| Nov-28-05 | | amuralid: Why Sergey? Why?? Short draws are not good for men chasing immortality. Balogh is a hungarian GM. I was unable to find his age on FIDE's web site. He is currently rated 2527. |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | amuralid: My mistake. He is rated 2567. I saw the FIDE website and got the wrong rating :( |
|
Nov-28-05
 | | tpstar: Note 12. Rfd1 leaving the QR on a1 in case Black captures on b3. (I learned that before and forgot it. ;>D) Sometimes Black plays ... h6 to prevent any White pieces on g5, and then Nh4/Nf5 is a potential plan. Short draws are more understandable given the overall format. With the margin of error so vanishingly slim, some players might play for the tiebreaks instead. |
|
| Nov-29-05 | | roni.chessman: karjaker is a rapid expert. He has higher chances to rout a 2500 GM in a rapid tie breaker than in a 90 minute game. |
|
| Nov-29-05 | | aw1988: <Short draws are more understandable given the overall format. With the margin of error so vanishingly slim, some players might play for the tiebreaks instead.> Sorry, tpstar, but I find this quite hilarious. You state draws are understandable given the format, but you dislike Kramnik for drawing. The reality remains he is extremely difficult to defeat, and wins entire tournaments by drawing. Look at Linares, +2 -0 =10. He still won, because he didn't lose, even if an 8-move draw will do it. The onus is on his opponents to prove otherwise. I hasten to mention Kasparov's score in Linares 2004: +1, -0, =11. One more draw than Kramnik! If Kramnik continues to get away with draws, then he is proving that modern chess is extremely difficult, more so than before. I fail to see the problem. |
|
Nov-29-05
| | tpstar: <aw1988> This is a knockout tournament. They have 2 games against one opponent; if they lose Game 1, they must win Game 2 or else they're out. Two draws means they go to tiebreaks, then one of them goes home. Here's what I said yesterday about another short draw Movsesian vs M Paragua, 2005 Linares is an invitational tournament featuring the best players in the world. They receive appearance fees for playing, then prizes for placing. There is no knockout; they can lose every game yet still compete until the end. The entire chess world watches these events with huge interest. The original comment is correct = "Short draws are not good for men chasing immortality." I didn't feel compelled to say that again, but now I will. Furthermore, this "get away with draws" mentality is seriously damaging professional chess today. I suspect this is why Kramnik has precious little GM support for his present position. Finally, compare Linares 2004 (nearly universal disappointment) to San Luis 2005 (nearly universal approval) regarding the overall fighting spirit. See how my honest opinion is denounced as "hilarious." |
|
| Nov-29-05 | | aw1988: I respect you as an individual, don't get the wrong idea; I'm contesting your opinion, but hope we can nevertheless get along. See, the problem here is as follows: true, it's a knockout, but my point is if Kramnik can win Linares, one of the top tournaments in the world, with 10 draws, then the onus is on his opponents, not Kramnik. For purely chessic reasons, yes, I see no excitement in these draws, except of course when something interesting springs up, like a theoretical novelty for instance. If anything, Kramnik has forced everyone else to work hard. |
|
| Nov-29-05 | | KingG: <aw1988> It's not about the quantity of draws, it about the quality. Kasparov's draws in general were much more exiting than Kramnik's. |
|
| Nov-29-05 | | aw1988: I don't argue that for one minute. |
|
| Nov-29-05 | | aw1988: OK, perhaps the 'hilarious' label deserved consideration before posting. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
