chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

  
Hans-Joachim Federer
Number of games in database: 1
Years covered: 2001
Last FIDE rating: 1982
Highest rating achieved in database: 2043

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Hans-Joachim Federer
Search Google for Hans-Joachim Federer
FIDE player card for Hans-Joachim Federer


HANS-JOACHIM FEDERER
(born Oct-13-1950, 64 years old) Germany

[what is this?]

 page 1 of 1; one game  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. L Krizsany vs H J Federer 1-024 2001 openE73 King's Indian

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 104 OF 153 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-05-12  Jim Bartle: I'd be interested in opinions on this pretty harsh column on Maria Sharapova and her Russian patriotism by Peter Bodo, a respected tennis writer.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/blog/_/na...

Aug-05-12  Riverbeast: <It was his only chance ever to represent his country at an Olympics in his country (well, sort of his country) and he made the most of it>

Yeah...Murray is probably the best British tennis player in history...And he's a Scotsman!

He he....

I bet a lot of the English aren't too thrilled about that, if you know what I mean ;-)

If you've ever been to Scotland and talked with Scots, you probably know that they usually root for England to lose...Especially during World Cup football (they have a saying in Scotland..."Anybody but England")

And I'm sure the feeling is at least to a degree, mutual

Aug-05-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: Murray won a medal Britain.

We are an island.

Just like all the English medals are also for GREAT BRITAIN.

Forza Andy !

You've got tennis by the balls just now. Make it count.

Aug-05-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: <Riverbeast>

Great Britain is more of an 'entity' than the 'United states of america' ..

So what's your point? ( no pun intended lol )

Aug-05-12  Riverbeast: <Murray won a medal Britain.

We are an island.

Just like all the English medals are also for GREAT BRITAIN>

During the Olympics, you are Great Britain

But in international football, England and Scotland field separate teams, no?

<I'd be interested in opinions on this pretty harsh column on Maria Sharapova and her Russian patriotism by Peter Bodo, a respected tennis writer>

Just read that article...

You know what they say...'Haters gonna hate'

Just another example of a sportswriter writing negative stuff, fabricating a controversy, and trying to tear someone down

What's wrong with Sharapova showing her Russian patriotism during the Olympics? She's representing Russia, isn't she?

Is she supposed to be waving an American flag?

A lot of international athletes come to the US to train, but they still represent their home countries internationally

(Interestingly, I remember one of the Russian female players...I forget which one...Saying they didn't consider Sharapova to be a 'real Russian'...That she speaks Russian with an American accent, and they consider her to be more American than Russian)

Whatever....

Aug-05-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: ^^^^

I have absolutely no idea what you are waffling on about.

Great Britain is an entity.

Much much more of an entity than your own 'county' .

Andy Murray won a Gold medal for Great Britain. What's your problem?

Aug-05-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: Forza Andy and Forza Great Britain .. an island nation !
Aug-05-12  Riverbeast: <Great Britain is an entity>

I'm assuming, since you live on the Island, that you have been to Scotland

All I can say is (at least among many of the Scots I spoke to), some Scots may disagree with that statement

Aug-05-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: I've driven a car up the west coast of Scotland, along the top of Scotland, and down the east coast of Scotland. And done a fair few miles in the interior too..

I live on an island.

This island includes Wales and England and Scotland.

Politically Northern Ireland is included.

Again. what's your point?

Aug-05-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <Riverbeast> <Interestingly, I remember one of the Russian female players...I forget which one...Saying they didn't consider Sharapova to be a 'real Russian'...That she speaks Russian with an American accent, and they consider her to be more American than Russian>

I heard the same, years ago, only the opinion was attributed to many Russian female players and not just one. My sincere hope is that Sharapova cried all the way to the bank when she heard that one. They said she wasn't Russian enough, but what they meant was that she wasn't aloof and bitchy enough.

Aug-05-12  Riverbeast: <I live on an island.

This island includes Wales and England and Scotland.

Politically Northern Ireland is included.

