 10 games, which is far less than a majority. I'm not even addressing <he should beat Magnus every time they play>, which I assume was a joke. |
Is your source of game #s the chess.com video? The games on cg are not in order, I think.
|Jan-06-18|| ||Everett: Rapid remains the sweet spot for time controls for most humans. An hour total for an entire game, and, of course, potentially quicker.|
|Jan-06-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Again...these mumbo jumbo percentage blah blahs has no bearing whatsoever...>|
Again, if you don't understand the math behind it, that's your problem, not anyone else's. You should try to learn it, it's not hard.
<The rule stinks...and I...understand it very well. How can you add the total score when the games were in different time controls???>
If you think that the rules stink, well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. As far as how you can add the total scores when the games were in different time controls, that's not hard either: For each player you just add the scores for the games at the 5+2 , 3+2, and 1+1 time controls.
<There are also different kind of fowls that we all know about, ok???>
Sure, but what do different types of fowls have to do with chess games at different time controls? Oh, wait! Suppose each of these different types of fowl lay eggs right before your eyes; the duck lays 4 eggs, the goose lays 3 eggs, and the chicken lays 5 eggs. How many eggs do you have? Why 4 + 3 + 5 = 12. See, not hard, just like adding game scores at different time controls.
<But... I disagree that Wesley winning a portion of the match is irrelevant. In fact, if you examine the situation carefully, you will solve the unsolved mystery easily...even a blind man can see.>
Of course it's irrelevant. You want to make an omelet that will feed 4 people, and the recipe calls for 3 eggs for each omelet, or 12 eggs total. So if you insist on only using the goose eggs for cooking the omelet, that's 3 eggs for the 4 people. Not only did you fail to follow the recipe, but all the people will go hungry. You see, it's the total number of eggs that's important, not just the number of goose eggs. No mystery there, not even if one or more of the people to be fed is blind.
<So...to tell me that Wesley was buried worst than Naka is an insult to human intelligence.>
Well, I'm glad that at least you're not insulted.
And, BTW, I'm glad that you got your avatar back. Maybe you can ask Foghorn Leghorn how he feels about eating an omelet partly made up of chicken eggs.
|Jan-06-18|| ||zborris8: <keypusher, yes, the typical,overthetop fanboy joke> |
The broadcast is still at Twitch TV. They had cams on the players and it's interesting to observe the contrast side-by-side, how centered Magnus appears, and how noisy Nakamura is without saying a word:
Yes, the games are not in order, skipping rounds 9 and 17 (960). Unfortunately I discovered that after posting my results and only when reading your comment about Nakamura's mouseslip in the first bullet game late last night.
Nakamura was the number 2 contender having beaten Caruana and Karjakin. I feel that either of those two players would have held a closer match score against Carlsen. Did Magnus find the Rosetta Stone to Nakamura's style - or was Nakamura seeing the ghosts of his own self-doubts? I have to admit that my own impressions are somewhat shallow and largely based upon the commentators in-game remarks and post-match interview.
|Jan-06-18|| ||OhioChessFan: <So...to tell me that Wesley was buried worst than Naka is an insult to human intelligence.>|
<Well, I'm glad that at least you're not insulted.>
|Jan-06-18|| ||OhioChessFan: FWIW, <AK> most people have given up on him, and I bet I'm not alone in wishing you would also. Fires burn out when they run out of fuel, blah blah blah. Your last line, though, does make a great case that you're fine as is.|
|Jan-06-18|| ||AylerKupp: <OhioChessFan> <AK> most people have given up on him, and I bet I'm not alone in wishing you would also.>|
I know what the usual remedy is for posters like him, but I think that <tuttifrutty> is a special case. For one thing, he's very imaginative and his rationalizations of his delusions are at a higher level than other posters like him, and they make me laugh more than usual. Not to mention the fun I have in making fun of the "logic" in his posts, and I would hate to give that up. In fact, I decided to add him to my favorites list to help ensure that I don't miss any of his posts. Too bad that <chessgames.com> does not provide the equivalent of a You Tube channel that we can subscribe to so that we don't miss any posts from our favorite posters.
