< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Dec-09-14|| ||Abdel Irada: <solskytz: it has been clinically proved that the presence of beautiful women makes men perform better.>|
Quite the contrary:
— "Why interacting with a woman can leave men cognitively impaired": http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...
— "Men lose their minds speaking to pretty women": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...
— "Hot women make men dumb and dumber": http://www.scienceofrelationships.c...
And my favorite:
— "Just thinking women are nearby makes men dumber": http://gizmodo.com/5892856/just-thi....
That's right, gents: Such is the power of beautiful women that they don't even have to *be* there to mess up our thinking.
|Dec-09-14|| ||Abdel Irada: Now, granted, there are other meanings of "perform".... :-D|
|Dec-09-14|| ||HeMateMe: <Well, whatever Carlsen did, he resigned. That's more than Kasparov did here.>|
It was only after AK said No! and pointed at the position that Carlsen resigned. He was willing to keep playing, even though he broken the rules, until his hand was forced.
|Dec-09-14|| ||FairyPromotion: < HeMateMe: <Well, whatever Carlsen did, he resigned. That's more than Kasparov did here.>|
It was only after AK said No! and pointed at the position that Carlsen resigned. He was willing to keep playing, even though he broken the rules, until his hand was forced. >
Not really. There was no verbal communication as you claim, and Carlsen's resignation was him not resuming the play. Kosteniuk didn't ask Carlsen to take back his move. She stopped the clock, immediately claiming the victory. That would have mean't resignation, had Carlsen wanted to play on.
Carlsen was obviously pissed, and stormed off the board, but at least he immediately accepted his mistake, and didn't try to mask it any further.
Sure a handshake would have been the right act by him, but his act was nowhere near as bad as some try to make it out to be.
|Dec-09-14|| ||sfm: <HeMateMe: ... Carlsen immediately resigned and walks out. Very immature, on his part>
If so, then 90% of all dedicated sports people are 'immature' and so am I.
It is OK, every now and then, take some steps away in anger and frustration over events - and return with a smile when calmed down.
That is not losing temper, it is managing it.|
|Dec-09-14|| ||Once: It's a funny thing. We applaud winners in any discipline. And yet the drive to be a winner sometimes means crossing over the line of what we would consider acceptable. |
Kasparov's touch move. Lance Armstrong's drugs. Michael Schumacher colliding with Damon Hill in 1994.
Most of us wouldn't do these things. But few of us compete at their stellar level. We can't begin to understand their determination to win.
Maybe we have to accept that the peculiar personality needed to be a winner sometimes pushes people to do things that the rest of us would not?
Mind you, I had something similar done to me in a club game a few days ago. My opponent was in deep time trouble in a losing position.
I had lots of time left. I played one move and went to press the clock. He made his next move before my hand got to the clock. In effect, he got a move for free with no time elapsing on his clock. As he played it he said "you've got to be faster than that".
He later tried to claim, with no time left on his clock that he had a drawn fortress position (I had queen and pawn to his knight and rook).
And all for a meaningless club game. Deeply silly. Understandable, I suppose, but deeply silly all the same.
|Dec-09-14|| ||morfishine: All in all, a great game. With Polgar and Kasparov playing
"both sides of the board" a tense but balanced position was
arrived at following 24...Be7
White's Knights are serving an important purpose covering
a5/b5/c5/d5/e4 while at the same time, shielding the backward
Q-side pawns. The trade-off is White is unable to mount an
effective K-side attack without the Knights. Its here that
White "blinks first" with <25.Nd2>? allowing the Black Queen
to penetrate and occupy <b4> via <c5>
Its this persistent lateral pressure on the 4th rank that gives
Black a comfortable initiative and a firm handle on the
resulting tactics. A pity the game was marred by controversy
|Dec-09-14|| ||HeMateMe: <Not really. There was no verbal communication as you claim>|
the video is on utube. Watch it slowly. After Carlsen grabs the incorrect Rook, he takes his hand off of it, then grabs the other Rook, the normal move that the position calls for.
Too late--Watch kosteniuk's mouth open and her sharp finger pointed at the board, probably saying "UH UH!" Upon seeing that he won't be allowed to cheat, Carlsen immediately leaves.
That's how it looked ot me. Even if she didn't say anything it was clear that she would have to be DEMONSTRATIVE to make him obey the rules.
It's just a blitz game anyway. It's not as though they were sitting on Putin's lap playing game 24 for the title.
|Dec-09-14|| ||tamar: You have to use the term "cheat" loosely if you include blitz games. |
Almost every contested game contains someone knocking over their own or opponent's pieces trying to make a move speedily. It is normal then for the opponent to restart the mover's clock, but often the mover just replaces the pieces hastily on the opponent's time, which is cheating also.
