|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Try to focus, boys. The only one spamming here is you. I noted that Ray Keene, <on this page>, observed that Nimzo and Bogo were below the top. He's right. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: < RookFile: Try to focus, boys. The only one spamming here is you...> Either your English or math skills need a little work. For sure your trolling and spamming skills don't. <...I noted that Ray Keene, <on this page>, observed that Nimzo and Bogo were below the top. He's right.> <ray keene>'s right but you wouldn't be one to know. You just won't make the distinction between world champion and title contender because of your intense dislike for these players. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: < Gypsy: <A record of 3 wins, 14 losses, and 15 draws against Alekhine and Capablanca might get you the title of Miss Congeniality, but you don't get to say you're elite.>
However, 2 wins 0 loses and 3 draws against Lasker and Euwe shows that this particular Miss Congeniality could put together a decent game of chess from time to time.> Putting facts in there that don't lend weight to <RookFile>'s misguided campaign against the evil Lettish swine Nimzo just confuses him. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Since we're talking about facts, this would be a good time to mention that Lasker was well past his prime, and Euwe wasn't at his prime yet, when those games were played. I suppose King Death, that today you might beat Arnold Palmer on the golf course. It looks real good on paper, but some folks might understand there are mitigating circumstances. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | Marmot PFL: Too much pawn grabbing and too many queen moves (11/21). Eating an occasional pawn does no harm, but binging on them while the other pieces sit idle is seldom advisable. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: < RookFile: Since we're talking about facts, this would be a good time to mention that Lasker was well past his prime, and Euwe wasn't at his prime yet, when those games were played...> Here's a fact: the first Lasker-Nimzo encounter was played when Lasker won the event at St. Petersburg. Not too bad for a man "past his prime", but don't let that stop you. It's funny to actually see you defend Nimzowitsch here but of course it's all to try to prove that you're always right. <...I suppose King Death, that today you might beat Arnold Palmer on the golf course...> Nah, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have ever beaten him. He was a tough nut to crack. <...It looks real good on paper, but some folks might understand there are mitigating circumstances.> For what? Your stupidity? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: Nimzow's first game against Lasker was in 1914 was a draw, when Lasker WAS in his prime. 20 years later, Zurich 1934, where Lasker scored +9-2=4, Nimzo outplayed him in a nice endgame; and the next couple of years Lasker did quite well in tournament play. But <Rookfile> loves to try and rewrite history. He just doesn't realize that a lot of us are smarter than him. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: One more thing in re Zurich: even though Nimzowitsch won that wonderful ending against Lasker, the man "past his prime" finished ahead of Nimzo. If you can stand another fact, <RockFool>, here's the crosstable: Game Collection: Zurich 1934 |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: < TheFocus: ...But <Rookfile> loves to try and rewrite history. He just doesn't realize that a lot of us are smarter than him.> Nobody in the world is smarter than <RookFile>, some of us on this page are just more knowledgeable and freer of bullspit. He needs to go find a group of players that don't know anything about chess history, maybe he can impress them. That ain't gonna happen here. |
|
Feb-03-12
 | | Penguincw: A fairly interesting match-up. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: <TheFocus: Nimzow's first game against Lasker was in 1914 was a draw, when Lasker WAS in his prime.
20 years later, Zurich 1934, where Lasker scored +9-2=4, Nimzo outplayed him in a nice endgame; and the next couple of years Lasker did quite well in tournament play. But <Rookfile> loves to try and rewrite history. He just doesn't realize that a lot of us are smarter than him. > I'm curious, TheFocus. Do you believe that Emanuel Lasker was in him <prime> in 1934? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: Actually, originally I said that Lasker was ALWAYS in his prime. Then I edited it out. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: That's fine. What do you say now - was Lasker in his prime in 1934? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: Well, he didn't do too shabby after 9 years away from tournaments, now, did he? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Ok, let's try something new, and answer with yes or no. Was Lasker in his prime in 1934? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: Naw, he was at the tail end of his prime; but he was still kicking ass, wasn't he. Players were still shaking in their shoes when playing against him. 1934-1940 events +24=31-13. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Ok. We're making progress. So far you've acknowledged that Lasker was not in his prime when he played Nimzo in 1934 and lost. Let's move onto Euwe. Was Euwe in his prime when he lost to Nimzo? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: I can not truthfully answer that. I have no interest in Euwe's career. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | RookFile: Tell you what, I'll give you a mulligan. You're generally an excellent poster. |
|
Feb-03-12
 | | keypusher: <RookFile: Tell you what, I'll give you a mulligan. You're generally an excellent poster.> That's like Jack the Ripper telling you that you have a way with the ladies. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | ughaibu: Taking this "A record of 3 wins, 14 losses, and 15 draws against Alekhine and Capablanca might get you the title of Miss Congeniality, but you don't get to say you're elite." and this "Lasker was well past his prime [in 1934]", we get Nimzowitsch at 32% against this pair. However, applying the same considerations to Alekhine versus Lasker, we get Alekhine at 20%. So, RookFile must say of Alekhine 'you don't get to say you're elite'. But that rather blows the first statistic. What I dont get is, why Nimzowitsch? As RookFile's appreciation of chess players is primarily geographical, how does Nimzowitsch negatively impact the Americas north of the equator? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: Wow, <RockFilth> gave <TheFocus> a mulligan. That's really something and I'm sure "Eric Schiller" is out there in Hawaii enjoying it. |
|
| Feb-04-12 | | RookFile: <ughaibu: What I dont get is, why Nimzowitsch? As RookFile's appreciation of chess players is primarily geographical, how does Nimzowitsch negatively impact the Americas north of the equator? > No, no, you don't understand. Some of the amigos on this page delight in getting on the Fischer page and bashing the daylights out of the man. All I did a week ago was suggest that Nimzo was just a grandmaster, not the center of the universe. The reaction from Nimzo worshippers was incredible, but this is a teachable moment for them. |
|
| Feb-04-12 | | King Death: <CrowFilth> You haven't "suggested" anything, you've gone out of your way to put down Nimzowitsch and his achievements every chance you get to the point that you make empty comments on one game after another of his. Your "suggestion" has been that he was an ordinary player in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sure he wasn't quite in the class of Alekhine or Capablanca, anybody that knows much about chess history understands that, but to read your inane kibitzes Nimzo couldn't have carried the jock strap of a player like Larry Christiansen. |
|
| Feb-04-12 | | aliejin: What a beautiful game between two great chess players,
of his time and always! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 28.Bxf4