|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 78 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Kasparov also has a psycholical advantage.
Players fear his calculating abilities and tend to make mistakes. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: Look above, conrad93:
<Jim Bartle: "He was way past his prime by the time he played Kramnik."That's just a joke. Look at Kasparov's record for 1999. In this database he went 36 =27 -3. Pretty good for past his prime, and he played in the major tournaments.> <Conrad93: He played against weak competition.> You claimed therefore he played weak competition in 1999. Do you want to see the list of the players he defeated that year? Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Adams, Topalov (one of the most famous games in decades), Svidler, Short, Sokolov, Morozevich, Timman, Piket, Shirov and Kasimzdzhanov. That’s every single strong player of that year except Leko, who he didn't play against. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Everett: <Conrad93> I think you are missing the point. Yes, Bronstein, is considered on the greatest, but as you surmised I was talking about a very short list, based on competitive achievements. I hope you can glean something more from my posts. |
|
Sep-15-12
 | | perfidious: <Everett> I've got a soft spot for Suba myself. Drop by my page sometime for some good discussion if you like. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Anand and Kramnik were still weak.
Both players got strong after 2000.
Adams in not in the same league as Kasparov.
Topalov was not yet the great player he is today.
Ivanchuk is an okay player. He let's stress easily get to him. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: "Anand and Kramnik were still weak."
In 1999? Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Everett: <Conrad93: Everett, none of those years claim that he was not in his prime in 1999. the claim is that he had a drastic decline after 2000.> Kasparov won 10 supertournaments on a row, ending with Linares 2002. He didn't have a drastic decline in 2000. Simply isn't true. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Everett Bronstein dominated chess from 1940-1950.
Are you just focusing on his career in the 50's and 60's, where he was still a rocket? |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: The claim was that he has had a decline from 2002-2012. After 2000 he slowly got weaker. It didn't become obvious till 2005. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Everett: <Conrad93: Kasparov also has a psycholical advantage. Players fear his calculating abilities and tend to make mistakes.> Yeah, I hate when the guy is very prepared for me, adapts to my style, puts constant pressure on me and can out-calculate me. Despite all this, the only reason why I lose to these guys is because of fear. Imagine, an entire successful career based on creating fear. Thing is, instilling fear in your opponents is earned. Fischer earned it, Karpov earned it, and Kasparov earned it. And guess what, even when their opponents did not fear them, they still won! How? Because.... wait for it... they were better! |
|
Sep-15-12
| | perfidious: <conrad93> is beginning to provide comic relief in the mould of the band on the 2012 World Blitz page. Anand and Kramnik-just a couple of donks-the veriest idiot in the streets knows they couldn't play in 1999, or now, of course. Rich theatre indeed. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: Conrad93, when I said Kasparov had a brilliant 1999 and gave his record, your reply was "He played against weak competition." That's just a joke. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Jim, you listed weak competition for 1999.
Ivanchuk and Adams are not in the same league.
Anand was not yet ready for Kasparov.
The only actual competition was Kramnik. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Everett, the main word is "tend."
I never claimed he won just through fear.
I claimed that it was a huge psychological advantage. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: All the best players in the world were weak competition for Kasparov except for Kramnik (who you called weak in 1999 just a few minutes ago). So you are in effect saying Kasparov was far and away the best player in 1999. Yet he was past his prime (according to an earlier post). |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Everett: <Conrad93: Everett Bronstein dominated chess from 1940-1950. Are you just focusing on his career in the 50's and 60's, where he was still a rocket?> I've read nearly everything out there on Bronstein. I have noticed the arc of his career, read his self-contradictions and inconsistencies, reviewed much of his brilliant play, gross blunders, and amazing experiments at the board. It is important to know that Bronstein did not dominate chess at all in the 40's. From 48-58, had a decade when he could have beaten any one of his peers, but he didn't dominate even then. I mean, when exactly was he clearly better than Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, etc? And when the late 50's moved into the 60's, when was he clearly better than Tal, Petrosian, and Spassky? My answer is "never." Still, the arc of his career has many facets, of which his competitive success is only a part. Bronstein was, more than anything, a trickster figure, at the board and off, with "crazy" ideas of speeding up play, competing vs computers, various simul ideas, clock and piece arrangement, etc., all when everyone thought it heretical. He is special to me for these reason, but these are not reasons to vote him the greatest chess player. This title is reserved for competitive achievements over an entire career. I think most on this site would agree with this. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: No, I said he was past his prime from 2002 to 2012. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: You said he was past his prime when Kramnik defeated him. That was in 2000. 2000 is before 2002-2012. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: He was past his prime.
I told you that Adams and Ivanchuk are weak players.
Even if Kasparov was drunk, he would have no trouble. Anand was still a weak player by modern standards in 1999. |
|
Sep-15-12
 | | OhioChessFan: Umm, <JB>......... |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: Oh, such BS.
July 1999 Elo ratings:
2 Anand 2771
3 Kramnik 2760
9 Adams 2708
10 Ivanchuk 2702
13 Topalov 2698 |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Everett: <Conrad93: Jim, you listed weak competition for 1999. Ivanchuk and Adams are not in the same league.
Anand was not yet ready for Kasparov.
The only actual competition was Kramnik.>
Actually Adams was terribly strong in '99, with White in particular. Easily top five for some time. I think Kramnik and Kasparov had a tied ELO in the late 90's, '96 maybe? Ivanchuk is one of the few players to really put heat on Kasparov, and has a couple of brilliancies to show for it. Oh <Conrad93> I'm afraid you may not get it. You have quite a few knowledgeable kibitzers here, who not only look at the ratings, but know a thing or two about the game. I also believe that most of us play currently, at least on line, and, hey, even I have won a prize in an under 2000 chess tourney at the Marshall. What I'm saying is that you need to look at the achievements of every chess player, and their actual play with some kind of objectivity. You'll get more out of the game, and grow to appreciate all the greats. It doesn't have to be so contentious. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: OK, OCF. No more. Unless he reaaaallly deserves it. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Bronstein:
Classical games: Vasily Smyslov tied David Bronstein 6 to 6, with 25 draws. David Bronstein beat Paul Keres 7 to 4, with 19 draws. Classical games: Mikhail Tal beat David Bronstein 12 to 8, with 18 draws. Bronstein was already tired and beat up during Petrosians golden age, but here is the record: Classical games: Mikhail Tal beat David Bronstein 12 to 8, with 18 draws. The same is true for Spassky. His career started during the dawn of the 50's. Classical games: Boris Spassky beat David Bronstein 4 to 0, with 18 draws. Bronstein obviously was one of the best players of his time. Geller was another dominating player from 1950-1965.
Classical games: David Bronstein tied Efim Geller 5 to 5, with 15 draws. |
|
Sep-15-12
| | perfidious: If anyone could be said to have dominated chess in the 1940s, it was the man whom Bronstein faced in his title match. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 78 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
