|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-27-15 | | Conrad93: <They are not updated with the latest theory> Kasparov being the exception. He retired in 2005, and I'm sure he has been keeping up with opening theory in his spare time. Kasparov would be a very strong contender even in today's tournaments. very few players could compete with Kasparov regarding opening theory.
The guy is a walking database. |
|
Apr-27-15
 | | Check It Out: <Sokrates> I could be wrong but I think you missed <Petrosianic>'s point. The historical players he used as examples played on after their prime and in no way tarnished their legacies as a result. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | Volmac: Kasparov humiliated Short in this match. Absolutely fascinating! I guess Kasparov have been waiting for this moment for 20 years. In the Kasparov - Short World Championship Match (1993) Kasparov couldn't dominate Short in the second half of the match, actually he expressed after the match his dissatisfation that he wasn't the last who won a game. The feeling now of complete domination must be orgiastic! Kasparov is the Pai Mei of chess! (fictive dialogue) - Kasparov: Magnus Carlsen tells me... you're not entirely unschooled. What training do you possess? - Short: I am proficient in unusual classical openings, and I am more than proficient in the exquisite art of playing complex middlegame positions. - Kasparov: (scoffs) The exquisite art of playing complex middlegame positions. Don't make me laugh! Your so called exquisite art, is only fit for... Greek fat-heads! (laughs) Your anger amuses me. Do you believe you are my match? - Short: No. - Kasparov: Go to that board. Set up the pieces. (spilling sound) Let's see how good you are. If... you win a single game, I'll bow down and call you master. (several humiliating games later) Excruciating... isn't it? - Short: Yes! - Kasparov: If it was my wish... I could beat you with knight odds. - Short: No, please don't! - Kasparov: (laughs) It's my pieces. I can do what I please. If you can stop me... I suggest you try. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | belgradegambit: I think Short is just not "hard-wired" to play Kasparov. Perhaps one of the Polgar sisters could give Kasparov a better match. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | Edeltalent: Watching this made me realize how much I miss Kasparov, the chess idol of my childhood. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | Chessinfinite: <Perhaps one of the Polgar sisters could give Kasparov a better match.> Yes, the result cannot be more one-sided.
Maybe Short feels he is doing the world a favour, by playing weakly against the mighty Kasparov, I think it is time Short Challenged Judit and test his powers, i think he will have a tough time to get past her ! |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | devere: <Chessinfinite: <Perhaps one of the Polgar sisters could give Kasparov a better match.> Yes, the result cannot be more one-sided. Maybe Short feels he is doing the world a favour, by playing weakly against the mighty Kasparov, I think it is time Short Challenged Judit and test his powers, i think he will have a tough time to get past her !> Nigel Short has a lifetime record against Judit Polgar of 3 wins, 8 losses, and 5 draws in classical chess, and 0 wins, 4 losses, and 0 draws in speed chess. That is one reason why his comments about women playing chess are so ludicrous. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | VaselineTopLove: Kasparov is surely anticipating such matches with Vishy when he retires. He can't let Vishy humiliate him even if they are competing for the World Senior Championships, so it makes sense to remain prepared, which (preparation) is what explains his domination over Short. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | MagnusVerMagnus: Kazspy is just an uber-player, like others sports..say marathon runners, yes they can still run better than most but they will be miles behind the new genetically superior and younger runners (kaspy is not gonna be seen that far back nor would I if I was him)...its nature. Its Darwinism and Maxwellism (he was never credited as he should have been) We are not meant to live forever but to procreate and pass on information (genes) to keep creating better humans. Imho...sorry to blab so much... |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | jphamlore: I think at this stage of his life, Kasparov is simply incapable of devoting anywhere close to his full energies to the game of chess. If he could do that, I believe he could reach the top 10. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | jphamlore: Also I think Kasparov is deliberately downplaying his current abilities because a lot of people I suspect would be far more interested in seeing him play chess than anything else including politics, whereas Kasparov's dream is to be known and remembered as a statesman, not simply a chess player. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | MagnusVerMagnus: agree < JPH > He would rather fail trying to do something far superior for his country and others than not try...though of course these games remind us small minority how much he did to entertain us for decades, and many others in the future. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | AsosLight: Kasparov still be top 10 today, are you nuts? He is either no1 or no2. Even his pushover is #2 currently. |
|
