|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 441 OF 443 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-04-09 | | shach matov: <cannibal> <KKDEREK> Both comments are OBVIOUSLY accurate. <visayanbraindoctor> has managed to make a more idiotic comment than <KamikazeAttack> and that takes an incomparable amount of ignorance. In both cases I believe again the FEAR of "Kasparov" image is talking in these two. They fear the boogeyman and that makes them make comments that are complete opposite of reality. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | visayanbraindoctor: For those labeling my opinion as ridiculous and idiotic, thanks for the free propaganda. I believe this is a widely held opinion by the way, that other chess players in the 1990s feared Kasparov and thought him unbeatable. Do you really think that labeling such statements as ridiculous and idiotic will change such views? |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | shach matov: <visayanbraindoctor> You should read carefully the previous posts by <metatron2> and <KKDEREK>, they explained in detail your mistakes. I could hardly add anything. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | visayanbraindoctor: Hey <shach matov> I am beginning to think you are a troll. So it's fair enough to tell you that next time you begin posts obviously meant to be aggravating, I shall troll you back. It is you who better read my posts well. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | visayanbraindoctor: Sure, I would also like to educate you. For instance regarding: <Additionally, as far as pure chess is concerned the 2000 match was basically a non-event> This statement is not only asinine, ridiculous, and idiotic, it bespeaks of an anencephalic cranium trying to speak through a little hole anterior to the coccyx. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | shach matov: It seems most posters here voted for your comments to be considered as <asinine, ridiculous, and idiotic>: <cannibal>, <KKDEREK>, and <metatron2> among others during the past two days tried in vain to show you in detail your mistakes, but you continue to be an angry troll who refuses to learn. I really have nothing to add. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | visayanbraindoctor: Oh I can assure you that I am not angry at you; in fact I am laughing at you <shach matov>. I don't think you even understood my last post. How's this: most of your posts sound like a little hole anterior to the coccyx trying to speak through an anencephalic cranium. Sounds better. |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <cannibal>
<I have nothing against Kramnik, I think he's been a worthy champ, but what happened here is hardly a comeback - it's mainly Vishy switching to safety mode after the thing was as good as over.> I agree that the match was about as good as over after game 6 (although I personally toasted nothing until they shook hands after game 8). However, one of the defining characteristics of Anand's performance in this match is that he <never> switched to safety mode, and never relaxed. The remarkable thing is that in fact, he never even stopped playing for a win. He came to Bonn to fight in every game, and was never satisfied with a lead, no matter how large; game 7 and Kramnik's rejected draw offer is evidence of that. Perhaps Anand viewed Leko's timid play while up in 2004 as a warning? It follows, then, that Kramnik did not win game 10 because Anand was playing it safe. I think he just won the game. As far as the match was concerned it was almost a completely symbolic victory, but maybe it had some beneficial psychological effects for Kramnik. Game 10 also helped to make the match even more interesting, even for those of us who were amused by the idea that it heralded the dawn of some sort of mystic "comeback". Game 11 was another good and complex game, even if Anand did make it a little short by outplaying Kramnik so thoroughly. That was the only game he decided not to fight for a win :). |
|
| Sep-04-09 | | kulangot: KGB played a big role in Soviet chess matters.Without the support of KGB,Kasparov won't last that long as world chess champ. Maybe KGB taught Kasparov,the art of psyching out your opponent. Or we could ask Korchnoi,if hypnotism really happened in Baguio during the Karpov-Korchnoi match in 1978. |
|
| Sep-05-09 | | shach matov: For sure, even now we can see that Kasparov and Putin are the best of friends. |
|
| Sep-07-09 | | dumbgai: <metatron2: ...I’m always amused when reading one dimensional explanations to Kasparov success, attributing his wins to one thing such as: “Superior opening preparations” or “More drive” or “More energy” or “Russian chess school” or “Lessons from Karpov” or “Using computers better” or “having a better team” or “his tactical play” or this “Fearsome affect”.> I completely agree. Kasparov never showed the best sportsmanship, but over the board he was perhaps as close to the "most complete player" or "perfect player" as anyone. Immense talent, outstanding preparation, a ton of experience at a young age (5 world championship matches with Karpov before age 28), and some legendary coaches. Opponents were correct to fear him. |
|
| Sep-12-09 | | Ulhumbrus: There is no mystery about at least a part of the explanation for the results of the matches in 2000 and 2008, although it is not the whole explanation: the winner was better prepared in the openings. In 2000 Kramnik had found a Berlin defence variation to which Kasparov did not find a refutation, and in 2008 Anand had found a pawn sacrifice in the Slav defence to which Kramnik did not find a refutation. |
|
Oct-16-09
 | | LoveThatJoker: Sofia will host the 2010 World Chess Championship.
