Korchnoi may be one of the all time greats but I can't believe this one though he's been known to make such sweeping pronouncements. In an interview a long time ago Larsen said that Tal was an even better calculator than Fischer.

Again, you're simply putting words in Kasparov's mouth, which is silly, at best. He says "Carlsen should work harder to BECOME WORLD CHAMPION", and you interpret that as him saying that Carlsen is <LAZY>? Which once again means that you value your opinion way too much!

<Jambow> Sure - upsets do happen. Still, a seasoned player should strive to limit his losses to a draw, as a loss would cost him twice as dearly!

A good way is a TIMELY draw offer. The 2000 should offer a draw when he can still play the position - not when the weaker guy already has 2 rooks in the seventh and is going to checkmate him!! (Exactly this happened to me when I was a 1745 (I was 25 years old then), against the 2170 U14 champion of Israel, who just beat Kasparov in a simul two weeks earlier - a memorable feat! Of course the draw wasn't accepted - but the checkmate was!)

- - - - - - - - -

And as we're at it, did you win many games against these 2000s? Did you get against them more than the 4% you're supposed to get?

I had 2 minutes plus on my clock to his 4 minutes plus - and I was up a safe, passed pawn on d6 in a two bishops ending with many pawns on the board.

My pawn was protected by a bishop, but isolated as a pawn. It couldn't advance right away, and to the astonishment of the master (a friend of mine) I offered a draw which was instantly accepted.

The master then asked me why I offered the draw - and I told him that I could already see how I either blunder the pawn away, or think at length how to force it through (I couldn't see a way to do this) and default on time...

as I didn't like both scenarios, the draw offer was my way out - which also pleased the master, who knew me, and didn't like to 'play with fire'... both came out satisfied.

- - - - - - - - - -

On another occasion, still when I had 1779, I beat an 2090.

What striked me about that game, is that for seven moves, my rook on f8 was en prise to his bishop on c5, and there was just no time for him to take it...

the second thing was his premature resignation!! Just don't do that against weaker player - as what's obvious to you isn't necessarily so to them!

I remember myself sitting, staring at the position even after his explanation, wondering how I was supposed to win this... :-]

Naka will NEVER reach 2800. He doesn't have the talent to do so.

"just some 25 points" - you make it sound rather easy to go from 2775 to 2800.

Let me remind you - there was a player named Pavel Eljanov who reached 2761 rating and thus became 6th highest rated player in the world at one point - but it all went down the drain and his current rating is 2704.

Any one - just like you - could say, "Pavel Eljanov is just some 39 points shy from 2800 which isn't too far away."

BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED.

The same with Naka - he's only a 2770 player at best.

You trolls can fantasize and dream all you want - but Naka doesn't have the talent skill of a 2800 player.

There's a reason why Naka is rated 2770 and NOT 2800. The reason: Naka is a 2770 player.

Naka will NEVER reach the chess height of the great Magnus Carlsen. (Carlsen is only 21 years old and has already won 14 super tournaments and two chess oscars.)

When all is said and done - Naka will NOT make it to the top 20 greatest chess players of all time list.

Naka will be forgotten and meaningless in the history of chess.

You must be new to chess.

Very few - LET ME REPEAT - very few 2770 players reach 2800 rating.

In the whole history of chess until now - only five players have reached 2800.

How many players reached 2770? How many of them reached 2800? I think I've already answered that.

Sooner or later, Giri and Caruana will both mow down Naka on the chess board.

Naka will be forgotten and meaningless in the history of chess.

With respect, the insight of Kasparov into calculating ability is an opinion - but it doesn't deserve the 'just'. It comes from the perspective of one who could be judged the greatest calculator in the history of chess.

I've read 'Life & Games of Mikhail Tal' & 'Tal-Botvinnik 1960' (arguably two of the greatest chess books of all time) - but he is modest to a fault & doesn't really attempt to analyse his uniqueness.

