| Aug-18-08 | | Vorph: Was there no way for van Wely to play on for a win? |
|
| Aug-18-08 | | PinkPanther: I wonder if Adams' balls are ever going to drop. |
|
Aug-18-08
 | | keypusher: <PinkPanther: I wonder if Adams' balls are ever going to drop.> I'm sure he's got some testosterone to spare for you, Pink. |
|
| Aug-18-08 | | PinkPanther: At least I try to win every game I play. That's more than he can say. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | skakmiv: Well, a draw in the last round secured Adams the tournament win. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | PinkPanther: So? Winning a tournament like this is a feather in Mickey's cap, I'm sure.... |
|
Aug-19-08
| | keypusher: <PinkPanther: At least I try to win every game I play. That's more than he can say.> So do I. So does every patzer. But practically no super-GM does. Look, if professional chess isn't manly enough for you, try pro wrestling. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | Alphastar: <PinkPanther> you would take the draw too, if it meant securing first place in a tournament, which in turn would net you a nice prize fund. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | PinkPanther: <Alphstar>
For some reason, I would have to believe Adams' time would be better spent doing something other than playing in a tournament where it's all but impossible to win rating points with his playing philosophy. The prestige of winning this tournament is negligible and I'm sure the prize fund isn't terribly substantial either.<keypusher>
There are plenty of Super GM's who play basically every game aggressively enough (even with black) to produce winning chances. Topalov, Morozevich, Radjabov, Carlsen, Polgar, Anand...man, what a bunch of nobodies. |
|
Aug-19-08
| | keypusher: <<keypusher>
There are plenty of Super GM's who play basically every game aggressively enough (even with black) to produce winning chances. Topalov, Morozevich, Radjabov, Carlsen, Polgar, Anand...man, what a bunch of nobodies.> "[B]asically" every game...in other words, not every game. A real man would admit that he was wrong, but you prefer to prevaricate. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | PinkPanther: <keypusher>
I'm sure there is the odd game/situation where even a very aggressive GM wouldn't play for a win. Winning some meaningless, third-rate tournament probably wouldn't be one of them. There is a substantial difference between having an occasional game where you don't feel like playing for a win, and having it be your overall chess philosophy like Adams, or Kramnik, or Gelfand do. I believe it was Fischer that said that one of his great epiphanies in chess was that he didn't have to settle for mere draws or equality with black. I believe it was Tal who said that playing for a draw with white was an inherent crime against the game of chess. Unfortunately, there are still those who don't share their opinions. Oh, by the way, thanks for trying to educate me as to what constitutes "a real man". Making statements like that just makes you come across as an idiot. I'm not wrong in my assessment of Adams' chess philosophy or in the philosophy of the others I mentioned. Adams has turned into a complete coward with black. He doesn't even try to play the Marshall attack anymore, and many of the things he plays against d4 are rather sterile as well. |
|
Aug-19-08
| | keypusher: <Pink Panther>
<Oh, by the way, thanks for trying to educate me as to what constitutes "a real man". Making statements like that just makes you come across as an idiot. > Very well. But statements like this:
<I wonder if Adams' balls are ever going to drop> don't even reach the level of idiocy. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | PinkPanther: Uh, it was a joke. Do you know what those are? |
|
Aug-19-08
| | keypusher: <Pink Panther> Yes, I do. They are supposed to be funny. |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | PinkPanther: Whether you found my joke funny or not is irrelevant. You can't really call things that are meant in jest like that "idiotic". What's idiotic about it? |
|
Aug-19-08
| | keypusher: Because it really wasn't a joke, sadly. Instead, it's the latest iteration of a theme, which is that the way Michael Adams plays chess isn't "ballsy" enough for you. Your posts on that topic are ivariably childish. <May-27-07 PinkPanther: You know, I know I might catch some flak for this, but I'm off the Adams bandwagon. I will still cheer for him a bit, and I wish him well, but I have come to grips with the fact that the guy will always be a loser on the upper levels of chess. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride, as they say. Watching Adams play in tournaments is always the same, and it will always have the same ending: One that doesn't have him in first place. He often starts out well in tournaments, and in games too, only to choke and let his good results and positions crumble. It was a nice 3 or 4 years, Michael, but I'm done. And no, I'm not becoming a fan of anybody else, I'm just resigning interest in chess.> <May-28-07 PinkPanther: Mickey isn't "pacing" himself, he's showing me --- yet again --- that he has no killer instinct. AT ALL.> <May-28-07 PinkPanther: Michael "I'm just in it for the paycheck and to basically maintain my rating" Adams.> By the way, if you've resigned interest in chess, why are you still here? |
|
| Aug-19-08 | | PinkPanther: I am here because of general boredom, frankly. I am in the process of switching jobs and the new job is about a couple weeks away because I have to become officially certified for it. If you look at my posting history and how rarely I have posted over the past year or two, you will see that my interest in chess has indeed taken a nose dive. Furthermore, yes, regardless of my past comments about Adams, my comment on this game was a joke. Do I really believe his balls haven't descended? Well, uh, no. So therefore you have to look for a deeper meaning to what I said, and once you do that you will probably come to the conclusion that it was a joke. Congratulations on have the ability to read between the lines of a six year old. |
|
| Jan-28-09 | | WhiteRook48: "Loek! It's Van Wely!" |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
