< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-22-07|| ||Whack8888: <VinnyRoo2002> I think that is really just a change in times. I think the same can be said if Judit Polgar were able to draw Kramnik, previously a big deal would be made of a woman tieing the World Championship, but now we know better. Chess has nothing to do with anything but chess!|
|Jan-22-07|| ||Whack8888: <Karpova> Haha, that is a pretty funny picture. Poor Carlsen looks uncomfortable with Topalov staring so crazily.|
|Jan-22-07|| ||KKDEREK: <VinnyRoo2002>I think for computer training somehow might have allowed young chess genious top develop faster..With al due respect, the world champion is not showing any agressivity at all. It feels like he is not motivated at all. His only motivation, actually, since 2000 (disconting his illness) is to keep the world championship title. Thats why I miss Kazza..He had this competitive fire , always tried to be the best and showed some great chess in any tournament or exibition game he played..This draw indeed was a good achivement by Carlsen but, really, was boring|
|Jan-22-07|| ||SniperOnG7: I have another view: Kramnik as we all knows plays with a solid and safe style. Thus he draws more games. Hence weaker players have a bigger chance of escaping from Kramnik unscathed than from Gazza (which is one factor that makes games like unsurprising). On the other hand, people like Kramnik also lose less games when playing against the best so obviously Kramnik is by no means weaker than Gazza. Just different styles. A parallel concerning style can be found in boxing. IMHO Gazza is like George Foreman, attacking to the end. On the other hand, Kramnik is like Ali, patiently waiting for a safe time to finish the opponent off. This may mean that he will miss some opportunities. However it also means that he will 'miss' some major otb disaster.|
|Jan-22-07|| ||chancho: <SniperOnG7> Ali knocked out 36 opponents in his career and Foreman had 68 ko's in his, but Ali was the one who knocked out Big George, so maybe that Gazza (and perhaps Topalov) comparison to Foreman and Kramnik's to Ali's is not that far off.|
|Jan-22-07|| ||whatthefat: Please oh please can we avoid boxing analogies.|
|Jan-22-07|| ||chancho: Whoops!|
|Jan-22-07|| ||KKDEREK: <whatthefat><Please oh please can we avoid boxing analogies> Can't believe this two..
<On the other hand, people like Kramnik also lose less games when playing against the best so obviously Kramnik is by no means weaker than Gazza. Just different styles> Yes. He lose less games because he draws a lot more (especially with black), and, therefore, (..) wins less! huahauah!No no, hes not weaker than Kasparov, actually, hes stronger, right? Huahuaua..Whatta stupid post.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||SniperOnG7: <whatthefat> Im sorry :)
<KKDEREK> I said <different STYLES> NOT <strength>... Yes well done to you for noticing that STYLE and STRONGER both start with "ST". I suppose that was the reason why you said <hes not weaker than Kasparov, actually, hes STRONGER, right?>...to show off your Kindy alphabet skills. SO now whos being more stupid? Gee at least I don't laugh like an insane idiot while I kibitz. |
<He lose less games because he draws a lot more (especially with black), and, therefore, (..) wins less! > Uh thanks for speaking the obvious. However, on the topic of wins, draws or losses...I don't know about you, but when im in a tournament I feel happier that I have finished the round with 1/2 than with a duckin zero.
|Jan-23-07|| ||ivoivanov: I love reading some silly postings here!!!Hihihi you know what I am talking about!|
|Jan-23-07|| ||KKDEREK: <SniperOnG7> Moron..Comparing Boxing with chess..Watta troll..|
|Jan-23-07|| ||KKDEREK: <Gee at least I don't laugh like an insane idiot while I kibitz.> Sorry. But what did you expected? Take your analogies seriously? I never read so many crap in just few lines. Next time I post something, please, save me from your moronic replies, ok? If you don't have arguments to defend your hero, please dont come up with Ali-Foreman jacka$$ arguments, ok?
|Jan-23-07|| ||aragorn69: The post-mortem videos are at http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=511#mo...|
|Jan-23-07|| ||chancho: <Karpova> LMAO!|
|Jan-23-07|| ||aragorn69: It's impressive how Magnus shows - in those videos - that he is still pretty new in top level chess. He acts very shyly and respectfully towars the WC. He is distracted by the media circus around them. He barely speaks a word (does he speak english yet, BTW ?). |
Kramnik too beheaves in a very decent and sympathetic way. He spends half an hour with his young rival, giving him what amounts to a free lesson from a much more experienced GM (and one of the best players in the game's history). However, he comments his moves in a very open way, taking up variations after variations without arrogance or manifest sense of superiority.
