< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 10 ·
|Dec-16-04|| ||SBC: no comment |
|Dec-16-04|| ||Sneaky: Chess had progressed so much, we've reached a point where below-average scholastic players in the USA could beat Paul Morphy, even spotting him a knight! I mean, have you seen little Josh's games? The sparkling sacrifices! The subtle positional manuveuring! The dullest game among them puts the Opera House game to shame. |
|Dec-16-04|| ||aw1988: <Sneaky> That's a bit of an exaggeration there... |
|Dec-16-04|| ||Minor Piece Activity: <aw1988> That's a bit of sarcasm there... |
|Dec-16-04|| ||Saruman: <aw1988> havent you seen <Sneaky's> avatar before :-)) |
|Dec-17-04|| ||square dance: <sbc> <no comment> isnt that a comment? ;-) |
|Dec-17-04|| ||cu8sfan: <<no comment> isnt that a comment?> In math, the empty set is still a set! |
|Dec-17-04|| ||aw1988: Gah, I completely missed the sarcasm. Thank you <Saruman>. |
|Dec-17-04|| ||aw1988: Well, not Saruman, Minor Piece Activity, but no, I haven't seen Sneaky's avatar before the devil. |
|Dec-17-04|| ||CodeLiquidHoax: how can i challenge a computer or maybe even a real person, i just want to play |
|Dec-17-04|| ||aw1988: You cannot play on here, this is a site where people analyze and discuss chess players and chess games. To actually play, try visiting www.chessclub.com or www.freechess.org or www.chess.net or www.playchess.com... of course, feel free to browse. |
|Dec-18-04|| ||Jaymthegenius: Squaredance, just because the Zukertort persona in CM defeats Waitzkin does NOT make him better in real life! Zukertort has even defeated the Fischer personality, are you going to tell me Zukertort is better then Fischer? I think not! Fischer is the best player before Karpov and Kasparov within a 600 year period of time!!! Also, I want these people to stop selling Waitzkin
short. Also defensive technique nowadays exist, and positional play is ALOT more refined nowadays, as well as attacking and tactical play. You want proof? Compare a past game with a game of any modern master on this site. |
|Dec-18-04|| ||SnoopDogg: <I KNOW that Waitzkin would defeat Morphy because he is a modern IM>|
I highly doubt Waitzkin could beat Morphy. "Morphy's knowledge of open games is so great, modern day chess has barely added upon this." ~ translated from Russian by Mikhail Botvinnik and I think that quote was from the mid-80's as Kasparov's mentor and yes he was still alive then.
|Dec-18-04|| ||Jaymthegenius: Now you have to know that Philidor or Greco wouldnt even win a tournament nowadays. I personally believe I could defeat Philidor, Greco, or Morphy easy as white with 1.Nf4 or 1.b3 (my favorite) Or as black with 1.e4,Nc6 or 1.e4,g6 or even 1.e4,b6. Because they had no knowledge of hypermodern strategy, and I would easily win. The greatest talent of all time in chess, Richard Reti would easily become a Grandmaster today, as would Nimzowhich, both would easily defeat anyone from the far past. |
|Dec-18-04|| ||SnoopDogg: <...and Eric Schiller puts Morphy at under rating 1000...>|
Just to clear things up, Eric Schiller would never ever say that. Your making up lies. 1000 are you kidding? Hahaha.
Here Capablanca would beat some of the 2600's today even if his theory on openings were horrible!
This is like saying any modern day shortstop could hit 60 homeruns in bigger ball parks (as Ruth did) back in the 20's. Ruth had to hit them about 50 ft. longer because modern day parks are smaller these days for the purpose of homeruns. This makes his feat even more remarkable considering there were no steriods, he was drunk when he came to most games, he could have retired in '18 and became a hall a fame pitcher, and it goes on and on.
The point is just because you know more the players of the past, doesn't mean you could easily slaughter them.
If a 2600 GM got an advantage in the opening on Capablanca or Alekhine, that would make things more complicated and they wouldn't just roll over and lose. They would use their ingenuity to steer it to more familiar areas to them and win!
<You want proof? Compare a past game with a game of any modern master on this site.>
Can someone post the link to Capablanca vs. Marshall 1918 the one where it has Capablanca defending better than computers and Marshall sacing like nobody's business in the Marshall Gambit. That might shut him up.
|Dec-18-04|| ||Everett: <Jaymthegenius>
I am not sure how often you frequent various game pages here at chessgames.com, but squaredance, Sneaky, aw1988, Minor Piece Activity are respected and respectful contributers to the site. They, along with others, have had to deal with people who claim to be unbeatable, make irrelevant comparisons, have deplorable arguing skills, and others that possess cantankerous personalities.
Some of the kibitzers do not respond at all. Others can't abide by opinions stated as facts, especially opinions that can never be proven.
|Dec-18-04|| ||Everett: (cont...)
Now, for entertainment purposes only: A word about human learning and the nature of the brain. Homo Sapiens adjust extremely quickly to changes in environment. Our actions and thinking will adapt to survive in nearly any climate. Been doing it for thousands of years.
If any of the great masters from early on (Philidor on up) were miraculously resurrected and placed in a tournament now when they were at the peak of their abilities, they would do just fine. They would no doubt suffer some cheap losses from the opening play, but middle and endgame principles and technique have not changed since Philidor. In a months time, they would know enough to avoid certain positions, read up on what positions they wish to attain, and do even better.
You might want to try 1.Nf3 as an opening move.
And you speak of the hypermodern strategy as if its a diseases blanket to be given to a new population. They will figure it out real quick, and smash you.
