|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 37 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Nov-04-07
 |
| sallom89: maaaan ... how many games Adam lost so far to kaspy ?! lol |
 |
Nov-09-07
|
| AlfieNoakes: You just don't see games like this since Kaspy retired.... |
|
| Dec-11-07 |
| component: It seems to me that if qxc2, then either rfc8 or even rxb2! and then if qxb2, rb8. If instead of qxb2 and rather nxb2, then rb8. |
|
| Dec-11-07 |
| scholes: If I look at the position after 21 gxh7. It looks to me white is better since he has more pieces to defend as well as to attack .But obviously black must have been better otherwise Kasparov would not have played to that position.So this brings me to question how does a player asses such a dynamic position like this .Kasparov must not have found 23 ..Nxc2 at 21st move .He simply knew that his attack was better and first to make progress will be him.But if this was only intution that brings me to the question your intution can go wrong sometimes.Then why Kasparov has lost so few games with sicilian . He shold miss some attacks/moves out of his horizon. I know all this can be attributed to opening preparation and Kasparov also loses too and he is better player than mickey . But all of his games cannot be explained by this reason alone. |
|
| Mar-15-08 |
| Alex Patkowski: This game shows why Kasparov was on top. |
|
Jul-26-08
|
| aazqua: Saying Capablanca was the best chess player is like saying Babe Ruth was the best baseball player. They dominated in Eras when no one was any good. Neither player would even be in the top 100 today, although presumably Capa could make his way up after 5 years of study or so. Kasparov was absolutely dominant against the best in the world for a long time. No one has come after - although it looks like Magnus may be the next chosen one. My all time ranking would be Kasparov, Magnus, and then probably Anand, Kramnik, Karpov and Fischer in a jumble. That's assuming of course that Magnus continues as he's doing. |
|
| Jul-26-08 |
| KamikazeAttack: <He was also probably the greatest speed player in the history of chess. > Yet another melodrama from you.
What did u base this on? What study or research did u do to make such a statemen? |
|
| Aug-23-08 |
| newzild: Actually, regarding the comments below, I recall Tal saying in his autobiography that "nobody won against him at that time" (referring to a Soviet player who was hunting the GM title in the late 60s/early 70s. Can't remember who). So clearly the commies ordered their players to "help" each other by not beating GM candidates. keypusher: <GM Lev Alburt was one of those who told me that their were standing orders not to defeat Karpov during the 1970's.> Quite an easy order for Alburt to obey, I'm afraid. Let me guess: you were under orders not to beat Walter Browne at the same time? <Either you are telling me that you consider him unreliable or a liar. Which one is it?> Your call. You see, your dispute is not with me, but the cg.com database. Or maybe Geller, Taimanov, Beliavsky and Ivanov were just disobedient? |
|
| Aug-23-08 |
| newzild: Further to my previous post, I think the player the Russians were ordered not to beat was Kholmov. |
|
| Sep-10-08 |
| DoubleCheck: A few lines.. after 26. Qa3
27. Kxc2 Rfc8+
28. Kd1 Qa1+
29. Qc1 Qxc1#
27. Kxc2 Rfc8+
28. Nf3 Rxb2+
29. Kd1 Bxd3(or 29...Rxd2) still traping
Also just a thought
9...Nxe4??
10. Nxe4 Bb7
11. f3 f5 <- more 'radical' game |
|
| Oct-09-08 |
| dgontar: 4daluvofchess:"Does anybody know: what was Bobby Fischer's performance rating over the 20 games that he won in a row in 1971?" Against Mark Taimanov his performance was in the 2900s, and against Bent Larsen his performance was 3060. I do not know what his performance rating against Petrosian was but I think it was in the 2800s. |
|
| Oct-09-08 |
| Jim Bartle: "Saying Capablanca was the best chess player is like saying Babe Ruth was the best baseball player." I'll take issue with the baseball side of that. There were great players throughout the 20th century; there's no way to know if the players in 20s and 30s could compete today. My guess is yes. Other variables are legitimate: The ball being used, the size of the stadiums, the strike zone, size of the gloves, etc. And please, I think even Carlsen wouldn't feel comfortable on a list of greats that didn't include Tal, Botvinnik, Spassky, etc. No player before Fischer belongs on the short list of the greatest ever? |
|
| Oct-09-08 |
| guaguanco: <aazqua: ... My all time ranking would be Kasparov, Magnus, and then probably Anand, Kramnik, Karpov and Fischer in a jumble. That's assuming of course that Magnus continues as he's doing> Magnus ahead of Capablanca, Botvinnik and Fischer? That may be the silliest thing I've ever seen on this site! |
|
| Oct-09-08 |
| Jim Bartle: I think we may be mistaking aazqua's meaning. I think he just forgot to type in "at age seventeen" in his post. Then it makes a little sense. |
|
| Nov-02-08 |
| Hot Logic: <Jim Bartle> I think what he actually meant was that looking back from a hypothetical future the all time ranking would have Carlsen second to Kasparov. |
