|Nov-26-05|| ||abcpokerboy: Garry, come back!! Games like this, where Kasparov torures Topalov with his eternally hopping knights, secures a nice positional advantage, then sacs a rook to finish off nicely, are why the game ain't the same without Garry.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: This was advanced chess, computers were helping them.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: And frankly, Kasparov was good, but there are a lot of players out there quite capable of producing the exact same games.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||KingG: <aw1988> Really? A lot of them? Can you even name three?|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: Well, let's see, maybe Shirov, Topalov, and Anand.
Kasparov is certainly an enigma. However, don't blame me for saying there are other players, because there are. When you get to 2700-2800, the differences in strength are not big.
|Nov-26-05|| ||KingG: Ok, but the difference is that the players you mentioned might play a 'Kasparov-like' game from time to time, but Kasparov does it almost all the time. Didn't Kasparov play a simul against the Israeli national team? Surely they were all rated 2650-2700.|
I think the difference in strength between Kasparov and the rest is bigger than you think(apart from Kramnik, who i admit is quite close).
|Nov-26-05|| ||Wilhelm Steinitz: <KingG>
Just ignore the loon.
There is a risk you will inspire him
to even more outrageous posts.
Garry Kimovich Kasparov is undoubtedly the greatest chessplayer in the history of the game.
IGM Emil Sutovsky
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: I meant that we're certainly missing his games, but we're not exactly missing ideas. Well, yes, obviously Kasparov was the greatest player in the world, but it's not like we're losing a goldmine that will never surface again.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||KingG: So are you saying that you don't care whether Kasparov comes back or not?|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: That, is a really strange question. If Kasparov hypothetically did come back, it would be lovely, but I'm not complaining if he decides to stick to his decision. I'm respecting his retirement.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: It's not a matter of 'caring', it's a passive view, and why not.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||KingG: Your right, i phrased that badly. What i mean is: Would you rather he came back or stayed in retirement?|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: It depends on what he wants.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||KingG: What do you mean?|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: If he wants to be in politics, I have no problem with that, if he wants to return to chess, I have no problem with that.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||KingG: Oh, i see. Personally i really hope he comes back. I feel cheated because just as i was starting to follow top level chess live on the internet, he retired. He must come back! :-)|
|Nov-26-05|| ||aw1988: In the meantime, enjoy everyone else.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||KingG: I'll try.|
|Nov-26-05|| ||alicefujimori: Kasparov is doubtedly a great player. But has anyone notice that since he gave up the Grunfeld his chess has became less exciting??|
True, he has still played some very good games since then. But if you compare his games before and after his match with Kramnik, we could see some difference. I can't exactly point out all the differences but one thing I am sure of is the Nimzo and QGA (from the Black side) definitely did not suit his style of play.
|Nov-27-05|| ||abcpokerboy: <alicefujimori>, agreed about Kasparov and the Grunfeld, but according to something I read (it might have been a Tim Krabbe story about a walk with Kasparov, but I can't quite remember), Kasparov felt the Grunfeld had lost it's oomph against best play as revealed by computer analysis. He gave up the King's Indian years earlier for the same reason, and the Indian produced some of his most devestating games of his early career. I think Kasparov may have given up chess precisely because of just such revelations.|
|Nov-27-05|| ||KingG: Kasparov's Grunfeld was never that good IMO. He had big problems with it against Karpov and Kramnik. I think he was much better with the KID. Anyway, Kasparov still plays the Semi-Slav, which can also be very sharp.|
|Nov-27-05|| ||alicefujimori: I think then we could assume that the Grunfeld only works well against tactical players and not against positional freaks like Karpov and Kramnik. lol|
|Oct-21-08|| ||Fusilli: Below <aw1988> posted: <This was advanced chess, computers were helping them.> I am not familiar with the rules of this tournament (or was it a match?) How did it work? How did they have computer help?|