Oh, BTW, if you continue saying ridiculous stuff, many may simply block you, meaning, you will be able to post, but it won't show up to others because they have grown tired of your naive hubris and general ignorance. You'll be shouting out into the void.
|Dec-18-04|| ||aw1988: I'm a <respected and respectful contributer>!? Aww. :) |
|Dec-18-04|| ||Everett: Greco plays against 1...b6 Wonder what happens.
Greco vs NN, 1620
Greco vs NN, 1619
Andersson vs Modern/Robatsch
Adolf Anderssen vs Mongredien, 1862
Tarrasch vs Nimzo-Larsen Attack
W Paulsen vs Tarrasch, 1892
|Dec-18-04|| ||Everett: <aw1988> I can only speak of my own opinion, of course ;) |
|Dec-18-04|| ||square dance: <jaymthegenius> <Squaredance, just because the Zukertort persona in CM defeats Waitzkin does NOT make him better in real life! Zukertort has even defeated the Fischer personality, are you going to tell me Zukertort is better then Fischer? I think not!> what the hell are you talking about? are we even on the same subject? chessmaster has nothing to do with this. i have no idea where you came up with this crap.|
<Also, I want these people to stop selling Waitzkin short. Also defensive technique nowadays exist, and positional play is ALOT more refined nowadays, as well as attacking and tactical play.> well i doubt a modern day 6 year old has mastered positional play and defensive technique enough to beat one of the great attacking and positional players of all time, even if he was born in 1837. oh thats paul morphy, btw. and i dont mean the chessmaster morphy personality either.
|Dec-21-04|| ||Jaymthegenius: Sorry if I have sounded arrogant, I was just trying to make a point that we have progressed in chess. But I must admit in Killer Chess Tactics it took me 15 minutes in Paulsen vs. Morphy to just simply exchange queens while Qxf3!! was the winning move.|
NN in Greco vs. NN could have refuted the broad pawn center if only he made a few modifications to his strucure (knight on d7 instead of c6, pawn on d6 instead of e6, keep both fianchetto's, strike the center with c5!, and the pawn center falls, and white with a space advantage will be forced to exchange pieces eventually, turning the space advantage into a disadvantage. I personally believe that hypermodern play outright refutes classical dogma of putting a pawn in the center, so in other words 1...b6 1...Nc6, 1...Nf6 and 1...g6 all refute the king pawn game, as well as some variations of the sicilian. But this is just my subjective opinion, and about what Schiller said in SCO, I now know he wasnt estimating a rating for Morphy, but rather suggested the games people of certain ratings should study after taking a closer read. and 1.Nf4 was a stupid typo, it is 1.Nf3, the invention of the most talented player of all time, Richard Reti. And Computers have revolutionized the game of chess forever. No longer can someone rely on there artistic abilities, but should rather use cold, hard calculation and objectivity if they are going to bring home some trophies and really neat looking silver chess sets, oh, and not to mention $1,276.00. See? A strong objective sense could win you alot of money against an artist.
|Dec-21-04|| ||SnoopDogg: < it took me 15 minutes in Paulsen vs. Morphy to just simply exchange queens while Qxf3!! was the winning move.>|
"It took Morphy 10 minutes!" ~ Yasser Seirawan.
<No longer can someone rely on there artistic abilities, but should rather use cold, hard calculation and objectivity if they are going to bring home some trophies and really neat looking silver chess sets, oh, and not to mention $1,276.00.>
I can still give an artistic game to Fritz without an opening book (see Kasparov page), and Chessmaster with an opening book. And I'm not anywhere near the best players. So we're not there yet!
PS Most players look at the Paulsen/Morphy queen sac when they're first starting out. And you told us you found it in 15 minutes as a beginner I'm just assuming. I also think you posted you were around master level? Yet if you just found that position its awfully odd you've never seen it before. I highly doubt (if you solved it at all) calculated it to the end like Morphy did.
Another note, Morphy, Phildor, and Greco would not have fallen for tricks in the opening. You guys keep thinking they're some kind of 1300 loser (no offense to any 1300 players out there) that falls for stupid tricks in the opening.
|Dec-21-04|| ||SBC: <Jaymthegenius>
<it is 1.Nf3, the invention of the most talented player of all time, Richard Reti.>
Blackburne vs A Schwarz, 1882
<I personally believe that hypermodern play outright refutes classical dogma of putting a pawn in the center>
"refutes" is a mighty strong word, don't you think?
<No longer can someone rely on there artistic abilities, but should rather use cold, hard calculation and objectivity>
It's been my understanding that objective calculation has always been the critical element of chess. To think that Bourdonnais, Staunton, Anderssen or Kolisch couldn't calculate extremely accurately and deeply, would be a complete miscalculation.
|Dec-21-04|| ||square dance: <jaymthegenius> <I personally believe that hypermodern play outright refutes classical dogma of putting a pawn in the center, so in other words 1...b6 1...Nc6, 1...Nf6 and 1...g6 all refute the king pawn game,...> you're wrong. putting a pawn in the center is not classical dogma, its opening theory. and both 1.e4 and 1.d4 are as far from being refuted as any other opening move. in fact they are considered the strongest opening moves. but hey, maybe after several weeks, months, years(?) of studying i guess its realistic to think that you've figured out opening theory. btw, how old are you? |
<1.Nf3, the invention of the most talented player of all time, Richard Reti.> reti as the most talented player of all time? wow. i might give that some thought as long as you promise that you didnt apply the same thought process as you did when you concluded that a 6 year old waitzkin wouldve been more than a match for morphy.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 10 ·