|
| Dec-10-08 |
| zimatetsu: Magnus may be a prodigy. But never compare with kasparov and karpov please they are the greatest fighters ever seen in chess. And unmatchable when they where at peak. Magnus has a long way to go. And even anand, kramnik,topolov, ivanchuk is still has plenty left in them. Carlsen is start of new era future candidate he cant equal fisher, kasparov or even karpov. |
|
| Mar-15-09 |
| ChessEscudero: How many days did this game leave GM Michael Adams sleepless? Until 18th moves, Adams was poised to crush (the term used by the kibitzers here was MASSACRE) GM Garry Kasparov. But look at how brilliantly the Russian turn the black's hopeless (perceived by many) situation around. NO! It wasn't hopeless to begin with. We just DIDN'T SEE what Kaspy was thinking. The great Kaspy just didn't deceive Adams into thinking the latter had had it in the bag; he also deceived US! A champion of a computer-less chess generation... and still a champion of the computer chess generation! The only thing that will defeat Kasparov is his AGE. |
|
| May-28-09 |
| Makiavel: well maybe am stupid but...WAT happens if white play 27.Q*c2??? |
|
May-28-09
 |
| keypusher: <Makiavel: well maybe am stupid but...WAT happens if white play 27.Q*c2???> As <Archives> pointed out below, 27....Rfc8 and if 28. Qxc8, then 28...Rxb2+, and if 28. Qd2, then ...Qxa4 followed by ...Rxb2+. |
|
Jun-07-09
 |
| Peligroso Patzer: <component: It seems to me that if [27.] qxc2, then either [27. ...] rfc8 <or even [27. ...] rxb2!> and then if [28.] qxb2, rb8. If instead of [28.] qxb2 and rather [28.] nxb2, then [28. ...]rb8.> Not exactly. After 27. Qxc2, Black could only maintain a decisive advantage by playing 27. ... Rfc8!  . If 27...Rxb2+?? then 28.Nxb2 Rb8 29.Bc1  and White is holding the b2-square and, with his extra Rook, will consolidate within a few moves and win handily. |
|
Aug-13-09
|
| aazqua: With regards to my post, I said about Magnus, "As long as he continues how he's doing". If he peaks out right now than he's somewhere near the bottom of that jumble I mentioned. I'm assuming he continues to improve and becomes dominant in five years or so. Kasparov himself said that he felt that the younger generation would quickly surpass the current. As for Babe Ruth, let's be honest and say that for his period he was probably the most dominant player ever. But let's also be honest and admit that the notion of an athlete back then doesn't have much in common with the notion of an athlete now. That's less important in baseball than in most other sports but the Babe would be just a good outfielder if he played today. The reason I elevate the current crowd is that they are better because of experience. Chess is a game predicated on knowledge, and players today have much, much more knowledge than players in the past. Fischer warrants a place on the list because of the unique nature of his talent (as evidenced in his tremendous results leading up to his world title) but those other older guys were just the best of their time. The level of chess that they played is far lower than the level that is played by the best today. Stick them in a Dortmund level tourney and they'd probably score near zero. Morphy and Steinitz are examples of this - they wouldn't beat IM level players today and their opposition wouldn't even beat local club players. Remember, castling was considered advanced back then and frequently foregone. |
|
| Nov-14-09 |
| Hot Logic: <aazqua>
Morphy would smack the living crap out of any IM today in a match. If the IM's had enough tactical ability to resist the likes of Morphy they would be GMs. And if you think they could beat Morphy using some sort of opening surprise I think that they would have about as much success as Marshall surprising Capablanca. |
|
| Nov-14-09 |
| Plato: <Hot Logic: Morphy would smack the living crap out of any IM today in a match.> Wrong. |
|
Nov-14-09
 |
| nimh: Plato is right.
I have always wondered based on what all Morphy glorifiers make claims about Morphy supposedly being able to beat modern IM-s or GM-s. Making 'big words' surely has its merits, but don't you think that sensible arguments and explanations make things a lot clearer? I haven't seen any strong evidence that allows Moprhy to be ranked among even modern IM-s. |
|
| Nov-14-09 |
| Lambda: Morphy and Steinitz certainly played at a lesser level than today's top GMs. But the big step-up was Steinitz-Lasker. Apart from opening theory, little has changed since then. I'm sure Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine could compete on equal terms with Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov in the middlegame and endgame. And as a fairly strong club player, the idea that I could beat someone like, say, Gunsberg, is just laughable. I could probably get a theoretically superior position out of the opening, but turning that into any sort of practical superiority would be impossible, it would be one-way traffic from then on. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 37 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
