|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 285 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-28-06 | | hitman84: <lostemperor>I have posted some info on Sultan Khan page. I feel he was'nt that great a player compared to his contemporaries, Yates and the likes. |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | slomarko: <lostemperor> well Euwe was far less amateur than say Lasker, Capablanca, Reshesky or Fine. he worked harder than any of those. if u compare him with the post-war soviet champions then maybe he was an amateur however he had his peek during 30' and at the time he worked very hard on chess compared to other top players. |
|
Sep-28-06
 | | lostemperor: <hitman84> I've read the bio on that page. <After winning the All-India Championship in 1928 (+8, =1, -0) he went to England and quickly came to the notice of English masters William Winter and Frederick D Yates who helped him overcome his lack of theoretical knowledge. He was British Champion in 1929, 1932 and 1933.> Of course Khan had to learn the western version of chess first. That was a "complete mystery" to him and Yates taught him. Such things takes time. His opening's play, especially with black has moments of "blood-curdling jeopardy". Even though when he first came to England he promptly won the British championship. <slomarko> I thought the main objection was why I put Euwe over Botvinnik. As in comparison to pre-war players. I did say Euwe was less than Capablanca, Lasker, Reshevsky and Alekhine. I don't see the problem. |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | slomarko: western version of chess? and what version was he playing before that? |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | positionalgenius: <lostemperor>I bet you didn't expect this sort of reaction when you posted the top-30! here are my responses:
"Kasparov ranked Kramnik #1".He may have in the 1990s but he ranks Karpov as his toughest opponent ever.You didn't respond to that.
"Capablanca ranked Khan a genius"He did?? Then I will shut up.
Putting kramnik at 5 is still insane.
Still,your list is interesting.Remember Kramnik was trained by Botvinnik.(As were Karpov and Kasparov). |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | you vs yourself: <Don't forget that Leko won Dortmunt Linares and Corus (only Kasparov and Kramik has done)!> Anand was actually the first player to do this. |
|
Sep-29-06
| | lostemperor: <you vs yourself> Okay my mistake. Maybe Karpov also has? I don't know actually. Btw. talking about mistakes: a spelling's mistake of mine: definitely should be read as definitively above. <slomarko> Khan was playing the Indian version what allows pawns to only move one field. <positionalgenius> Karpov was definitively Kasparov toughest opponent, no doubt about that! What you think I should I add to that I don't know (but I have a feeling) You keep saying putting Kramnik on 5 is insane. Kramnik beat Kasparov to nil. If you look at the games, Kasparov had no chance against Kramnik in 2000. At the very least it is not insane to put Kramnik on 5 over Kasparov. Maybe one can find it doubtful or dubious but it cannot be insane. For the simple reason alone that kramnik beat Kasparov. I do feel Kramnik should be put on 5 for more than one reason. Okay guess whose list of topplayers this is:
1. Kasparov
2. Capablanca
3. Karpov
4. Fischer
5. Kramnik
Kramnik on 5? That's insane! This was in fact your list <positionalgenius> as you put on September 19. I guess you meant to say putting Kramnik ahead of Kasparov is insane. As I explained, it simply is not. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: look at astana 2001 kasparov destryoed kramnik in that game. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | positionalgenius: <lostemperor>Thats was the list of 5 greatest World champs,and after Kramnik I had ?? as he's still creating his legacy.
<slomarko>And? |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: <positionalgenius> what and? |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | positionalgenius: <slomarko>The Astana game was a Berlin defense,a defense which Kasparov was unable to dent in the title match.So that victory,while good,isn't that big of a deal. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: well that victory was important for 3 reasons:
1.) it decided the winner of a super tournament.
2.) Kasparov showed he finaly found a way of breaking the Berlin. (note that kramnik doesnt play the berlin anymore)
3.) it was a pretty game |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: <lostemperor> i think you should move morozevich into top 15. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: putting Kramnik ahead of Kasparov is very very absurd |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | positionalgenius: <slomarko>I agree on all 3,but the berlin in general is being defeated more often.
Morozevich?? I don't think so.
