< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Mar-24-11|| ||Uhohspaghettio: "All I want to ask is. How many of you here are GM? questioning Kasparov what he could of done better on a proticular game and what better moves he could of move. That's why he is one of the gratest in the world and all you siting at home thinking why he did what he did. Funny hahaha"|
Then they put it all through Rybka and if Rybka finds some poor move say "why the hell did he do that, that was obviously a bad move".
Not everyone here, but lots of them. They particularly like to talk **** about old GMs such as Morphy (who could could beat all of them in a blindfold simul), presumably because their excuse for not beating Morphy and the other old GMs is that they weren't born when they were around.
|Mar-24-11|| ||I play the Fred: So I suppose the thing to do is praise both players in every game, then?|
You know, some of our regular posters have no international titles and yet are pretty damn strong players. Strong enough to find mistakes made by players much superior to them.
If I were to find a mistake made by Kasparov in a given game, is it not really a mistake just because Kasparov is 100 times the player I am?
As for those people who make outrageous claims about old GMs, well, one does have the option to not take them seriously.
|Sep-24-11|| ||bronkenstein: From the very beginning of a simul::http://www.chessbase.com/news/2010/...|
|Dec-19-11|| ||wordfunph: game quote..
"You have to fight for the last, even if you are in a winning position."
- Garry Kasparov (when asked for the lesson in this encounter)
this was the first time that Kasparov played the Najdorf Variation.
|Dec-19-11|| ||HeMateMe: Karpov must have wet his pants, seeing an 11 year old kid do this to him. Just when you think its safe, with Fischer retired, you have this kid from Baku coming up the ladder.|
Good think its just chess, and not politics. If Putin recogized a talent in such a young one, he'd have the kid sent to Siberia.
|Dec-19-11|| ||brankat: <bronkenstein> This is the first time I've seen the photo. A great pic! Thank You.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Penguincw: Wow. Tripled pawns.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Bozantium: Kasparov looks like Anish Giri in bronkenstein's pic.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||HeMateMe: Looks like he's wearing some sort of button, Young Pioneers, or Comsommol thing. A kid from the Black sea, getting to sit down against Karpov. He looks pretty excited. Gave a good account of himself, too.|
|Feb-21-12|| ||Paraconti: Karpov had more natural talent and understanding of chess. Kasparov became better because he more than compensated these shortcomings (compared to Karpov, that is) through deep opening preparation.|
|Feb-21-12|| ||pawn to QB4: <it's easy to see why karpov wins. but do you think he had any idea that he was facing a player who in 10 years time this would become his nemesis?>
< Karpov had more natural talent and understanding of chess.>
I think it part answers both of these that the year before a columnist as far from Baku as Britain (Barden in The Guardian) had prophesied that the world champion in 2000 would be Kasparov. Karpov would have had an even better idea that he was up against someone with more than a bit of natural talent. Wasn't doing it in 1975 on opening preparation. Whether he had more natural talent than Karpov is unknowable; it's not just a fact that he didn't.|
|Feb-21-12|| ||RookFile: There's the basic possibility that people can die young. In 1975, the only thing Karpov would have known is that Kasparov was perhaps the most talented junior player out there.|
|Feb-21-12|| ||AlphaMale: The way that Kasparov talks about Karpov's malevolent power and influence within Soviet chess during the 1970s, I figure that we should just be grateful that Garry was allowed to live, let alone become world champion by his early 20s.|
|Jul-19-12|| ||QueentakesKing: A preview of the impressive future style of play by Kas.|
|Sep-18-12|| ||JohnBoy: For posterity, this should be attached to the game record.|
|Jan-18-14|| ||GREYSTRIPE: In this paramountcy, Karpov the Genius of Tournament Chess festooned the Knights and Bishops for Bishops Advance with Queens and Pawns. The center-exchange left Queen with pawn-holds. The end-game-sums were long game standard, which to Karpov, is no strange experience. The way of victory pronounced from the proper placement of Queen and Pawns-holds. This excellent example of chess genius is a treatise on the appositeness of Rook-restraint and pawns for Queen's positions for Center-Holds-Gains in Tournament-level play-of-chess.|
|Mar-31-14|| ||epicchess: Replying to GrahamClayton, and others who listened to his comment. It is not true that the other boys in the Bkau Young Pioneers looked lost, in fact, Kasparov didn't always play on the first board. It is majorly unknown that IM Mikhail Shur played on the first board on many occasion, and was offered a draw by Karpov! He felt that he was winning, and he was. He said no, to the world champion! Although he later lost, let this be an inspiration to you all, since if you feel you are winning, one should never settle for a draw even if the player sitting on the other side is the world champion.|
|Apr-17-14|| ||MrJafari: Maybe Kasparov could have won if didn't exchange his Rook with Karpov Bishop!|
|Jan-17-15|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: Sovietsky Sport reported: "During A Karpov's session with the schoolchildren from Baku, the point came where the world champion had just one opponent left, twelve-year-old candidate master Garik Kasparov..."|
It was twelve-year-old candidate master Garik Weinstein
|Jan-17-15|| ||WDenayer: Cerpico, I dislike some of these comments as much as you – 'let me analyse this, Fritz says …' and some moves follow that no one who is not a super-GM would ever find. But what can you do about it? I wish that these people would understand that they lower their own capabilities each time that they start up an engine. It teaches you nothing. An analysis full of holes is incredibly much better than typing up what an engine produces. At least you learn something. You get better. But some people don't want to do that and if they want to reproduce an analysis, well, it's their right.