Grabbing the wrong piece and putting it down in blitz is more serious, but it is also common to graze other pieces when lurching for the piece you want, so players like Carlsen become less sensitized, which I think is what happened in the Kosteniuk case. The brain gets confused for a moment.
To call it attempted cheating, I think you have to have a pattern established
throughout that competition.
|Dec-09-14|| ||HeMateMe: It wasn't "grazing." He grabbed the wrong piece fully, in hand, then instantly new it would cost him the game, let go of it, and grabbed a different piece.|
Live with it. MC doesn't walk on water.
|Dec-09-14|| ||tamar: Live with what? You're saying he tried to cheat?
Korchnoi did the same thing in a classical game against Rukavina in the 1973 Leningrad Interzonal. He picked up a piece, noticed he was blundering, and pick up another piece. Rukavina claimed the game, and Korchnoi did not know what he had done for many seconds.
He got up and walked around the city all evening trying to calm down.
It is just confusion of the brain when it notices it is about to blunder, and no one blamed Korchnoi or put it down to more than the stress of a big game.
My comment about grazing other pieces was not about that particular move. But the more relaxed attitude in blitz to touch move rules played a role in Carlsen's confusion I believe.
It took him probably a second to realize what he had done, and since she claimed the game, he left.
|Dec-09-14|| ||kevin86: A strange game...in the interest of fairness, Kasparov should have accepted a forfeit.|
|Dec-09-14|| ||kamagong24: what i can recall about this tournament was that, even though kaspy won the tournament, his game deteriorated the following games after this controversial game, though from what i've read, they said that camera replay did show kaspy did made a touch move violation and because judit was on time trouble she was not able to contest it immediately|
as for magnus, i would love to actually see for myself if its on youtube, if i were magnus i wouldnt do that to kosteniuk! i would resign gracefully and just tell her, id mate you next time :p
|Dec-09-14|| ||Once: <kamagong24: as for magnus, i would love to actually see for myself>|
Here it is...
How should we compare Kasparov's j'adoube and Carlsen's?
Interestingly, both were playing against women. Both tried (initially) to play on. Kasparov was able to continue without Judit complaining. Alexandra pointed it out straight away, at which point Magnus resigned by walking away.
Both were a little bit naughty. What we don't know is what would have happened if Judit had complained. For all we know Garry might have done exactly what Magnus did and resigned in a huff. Or in a taxi and a huff.
And we don't know what would have happened if Alexandra hadn't pointed it out. Magnus might have played on just as Garry did.
For my money, there are huge similarities between both incidents. But we can't call one naughtier than the other because Judit didn't object and Alexandra did. But apart from that, they are so similar that it doesn't make much difference.
|Dec-09-14|| ||HeMateMe: <Live with what? You're saying he tried to cheat? >|
No, he DID cheat. And, he got caught. End of story.
|Dec-09-14|| ||newhampshireboy: It is cheating plain and simple! Let us cut out all the intellectual BS and see it for what it was and is. They would be far less apt to attempt to get away with this behavior against a male opponent. Quit confusing your opinions with facts because they are not the same thing!|
|Dec-09-14|| ||FSR: Carlsen's takeback was more egregious. There is no doubt at all that he moved one rook, then tried to take it back and move the other rook. In Kasparov's case, his hand quit the piece for an eighth of a second or some such. I don't think Polgar was sure if his hand had left the piece, and it's possible that Kasparov wasn't sure either. OTOH, maybe Carlsen should be cut more slack in a blitz game than in a tournament game.|
|Dec-09-14|| ||tamar: Try an experiment. Play 42 rounds of blitz in two days, and see how many rule violations you see.|
Carlsen technically cheated. But I contend he did not try to cheat.
|Dec-09-14|| ||tamar: As for which incident was more egregious, we don't know if Magnus would have self reported after making the switched rook move because Kosteniuk immediately pointed it out. Had he played 10 moves further, and never said a word, then it would be comparable to Kasparov's.|
The rap on Kasparov was that he accepted the whole point, and never apologized, even after the tape became known.
|Dec-09-14|| ||kamagong24: <Once> thank you!
Carlsen's knight needs a refresher in chivalry hahaha
|Dec-09-14|| ||chancho: There will always be incidents of players bringing their di-ckhe-ad moments into the game of Chess.|
Take Sammy Reshevsky, in the 1942 US championship... his flag drops and he watched as the arbiter switched the clock in Arnold Denker's direction declaring Sammy the winner, and Sammy accepted the point.