Here is a brief bulletin on it:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...
LTJ |
|
Oct-16-09
| | LoveThatJoker: Chessvibes' take on the 2010 WCC match being awarded to Sofia: http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/f... LTJ |
|
| Oct-16-09 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <Ulhumbrus: There is no mystery about at least a part of the explanation for the results of the matches in 2000 and 2008, although it is not the whole explanation: the winner was better prepared in the openings. In 2000 Kramnik had found a Berlin defence variation to which Kasparov did not find a refutation, and in 2008 Anand had found a pawn sacrifice in the Slav defence to which Kramnik did not find a refutation.> I wouldn't describe losing two games as "not finding a refutation." Also, I do not think that a "refutation" of either system even exists (refutation typically meaning "demonstrating that a line, move, or idea is unsound"). |
|
| Jan-09-10 | | fischer2009: now d berlin defense theory is in d white 's liking of things. |
|
| Feb-14-10 | | Everett: Why does Topalov, after losing to Kramnik in 2006, get a crack at Anand in '10? It makes no sense outside of the twisted world of chess politics. |
|
| Feb-14-10 | | protean: <Everett><Why does Topalov, after losing to Kramnik in 2006, get a crack at Anand in '10? It makes no sense outside of the twisted world of chess politics.> Because he bitched about it very loudly. |
|
| Feb-15-10 | | Petrosianic: No, it had nothing to do with bitching. It was about the fact that Topalov was considered a "World Champion" of sorts after San Luis, and that FIDE brought back the rematch clause a few years back. Topalov lost his FIDE Championship in the (Godforsaken) Elista match in 2006, so he gets a rematch. Similarly, the Anand-Kramnik match was considered a "Rematch" for Kramnik after losing his (Undisputed) title at Mexico City. |
|
| Feb-23-10 | | Everett: So Topalov gets a rematch against the NEXT champion. Ridiculous. It's FOUR YEARS after the fact... |
|
| Feb-23-10 | | Petrosianic: It is ridiculous, but that's FIDE for you. Ridiculous is their middle name. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | jamesmaskell: The stupid thing about this rematch idea is that both players signed the Elista 2006 Match contract saying that the loser would be out of the cycle, thus there would be no rematch clause involved since they both dispensed with them. That was the point of the match in the first place. I pray that Anand wins in Sofia. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Petrosianic: They put that in the contract when they thought the loser would be Kramnik. When it turned out to be Topalov, they immediately started going back on it, trying to get Topalov into Mexico City, for example. As you'll recall, Danailov claimed that Topalov was somehow entitled to an IMMEDIATE rematch, a mere 3 months after the first one had ended. The rules explicitly forbade this, as they prohibited any event within 6 months of Mexico City. Danalov predicted that that rule wouldn't matter, and when it did, started the move to get Topalov into Mexico City, claiming that he was entitled to a rematch under the 2700 Rule. This was not true, the 2700 Rule allowed 2700 players to issue a challenge, but gave FIDE the right to decide whether or not to accept the challenge (and as written, it literally gave FIDE the right to use the weather as an excuse for declining). But Kirsan went along with the fiction that Topalov was somehow entitled to a rematch under that rule, and when the effort to get him into Mexico City failed, he gave him a match with the winner of the next Candidates. Remember that Danailov had flat out accused Kirsan of cheating at Elista. Or of knowingly aiding and abetting it, at least. We can only imagine what kind of favor he would have gotten if he hadn't. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <Petrosianic: No, it had nothing to do with bitching. It was about the fact that Topalov was considered a "World Champion" of sorts after San Luis, and that FIDE brought back the rematch clause a few years back.> What rematch clause are you referring to? And by "a few years back", what do you mean? A few years before the Kramnik-Topalov match? |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Petrosianic: Yes, the rematch clause I was thinking of is the one they brought back for Karpov, long ago. As far as I know, they don't still have that, but Kirsan sometimes talks as though they did. The 2700 Rule gave no special right to ex-champions. It simply allowed any ex-world champion or player with a 2700 rating to issue a challenge, which FIDE would then decide whether or not to accept. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 441 OF 443 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