For another thing, he's very intelligent and creative and I actually enjoy reading his posts. So much so (perhaps that should be <So> much <so>) that when I found out that his premium membership had expired and that his Santa had decided to go to a nursing home and apparently didn't remember to renew <tuttifrutty>'s premium membership (Magnus Carlsen (kibitz #83297)), I gave him a gift premium membership. Anything (well, almost anything) to try to encourage his fine work.
Finally, several of his posts are responses (I use the word loosely) to some of my posts. I don't know about you but I feel that if someone addresses me directly, or responds to one of my posts, that it would be discourteous to ignore them.
So I hope that you and others allow me to indulge myself by continuing to respond to him. I did try to restrict myself to only responding when he posted factual errors but that didn't work out too well; it didn't eliminate many posts from consideration.
And, as you can see, yes, I'm fine as is.
As an aside, I don't know if you know that the flip side of Little Richard's 1955 single of "Tutti Frutti" had the song "I'm Just a Lonely Guy". Coincidence? ... You tell me.
|Jan-07-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <Again, if you don't understand the math behind it, that's your problem, not anyone else's. You should try to learn it, it's not hard.>|
I do understand all these statistics ...to me, they are just mumbo jumbos...they are part of the three lies only to reinforce the weakest arguments.
According to Mark Twain "there are three lies..." and they are:
2. damn lies
So...if statistics are lies, by repeating it everyday, incessantly...pretty soon, gullible people will soon believe it. As a friendly reminder...you are now following the footsteps of Adolf Hitler for he once said:
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
So...why should I even entertain such mumbos??? You tell me.
|Jan-07-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> I do understand all these statistics ...to me, they are just mumbo jumbos...>|
I don't think that you do. If you did, you wouldn't call them mumbo jumbo. And as far as these statistics are concerned, if they are able to predict the most likely scores in play between two opponents, and if these predictions come close or even match the actual results, it's difficult to make a case of saying they are lies. Not that this ever stopped you before.
As far as Adolf Hitler, I doubt that he was the first person to say that; this has been a common practice for politicians and dictators for centuries when they don't have fact on their side. Besides, the lie doesn't have to be big or even simple; all you have to do is keep saying and eventually many will believe it. In spite of facts to the contrary.
So you can certainly continue to call them mumbo jumbo, but I think that the chess community at this site is more astute than the average person and they know what the real lies are. But go ahead, keep repeating them. Adolf Hitler would have been proud of you.
|Jan-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <Sure, but what do different types of fowls have to do with chess games at different time controls?>|
Ducks are slower than goose which are slower than chicken...get it???
<Oh, wait! Suppose each of these different types of fowl lay eggs right before your eyes; the duck lays 4 eggs, the goose lays 3 eggs, and the chicken lays 5 eggs. How many eggs do you have? Why 4 + 3 + 5 = 12. See, not hard, just like adding game scores at different time controls.>
Aha...can you see my avatar??? It's a rooster...so a rooster will tell you that although you can call them eggs...all eggs are not created equal...these are eggs of different fowls. It makes perfect sense to add them as eggs but it does not make any sense when the units given are from different fowls.
Let me explain further so there is no confusion...
apples and oranges are fruits...
You may say 3 apples plus 2 oranges equals 5 fruits....but the fact remains that you still have 3 apples and 2 oranges. Nothing has changed.
So...are you smarter than a fourth grader??? You tell me.
|Jan-08-18|| ||Marmot PFL: Didn't follow this match but the result was no surprise. |
Blitz must be the world's most popular form of chess today, although in the past it was disdained by purists-
In blitz, the knight is stronger than the bishop. ~ chess quote by Vlastmil Hort
Yes, I have played a blitz game once. It was on a train, in 1929. ~ chess quote by Mikhail Botvinnik
It is very difficult to play a single blitz game! You want to play for a long time. So I tend not to do that anymore. ~ chess quote by Viswanathan Anand
Playing rapid chess, one can lose the habit of concentrating for several hours in serious chess. That is why, if a player has big aims, he should limit his rapid play in favor of serious chess. ~ chess quote by Vladimir Kramnik
He who analyses blitz is stupid. ~ chess quote by Rashid Nezhmetdinov
Blitz chess kills your ideas. ~ chess quote by Bobby Fischer
Like dogs who sniff each other when meeting, chess players have a ritual at first acquaintance: they sit down to play speed chess. ~ chess quote by Anatoly Karpov
|Jan-08-18|| ||ChessHigherCat: <It is very difficult to play a single blitz game! You want to play for a long time. So I tend not to do that anymore. ~ chess quote by Viswanathan Anand>|
That's what I loved most about it. When I used to teach I had a lot of spare time (those were the days!) and I could hang out with friends at the park and play and joke around for hours with never a dull moment.
<Playing rapid chess, one can lose the habit of concentrating for several hours in serious chess. That is why, if a player has big aims, he should limit his rapid play in favor of serious chess. ~ chess quote by Vladimir Kramnik>
Maybe but only a small percentage of players have "big aims" and only professionals or the independently wealthy can afford to play slow games for hours at a stretch not to mention analyzing all day long.
<He who analyses blitz is stupid. ~ chess quote by Rashid Nezhmetdinov>
No doubt after he lost a game of blitz. If someone had pointed out that they never could have found his beautiful blitz combination even in a slow game, he would be singing a different tune.
|Jan-08-18|| ||Marmot PFL: One advantage of online chess, where games are stored, is ability to analyze blitz and rapid games afterward without having to keep score. Play out different lines vs the computer, and see what mistakes you and your opponent made. |
So often when I think I played well the computer finds improvements or refutations, or even missed mates that I say This can't be the game, I would never miss that...
|Jan-08-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Ducks are slower than goose which are slower than chicken...get it???>|
Even for you that's an incredibly nonsensical statement unless the fowl were playing speed chess. Then I suppose that chicken would have an advantage because they could move their pieces and press their clocks faster than either the ducks or the geese.
<It makes perfect sense to add them as eggs but it does not make any sense when the units given are from different fowls.>
Since they are all eggs and they are each suitable for making omelettes, why does it not make sense to add them when the eggs are from different fowls? Would you rather have you and your friends go hungry because you were unwilling to mix eggs from different fowls because of your stubborn adherence to a faulty premise?
<Let me explain further so there is no confusion... apples and oranges are fruits... You may say 3 apples plus 2 oranges equals 5 fruits....but the fact remains that you still have 3 apples and 2 oranges. Nothing has changed.>
Again, what do apples and oranges have to do with chess games at different time controls? Oh, wait! Suppose it's a hot summer day and you want to make a refreshing drink like Sangria. You mix the apples and the oranges along with other fruits, wine, some sparkling soda, and some ice. Aaaah, how refreshing. Here's a recipe for you to enjoy along with some of your friends: https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/2.... It has lots of pictures and even a video so that you might be able to follow it. And, if you would like to forego the alcohol (so that it's suitable for fourth graders), you can stick to only the club soda or, better yet, use some 7-Up, Sprite, or some other citrus-based soda.
But I suppose that you would rather have you and your friends go thirsty rather than mix apples and oranges. Yup, nothing has changed.
<So...are you smarter than a fourth grader??? You tell me.>
I don't know, I suppose it would depend on the fourth grader. Rather than jump to generalities and rationalizations I wouldn't rule out that there are some fourth graders in the world that are smarter than me.
