|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-30-06 | | THE pawn: Many thanks to Raymond Keene for providing this exciting historical game! |
|
Feb-10-06
 | | ray keene: this was from the match which bogo won 3-1 |
|
Feb-10-06
 | | Calli: Ray, thanks!
I tried to figure out what games belong ot this match. Game Collection: 1920 Match Nimzowitsch vs. Bogoljubov Could not find the 4th and last game. Is it available? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Ray accurately notes that Nimzo and Bogo were a level just below the elite. |
|
Feb-03-12
 | | FSR: <RookFile> Just below world champions, you mean. Nimzo and Bogo were "elite." See, for example, Chessmetrics' rating list for September 1929: <1. Alekhine 2796
2. Capablanca 2795
3. Nimzowitsch 2780
4. Bogolyubow 2738
5. Euwe 2733
6. Rubinstein 2718>
http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Sing... |
|
Feb-03-12
| | FSR: Apparently <RookFile> is savoring every single Nimzowitsch loss. Bizarre. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Elite means top of the list, not third. Nimzo never got there. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | Shams: <Elite means top of the list, not third. Nimzo never got there.> No, that's not what it means. |
|
Feb-03-12
| | FSR: <RookFile: Elite means top of the list, not third. Nimzo never got there.> "Elite" is broader than "champion." A super-tournament like Tata Steel is an "elite tournament." If you Google define:elite, you get this definition: <A group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth.> The exact number in such a "group" is debatable, and will vary based on what you're talking about - but it's almost always greater than one. In the current chess world, I would consider, at a minimum, those rated 2750 and up (13 players at the moment) to be "elite" players. That number is very likely too low. It doesn't include Gelfand, for example, the next world championship challenger, who is "only" rated 2727, No. 22 in the world. http://www.2700chess.com/ In the chess world of (say) August 1929, the top players were not so tightly bunched in terms of strength. Player No. 22, Boris Kostic, was rated over 200 points below player No. 1, Alekhine. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Sing... But I would certainly consider at least the top 8 players, whose ratings ranged from 2796 to 2699, to be among the elite. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Ok, so Nimzo wasn't the best. Ray Keene noted some players that were above him. A record of 3 wins, 14 losses, and 15 draws against Alekhine and Capablanca might get you the title of Miss Congeniality, but you don't get to say you're elite. By the way, chessmetrics is a system that rewards players based upon activity. The same system, if used in tennis, would say that Jimmy Connors was the greatest player ever. Most tennis experts argue over whether it was Sampras or Federer. |
|
Feb-03-12
| | FSR: How about Spielmann's record against Alekhine and Capablanca (+4 =18 -5)? http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... and http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches.... Was he elite? How about Geller, who had a plus score against world champions? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: < Shams: <Elite means top of the list, not third. Nimzo never got there.>
No, that's not what it means.>
Trying to talk sense to this idiot is like telling <jombar> that Nakamura can actually play chess some except that <RookFile> will cherry pick facts and combine them with opinions in his obsession to prove that Nimzo was a tenth rate player. <jombar>'s just an idiot. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: <FSR> In a week or two <RookFile> will have completed his mission of exposing Nimzowitsch as a fraud, we should all rest easy and let him have "fun". And I thought some of the Naka haters were bad, they don't waste time on every single game at least. |
|
Feb-03-12
 | | keypusher: <RookFile>
<By the way, chessmetrics is a system that rewards players based upon activity. The same system, if used in tennis, would say that Jimmy Connors was the greatest player ever. Most tennis experts argue over whether it was Sampras or Federer.> Why do you never tire of showing your idiocy about chess ratings? If you had any sense or discretion you would never write a word about them. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: <keypusher> The two traits you mention in the second sentence seem to be alien to this poster. I guess by that "logic" somebody like Fischer would have made 3000 if he hadn't quit, then there's Lasker who had all that time away from active play. Another player that would have made 3000 for sure. Nimzo though, he was lucky to make 2400 in the system, he was so bad. |
|
Feb-03-12
| | FSR: <King Death> I'm looking forward to <RookFile>'s forthcoming book, <Nimzowitsch - A Re-Reappraisal>. He really ought to let John Watson know about his discoveries, since Watson will surely want to retitle his book currently named (absurdly) <Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch>. <RookFile> might also want to take a leaf from Znosko-Borovsky and write a book <How Not to Play Chess: Learn From Nimzowitsch's Mistakes>. |
|
Feb-03-12
 | | whiteshark: To Whom It May Concern: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jBW0tfDKT... |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: <FSR> Man, I go up to Eugene to see some friends for a day and come back to find an explosion of groundbreaking research by <RookFile>. Even though this site doesn't have every game Nimzo ever played there's a treasure trove for our man to work with. Yeah, Watson can't touch the genius of CG. Maybe he'll even give <RF> a cut of his royalties. |
|
Feb-03-12
| | FSR: <whiteshark> LOL! |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | ughaibu: "Nimzo wasn't the best", JFC, who TF ever claimed that he was? Spamming the front page, for days, with idiotic comments on his losses. . . . get a @#$%* grip. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | ughaibu: Fair enough, but then again, as not being the best is the case for all but one players, it's an almost universal state. Naturally, you're now committed to the view that for almost all of their careers, the following players were not in the "top tier": Pillsbury, Marshall, Reshevsky and Fischer. Apart from these, almost all players weren't in the, so-called, top tier for most of their careers. In short, you have insisted yourself into the corner of triviality, you have succeeded in establishing a piece of vacuous nonsense, about which nobody, including you, if you're honset about it, could possibly give the least piece of infected faeces. |
|
Feb-03-12
 | | Gypsy: <A record of 3 wins, 14 losses, and 15 draws against Alekhine and Capablanca might get you the title of Miss Congeniality, but you don't get to say you're elite.> However, 2 wins 0 loses and 3 draws against Lasker and Euwe shows that this particular Miss Congeniality could put together a decent game of chess from time to time. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Try to focus, boys. The only one spamming here is you. I noted that Ray Keene, <on this page>, observed that Nimzo and Bogo were below the top. He's right. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: < RookFile: Try to focus, boys. The only one spamming here is you...> Either your English or math skills need a little work. For sure your trolling and spamming skills don't. <...I noted that Ray Keene, <on this page>, observed that Nimzo and Bogo were below the top. He's right.> <ray keene>'s right but you wouldn't be one to know. You just won't make the distinction between world champion and title contender because of your intense dislike for these players. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: < Gypsy: <A record of 3 wins, 14 losses, and 15 draws against Alekhine and Capablanca might get you the title of Miss Congeniality, but you don't get to say you're elite.>
However, 2 wins 0 loses and 3 draws against Lasker and Euwe shows that this particular Miss Congeniality could put together a decent game of chess from time to time.> Putting facts in there that don't lend weight to <RookFile>'s misguided campaign against the evil Lettish swine Nimzo just confuses him. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 28.Bxf4
