< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 33 ·
|Dec-29-11|| ||mojonera: chessmetrics ? ufff .|
|Dec-29-11|| ||Petrosianic: Anyone is welcome to submit other criteria, but nobody has.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||ughaibu: AVRO 1938.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||Shams: What the heck is up with the last sentence of Keres' biography?|
|Dec-29-11|| ||King Death: <Shams> That's strange to say the least.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||HeMateMe: Maybe that last line should read "...For *his* performances..."|
Why--HOLY STET, Batman! This is a job for biography Bistro!
|Dec-29-11|| ||King Death: <HeHateMe> That's a start but even "usually deployed" is nonsense there.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||tamar: For your performance in the usual kibitzing of words, you are henceforth known as Paul Death and Paul Shams, Third and Fourth Uncrowned Kings.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||aliejin: " chessmetrics ? ufff "
I'm quite agree
As alekhine said .....
"not everything is logical and erudition"
Keres was an outstanding chess player
with lots of wonderful, magnificent games , boundless imagination.
Keres is one of those players
which are beyond being world champion or not
|Dec-29-11|| ||AlphaMale: My sense is that Keres's best games, combinations, endgames just fall short of the highest peaks. Or maybe they simply lacked the grandeur or imprimatur of decisive battles in chess history. Or was there something deficient in his personality -one that could draw many admirers but failed to stir the blood?|
|Dec-30-11|| ||aliejin: We tend to think that the results reflect exactly the value of things ......|
Also we think of mathematical procedures to reach the truth ...
In my opinion is simplicity
The reality, the work of men, themselves, deserve a deeper analysis
|Dec-30-11|| ||jussu: There was no point in Keres' career when he was clearly the best, so it is a little far-fetched to say that only some secondary factors robbed him of the WCh title. However, he certainly was one of the "equals", one who would have surprised no-one by actually getting the title.|
By the way, in addition to having defeated nine World champions, Keres also played Karpov (two games, both drawn). He never played Lasker but they met once (1937 in Vienna if my memory serves).
|Dec-30-11|| ||Korifej: <Petrosianic>He win AVRO.After that he Challenged Aljehin but negotiations broke down because of World War II.In one Keres was lucky,which isn't sent to a gulag in Siberia,or killed by the NKVD.Smislov and Keres was stronger then Botvinik,but Botvinnik was an ideal chmpion for Soviet leaders.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||Korifej: Chessmetrics is only numbers my friend.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||Petrosianic: Everything is numbers. His score at AVRO was numbers. I agree that a lot of his reputation is based on that, I just don't agree that a tie for first place in one super-tournament guarantees that the guy who won on tiebreaks will be world champion some day, barring chicanery. It certainly makes him a strong contender, though.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||ughaibu: Is first on Chessmetrics a guarantee that the player will be world champion some day?|
|Dec-30-11|| ||jussu: Well Keres had many results comparable to or even better than AVRO (I agree that this one tournament is often over-emphasized). The problem is that many others had similar results. He went through his career along with Euwe, Reshevsky, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Korchnoi, Spassky, Tal, and Fischer, after all, and this list still excludes some notable men.|
Chess is a number. It is win, draw, or loss; the way of achieving the result is merely how you write the number. The claim "Smyslov and Keres were stronger than Botvinnik" is true or false - still a number, and without any evidence backing it up, it is just as meaningful as "I am better than Botvinnik", albeit much less silly.
|Dec-30-11|| ||Petrosianic: He was certainly one of the world's top players for decades, I just don't see anything that would indicate he was a lead pipe cinch to win the title. Even if we strip out the 1948 games (which don't smell quite right), his lifetime record against Botvinnik was +2-5=9. That's an obstacle.|
I'm not sure of the numbers, but I suspect that his best performances were in tournaments that he didn't win. I bet that ratings-wise, his performance in the 1959 Candidates was better than AVRO. Maybe the 1962 Candidates also.
|Dec-30-11|| ||Korifej: <jussu>If you play chess because of numbers,than better go to studying mathematics.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||ughaibu: I think he would've been favourite in a WC match with Euwe.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||Olavi: Petros, small correction: +2 -4 =9. Amsterdam 1966 was Botvinnik & Polugaevsky vs. Keres & Prins consultation game.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||jussu: <Korifej>, Done both, by the way. I watch chess for my love of logic, precision, and the quality of good professional's work. And I play it, too, despite said love :) But anyway, professional chessplayers play for results; those who do not, remain coffeehouse champions who keep annoying others with stories of that queen they sacrificed last month.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||Petrosianic: Do you mean this game?
Botvinnik vs Keres, 1966
cg.com lists it as a classical game, and Prins' name doesn't show up anywhere on the page. If this was a consultation game, then the database needs correcting.
Chessmetrics doesn't list "Amsterdam 1966" as one of Keres's events, which does make it suspect.
|Dec-30-11|| ||Petrosianic: Keres did beat Euwe in a match in 1939, but the result was a lot closer than you'd guess (+6-5=3), and he lost a lot of games on the way to victory.|
It was one of those matches that hurts the winner's reputation. You don't look at it and think that this guy is certain to beat Alekhine.
|Dec-30-11|| ||Petrosianic: Here's Keres's lifetime record in Soviet Championships. You see a lot of unevenness. Some good results mixed with some not so good. Again, you see a guy who's clearly one of the world's best, and a possible champion, but you don't see a guy who seems certain to become champion.|
1940 +9-4=6 (4th)
1947 +10-1=8 (1st)
1948 +5-4=9 (6th-9th)
1949 +7-4=8 (8th)
1950 +8-2=7 (1st)
1951 +9-2=6 (1st)
1952 +5-5=9 (10th-11th)
1955 +7-4=8 (7th-8th)
1957 +8-2=11 (2nd-3rd)
1959 +5-3=11 (7th-8th)
1961b +4-2=14 (8th-11th)
1965 +4-1=14 (6th)
1973 +1-2=14 (9th-12th)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 33 ·