< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 77 OF 77 ·
|Sep-07-15|| ||MarkFinan: I posted this before you had the chance to answer on the other page Fred. Thanks anyway though.|
|Sep-10-15|| ||goldenbear: <FSR> I guess you're joking, right? Of course you would beat Magnus with queen odds. I'd say you would beat him 100 times out of 100. I'd bet on you to beat him 95 times out of 100 with only knight odds. With pawn odds, you might be in trouble...|
|Sep-10-15|| ||FSR: <goldenbear> I'm saying hell no, Magnus would not beat me (or draw me) at queen odds. I would have thought that I would also beat him easily at knight odds, but according to Larry Kaufman a player with a FIDE rating of 2115 (probably roughly equivalent to my ~2200 USCF rating) would have even chances against Kasparov at knight odds.|
|Sep-13-15|| ||goldenbear: <FSR> Ok, I see. But I don't agree with Kaufman about knight odds. I think Kasparov might have even chances at knight odds against a 1900 or so, but at 2115 (which is about my rating), the technique should be good enough to convert knight odds I feel...|
|Sep-13-15|| ||FSR: <goldenbear> I agree.|
|Sep-15-15|| ||FSR: <goldenbear> Looking at the games I've played against GMs, I see nothing to indicate that one (even the world champion) could successfully give me piece odds. They're superior to me, of course, but they don't humiliate me. A Ivanov vs F Rhine, 1998 (tournament loss); Tal vs F Rhine, 1988 (simul loss); Fedorowicz vs F Rhine, 2012 (simul draw).|
|Sep-15-15|| ||OhioChessFan: I am surprised to see that Kaufman thinks a 2115 would only be considered even odds against Kasparov. I think a 2100 would kill him. I'd like the chances of a 1900 for that matter.|
|Sep-15-15|| ||Penguincw: How about say, rook odds vs. a 1600? :)
Okay, I've lost a game vs. rook odds before (to myself).
|Sep-15-15|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: Kasparov vs. 2115 would probably depend on the time control. In a blitz game I'd back Kasparov or Carlsen any time. At standard time controls... hard to say; I know I wouldn't like <my> chances even in a slow game.|
|Sep-15-15|| ||moronovich: There was this Chapman-Kasparov match some 10 ? years ago.Were Kasparov in,I think, four games should give 2 pawns.
Kasparov lost one game.
I have tried the same vs 16-1700 players and it is really difficult.
The a and b pawns are the best to give and then kind of pretending you are playinng a benko with many nice open lines and some spaceadvantage ;)
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if
Garry should play say the Danish championship(average around 2460)and he only had 10 minuttes for each game !?...I think he would have fine winningchances,but not winning every time.
|Sep-15-15|| ||moronovich: Petrosian could give knightodds and beat IMīs in blitz.Easily.|
|Sep-15-15|| ||FSR: Kasparov gave odds of different pawns to Chapman in each game, beating Chapman 2.5-1.5. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
|Sep-17-15|| ||goldenbear: I think if I played Kasparov at knight odds, the time control would be the important factor. In a regular game, I'm sure I'd win. But the less time I'm given, the better would be his chances. In a five minute game, I make such stupid decisions that coughing up a piece is a fairly normal occurrence.|
|Sep-17-15|| ||FSR: I assume that Kaufman was talking about standard time controls. No doubt, the shorter the time control, the better Kasparov's chances. Since someone of his caliber could give 5-1 time odds (without a knight) to a master, it would not surprise me at all if he could give knight odds at 5-5.|
|Oct-01-15|| ||perfidious: <Jim: Hi <fsr>. In the mid-90s Valery Salov made a claim that Kasparov was no better than the other top players, he only won because he had a superior team preparing openings. Salov said Kasparov won almost all his games out of the opening....>|
Re this claim: it should be borne in mind that Salov was no fan of Kasparov.
While nowhere the calibre of player of Salov, smells a bit like sour grapes to me.
|Oct-01-15|| ||FSR: That sounds like what Lev Alburt wrote of Karpov in <Chess Life> on multiple occasions. Every time before a Karpov-Kasparov match he'd write that Karpov was just a fish who had a huge team helping him prepare, and that Kasparov was getting stronger and would wipe the floor with Karpov this time. Never happened. (Indeed, as you'll recall, Kasparov very nearly lost in Seville, having to win in the last game just to scrounge a tie.)|
|Oct-02-15|| ||OhioChessFan: A big team is just a method of preparing. The player has to accept/reject the input of the team, and then, more importantly, go out and play the game. Fischer hardly had the personality to listen to a group, so he didn't choose that method. Karpov did. I suspect that today's heavy reliance on opening novelties makes the team method a little more helpful/necessary than it was in the 20th century. |
I'm sure you're aware of the discussion on So's page about him not having a team. I think the real problem there is borne out on his ugly losses from bad opening choices/getting caught out by a novelty.
|Oct-02-15|| ||OhioChessFan: As I read my last post, I thought back to Kasparov. While the Salov remarks do sound a bit like sour grapes, there surely is some truth to Kasparov's winning games out of the opening. Of course, he won a lot of games in the middle game and end game too, so "almost all" strikes me as an unwarranted shot at Kaspy.|
|Oct-02-15|| ||Howard: That allegation of Salov appeared in Inside Chess back around 1995 or 1996---still remember it. He stated that if not for Kasparov's analytical squad, he'd probably have to settle for a spot "in the bottom of the world's top ten" (something like that).|
By the way, what is Salov doing nowadays ?!
|Oct-03-15|| ||FSR: So how was it that Kasparov was able to assemble and pay for this squad of assistants while his betters (by Salov's lights) couldn't do so? Was the government giving Kasparov assistance beyond that provided to others? Salov's theory doesn't make a lot of sense to me.|
|Oct-03-15|| ||perfidious: Here is something from Valery Salov himself:|
<The most perspicacious readers have probably noticed a slight anti-Kasparovian bias in my writings. Well, it's nothing more than a sign of good taste on my part and it bears no comparison to the bacchanalia of base instincts that the mere sight of these graphomaniacs might have aroused in a less hardened soul than mine. I know quite a few grandmasters who are so familiar with the true situation in the chess world that they simply can't read the chess press any more - because of the incredible number of shallow remarks, banalities, cheap rhetoric and plain disinformation produced by some WC candidates that are readily parroted by the journalists and maliciously thrown right into the face of a defenceless chess public. Some of them even find a perverse pleasure in justifying Gilbert Keith Chesterton's appreciation of this profession: 'Journalism is a false picture of the world, thrown upon a lighted screen in a darkened room so that the real world is not seen.' In the Russian and Spanish press, in addition, this picture is very often shown upside-down. Even at risk of contradicting my previous material (NIC 98/2), I can't resist the temptation of reproducing here the words of Thomas Jefferson: 'I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world of their times.' As you can see, 200 years ago even US Presidents had their moments of lucidity.>
|Oct-06-15|| ||chancho: <FSR> It was fun, (while it lasted) but I fell short.|
|Oct-07-15|| ||FSR: <chancho> Better luck next time!|
|Oct-07-15|| ||technical draw: <chancho> Maybe you didn't fall short. Invoke the top 12 precedent. TD, juris doctor.|
|Oct-07-15|| ||chancho: <TD> I think they did that back in 2012 one time.|
I'm not going to raise a ruckus over it.
Thanks for the suggestion nonetheless.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 77 OF 77 ·