But Caissa and Karma are a b*i*tch.
Reshevsky was close to winning on time in the 1967 Sousse tournament, when Bobby Fischer showed up and pressed the clock with five minutes remaining.
Reshevsky lost a piece like a patzer, went into a hissy fit, and he ended up losing on time.
|Dec-09-14|| ||NBAFan: I guess that's why Kasparov never achieved a rating of 2882; cheaters never win.|
|Dec-10-14|| ||FairyPromotion: Wow, I of all people am in a page to defend Magnus. What is the world coming to?|
<HeMateMe: <Live with what? You're saying he tried to cheat? >
No, he DID cheat. And, he got caught. End of story.>
Magnus didn't cheat in any way. He just made a mistake, and accepted his mistake in a matter of seconds. I have seen many people criticize Magnus for not shaking hands, but cheating is stretching it a lot. It is a blitz game for crying out loud. And to make it even worse, as I previously mentioned, if we went strictly by the rules, Carlsen would have had won the game at the end. When an opponent doesn't move the piece he first touched, you can hit back the clock and ask him to move the right piece. However Kosteniuk immediately stopped the clock, against his opponents will (no result agreed), while Carlsen was still at the board. That according to the rules means resignation. I'm sure Carlsen didn't realize this at the moment, but even if he did I have no doubt that he wouldn't claim such a victory, over a silly mistake by his opponent. That too by the way is only a mistake, and not cheating. Kosteniuk was just happy that she was defeating the leader of the tournament, and her reaction was instictive.
<Once: But we can't call one naughtier than the other.>
Ahem, yes we can. There is no comoarison between such a mistake being done in a classical game, and a blitz one. The whole thing in Carlsen game literally lasted two seconds. Whereas in this game, Kasparov stopped to think even further after touching the wrong piece, and undoubtly reflected upon his own mistake. Thus him continuing the game by moving a second piece is incomparably more unethical. Kasparov probably had decided to deny his act, in case it was called by Judit.
But even this act isn't such a shameful one as some of the examples you gave previously. Here it is just an instictive mistake. Schumaher-Hill incident is a player giving up his own game (race), in order to stop the other, when he was about to lose. It's chess equivalent is someone kicking his opponent, when he has a losing position, and is trying to win on time. That too is quite more acceptable than Armstrong's planned, intentional, and sistematic cheating. It's equivalent in chess is using engine help during the games. Simply unacceptable.
|Aug-25-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <duplex: Judith against Garry in their prime..
Garry would win 9 out of 10 games easily..Come on there is no comparison here..>|
Actually, it was 8 to 0 with three draws, according to cg.com database. But you were close.
|Aug-25-15|| ||NeverAgain: This touch-move controversy is often presented as "Kasparov first made a losing move and then changed his mind and took the move back". Moral and sporting considerations aside, let's focus on the position that would have arisen had he decided to let the "losing move" 36...Nc5 stand.|
click for larger view
I'm bringing this up again because despite an analysis of that position being posted at the start of this thread ...
<May-10-03 chessgames.com: After this game, Kasparov argued that he was not afraid of 37. Bc6, and rattled off analysis to indicate that Black is OK after that move, somehow.
I'll fire up Crafty for an unbiased opinion.
May-10-03 crafty: 36. ... Nc5 37. Bc6 Qh4 38. Bxe8 Ng4 39. h3 Nf2+ 40. Kh2< > (eval 0.46; depth 14 ply; 1000M nodes)>
Judit Polgar vs Kasparov, 1994 (kibitz #3)
years later you can still run into nonsense like
<Sep-06-10 notyetagm: Judit Polgar vs Kasparov, 1994
36 ... ?
36 ... ♘d7-c5?? <intercept: c6>>
Judit Polgar vs Kasparov, 1994 (kibitz #201)
Let's get a second opinion, from a modern engine, shall we?
37.Bc6 Qh4 38.Bxe8 Ng4 39.Bxf7+ Kxf7 40.Qd5+ Kf8 41.h3 Nf2+ 42.Kg1 Nxd1 43.Rxd1 Qd4+ 44.Qxd4 exd4 = [0.00 Depth: 30 00:19:17 1283mN]
click for larger view
So twelve years later Komodo 6* doesn't give White even an edge.
(* - I didn't bother with Stockfish for the reasons described here:
Stockfish (Computer) (kibitz #50))
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Kasparov on Kasparov: Part I
Spot an error? Please
submit a correction slip
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 game 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.|
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC