|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-26-17 | | Nina Myers: Continual Failippinoy whimpering is heart-balm |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | SirRuthless: Nothing personal, sweetheart. All legends rise and fall. |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | cro777: "I will be back!"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDPuU9K... |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | BOSTER: < cro777 "I will be back">.
Carefully studing your puzzle I still can't find the answer: Who is "I"? |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | nok: <Rapid champ is Ivanchuk. Blitz Champ is Karjakin.> The shorter time controls getting more attention is a good thing. The days of the classical title getting all the prestige are gone. In fact, the rapid and blitz titles are much fairer. I've always found the Steinitz privilege of seeding the champ in the final grossly unfair. |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | cro777: <BOSTER: I still can't find the answer: Who is "I"?> The chosen one. |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | Jambow: <No one wants to be washed up at 28.> It seems that the difference between not at ones peak and washed up is confusing to some people? Those are two very different things <SirRuthless> I think we agree more than not but Magnus very well might have better days ahead, Kramnik at 42 is playing better than ever with his riskier style.
Not that he isn't losing more games only that his over all % is better than before, due to less draws. Aronian rising again etc. Most players peak in their thirties not twenties. We do agree Carlsen is playing with less acuracy the past two years, frankly I think he is slightly disinterested which could drop him off his perch. |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | Mirovsk: Here is some history...from the 60's...the age the WC lost their title...
Petrossian - 40 years
Spassky - 35
Karpov - 34
Kasparov - 37
Kramnik - 32
Anand - 44
Do you really think that Carlsen will lose it before 30? |
|
| Jun-26-17 | | BOSTER: If Caruana wins Candidates,everything
is possible. |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | fisayo123: Maxime with the Fischer-esque +4 ahead of the field, including the World Champion. This is in a way remniscent of Herceg Novi. Without question one of the highlights of Vachier Lagrave's career. |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | starry2013: Carlsen would have done better with increment, probably won quite easily. It's strange that you have blitz ratings for games with totally different rules. I suppose it's the same with other time controls like classical, but it does show what a mess things are in chess as far as the rules go. |
|
Jun-27-17
 | | keypusher: <fisayo123: Maxime with the Fischer-esque +4 ahead of the field, including the World Champion. This is in a way remniscent of Herceg Novi. Without question one of the highlights of Vachier Lagrave's career.> "+4 ahead of the field" = MVL finished +8 overall (+10-2=6), winning an 18-round tournament by two points. Fischer was +16 overall (+17-1=4) at Herceg Novi and finished 4 1/2 points ahead of Tal. It was a nice tournament for MVL. Don't get carried away. |
|
Jun-27-17
 | | chancho: <Magnus Carlsen
@MagnusCarlsen
Happy and relieved after my first win at the Paris @GrandChessTour Rapid and Blitz!> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDRhE4g... |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | WorstPlayerEver: Fischer could remember all his blitz games. |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | gokusano: If Fischer had the luxury of computer assistance, he could monsterize all adversaries the soviet union may hurl against him. |
|
Jun-27-17
| | keypusher: <Gokusano: If Fischer had the luxury of computer assistance, he could monsterize all adversaries the soviet union may hurl against him.> If Fischer had the luxury of computer assistance, all his opponents would too, which would mean he'd be forced to play vanilla openings like everyone does now. Computers make it harder for one player to dominate. |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | Everyone: Prejudice is a great time saver. <Everyone> can form opinions without having to get the facts. |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | botvinnik64: "Prejudice is a great time saver."
Everyone: well said! |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | SirRuthless: Too clever. |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | Nf8: A question for players from the US – is the Bronstein-delay type of time control that's used in the Grand Tour at all common there? I know that "delay" – rather than increments – is supposed to be more familiar in the US than in other places, but I thought it's "countdown"-delay (i.e., when it becomes a player's turn to move, the clock waits for the delay period before starting to subtract from the player's remaining time). |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | Mirovsk: "Kramnik: My influence is usually underestimated. Look at what people are playing these days: Sicilian Sveshnikov, Petroff, the Berlin Defence. Others are playing the openings that were developed by me. I am being copied these days, and so is my defensive playing style. Very few players play like Kasparov in the '90s. The grandmasters consider my style more efficient. It's all about deeper understanding. The more we analyse with computers, the more we believe in defence. I was the first to display this clearly, particularly in my games against Kasparov. You can't play the same way today as people did ten years ago. I admire Kasparov's imaginative attacking victories from the '80s and '90s, but when you check them with a computer, in every other game the machine accepts the sacrifice, defends, and wins. This kind of attack on the edge of a bluff just doesn't work anymore. We are under the influence of computers and we are defending much more precisely. Kasparov himself has adapted his style. He even admits that he now plays like I do."
http://en.chessbase.com/post/kramni... |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | Mirovsk: Carlsen... 8 tiebreaks since 2007... 8 victories.. |
|
| Jun-27-17 | | BOSTER: <keypusher>:<Computers make it harder for one player to dominate>.
This is interesting idea.But Q:is this truth?
" We are all equal,but some people are more equal than others". |
|
| Jun-28-17 | | Sokrates: Thanks for the quote, <Mirovsk>. This is the Kramnik we know. He constantly needs to tell us how fantastic a player he was and is, often at the cost of others. First he didn't qualify correctly to challenge Kasparov. When he beat him, or rather Kasparov committed suicide, he told everybody that Kasparov really wasn't such a great player. Before his match with Anand, he questioned Anand's rights although Anand had earned his title fair and square. And finally, Carlsen was nothing special when he emerged and rocketed to the top. It is clear that Kramnik is above all of them, he is the greatest chessplayer who either is or should be imitated by all others, since he, the genius, has proved that his way of conducting the game is the best. Kramnik IS a great player. But why he needs to underline that constantly, while degrading others, is beyond me. Will chess history recall his reign as a champ as the most memorable? Will he be regarded as the most brilliant of all the champs? I am sure HE would agree wholeheartedly. |
|
| Jun-28-17 | | BOSTER: "We are defending much more precisely", said Kramnik, who didn't
see mate in one move playing vs computer. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