I have no title at all. I stopped playing chess 35 years ago. I certainly had the ability to become titles (but not GM), if I would have worked very hard. I always liked chess, but I didn't like it that much that I wanted to devote my life to it. What was I going to do with it? I know some grandmasters, people who are really bright, who work on chess like I could have never done. It strikes me as madness, as complete neurosis. I like chess. If I have to look at a board for a whole day, I get physically sick. Do you have any idea how little some of these people make? It's very little. Divorce, heart disease, depression, isolation, nihilism, addiction. Except for the elite, there is no money in chess.|
There's nothing wrong about talking about old masters. I like anecdotes. I often read things here that I did not know. Sometimes it is gossip, so what? There are great anecdotes. It tells you something about the people behind the moves. It's very well possible to find mistakes in a game of Steinitz. The point is not that you are better than Steinitz, but that you made the effort of analysing one of this games and found an improvement. I think that's great.
|Jun-18-15|| ||NikMuhdHaziq: Garbage Master|
|Jul-02-15|| ||AylerKupp: <WDenayer> Why do you say that people lower their own capabilities each time that they start up an engine and that it teaches you nothing? I use engines all the time to analyze positions that I don't understand (most of them) and afterwards I try to figure out why the engine selected the moves that it did. I do analyses using multiple engines (they all give different results), review each of the engines' moves, and use forward sliding to get around the engines' horizon effect. Yes, it takes time and effort, but I think that I learn a lot from the effort and that I am a better player as a result.|
And why do you say that an analysis full of holes is incredibly much better than typing up what an engine produces? That depends on what your objective is. If your objective is to demonstrate how poor of an analyst you are, then OK. But if your objective is to try find out the proper evaluation and the best moves in a given position, then getting help from sources better than you are, whether they are human or not, will give the best result.
It’s clear that you don't know anything about chess engines and how to use them properly. Or perhaps you are one of those that for some reason are fearful of computers and think that somehow using them cheapens the game and somehow makes it less "noble" or stuff like that. But it is clear from your post that you never wanted to work very hard at improving your chess game. Some might even call it laziness. Too bad.
|Jan-16-16|| ||CAPPYJAK: You all have no idea of the amount of enjoyment it gives me to play over the master games. When i was playing regular before the chess clubs were ruled off limits by the real estate industry, i became lost in a complex position so much so that i became part of the pieces and the board. I was a rather strong player but have nobody to play with now.
If anyone knows of someone who wants to play a game or 2 with me please advise at
|Jan-16-16|| ||Domdaniel: <WDenayer> Money isn't everything. You cannot simply condemn chess players because they don't make enough money by your standards.|
I don't know where you live, but your connection between chess achievement and financial success is reminiscent of the neurotic sensibility which accompanied American chess in the past 150 years - from Morphy to Fischer and beyond.
Several of the strongest players seemingly had psychological problems because chess failed to reward them financially at a level commensurate with their genius.
In other societies, this seeming failure might be shrugged off. But in the USA, the drive to financial success made other parameters less relevant.
|Jan-16-16|| ||Domdaniel: <CAPPYJAK> Forgive me, but I doubt that you were a 'rather strong' player. I have no wish to insult you, but your previous post betrays a poor understanding of contemporary chess.|
There are many people here who would happily play you, especially if you were a 'rather strong' player, as claimed - but I'm afraid you'll have to come up with evidence to support your claim.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·