Again. what's your point?>

My point is that the English, in true Colonial spirit, like to consider the island 'Great Britain'

But the old 'troubles' in Northern Ireland, and the fact that the Scottish prefer to have their own Parliament (as relatively powerless as it may be), and consider Scotland to be a distinct people and distinct culture, are examples that not all of the Northern Irish, and probably most of the Scots, prefer not to identify as 'British'

('British', to them, meaning 'English subjects')

Am I wrong?

Aug-06-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  kellmano: <RiverBeast> not quite. You get a fair bit of English nationalism as well. Most NI want to be part of GB (I think) and Scotland is going to have a referendum in a couple of years about leaving the union (I think the response will be 'no').

There is an interesting constitutional issue called 'The West Loathian question'. This means Scottish MPs vote for policies in England that they do not like but which do not affect Scotland due to it being a legislative area for the regional Parliament. So Scottish MPs voted to introduce tuition fees in England, as they had no obligations to their constituents so just did whatever the whips said. I am no English nationalist (or indeed any kind of nationalist) but this issue is patently unfair on the English.

Aug-13-12  I play the Fred: Question: You're Federer or Nadal or Djokovic or Murray and you're on serve. You're up 40-0 and you fault on your first serve. Why not treat the second serve like the first? If you double-fault, you still have two more chances to win the game before deuce.

I could see not doing that on 40-30 or even 40-15, but why not in that situation?

Aug-13-12  shivasuri4: <I Play The Fred>, it is often a question of probabilities. You can't assume that the probability of the players serving an ace/service winner is greater than that of winning the point by a rally, especially for these players, who are very good at rallying. Also, a double fault would result in a greater expenditure of energy while trying to win the next point.

The no. 1 ranking is at stake once again, at Cincinatti. If Federer loses in the quarters or semis, and Djokovic wins the title, the latter becomes no. 1. If Federer loses before the quarters, reaching the final would be sufficient for Djokovic.

Aug-13-12  Jim Bartle: That's an interesting question I've wondered about myself. I think players' decisions on the second serve are often affected by the perceived embarrassment of a double fault.

And some players do sometimes hit huge second serves. On match point of the Wimbledon final in 1999 Sampras hit a second serve rocket past Agassi.

Let's say a player is winning 45% of his second serve points, hitting his usual second serve. And let's say he gets his first serve in 60% of the time and wins 80% of those points (it's a big one). That gives him a 48% chance of winning the point if he hits another first serve...

Of course the best of all worlds is having a hard and reliable second serve, such as Federer, McEnroe, Sampras, or going way back, Gonzalez.

Aug-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  kellmano: The odds on winning the piont would of course be improved by the surprise factor and that the returner will be standing closer to the net.
Aug-14-12  achieve: Interesting, and true it is a game of numbers, percentages, but most players will not like to gamble, except in extreme circumstances.

The reason that the percentages are as high as they are, for 1st serves, is because there is a 2nd serve, which takes the pressure off considerably. At 40-0 one can assume that the pressure on the second is similar to the first, but it isn't, it's a gamble, and if you miss it the point has gone to your opponent without him even having to swing at the ball. And since even the best players often go through streaks of not getting the 1st serve in, the percentages will have to be adjusted, they will be lower, and in the heads of the player it may "feel" is if it merely becomes a lottery. So you normally do not do it, as that is not the way you were brought up to play tennis, play rallies.

Ivanisevic however played a lot of 2nd serve aces, going full blast, when he knew he was in the zone and just knew he'd hit it where he wanted.

Aug-14-12  Jim Bartle: Plus, to be blunt, Ivanisevic really wasn't that good a player except for his serve. There have been a number of players who wouldn't have been in the top 50 if it weren't for their serves. (Of course the serve is part of the rules, and you win points however you can, so that's OK.) I'd include Karlovic, Ivanisevic, Kevin Curren, even Roscoe Tanner in that category. Butch Walts if anybody remembers him. It used to be true of John Isner, but he's improved the rest of his game.
Aug-14-12  achieve: <Jim Bartle: Plus, to be blunt, Ivanisevic really wasn't that good a player except for his serve.> It's all relative and stuff, but your vague-ish description of Goran needs a further explanation. I <might> consider adding Rusedski to "your group" - but Goran, three times W'don finalist and one time winner, no way - Goran even had good results on clay on occasion. Goran had touch on the volleys as well. What parts in his game, aside from his temperament, "weren't that great"?