But I'm pretty sure that all fourth graders would be smart enough to forego going hungry and thirsty by eating omelettes made from the eggs of different fowl and drink non-alcoholic Sangria made from different fruits. Which is apparently more than can be said about you.
|Jan-08-18|| ||Absentee: The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem. Denial is a huge part of addiction and breaking through self-deception can be very difficult. Many addicts have to reach a low point before they will accept that there is a serious problem in their life. You are a tolengoy junkie, but you can still free yourself (and us) from your soul-crushing habit. Help us to help you.|
|Jan-09-18|| ||PhilFeeley: <Marmot PFL> Great quotes! Too bad so many tournaments are turning to the fast formats.|
At least on chess-results.com you can see lists of tournaments that are not.
|Jan-09-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: We don't know the specific time controls of the games. In bullet everything can happen.|
|Jan-10-18|| ||Sokrates: <Absentee: The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem. Denial is a huge part of addiction and breaking through self-deception can be very difficult. Many addicts have to reach a low point before they will accept that there is a serious problem in their life. You are a tolengoy junkie, but you can still free yourself (and us) from your soul-crushing habit. Help us to help you.> |
Unfortunately, it's an inseparable part of the addiction to include the defenseless readers here - by means of miles of texts which should have been restricted to a private mail-exchange between the two. I wish your call for self-reflection would bear fruit, but alas, all statements have deepened the scale of the addiction.
|Jan-10-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem. Denial is a huge part of addiction and breaking through self-deception can be very difficult. Many addicts have to reach a low point before they will accept that there is a serious problem in their life. You are a tolengoy junkie, but you can still free yourself (and us) from your soul-crushing habit. Help us to help you.>|
<Unfortunately, it's an inseparable part of the addiction to include the defenseless readers here - by means of miles of texts which should have been restricted to a private mail-exchange between the two. I wish your call for self-reflection would bear fruit, but alas, all statements have deepened the scale of the addiction.>
Says these men who reads every post I make...Aylerkupp is man enough that you'll ever be...to challenge my views and opinions, Aylerkupp stands up for something...his principle is more important than his relationship with me...shows high steem and confidence you'll never have...
Besides... The propositions were just IDEAS... Our colorful language here are but figures of speech designed to stress points and for levity and not "crass behavior." Disagree with what we're saying, fine. But always remember that it is only in a free market of ideas that Truth thrives. In a 1959 decision, the US Supreme Court had the occasion to point out that "In the realm of ideas (free speech) protects expression which is eloquent NO LESS THAN THAT WHICH IS UNCONVINCING." (Kingsley Pictures vs. N.Y.Regents)
Now let me be the one to bring you bad news...absentee and sokrates are nothing but oppressor of the freedom of speech...which violates US laws...
Incitement is an offence under the law... It consisted of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime...<violating freedom of speech Act>... Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely...
So...who are the law breakers now??? You tell me.
|Jan-10-18|| ||Appaz: There comes a time when the both the troll and the feeder have to go to iggydom, even if the feeder sometimes have sensible things to say to others.|
|Jan-11-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Appaz>
Ghe I will nominate your quote for the Caissars.
|Jan-27-18|| ||The Boomerang: "Wesley and Magnus tied in blitz. Each won a fowl for their troubles...so I submit that for the sum of any integer and it's opposite is equal to zilch...even steven..."|
Tutti you forget to mention the score in the first 2 blitz sections. Carlsen demoliahes So in the 5'2 while the 3'2 was rather close.
Or is that not part of the argument?
So just beats Carlsen in 3'2 while he gets demolished in the other time controls which equals a dominating performance.
|Mar-10-18|| ||keypusher: It's funny to look at the game list. None of the Nakamura-Karjakin games got kibitzed; every one of the Nakamura-Carlsen games did.|
|Mar-10-18|| ||john barleycorn: <keypusher: ... None of the Nakamura-Karjakin games got kibitzed; every one of the Nakamura-Carlsen games did.>|
Nakamura might not have a fan base?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
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 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC