|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-26-20
 | | keypusher: <Viking707: keypusher: You don't know what it means that they played at different times in the evolution of chess, particularly women's chess? > No, I don't. And neither, it appears, do you. The USSR put a lot of effort into chess for women, and Gaprindashvili benefited from that, though I think her successor Maia Chiburdanidze benefited more. <And your dismissal of women's chess suggests other issues.> True or false: the women's world championship is a weak event compared to the supertournaments Polgar chose to participate in. |
|
Sep-26-20
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
Comparing different players from their respective peak era's is always dubious. (Nona was born five years before Judit's father.) but always good fun. Nona is still playing, last year at 78 she won the over 65 female world chess championship. Susan/Zsuzsa Polgar evened up the family score v Nona in 1992 N Gaprindashvili vs Zsuzsa Polgar, 1992 *** |
|
Sep-26-20
 | | Diademas: Since I'm guessing you're trolling, I don't know why I bother to do this <Viking707>, but here we go anyway. <It is utter nonsense to say that Nona "never approached that level of accomplishment (Polgars).." when clearly, she exceeded [...]>
Polar reached a rating of 2735 and were top 10 for several years. Gaprindashvili peaked at 2495, never in top 100, and never formally even met the criteria set to be a GM. <[...] and won the title of IG with victories over many male IGs at the time.>
Gaprindashvili played a total of three games against male players who was, had been, or would be World Champions. Two losses against Spassky and a draw against an eighteen year old Anand. Judith has played numerous games against Smyslov, Spassky, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand and Carlsen and won against them all. She even had a plus score against the first two mentioned. <and given the different chess worlds they played in, it is silly to suggest that Polgar's record was "superior" to Nona's>
And yet you claim that <It is utter nonsense to say that Nona "never approached that level of accomplishment (Polgars).." when clearly, she exceeded> <And your dismissal of women's chess suggests other issues.>
No matter how "woke" you want to come across as, it's delusional to claim that the top level of chess amongst women are comparable to that of men. Even more so 40 years ago than today. <No woman has matched her domination of woman's chess as she did as champion for 16 years! >
Vera Menchik held the title even longer. Besides;
as <Keypusher> wrote: <Polgar didn't waste her time on the women's championship.> |
|
| Sep-26-20 | | Viking707: Diademas and Keypusher: I guess you two "own the irrefutable truth!" Judit MUST be better than Nona! It must be nice to know what would have been or what would be if great players from different eras played against each other in their prime. You should go into the prognostication business together. You could wear pointed "wizard hats" and look into crystal balls, and tell everyone else what to think! |
|
Sep-26-20
| | Diademas: <Viking707: Diademas and Keypusher: I guess you two "own the irrefutable truth!" Judit MUST be better than Nona! >
Thank you.
<It must be nice to know what would have been or what would be if great players from different eras played against each other in their prime.>
It's not that difficult when the level of accomplishments are on such different stratas. <You should go into the prognostication business together. You could wear pointed "wizard hats" and look into crystal balls, and tell everyone else what to think!>
Yes we could, or you could stop trolling. I wonder what happens first. |
|
Sep-26-20
 | | saffuna: This mirrors a current discussion about the best woman tennis player at Hans-Joachim Federer. |
|
Sep-26-20
| | Diademas: <saffuna: This mirrors a current discussion about the best woman tennis player at Hans-Joachim Federer.> Not really. At least the <best woman tennis player> is debatable. |
|
Sep-26-20
| | saffuna: Yes. There is no ELO for tennis. |
|
Sep-26-20
 | | perfidious: As <Diademas> notes, there is, at least some room for debate in tennis--only a troll or know-nothing could seriously assert that Judith Polgar is not the greatest female player of all time, in similar fashion to Stuey Ungar's claim as the GOAT in gin. Not even questionable. |
|
Sep-26-20
| | keypusher: <saffuna: This mirrors a current discussion about the best woman tennis player at Hans-Joachim Federer.> I assume you settled on this lady, who I think is just about to capture a wayward butterfly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzan... You know your stuff, as usual, but I was surprised you made no allowances for differences in equipment. To me wooden rackets versus modern rackets is almost like rook odds in chess terms. |
|
Sep-26-20
| | saffuna: <You know your stuff, as usual, but I was surprised you made no allowances for differences in equipment. To me wooden rackets versus modern rackets is almost like rook odds in chess terms.> I most definitely did. Not just rackets but strings, which are also important. You just have to go back a few posts. <Sep-17-20
Hans-Joachim Federer
Just by the eye test, Graf would have crushed Court. But Graf used high&tech rackets and strings, while Court used wood and gut. Any top 30 player today could crush any player from the 60s, but that's due to the rackets.> I consider myself to be quite restrained by not posting the video of Court-King Wimbledon 1970, which looks like pattycake compared to today's play. Again, rackets and strings play a large part. |
|
Sep-26-20
| | keypusher: <saffuna> Ah, OK, sorry for misunderstanding. Personally I kind of wish they had stuck with wooden rackets (as baseball stuck with wooden bats) because I thought it made for more interesting tennis. But that ship sailed, hit the iceberg, sank with all hands etc. long ago. |
|
Sep-26-20
| | saffuna: Aesthetically, absolutely. You can do so much with a modern racket that was unthinkable with wood. I loved my Slazenger. https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-TENNI... |
|
Sep-26-20
 | | HeMateMe: wooden racquets puts more value on fitness and foot speed. After the racquets became high powered the great volleyer Stefan Edberg had to retire because he was getting passed on all of his entry volleys. The smallish Martina Hingis was also finished, once the high powered racquets and strings were allowed. Golf takes care to make sure that advances in equipment are not allowed to overwhelm the golf courses. I think tennis should have done the same. |
|
Sep-26-20
| | saffuna: Reply on Lim page. |
|
| Jul-04-21 | | Brenin: Among a number of moves I don't understand here, why not 20 ... Nf6, with the threat of 21 ... Ne4? |
|
Jul-04-21
| | HeMateMe: what a slugfest! I remember playing through this year's ago. Judith wasn't quite in anand's league but this was a monster effort, here. |
|
| Jul-04-21 | | Saul Goodman: Nona was a great champion, but to compare her accomplishments to Judit Polgar is ridiculous. Judit Polgar was the top rated woman in the world for 25 years. She was in the top ten in the world for several years, peaking at #5 in 2004. She was the first and only woman to play against the top men in the world as an equal. She won several grandmaster tournaments where she was the only woman competitor. |
|
| Jul-04-21 | | andrewjsacks: Absolutely great game. |
|
Jul-04-21
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: If the database serves as any indication, 13.Bd2 *might* have been Polgar's "novel novelty," but it's hard to tell for certain. Quite a move to find--who would have guessed that a passive retreat to a weak square which also blocks the Rd1 would pose such problems? |
|
| Jul-04-21 | | Andrew Chapman: < Brenin: Among a number of moves I don't understand here, why not 20 ... Nf6, with the threat of 21 ... Ne4?>
21.Bxe5 and knight is pinned. |
|
Jul-04-21
 | | scutigera: <Saul Goodman>: Given the way you phrased it, I must agree: world champs are the gold standard and Polgar has a much better record against them than Gaprindashvili has, and her tournament record also implies superiority. Having said that, much of this discussion has been about things like intrinsic ability, which may be worthier but is much harder to measure, and is usually guessed at by subtracting extrinsic factors such as encouragement, availability of oppportunity, etc., There's no question Polgar had a lot more of those than Gaprindashvili did, so there's plenty of room for debate about who's the "better" player by various definitions, most of them unique to each debater. Personally, I like 'em both, although my heart inclines a bit towards Nona, the underdog. I'd rather be wrong, though, and proven wrong in public, than argue the matter in the style too often exhibited above (not you, Saul, although I'd have chosen a gentler word than "ridiculous"). I've never liked the loutish-fanboy, foot-on-the-fallen-body-of-the-loser aspect of sport, which is much of why I ended up a chess fan in the first place. |
|
Jul-05-21
| | HeMateMe: <I've never liked the loutish-fanboy, foot-on-the-fallen-body-of-the-loser aspect of sport, which is much of why I ended up a chess fan in the first place.> interesting, the different personalities that become world champions of chess. A bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov just lives and breathes chess. They want to gut you in the tournament hall with a bowie knife. They, you have fellows like Kramnik and Carlsen, who seem to be happy that, thinking out loud, "I play a board game really, really, good, and it's brought me a nice income. But, I have other interests as well." I'm just happy that both personalities can become world champion, if they have the innate talent and they work hard. Frankly, I think it's the Fischer/Kasparov types who end up miserable and die insane. Time will tell... |
|
| Jul-05-21 | | Dionysius1: I see what you mean. It was against the run of the green that Kasparov, for all his intensity about chess, managed to find other interests (politics mostly) that weren't at least immediately destructive. A weird character, that I don't like, but he seems to be able to look after himself well. |
|
Jul-27-21
| | scutigera: <A Bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov just lives and breathes chess. They want to gut you in the tournament hall with a bowie knife.> And yet even then the element of gloating over the opponent's loss is usually absent, and I think that's shown by how such players take even painful losses: they seem angriest at themselves and almost oblivious of their opponent. A (young) Fischer might leave the tournament hall "in tears", an Alekhine might throw his king across the room, a Nimzovich might stand on his chair and shout "Why must I lose to this idiot?", but things like Korchnoi's tirades against Irina Krush and Judit Polgar are rare and aberrant. At least I hope they are. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 9.g5
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}