|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-29-07 | | PinkPanther: <Pulse>
I don't fault him for playing for money; after all, that is his job. But it seems like he never wants anything more than that. He doesn't play to be the best player he can be, and he doesn't play for titles. Mediocre results are OK to him, and I find that unacceptable. |
 |
| May-29-07 | | goldenbear: I think the draw would have been a long way off after 41.Kh2 (instead of f3?). |
|
| May-29-07 | | Pulse: <PinkPanther: I don't fault him for playing for money; after all, that is his job. But it seems like he never wants anything more than that. He doesn't play to be the best player he can be, and he doesn't play for titles. Mediocre results are OK to him, and I find that unacceptable.> He doesn't have to play to entertain us, you know. It's not like he tries to play for a crappy result; no one does. I'm not sure if you realize, but it's not exactly easy to get a top place in supertournaments. It doesn't matter if you find it "unacceptable" that he has mediocre results; he'll continue playing for money and not care what some chessgames kibitzer has to say about him. |
|
| May-29-07 | | GBKnight: Think about it : of the top 10 players someone has to be no 10, someone has to have mediocre results. Better than being no 11? |
|
| May-30-07 | | sammy desandoli: move....35Rd5 is an illegal move as it appears on my viewer, that rook was pinned. |
|
| May-30-07 | | malthrope: <sammy desandoli> Didn't notice a ;-) posted... It's assumed that it must be the only legal rook move 35... R8d5 or 35... Rdd5, etc. :-) - Mal |
|
| May-30-07 | | PinkPanther: <Pulse>
Yeah, it's hard to win top tournaments, but it's 100% impossible when you content yourself with draws in just about every game, mixed in with the occasional loss or two. |
|
May-30-07
 | | suenteus po 147: <princeofdragons: I don't think defeating <Shirov> will be the hard part for <Adams>. I think it will be defeating Aronian.> This, of course, is also true :) |
|
| May-30-07 | | diabloprancer: <PinkPanther> Aronian is not "HIGHLY overrated." 2759 is his FIDE rating, not his FIDE "overrating." Aronian is top seed because he is a fantastic player. |
|
| May-31-07 | | Pulse: <PinkPanther: More that the rating was the result of a few good results and isn't indicative of how he plays most of the time.> I briefly recall that one tournament in Spain. It's a pretty big one, and I think he won it last year. Maybe you can refresh my memory? ;) And what was that tournament named after a famous tactician from Riga? He probably won it late last year, I think, but then again, what do I know? Oh, and that other one. "Chorus?" "Kour-us?" Something like that. I'm pretty sure he tied for first in that and didn't lose a single game. That was also a pretty big one, right? Let's see...so most of the time he plays below this 2750+ level? I guess you're right, if you ignore everything I've mentioned before (I'm sure I forgot a few other results, being as forgetful as I am). |
|
| May-31-07 | | PinkPanther: Don't worry. Like I said, in time you will see that I am right. |
|
| May-31-07 | | Pulse: Oh, I'm not worrying. I actually find it tragically amusing that you believe that you are 100 percent correct. It's sad, actually. |
|
May-31-07
 | | JointheArmy: <Pulse> Can't you say the same for yourself? |
|
| May-31-07 | | Pulse: <JointheArmy: <Pulse> Can't you say the same for yourself?> Er, can you remind me where I stated something along those lines? I prefer to state my opinions and not deny what's so plainly in front of me. |
|
May-31-07
| | JointheArmy: <Er, can you remind me where I stated something along those lines?> Don't get cute. <PinkPanther> never said he was 100% sure that Aronian was highly overrated. You implied it just like I implied it from your posts. He was 100% sure that Adams couldn't win supertournaments if he didn't try to, not that Aronian was highly overrated. BTW, let's settle this right now, do you believe you are 100% correct? <I prefer to state my opinions and not deny what's so plainly in front of me.> If this were true, you would plainly ask <PinkPather> why he thinks that instead of making the post look so defensive and childish. If that was your attempt at sarcasm or humor it failed. I don't agree with <PinkPather>, I think the facts are overwhelming that Aronian has proved his status in the chess world, but I wasn't sure of it until recently because his first performances against the Super GM's were not impressive. (i.e. Corus 2006) Nonetheless, I think you should take a more serious approach to listening to the other side of the story, and not appear like some nationalistic fanboy. |
|
| May-31-07 | | Pulse: <Don't get cute. <PinkPanther> never said he was 100% sure that Aronian was highly overrated. You implied it just like I implied it from your posts.> You don't need to openly state something for it to be obvious what you are saying: <PinkPanther: Don't worry. Like I said, in time you will see that I am right.> How much more proof do you need?
