< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Mar-14-12|| ||King Death: < LoveThatJoker: ...Once again, the exact quote from your original post is "he went 6-0 against the bottom of the table and split with everybody else.">|
That's split with everybody else as in, he broke even against the rest of the players.
<...Savon is a player who finished above the bottom six and also defeated Spassky in this tournament, hence there is no way there could have been a 'split' between them...>
There was never a statement or implication that he split against any individual, the statement was clearly intended for the group of players that finished above the bottom six.
<...as they only faced each other once in this tournament.>
Of course they did.
I've seen enough nonsense from you regarding this whole thing.
Conclusion: you're just trolling.
|Mar-14-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <<King Death: < LoveThatJoker: ...Once again, the exact quote from your original post is "he went 6-0 against the bottom of the table and split with everybody else.">|
That's split with everybody else as in, he broke even against the rest of the players.>>
The only way that what you are saying has any resemblance to the truth regarding is if you are referring to the amount of points scored by Spassky and not by the games won by Spassky.
If this is the case, then you obviously misrepresented your idea in your original post as instead of reading "he went 6-0 against the bottom of the table and split with everybody else" your post should actually read "he went 6/6 against the bottom of the table and split with everybody else".
You obviously made a critical error in your original post in terms of conveying your idea correctly as 6-0 (which is what you wrote) refers to the win-loss record while 6/6 refers to the possible amount of points netted from the possible points available.
In that case, pay attention to what you are saying and don't call other people's actions names as all it serves to do is describe the reflection of and what lies within your own.
PS. Seeing as how you have trouble verbalizing your thoughts in a logical and intelligible way, consider your rank posts ignored.
|Jun-29-12|| ||hottyboy90: Far too much danger regarding the f7 square to even dare contemplate nicking a pawn,tut tut.|
|Jul-03-12|| ||Akababa: Nice, flaming on a chess forum.|
|Jul-03-12|| ||King Death: < fab4: Or you can argue Fischer just cruised the last half of this great match. He's got a healthy lead and just wanted to close the match out...>|
Spassky put a lot of pressure on Fischer in the second half of the match but it wasn't enough when he was down 3 points already.
<As for Spassky being the weakest world champion, well this is entirely subjecture, and if it's your opinion, fair enough. I would put him ahead of Petrosian,Euwe, Smyslov and Krammnik...>
What <Fezzik> says is nuts about Spassky being the "weakest world champion". That's a lot like another phrase I hear thrown around some, "weak grandmaster" and it always comes from players that'll never get there themselves not GMs!
|Jul-03-12|| ||Petrosianic: Smyslov isn't someone you usually hear mentioned in "Weakest World Champions" discussions. The usual suspects are Steinitz and Euwe, occasionally Kramnik and Petrosian. I think most people regard Smyslov as pretty strong. He maintained a very high level for a very long time.|
|Jul-03-12|| ||King Death: <Petrosianic> Yeah, 2 Candidates wins among other things takes Smyslov out of the running of what's a pointless debate anyhow. He could play some.|
|Jul-04-12|| ||gezafan: Saying Spassky was the "weakest" world champion is like calling someone the poorest billionaire. It's silly. Weak and world champion do not go together.|
Suggesting Kramnik was a "weak" world champion is absurd. Kramnik beat Gary Kasparov, ostensibly the greatest player of all time, in a world championship match. He didn't just beat Kasparov, he shut him out.
The suggestion that Kramnik was a "weak" world champion is ridiculous. It's undoubtably motivated by animosity on the part of Kasparov fans who resent him defeating their hero.
|Jul-21-12|| ||perfidious: < AnalyzeThis: ....Tal put an incredible 81.2 percent winning percentage up on the board - one of those facts about Tal that doesn't instantly come to mind....>|
In 1958, Tal was first reserve;
In 1960, he played first board;
In 1962, Tal was second reserve;
DNP at Tel Aviv 1964, for reasons I've never known;
In 1966, Tal was third board;
Tal was a DNP in both 1968 and 1970;
In 1972, Tal played fourth board;
At Nice 1974, Tal was first reserve;
In 1980, he played third board, and finally, in 1982, he was first reserve.
What we have here is one terrific player putting up nice numbers, but it isn't quite the same playing a lot of third or fourth board as it would be on top of the heap.
|Aug-23-12|| ||hugogomes: Position after 24... Qc3.
White looks to be in trouble.
25. Nf3, Qxa5.
26. Bb3! 27. Qf4! 28. Ne5! 29. Rbd1! 30. Bxf7! The way Fischer changed the game, was brilliant.
|Oct-13-12|| ||julillo: "Petrosianic: Smyslov isn't someone you usually hear mentioned in "Weakest World Champions" discussions. The usual suspects are Steinitz and Euwe, occasionally Kramnik and Petrosian..."
First time I hear that the father of Chess Theory was a "weak" Champion!! Steinitz arrives to Worldd Champion at 50 years old but the only world champions that play more often world champion matches were Karpov and Kasparov!!|
|Jan-12-13|| ||Everett: <By the way, you forgot about Petrosian again. It really is hard to argue that Spassky was the best player of the 1960's, when he lost to Petrosian in '66. Sure, he won the rematch, which meant that at best, Spassky was the best player of 1969.>|
Which means, at best, Fischer was the best player of 1972. After all, he couldn't wouldn't didn't follow-through in the previous two cycles, and lost twice to Spassky during that time.
|Jan-12-13|| ||Paraconti: The weakest world champion was without doubt Karpov. It is well known that he was small and frail in physique. The strongest may well be Euwe.|
|Jan-12-13|| ||perfidious: It likely was not Kasparov: John Nunn related a story from the drawing of lots in a World Cup event where Garik went to lift a gold bar and could not, but Lajos Portisch picked it up with one hand to reveal his number in the draw.|
|Jan-12-13|| ||Everett: <perfidious> all those Magyars have barbarian strength from their time on the steppes, not a bourgeois among 'em.|
|Jan-15-13|| ||leka: Dear Perfidious.Tigran Perosian had a record in the chess olympiads Petrosian the score is 78 wins 50 draws only one loss against Huebner in 1972.Petrosian 79,84%.Kasparov played 82 games in the chess olympaids he lost 3 times.Tal has the best 81,2%.Karpov is the second best in the chess olympiad score rating.Kasparov and Fischer are not the top 3.1.Tal 2.Karpov 3.Petrosian in the chess olympiads|
|Jan-15-13|| ||leka: My the old 32mgz computer elo rating 2255 played 25 second thinking time better than the poor Spassky this Ruy Lopez Breyer.Spassky played this game about 2000 elo ratinhg level.The poor Spassky!!|
|Jan-15-13|| ||Everett: <leka> Read above, Tal was 1st board once, and much lower all the other times. This is not the same as Karpov's and Kasparov's opponents on board 1.|
|Jan-15-13|| ||leka: Dear Everett. Tigran Petrosian played at the chess olympiads.Petrosian on board 2nd in 1962.Petrosian first board 1966 1972 and at 2nd board 1968 1978|
|Jan-15-13|| ||leka: Everett you are correct.Kasparov at the chess olympiads on boards 1st and 2nd score 78,03% .Petrosian on the board 1st and 2nd 74,21%|
|Jan-16-13|| ||RookFile: Regarding the above, you can make the case that Smyslov was the greatest endgame player. He certainly was a worthy world champion in terms of chess strength.|
|Jan-16-13|| ||perfidious: <RookFile> One can indeed make a fine case for Smyslov-I'd be hard put to name, say, five greats, because that would exclude other outstanding artists in that phase.|
|Jan-24-13|| ||nelech: Best game of the match ? A grandiose battle from the beginning to the end|
|Aug-24-14|| ||coldsweat: The question of whether computer analysis can establish who the best players were is interesting.|
It seems to me that there are certain factors which haven't yet been sufficiently addressed:
1)a player who has studied (memorized) earlier players' games is necessarily in an advantaged situation, and ought therefore to be analyzed with adjusted algorithms
2)the algorithms used so far don't appear to account for the fact that a brilliant move tends to necessarily evoke a bonehead response. Which happens more -- a)the brilliancy is acknowledged and given extra credit b)the bonehead response is acknowledged and credit is subtracted? Isn't it almost exclusively the latter? But why? Is this logical or fair?
3.)Computers play a different kind of chess than humans. In playing through computer vs computer games, one notices that the board takes on more the appearance of a graphing calculator displaying formulae, or the geometries of a kaleidoscope.
Whereas human games display an unmistakable tendency toward poetry, beauty, surprise, and hidden motive.
4.)the fact that the ratings of modern players keep getting higher and higher shows that the system is flawed. There's no reason to believe that people today are more intelligent than people a hundred years ago. If anything, it's arguably to the contrary. Where are today's Beethoven, or Einstein? I'm looking for them but I don't see them.
|Aug-24-14|| ||nimh: 1) why so? Being familiar with games of players of the past is a natural part of chess education. The point is to measure actual ability, not inborn talent.|
2) ?? what are you trying to say? But if you're saying that it's more difficult to play accurately after a brilliancy by the oponent, you may have a point.
3) Indeed, if you take a ruler and try to measure the length of a line you just drew on the paper with a pencil, you probably notice they are of completely different material, shape and purpose. :) But it nevertheless does its job, doesn't it?
4) There are objective reasons behind either type of rating inflation. Hence it must be considered as an inevitable and natural phenomenon in rating systems.
Intelligence has risen and that has nothing to do with playing strength. Why contrary?
Einsten may have been the most naturally talented scientist ever, but Don't you think physics has evolved a lot since his death? Someone with Einstein's knowledge and ability would be quite unnoticeable and unknown today.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·