|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1441 OF 1441 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jul-03-09
 |
| alexmagnus: <visayan> It looks like "one-upmanship" is your favourite word ;) Your thesis was that the perfect game is drawn. But a game with a missed mate in 500 <isn't> perfect! So your observation about previous "perfect" games being drawn cannot be verified - as you cannot prove their perfection without playing <each> line till the very end. No computer can do it - it's just beyond our - and computers' capability. |
 |
Jul-03-09
|
| alexmagnus: The phrase which "irritated" you was not made for one-upmanship. It's a public debate, with two sides (note, everybody can join) bringing their arguments and counter-arguments. Note, the word <counter>-argument already requires sentences like that one. |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: Since my requests for civility on your part has come to nothing, I guess we'll have to play the funny trolling game again. <alexmagnus 1> clones an <alexmagnus 2> Let these two <alexmagnuses> debate forever. Come see the debate of Eternity!
<alexmagnus 1> vs <alexmagnus 2> Will the debate ever end without a 32-piece table base? Will it end within the lifetime of the Universe? Will it be stuck on the edge of a black hole for all time? Will both <alexmagnuses> talk so fast at the speed of light that the Universe will freeze in time for their sake? Come and choose your pick! I bet on <alexmagnus 2>! (",) (",) (",) (",) |
|
Jul-03-09
|
| alexmagnus: <visayan> What's uncivil about a debate? IMO a debate is the only way to discuss a matter. How else? And no, I don't want to debate with myself, thanks. |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| KamikazeAttack: <What's uncivil about a debate? IMO a debate is the only way to discuss a matter.> No sir, u can also exchange blows. |
|
Jul-03-09
|
| alexmagnus: I think it's a cultural difference. Probably in your region debates are not so popular... But I'm used to them. You know, you cannot ignore me just because of cultural differences. |
|
Jul-03-09
|
| alexmagnus: <<What's uncivil about a debate? IMO a debate is the only way to discuss a matter.>
No sir, u can also exchange blows.>
LOL |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <What's uncivil about a debate?> Nothing. It's your statements that I regard as subtle troll shots at me that isn't civil. Since you chose to ignore my requests to the contrary, I will have to treat you as a troll once again. Even the above, implying that I do not like debates is a stupidly trollish statement, seeing that I have been having polite debates with lots of kibitzers here, except you of course. Maybe trolls have cataracts. <I don't want to debate with myself> Oh but I am sure that you will. Who better to debate with <alexmagnus 1> than <alexmagnus 2>? Hey <alexmagnus 2>! Come out and debate with <alexmagnus 1>! <visayanbraindoctor> has decided to go kibitz in the Dortmund page and <alexmagnus 1> is lonely. |
|
Jul-03-09
|
| alexmagnus: Neither I am a troll nor I see anything uncivil about my way of debating. You put way too much in the words (you yourself admitted that the alleged troll shots were "subtle". I have to say, there were no troll shots at all.). |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| Augalv: <if two players do not make any mistake at all, their game would end in a draw. We can't blame Kramnik for this draw.> I agree <visayanbraindoctor>. I don't know how someone who makes perfect moves throughout an entire game of chess can lose it. If no mistakes are made by either side, then the game should end in a draw. If Rybka beat Rybka3, it just proves that not even do the strongest engines in the world play perfect chess. It may not be verifiable that if you play a game of chess perfectly you won't lose it, but to me it's common sense. There's no way you can a lose a chess game if you make no mistakes throughout the whole game. At least imo. |
|
Jul-03-09
|
| alexmagnus: <Augalv> At least some Chess960 positions are known to have an overwhelimg, close to winning (or maybe even winning), first-move advantage. Why do you believe that the standard starting position is perfect in terms of being draw with perfect game? |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| slomarko: <alexmagnus: <Augalv> At least some Chess960 positions are known to have an overwhelimg, close to winning (or maybe even winning), first-move advantage.> i don't know how this myth spread but it's not true. show me a position which is supposed to have close to winning advantage and I'll show you that black can hold a draw without problems. |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: Hello <Augalv>
Capablanca vs L Molina, 1911
Do you have any info on the background of this game? |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: In his latest game in Dortmund,
Kramnik vs Bacrot, 2009
Kramnik IMO did not get any White advantage in the opening at all. The line he went into voluntarily allowed Black to dominate the center. White's fianchettoed Bishop got hemmed in. While watching it, I was kind of puzzling why Kramnik would enter into such a line at all. For surprise purposes? I think that Bacrot got nervous; he consumed far too much time in his clock, and could have ended in real time trouble. Fortunately for the Frenchman, he did not err while his clock was ticking away. Not a very auspicious start for Kramnik after his half a year semi-retirement; hopefully he is just revving up. I do hope he plays more classical tournaments in the following months to shake off any metaphorical rust. |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| Augalv: <visayanbraindoctor: Hello <Augalv> Capablanca vs L Molina, 1911
Do you have any info on the background of this game?> Nice to see you <visayanbraindoctor>, in response to your question, this was an exhibition game. But that's all the information I've been able to find. |
|
| Jul-03-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <Augalv> Gracias. So it was probably under classical time control. Most one-on-one 'exhibition' games before WW2 that are not classified as 'simultaneous' or 'blindfold' were quite serious competitions under classical time controls, chess for blood as Edward Lasker would say. Nowadays exhibitions are usually rapid tournaments. Reason I asked is that I was wondering how in the world Capablanca was able to produce such a brilliant game if it were just a simul. I am also curious who the top Argentinian players were back then. Based on the numerous tournaments Argentina has hosted (even aside from the famous 1927 WC Match), there is apparently some kind of chess tradition in your country. Perhaps Molina used to be one of the leading Argentinian players. |
|
Jul-04-09
|
| alexmagnus: <slomarko> I can't tell you know which positions are meant but I've read this "myth" often as one of the leading arguments against Chess960. |
|
| Jul-04-09 |
| Augalv: <visayanbraincdoctor>, the top Argentine players of the early 1900s were Julio Lynch and Rolando Illa. Damian Reca became one of the Argenine top players but only a few years later. He happened to win the first Argentine Chess Championship in 1921. Roberto Grau was one of Argentina's top players from about that time too.
And then we had players like Carlos Enrique Guimard, Herman Pilnik, Hector Decio Rossetto and Oscar Panno who became part of the Argentine chess 'elite' in the 40s and 50s, Argentina's <golden> chess age. Of course, Miguel Najdorf and Erich Eliskases were also top chess players here in Argentina in the mid 1900s. As probably most people know, they were participating of chess events here in 1939 when the second world war broke out and decided not to go back to their countries. They became Argentine citizens afterwards. There is some kind of chess tradition in Argentine, but unfortunately the game is not so popular. If it was, we would probably have more and stronger players. Our best rated player is not even in the 2600 club. Regarding Molina, all I know is he was president of the Argentine Chess Club in the early 1900s. |
|
Jul-04-09
 |
| nimh: It hasn't actually been proven if perfect play from both sides would end in a draw or a forced win for white. |
|
Jul-04-09
|
| alexmagnus: ...Or even forced win for black. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1441 OF 1441 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
