< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 727 OF 773 ·
|Apr-13-12|| ||King Death: <nimh: ...Korchnoi has said that Tal couldn't calculate at all...>|
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.
As far as I remember I've never seen any of Tal's own comments on his style, he wasn't much on that kind of thing.
|Apr-13-12|| ||nimh: <Oct-19-09
MindBoggle: Is Carlsen an intuitive player and relatively weak in tactics?
Korchnoi, who scored heavily against Tal, steadily maintains that Tal couldn't - and didn't - calculate at all. He just 'saw' his so-called 'lines' in a flash, and went for them, but more often than not they were full of holes, and a determined, tactically skilled, and cool-headed defender like Korchnoi could find the holes and win. Fortunately for Tal there was only one such player in existence back then. Everybody else got scared and tried to run - but found that they couldn't.>
|Apr-13-12|| ||shach matov: <nimh: <drik> Thank you, but your reply indicates it was just an opinion by Kasparov>|
Exactly, and that's what <drik> does all the time - use OPINIONS as though they were facts! I have been trying my best to explain the difference between opinion and fact but it doesn't seem to work.
|Apr-13-12|| ||shach matov: <drik: "He does not work as hard as he should." = Lazy>|
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!
I will repeat again: 1. Kasparov NEVER said that Carlsen was lazy (which even if he did would not constitute real evidence), and 2. you provided no real facts or evidence to support your claim. Thus the case is closed: you have no real evidence, therefore your claims are null and void... not to say I don't enjoy debating with you ;]]
|Apr-13-12|| ||King Death: Until their Candidates match in 1968 Tal couldn't do anything with Korchnoi
(7-1 Korchnoi in decisive games) and that was the first time that Tal didn't look overmatched. For the rest of their careers their results were much closer. By the late 60s Tal had gotten away from always playing things like 6.Bg5 in the Najdorf and the Modern Benoni and played more solid stuff.|
|Apr-13-12|| ||Jambow: <Solskytz> as a 1,500ish rated player I have won against 2,000ish players. The problem is a draw is as bad as a loss to a higher rated player. Not saying that Nakamura wasn't supposed to clean house and go 6/6 just their is a real risk. Not trying to enter the arguments on this page just noting it does happen.|
|Apr-13-12|| ||Jambow: On the whole lazy not lazy issue I think Kasparov who worked extensively with Magnus might have a clue if he is lazy, and probably uses himself as the bench mark too.|
|Apr-13-12|| ||solskytz: <jsy> I see your point, of course!|
<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?
In case you did, you most probably have some serious potential to climb up the rating scale before too long, once you discover why you don't perform as well against less strong players...
|Apr-13-12|| ||solskytz: On timely draw offers, when I was in the high 1800s I once played a master (2300+) in a blitz tournament. |
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... :-]
I did have a very comfortable position with a nice and solid advantage... but the more I looked, the more I saw defenses for him against any line of play - the guy just stumped me by resigning :-]
|Apr-13-12|| ||jombar: <solskytz: Imagine Nakamura makes a historical 2800 rating - which isn't too far anyway... just some 25 points...>|
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.
Sooner or later, Giri and Caruana will both mow down Naka on the board.
|Apr-13-12|| ||solskytz: don't feed the troll|
|Apr-13-12|| ||jombar: <solskytz: A conviction on the lifetimely irreparable difference between 'a 2775 player' and 'a 2800 player', coming from a much much weaker player (how much weaker actually?), is just plain hilarious.>|
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.
Naka's troll fans "are just plain hilarious."
|Apr-13-12|| ||KKDEREK: zzzzzzzzzz|
|Apr-14-12|| ||drik: <nimh: <drik> Thank you, but your reply indicates it was just an opinion by Kasparov. I'd rather like to have Tal's own explanation.>|
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!
In the end even Tal's opinion would be just that. There is no way to get the kind of mathematical 'proof' that Shach might accept. These are matters of judgement - and VERY few are qualified to judge.
|Apr-14-12|| ||drik: <King Death: The next shot across <drik's> bow will be that <shach> knows better than Carlsen what's in his mind.>|
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.
Do you remember his assertion that Kasparov's 'does work hard enough" = to become #1. He did not even read the link long enough to find that Kasparov spoke AFTER Carlsen had already become 1. Now this is something he ignores, pointedly. LOL!
|Apr-14-12|| ||drik: <Appaz: <drik> Cool to watch you steam roll <shach matov>, you seem to have the only thing it takes: stamina.>|
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!>
Thanks, will do. It's fun ... but serious too. It is good practice for debating with the religious fundamentalists that pollute the net.
|Apr-14-12|| ||drik: <King Death: Korchnoi may be one of the all time greats but I can't believe this>|
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.>
As an unconventional attacker Larsen would be more aware of Tal's strengths & perhaps his defensive deficiencies would prevent him from recognizing similar deficiencies in Tal's analysis.
|Apr-14-12|| ||drik: <shach matov: <drik: "He does not work as hard as he should." = Lazy>>|
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. Iím not a disciplined thinker. Organisation is not my thing; I am chaotic and tend to be <lazy>. "
- 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.>
Is everybody misinformed except yourself?
|Apr-14-12|| ||King Death: < drik: ...Just going to ignore it & hope it goes away?...>|
<...So is Carlsen mistaken about himself?...>
<...Is everybody misinformed except yourself?>
The answer to every one of these questions is obvious, yes yes and yes.
|Apr-14-12|| ||shach matov: <drik: I stand by "He does not work as hard as he should." = Lazy>|
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.
Lets be clear: we can all have opinions; but lets not make our opinions look like facts, and that's what you have been trying to do for weeks. My opinion: Carlsen is one of the most talented young players, but his success is the result of talent plus hard work - his whole life has been chess ever since he was a small kid. "Hard work" yes, but obviously not relative to Fischer, Kasparov or even Anand when they were preparing for WC matches.
|Apr-14-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I've been following this argument. One FACT seems indisputable: neither drik nor shach matov are lazy about arguing whether Carlsen is lazy.|
|Apr-14-12|| ||JoergWalter: <Jim Bartle: neither drik nor shach matov are lazy>|
"Work smarter not harder" was what we got told. <Shach matov> as an old bolschewiki and well trained in diamat thinks differently.
|Apr-15-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: Lazy?
Yes lazy lazy lazy
No no, he's not lazy
he's a bit lazy.
No, he's not.
Yes, he is.
No, you're lazy
No no not lazy
Yes. We are both lazy.
Nice summary <Morphyeus>. Jim Bartle
|Apr-15-12|| ||JoergWalter: Morphy had the same symptoms:
"He wrote a chess column for a year in the New York Ledger in 1859Ė60.
"For this he was paid $3000, but the work soon ended. He was assisted by another player who, along with the editor, found Morphy incorrigibly lazy".>
|Apr-15-12|| ||jombar: <timhortons: btw magnus is twitting and blogging like crazy, but not saying anything about girls.Does he have a gf? im sure theres alot of hot commercial models around ready to be dated.>|
<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!
Her picture here: <http://www.google.com/imgres?q=anas...>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 727 OF 773 ·