| Apr-27-15 | | kkdogg: devere wrote, "Nigel Short has a lifetime record against Judit Polgar of 3 wins, 8 losses, and 5 draws in classical chess, and 0 wins, 4 losses, and 0 draws in speed chess. That is one reason why his comments about women playing chess are so ludicrous." WIthout getting into the merits of Short's comments, why does the fact that one woman has a better head-to-head record at chess invalidate his point? (It's not like he said he could beat every woman giving them knight odds...) I play tennis. I would not win a single point in a set against Serena Williams. Would it still be ludicrous for me to suggest that men have strong biological advantages when it comes to playing tennis? |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | Sokrates: <Check It Out: <Sokrates> I could be wrong but I think you missed <Petrosianic>'s point. The historical players he used as examples played on after their prime and in no way tarnished their legacies as a result.> If you are right, I gladly stand corrected. <Petrosianic>, please let me know! :-) |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | jphamlore: According to Wikipedia, in the entire history of Go, there has only been one Westerner who has reached the level of 9-dan, and he was born in 1963, so he is apparently the Judit Polgar of Western Go players. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michae... I doubt many would offer a genetic explanation for such a colossal disparity between East and West in this intellectual pursuit. The irony was that Polgar's father was trying to demonstrate how intense training of the young could produce prodigies, an effort in which he apparently succeeded. (Although it seems he also proved the value of innate talent as Judit Polgar quickly outpaced her sisters once she learned the game.) But where Polgar's father failed was that he simply did not follow best practice of any other intellectual pursuit. It would be unthinkable to teach physics in such a manner that all all costs there should be no mention of statistical mechanics or electrodynamics and relativity. Nor would one teach mathematics completely ignoring algebra or complex analysis. So why is it acceptable in chess for a player to avoid having to play a Queen's Gambit Declined completely? As I have written before, an innate aspect of genius seems to be a demand to actively take things apart and put them back together for the sake of knowing. Read anything written by Richard Feynman. Look at the current champion Magnus Carlsen who apparently taught himself the game. There is seemingly nothing about chess that Magnus Carlsen is not curious about, that he does not play over the board to see for himself. To me that's the attitude that is not being cultivated in female players, and that is why they are not reaching the very top of the sport at the moment. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | kkdogg: jphamlore, not sure if that response was to me, but if so, I prefaced my comments with "WIthout getting into the merits of Short's comments". I was critiquing devere's (and the common) reasoning that since Nigel Short lost to Judit Polgar in chess, he is wrong about men being genetically better than women. As for myself, I would suspect that men have more of a genetic propensity to have interests in meaningless logical games, and a single-minded interest in chess seems necessary to perform at the highest level. But that's sheer conjecture. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | Catholic Bishop: <So why is it acceptable in chess for a player to avoid having to play a Queen's Gambit Declined completely?> This is a ridiculous piece of logic. The goal of a professional player in any game is to WIN, NOT to crowd your memory with useless facts. This is why Anna Ushenina was women's world champion and that dude in your local club who knows the bishop+knight checkmate blindfolded has a rating of 1600. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | Catholic Bishop: <Nor would one teach mathematics completely ignoring algebra or complex analysis.> If your research area is in combinatorics, learning complex analysis will be as useful to you as memorizing a rachmaninov concerto. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | Caissanist: Wrt Polgar--Short peaked early; his WC match with Kasparov basically marked the end of his time as a top-tier WC contender, though he did make the top ten once more (in 1997, when he was tenth). Most players who spent much time in the top ten after 2000 have plus scores against him, many of them more lopsided than Polgar's (e.g. Shirov 6-0-8, Ivanchuk 13-1-17). If you're going to pick a player from that generation who all of us would like to see play Kasparov in an exhibition match, then the obvious candidate is Kramnik. Hey, I can dream, can't I? |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | Conrad93: <I doubt many would offer a genetic explanation for such a colossal disparity between East and West in this intellectual pursuit.> Simple explanation: Go is many times more popular in Japan than in Western countries. Japan has tournaments with a far larger pay out. The big three tournaments alone pay over 100,000 dollars each. Go players are treated like celebrities. The games are broadcast live on national TV. Many of the critical go publications regarding fuseki and joseki have yet to be translated into English. Publications that are translated into English are very difficult to find, unless you go into niche markets. The exception of course being, more well-known books, which you can find on Amazon. Go clubs in western countries are rare, and those that do exist charge very high prices. They usually don't last very long, because members are hard to find. Go is also less mentioned than chess in Western media. The one well-known exception is the scene in A Beautiful Mind. Players who have gone to China or Japan to study Go have managed to increase their rating substantially. It's the environment and culture. Has nothing to do with genetics. And, on a final note, becoming a 9 dan is far more difficult in go than becoming a GM in chess. The process is intensive and there is an age limit. Any questions? |
|
Apr-28-15
 | | Sally Simpson: "Any questions?"
Just one. Why are we talking about a Go on a chess site. Take it to Go.com. ----
No real surprise at the margin of defeat.
Kasparov would have racked up roughly the same blitz score against anyone except Carlsen and Nakamura. If he made a return to the top flight he would command and get more appearance fee than the current champ and only those two and Anand would give him any trouble. The rest would play like rabbits caught in headlights. So c'mon Gary you still have at least 5 good years left. You are the greatest player to have ever pushed a pawn, don't tease us with this half-assed return or turn yourself into circus side show playing cartoon blitz chess. Politics is an old man's game - do that when you are 60. |
|
Apr-28-15
 | | tpstar: <Why are we talking about a Go on a chess site> Go Kasparov. |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | john barleycorn: Go home, Kasparov. Go, go, go. Russia needs you most |
|
| Apr-28-15 | | kia0708: Nigel Short is put to the sword. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