He flops vs Kasparov and kramnik,and has never won a super tournament. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: his achivement at monaco amber tourney this year was worthy of a chess genius! |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | positionalgenius: <slomarko>Amber is a rapid tournament.If he does that at Corus,then I'll give him credit. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: well but <lostemperor> made a list of biggest chess geniuses not strongest player. and playing without looking at the board and scoring 9,5 out of 11 in a field comprising Anand, Leko, Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Gelfand, Svidler, Aronian, Topalov... is nothing short of breathtaking. a sign of true genius. i cant see for example Leko or Adams doing that. so <lostempor> time to move Moro up! |
|
Sep-29-06
| | lostemperor: Moro doesn't fit in the list. At least not yet. I have now also taken account of absolute strength of the players, not just talent so it will be more understandable for those who see this for the first time. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | positionalgenius: <slomarko>
1.It was rapid
2.Morozevich never was world champ,and never will be
3.I appreciate Moro's talents.I just watched him beat Karjakin in online blitz games on playchess.com. He was great.results:
1.Karjakin-moro 1-0
2.Moro-karjakin 0-1
3.Moro-karjakin 1/2
4.karjakin-moro 0-1
5.moro-karjakin 1-0
6.karjakin-moro 0-1
7.moro-karjakin 1-0
Karjakin used the najdorf as black,while moro used the taimanov,or schenevigen.
Here's the final game's crucial position:
click for larger viewin this position Karjakin played 32...Qxh2??
and Morozevich crushes with 33.Qg6!! and karjakin resigned and left the server.:) |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: <2.Morozevich never was world champ,and never will be> well <lostemperor>'s list is full of players who were never world champ and never will be! move 33.Qg6 hardly deserves two exclamation marks.. |
|
| Sep-29-06 | | slomarko: <lostemperor> did u remove moro from the list? i see you make this list only to troll but i dont have time for this. put Euwe first Kramnik second and the dude who won british championship third. i dont care. |
|
| Sep-30-06 | | positionalgenius: <slomarko>Then leave."You made this list only to troll".Thats not respectful.Grow up. |
|
Sep-30-06
| | lostemperor: I will once more explain why I put Kramnik over Kasparov. Though not for trolls. Whether or not you agree is not for me to decide. I'm sure a lot people disagree. It is very simple actually! To rate someone over somebody else it only takes two things. An expert opinion and results to back it up. The expert opinion came from Kasparov himself when he called Kramnik "the most talented of all players he has ever seen. As far as talent is concerned he (Kramnik) is definitively the number one." What Kasparov was saying, undoubtfully, is that Kramnik in potential could be the greatest! Now you may or may not agree with Kasparov. That's not up to me. Now all we need are results to show that Kramnik has indeed reached a toplevel. This is even clearer. As a teenager and early twenties Kramnik showed he was almost equal to Kasparov. This make Kasparov sigh, that he never won a rapid game from Kramnik. "not one single game" (1996)! Later (1n 1999 - 2000) Kramnik was undefeated for a record 84 games. And this was even before the title match with Kasparov. Now we all know what happened in that match. If you look at the games it was all Kramnik. According to Kasparov a match is the purest thing to measure the strengths of two players. Perhaps even more important is that Kramnik took the first place from Kasparov in the PCA- ratinglist. Now having said this, Kramnik has no longevity, Kasparov has. So in this respect, Kasparov is a greater champion. If you read Kramnik's old interviews it was clear energy was important for his successes. His drinking habit doesn't help this. Kramnik is long past his prime if you ask me.
Last year, Topalov, who plays formidable and still seem to get stronger, deservingly took the world #1 spot. But this is another matter. |
|
| Sep-30-06 | | positionalgenius: <lostemperor>Interesting post.
1.Kramnik could be entering a "second prime".look at his games this year.we'll see though.I agree,his games in 2000 were flat out powerful.
2.The 84 game streak is impressive.But i must point to kasparov's 10 straight super tournaments,and Karpov's record-breaking number of tourney wins-over 180!
3.Kasparov played kramnik when he was at the end of his prime,so we don't really know how good Kramnik is compared to Kasparov.Thats just my take,I'm sure many will disagree.
4.If Kramnik that strong in the 1990s,then why did he lose all those matches? Then are you basing putting him at #5 off of his post-2000 form?
Puzzling. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 285 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