I don't find it a useful description, "really wasn't that good a player except for", with possibly an exception for Karlovic ;)

Ivanisevic was a top 10 player, though.

Aug-14-12  Jim Bartle: Ivanisevic, unless I'm forgetting something, never did much at any of the other three majors. He only excelled at Wimbledon back when the grass was super fast. That in itself tells me his overall game wasn't all that great.

But basically, I just didn't see his ground strokes as being all that good. I don't remember him as being that great at the net on tough volleys; he just got so many easy ones due to his serve.

Looking at players who depended on the serve without having a great game otherwise, Kevin Curren is a great example. His serve was incredible, and one year at Wimbledon he just wiped out both McEnroe and Connors I think. The rest of his game was working well enough, but that didn't happen often enough.

Aug-14-12  achieve: <That in itself tells me his overall game wasn't all that great.> that's bad.

Perhaps this will add some perspective:

Singles
Career record 599–333 (64.3%)
Career titles 22
Highest ranking No. 2 (4 July 1994)
Grand Slam Singles results
Australian Open QF (1989, 1994, 1997)
French Open QF (1990, 1992, 1994)
Wimbledon W (2001)
US Open SF (1996)

You don't get such stellar career results with just a serve, look at Karlovic. Look up the set scores e.g. at W'don, and see if he only won in tiebreaks... No sir, he had a great return when he was on, and his forehand was at times unplayable. But his temperament was shaky, and a testament to his greatness are the W'don title, the 22 singles titles he won on all surfaces, and being ranked Number 2 in the world.

He was on a par with Krajicek even, and ranks better in fact.

Aug-14-12  Jim Bartle: I'm not saying he had only a serve, just that I don't think the rest of his game--without the great serve--was top quality. He certainly had times when his entire game was on, but not consistently.

Still I look at his record in Grand Slams. Four Wimbledon finals, one win, where the serve dominated play. A total of one other Grand Slam semi-final (no other finals). and he lost that semi in four sets (winning the third in tiebreak) pretty routinely to Sampras.

I like the guy, he was fun. I just think it was primarily his serve that put him among the top players.

Aug-14-12  achieve: You're a stubborn and negative man, Jim. Goran was ranked in the top 10 for about 8-10 years except for an injury year. TOP 10 !!!!!!!!

Primarily his serve <among the top players>? wow, that's a jump from without his serve not in the top 50, eh?

I am completely wasting my time here, and my recollections of Goran do not match anything you say. Yes, his serve was his weapon, as was Agassi's return, they all have their weapons, and Ivanisevic deserves a place with the guys just behind the top tier, and mainly because of his complex and self-destructive temperament, which you on three occasions have avoided to mention. Ivanisevic allround talent, including a possibly genius serve when his mind was in the right place, is undisputed.

The company you placed him among initially is outright ludicrous, and to just acknowledge that would be cavalier.

I like the guy, he was fun.

This is almost trollish if I didn't know you better. ;)

Aug-14-12  Jim Bartle: Sorry, that was just my impression of his game. Maybe he was better than the others I mentioned, but how much better is his record than Curren's or Tanner's?

Tanner was my absolute favorite player in the 70s, but I knew his game was based on his serve backed up by a pretty good net game. His backcourt game wasn't that consistent, plus he didn't have the speed or agility of a lot of the top guys.

Aug-14-12  achieve: 1994 4th round french open

Ivanišević 63 3 6 6 6
---Corretja 77 6 1 2 3

Two sets down, winning 61 62 63 against one of the best clay players of his time, Alex Corretja, is an astonishing score, rallying from the base-line with the best in the business, and beating Corretja, 1,2 and 3.

Goran was a very talented player, and when his head was screwed on right he had a great all-round game.

That just a serve myth is really a travesty when you look up not only his results on clay, but watch some of the actual footage. I'm thinking Youtube.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 153)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 104 OF 153 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies