|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
May-30-08
 |
| acirce: <percyblakeney> to the rescue as always when someone gives Kramnik too much credit. Although I agree that having Kramnik as 3rd is just wrong if we are not talking objective strength. |
 |
May-30-08
 |
| lostemperor: <percy> in all fairness I don't see how you can put Alekseev #20 before people like Kamsky, Leko, Aronian and Carlsen who is 5 in the ratinglist now? Yes and they are probably better that Weiss too. |
|
May-30-08
 |
| percyblakeney: <in all fairness I don't see how you can put Alekseev #20 before people like Kamsky, Leko, Aronian and Carlsen who is 5 in the ratinglist now?> I don't put him anywhere, it's FIDE that rank him as number 20 in the world right now. |
|
May-30-08
|
| lostemperor: I take that back <percy> I forgot to read the word Alekseev "not" in your list! |
|
May-30-08
|
| percyblakeney: <lostemperor> It's OK :-) |
|
May-31-08
 |
| zoat22: Maybe I disagree with KRamnik being number three in the list, although he should certainly be in the top ten, but. lets get this straight: There is NO CHANCE of a player like Lasker (who was great) being better than Kramnik... This might be because chess has developed more nowadays, but that is no excuse... And for the same simple reason, <Stein>, or <Weiss>, or <Janowski> just cannot be ahead of current top twenty players in the world. |
|
May-31-08
 |
| TheAlchemist: <zoat22> Most lists are about greatness and not absolute strength. We should distinguish between absolute strength (which is what you're talking about and which favours today's players largely due to theoretical and technological advancements) and relative strength (against one's contemporaries), which would, in my opinion, constitute greatness. |
|
May-31-08
 |
| Akavall: <It seems a bit strange to place a player that never had been the best player in the world> Kramnik didn't have his own era like Karpov and Kasparov did, but I'd say he was the best player in the world in 2006, maybe 2000 (not sure though). |
|
May-31-08
 |
| square dance: <akavall> good point. its actually pretty clear that kramnik was the best player in the world starting from his comeback at the 2006 olympiad all the way up to the mexico city world championship. |
|
May-31-08
|
| percyblakeney: <I'd say he was the best player in the world in 2006> Maybe, but the list was made before Elista, when it was hard to say if his shared first with Svidler in Dortmund was a better result than for example Topalov's shared first in Wijk and win in Sofia. I personally rank Kasparov as the best player year 2000, as I for example rank Kramnik ahead of Shirov in 1998. But all these things are subjective questions I guess. I just think Kramnik being far ahead of Lasker on a greatest ever list looks a bit strange, the latter was after all the clearly best player in the world for maybe 30 years, and very competitive for almost 20 more. |
|
May-31-08
|
| square dance: <pb> again, the way i understood this list was that they came up with a mathematical formula that ranked the players. why harp on kramnik for being 3rd by some statistical measure? why not harp on the form of measurement that puts him there? |
|
May-31-08
|
| percyblakeney: <why harp on kramnik for being 3rd by some statistical measure?> I'm definitely not meaning that it's Kramnik's fault that he's third. :-) I think it's strange to see Andrei Sokolov almost 30 places ahead of Steinitz as well, but anyone may of course construct any type of list they want, with or without statistical measures. |
|
May-31-08
|
| zoat22: <percyblakeney> i dont find it strange at all to see Andrei Sokolov ahead of Steinitz... His games were probably higher quality, if only because chess players understand more nowadays.. |
|
Jun-02-08
|
| lostemperor: I must say Anand,s top 10 list has a lot of similarities with mine. He put Fischer, Morphy and Capablanca on the top four spots only then followed by Karpov and Kasparov although he didn't specificly put a number to them. So both Kramnik preferences on his comments on his predecessors and Anand's top 10 have several striking similarities with my modest list, independently, I noticed. |
|
Jun-02-08
 |
| RookFile: The Turk was the strongest player ever. |
|
Jun-02-08
|
| lostemperor: Back to Rubinstein; I see that there are two quotes in Rubinstein biography from Kasparov and Kramnik. The quote of Reuben Fine, I was looking for is not here at chessgames however, looking for it with the extensive search option. So I checked my local chess café. It is there in the dictionary of chess from Edward R. Brace. I found three quotes on Rubinstein. Something I've read a long time ago but have almost quite forgotten: "The most perfect demonstrations of Steinitz teachings"-- Richard Réti "He possessed almost a super-natural feeling for the endings and rook endings in particular" --- Max euwe "Better chess cannot be played by mortal man" --- Reuben Fine |
|
Jun-02-08
 |
| keypusher: <Back to Rubinstein> How dare you, <lost emperor>? Seriously though, thank you for those quotes. |
|
Jun-03-08
 |
| Knight13: <acirce> But Kramnik is too hard to beat, so maybe he DOES deserve 3rd place. He's also one of the very few that can pull out wins in seemingly drawn positions. Topalov coming in 22 is just wrong!!! His style is more like Mikhail Tal's a little bit, but he DOES win a lot of games with it! Doesn't matter if his moves are bizzare and makes mistakes, the opponent doesn't see it, so isn't that why he was #1 on the ranking list back then and also FIDE World Champion? |
|
Jun-03-08
 |
| Karpova: <It was Reti who gave us perhaps the best description of Rubinstein’s play. In Modern Ideas in Chess (1943; translation by John Hart) he has this to say: … he is the greatest artist amongst chess players. Whilst in all of Schlechter’s beautiful games there is to be found playful delight comparable to the joyful dance, and whilst with Lasker a dramatic struggle captivates the onlooker, with Rubinstein all is refined tranquillity; for with him in building up his game the position given to every piece is the necessary one. It is not a matter of a fight for him [the contrast here is clearly with Lasker], but the working out of a victory, and so his games create the impression of a great structure from which no stone dare be lifted. (p.95)> http://www.compulsivereader.com/htm... |
|
| Jul-05-08 |
| Anyi: When I cam back from my holidays I found out that a Rubinstein-inspired short story, which I had submitted to a writing competition, has won the first prize. You can read the story on my website on AR: http://www.rubina.yfw24.de
The other thing is that I'm going to write an article about chess in Yiddish. In Warsaw two weeks ago I found two problems in a Yiddish magazine from 1912 and received a copy from an unknown Yiddish column. "Die Schack-Zeytung" by Salwe, for which Rubinstein wrote, is available at YIVO, and I will soon order it...
If anyone if you has seen a Yiddish chess column, please contact me! |
|
| Jul-05-08 |
| Jim Bartle: Anyi: Too bad I can't read German well enough any more. But even worse, I can't read essays without paragraph breaks! (This includes Remembrance of Things Past, so you're in good company.) |
|
| Jul-05-08 |
| Anyi: There are paragraph breaks in my word file of the story, but the program didn't take it over automatically, will have to do it manually. And if I have time, I'll translate the story into English, and inform you about it. |
|
Jul-05-08
|
| Karpova: <Anyi>
Did you read my entry in your guestbook regarding the Rubinstein-Salwe game? It's fantastic that you found new games - are you going to submit them to <chessgames.com>? |
|
| Jul-06-08 |
| Anyi: Yes, thank you, Karpova! Will check the game at home and change it. Yes, I will submit the two games I found, the next time I have internet access for longer...don't have internet access at home since April (it makes me very furious!). What's the procedure of submitting games again? |
|
Jul-06-08
|
| Karpova: <Anyi>
Use this link to upload games: PGN Upload Utility |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
