< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
|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.
|Sep-18-14|| ||Travis Bickle: 56. Rb1 Coup de grāce...|
|Mar-24-15|| ||Paraconti: A beautiful win.|
|Mar-24-15|| ||Howard: Timman's book Art of Chess Analysis analyzes this game in depth. So does Kasparov's MGP.|
|Apr-23-15|| ||Petrosianic: I had a discussion about this game with someone a while ago. The other person claimed that Black "blundered" the exchange, I felt that he deliberately sacrificed it for those two passed queenside pawns. What's the general consensus?|
|Apr-23-15|| ||ToTheDeath: It was a deliberate sacrifice. Spassky thought he could hold but Fischer's technique was just too good. Of all the world champions Spassky was the least shy about giving up material "on spec".|
|Apr-23-15|| ||Petrosianic: Was he trying to hold, or trying to rustle up winning chances? It seems like he could have had a reasonable position without the sac.|
|Apr-23-15|| ||Petrosianic: For example, 23...axb5 24. Rxb5, and Black is in no serious trouble, and a probable draw is on the horizon. It looks as though the exchange sacrifice is done with an eye to trying to win.|
On the other hand, Black isn't in trouble for a long time after the exchange sac either.
|Apr-23-15|| ||perfidious: <Everett: <perfidious> all those Magyars have barbarian strength from their time on the steppes, not a bourgeois among 'em.>|
Y'all best not mess with 'em!!
|Apr-24-15|| ||offramp: |
click for larger view
Is anything wrong with 33.Nh6+?
|Apr-24-15|| ||Zonszein: Hello
Perhaps Mr Fischer did not want to give Spassky the possibiity of playing the bishop to g7 in some variations (?)
|Apr-24-15|| ||diceman: <offramp:
Is anything wrong with 33.Nh6+?>
...without a machine it looks ok.
Id guess Fischer wanted to get the rook on the seventh, behind black's knight pawn with check.
...besides, in game 3 Fischer showed black could get an advantage with busted kingside pawns from a knight on the rim. :)
|Apr-24-15|| ||offramp: <diceman>, thanks. I see it now that you point it out. Because the king is on f7 in the game, the white rook gets to the seventh with a gain of tempo. That has been on my mind for some time!|
|Jun-08-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: I find it beautiful to see the ending of the game, after 47.Rexb4.|
Those b-file Rooks have a starring role; being a piece up, Fischer seals the deal!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·