Plus, you still haven't shown me where I was absolutely sure about something. <If this were true, you would plainly ask <PinkPather> why he thinks that instead of making the post look so defensive and childish. If that was your attempt at sarcasm or humor it failed.> Excuse me, but we do not live in a 1950s sitcom where everything is bound by a specific "code of conduct." You have no right to tell me how to answer in a way in which you deem correct. If I chose to answer sarcastically, I can do that. (And my post wasn't even biting or caustic) |
|
May-31-07
| | JointheArmy: <You don't need to openly state something for it to be obvious what you are saying> Thanks for making my point. You can delete <Er, can you remind me where I stated something along those lines?> then since we're in agreement. It was blantly obvious you believe in your statement just as much as <PinkPanther>. <You have no right to tell me how to answer in a way in which you deem correct.> I didn't tell you you had to adhere to some sort of code of conduct, I just pointed out you failed. I was stating my opinion and not denying what was in front of me, something of which you approve. <How much more proof do you need? Plus, you still haven't shown me where I was absolutely sure about something.> Oh the contradiction. First you say you don't need to openly state something to know something is obvious, now I need to show you where you were absolutely sure of something. I guess we're not in agreement. Well for starters, you didn't even consider <PinkPanther's> view, your tone, and I even asked you if you were 100% sure of what you said and you completely ignore it. |
|
| May-31-07 | | Pulse: <JointheArmy: Thanks for making my point.> Except I asked the question before you made the comment asking me if I was 100% correct. <I didn't tell you you had to adhere to some sort of code of conduct, I just pointed out you failed. I was stating my opinion and not denying what was in front of me, something of which you approve.> Let's see...
< I think you should take a more serious approach to listening to the other side of the story, and not appear like some nationalistic fanboy.> Oh, I wonder what that's hinting at?
<I even asked you if you were 100% sure of what you said and you completely ignore it.> I thought <I prefer to state my opinions and not deny what's so plainly in front of me.> cleared that up? |
|
| May-31-07 | | square dance: first of all, there is no such thing as "overrated" since you literally earn your rating. even if thats not what <pp> meant he has no legitimate argument to back up his claim that aronian is "highly overrated". he has already won corus and linares as well as the world cup and the tal memorial. he even beat kramnik in a rapid match! this guy is consistently putting up results on par with the very top players in the world. im not even sure if anyone is definitively stronger than him over the past year or so; look at the results. he may be somewhat uneven, but thats probably what prevents him from being 2779 instead of 2759 like he is right now. maybe it will turn out that this current run was something of a fluke,(i doubt it) but that still wouldnt justify any statement that he is "highly overrated" since he's already had plenty of significant results. |
|
| Jun-01-07 | | PinkPanther: Highly overrated is a term which in this context is a bit out of place, I admit that. The point or sentiment behind it, as far as I am concerned, is still legitimate. He is playing at a level he can't indefinitely sustain or improve upon, which means that his rating isn't a reflection of what can regularly be expected from him. If from that, you can't say he's overrated (in a general sense, forget about the fact that chess actually uses ratings), then what would you choose to call it? |
|
| Jun-01-07 | | PinkPanther: And you're trying to use a rapid match to tell me how good he is? Oh wow, I guess Kasimdzhanov should be included in this discussion then too. I am always suspicious of people who trudge along forever at some good (but not necessarily super GM) rating and then all the sudden go up 80 points or something. That would be the category that Aronian, Topalov and Mamedyarov fall under. You're starting to see Topalov's results fall back down and in a couple of the Super GM tournaments Mamedyarov has played in, he has played downright miserably, and it could have been worse. |
|
| Jun-01-07 | | micartouse: I think Aronian is doing what he's done his whole life. He won some World Junior Championships because of sheer natural talent. This can't be learned or faked. It's hardwired. If he continues to demonstrate the strong strategy, calculation, and competitive insight he has been over the last few years, he'll become nothing less than World Champion. Why would all those abilities suddenly go away (barring sudden illness)? |
|
| Jun-01-07 | | PinkPanther: Do you really think Aronian could beat Topalov, Anand or Kramnik in a match? I seriously doubt it. Matches these days are so openings oriented, and we all know that Aronian sucks at openings preparation, relatively speaking. |
|
| Jun-01-07 | | micartouse: Yes, I think he can beat any of those players in a match and that he will beat Kramnik; I think he's an enduring talent and the real deal. But I don't see the future so I can't back up my hunch; let's just see what happens. I don't think he's that bad at the openings. But compared to those players, he should be very careful. I don't think WC matches generally depend on the better openings anyways. |
|
| Jun-01-07 | | PinkPanther: If you think he could beat Kramnik in a classical chess match of let's say...12 or 14 games, you are on drugs. I wouldn't give him better than a 5% chance. Can you name a single thing he does better than Kramnik? I mean really.... |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