<Other's opinions I know on Tal's style of play differ. Korchnoi has said that Tal couldn't calculate at all. Botvinnik in his biography has written an interesting passage.>

To me it seems that the views of both Botvinnik & Korchnoi might be consistent with Kasparov's. Botvinnik says that Tal's 'calculation' is fast - which is perfectly consistent with Kasparov's statement that this was 'vision' rather than calculation. Korchnoi saying that Tal 'couldn't calculate at all' is consistent with Kasparov's idea that Tal saw 'long straight optimal branches' in Kotov's tree of analysis, without fully exploring Kotov's sub-optimal 'coppice'. An attacker might get away with this, but a defender cannot. Korchnoi had a peculiar liking for grabbing material & defending passive positions (like Steinitz & Lasker) - his success against Tal maybe due to his habit of living in the sub-optimal coppice!

I once discussed Kasparov's 'prime' with Shach. I supplied a direct quote from GK that his prime was in 1999 ... & was floored when Shach told me that Kasparov was mistaken in this matter!

I fully expect to be informed that Carlsen is also mistaken in his assessment of HIMSELF. Unless Shach tries his other trademark move of simply refusing to mention anything that looks like getting difficult.

Thanks, I'm glad someone finds it amusing! But even more than stamina it takes data - link's, quotes etc. Note how he is always disparaging my use of the opinions of all time greats ... whilst he supplies nothing but his OWN opinion. He pretends not to see that HIS opinion on Carlsen, carries less weight than Carlsen's opinion on Carlsen. It is not difficult to steam roll someone who insists on pretending that there is no steam roller.

<I guess you know that you will never get any admissions from him>

Since debate is not lethal, no matter how many times I steam roll him ... he will always pop back up. I am reminded of the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail ... but even he lost limbs & eventually offered to call it a draw after losing all four of them!

<but keep up the good work - it's fun to watch!>

Korchnoi had an amazing record against Tal, so his opinion might be coloured by this. He was also a great defender & would have been acutely aware of the limitations of Tal's attacking vision.

<In an interview a long time ago Larsen said that Tal was an even better calculator than Fischer.>

I stand by "He does not work as hard as he should." = Lazy. Most people would. No comment on your claim that this was about what Carlsen needed to BECOME #1 - when it was made AFTER Carlsen was ALREADY NO.1? Just going to ignore it & hope it goes away?

How about -

"Carlsen: No. I’m not a disciplined thinker. Organisation is not my thing; I am chaotic and tend to be <lazy>. "

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

- it actually has the word LAZY in it ... so we won't have to tax your interpretation of English. So is Carlsen mistaken about himself?

How about -

<Friedel: Of genius and raw talent. Now, Magnus has - still hasn't reached his peak. He hasn't really worked yet.>

<Simon: I've heard him described as lazy, which I find quite extraordinary.>

<Friedel: I mean, that's an impolite term, but it's probably appropriate.>

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_1...

<...So is Carlsen mistaken about himself?...>

<...Is everybody misinformed except yourself?>

Whether you stand by it or not is irrelevant - it is still your INTERPRETATION and nothing more. Kasparov never said Carlsen was LAZY and for the last month you failed over and over to show that he ever did. And since the statement was made only shortly after he became #1, <Working harder> to win WC title or to remain #1 is not the same as working hard in general.

NOW, even if he did, that would not constitute a FACT, since everybody has opinions.

No, he's not.
Yes, he is.
No Yes
Lazy Lazy
No, you're lazy
no Yes lazy
No no not lazy
Yes. We are both lazy.

"He wrote a chess column for a year in the New York Ledger in 1859–60.

<GITorquemada: as Confucius said, timhortons, silent waters run deaf. Criminals don't talk of their crimes. So if a guy does not mention women, you can be sure sex is 90% on his mind always. Those who brag about their conquests are the ones who usually have no girlfriends. Magnus must be saying: No en tens ni la mes minima idea del que penso.>

<timhortons: < So if a guy does not mention women, you can be sure sex is 90% on his mind always> wow!!! oh lala!>

Hey <timhortons> and <GITorquemada> after some searching I have found out who Carlsen is recently dating! She is WGM Anastasia Gavrilova!