Only great champions can beheave with such humility and respect towards each other !
|Jan-23-07|| ||chancho: <Comparing Boxing with chess>|
Why not? They are both a one on one sport, and they both have wins losses and draws. The only difference being that one sport is purely mental the other physical. (although conditioning and mental strength are important in both) I don't see what the big deal is, other than the analogy having been used way too much in the past, hence <whatthefat>'s request to stop with the boxing analogy.
|Jan-23-07|| ||SniperOnG7: <KKDEREK> Did I bring up a childhood pain for you or something? All I did was make an analogy and you go all berzerk like a headless chicken, so if anyone is trollike its you coz your tantrum and insults sure make you look disgusting... |
Wait a sec, ahhh I see, the post before mine was actually YOURS. Seriously I didn't realize that before...Haha I know what's bugging you now...LOL I merely began with the line <I have another view> and your insecure self thought that I was trying to pick an argument with you. I made a view and supported it a point for indeed Kramnik did beat Kasparov; so no matter how <c***> you think the analogy was, it works (and last time i checked that is what analogies are for aren't they?)
This is why <If you don't have arguments to defend your hero please dont come up with Ali-Foreman jacka$$ arguments, ok?> is actually THE most...whats the magic word...<moronic> statement on this entire page. Firstly, NEVER did i insult any GM's game for the sake of the other unlike uh... you, which shows who is the heroworshipper here. Secondly, as i mentioned before, i made an analogy so that was good enough considering i wasn't trying desperately to defend anyone and i wasn't trying to start the debate.
So quit exposing your ugly insecurity. Go get a mannequin and dress it up like Gazza if you miss him so much.
|Jan-23-07|| ||keypusher: <On the other hand, people like Kramnik also lose less games when playing against the best so obviously Kramnik is by no means weaker than Gazza.> |
Kasparov loses less often than Kramnik. See stats on my forum page.
|Jan-23-07|| ||SniperOnG7: <keypusher> This starts a new facet. Gazza is like a phenomenon in chess <like federer is in tennis> (this analogy is for our dear KK friend who may like it since it supports his hero, or hate it since he is allergic to analogies as if they are peanuts)|
Anyway, back on topic, i should be more clear by saying that the Kramnik of today relative to most other contemporary superGMs loses less. Whether in the end Kramnik will be able to lose less than Gazza is really up to time. Gazza had about 20 years (since he first won the throne) to prove that he hardly loses while Kramnik is just starting his reign as WC. (I think when comparing WCs against each other its best to compare their results since the moment they 'mature' into the King). We can just wait and see...if Kramnik's losing stats comes out worse in 2 decades time :) then we have at least proved that im not psychic.
|Jan-23-07|| ||KKDEREK: <Kasparov loses less often than Kramnik. See stats on my forum page.> I read that stats before.. Very good. Some people confuse solidness with less losses..I think solidness can be defensive or ofensive, dependind of the results. No mama-jamma Ali-Foreman..I was willing to discuss this, but y know..
<SniperOnG7> You re indeed a troll, and your analogies didnt work as u claim again, and, no, you didnt touched my childhood pain, so go to hell, troll. Insecurity? From what? Thnks god u are a internet "tough" nerdo, cos if you were my neighbour you wouldn't talk like that, bozo.|
|Jan-23-07|| ||SniperOnG7: Yawn. First KKdereK lashes out with unwarranted insults. Then he then becomes defensive by using <troll> as a shield. Now he adds his machoness into the mix. What a budget movie storyline. |
<Thnks god u are a internet "tough" nerdo, cos if you were my neighbour > That must be a compliment for me having common sense. I mean who wants to be by a dissing and cussing teenager whos in puberty? That's why you come online to spread your rantings and ravings: theres no neighbours around you left.
This happens on the internet too. No one tolerates someone who attacks without appropriate reason. So goodbye.
|Jan-23-07|| ||KKDEREK: Goodbye sweetie!|
|Jan-25-07|| ||Atking: <dehanne: Kramnik should have played 23.Nd5 instead.> I have already put a comment on your suggestion in direct I think 23. ...Bc5 is enought (The threat is Ne5 with Qh3 (For if on b4)) As 24.Nxb6 BxNb6 25.QxNc6 QxQc6 26.RxQc6 dxe3... you see. Carlsen defended well. Even I felt White a bit better at the end Kramnik decided the draw.|
|Jan-25-07|| ||AAAAron: His name is Drawnik. It's his secret power. Let's just all enjoy the awesome drawing powerhouse that Kramnik is. I believe he always plays for a draw, hoping to exploit his opponents mistakes. If his opponent blunders, he exploits it and turns it into a win. However, if his opponent plays solid, Kramnik will not take risks and instead will go for the draw. Every player has their own style. I like to take risks, so I like Kasparov and Morozevich, to name two. All Drawnik talk aside, much credit should be given to Magnus for not making any mistakes that Kramnik could capatalize on. Cheers to Magnus, I'm going to keep my eye on that kid!|
|Feb-05-07|| ||Mateo: <dehanne: Kramnik should have played 23.Nd5 instead.> After 23.Nd5 Bc5, the position is equal. For instance, 23.Nd5 Bc5 24.exd4 Nxd4 (24...Bxd4? 25.Qxc6 Qxc6 26.Ne7+!, White wins) 25.Qxd4 Bxd4 26.Ne7+ Kf8 27.Nxc8 Rdxc8 (27...Rbxc8? 28.Bb4+ wins a pawn) is drawish.|
In fact, both players played well, and the draw was a normal result.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·