|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 15 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-02-08 | | Petrosianic: <What has being world champion got to do with his lies?> I think vanytchouck is saying that Kasparov is good enough player that the normal rules of right and wrong don't apply to him. It's refreshing to hear that argument used about somebody besides Fischer for a change... But what lies are we talking about? Just because he often claims to have discovered other people's novelties doesn't mean he's lying. It might be true. Or it might not. It's a bit gauche to always be grabbing other people's limelight, but not a lie, necessarily. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Abejorral: I love to see a player getting smashed, specially when he goes for a draw, like here. Kramnik was hoping to get a 15 move draw, and got crushed, really nice. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | percyblakeney: If Chessbase refer how Kasparov mentions that he analysed a line similar to the one Naiditsch played I wouldn't draw the conclusion that this has to be a lie, especially not if these lines were even given during the game... After all Kasparov did analyse many opening lines in his active days and did admit that he underestimated this one. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Woody Wood Pusher: Well just to reiterate Drawnik getting destroyed in a Petrof is GREAT for chess because players like him should be punished more often! Offering a draw on move 15 to a guy 150 points below you? This isn't what any real chess fan wants to see! Drawnik needs to go out, take some risks and PLAY some chess (rather than memorized drawing lines!) more often. If he plays like this against Anand it will be a massacre, but maybe that's what is needed to finally teach him a lesson! I'm not hating on him randomly either, he used to have a very impressive black repertoire in his youth, I still think he is one of the best sicilian players ever, but he needs to rediscover THE WILL TO FIGHT! |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | vanytchouck: VinnyRoo2002 and Petrosianic >
At first, it was humour.
Then to be serious and as other have already said, Kasparov is trustworthy because not only he was a genuine genius but also because he was a fantastic discoverer of novelties in opening. What i just don't understand is why it is so hard to believe that someone like Gary who prepared to play against Kramnik in 2000-wich means preparing something against the petrov-could have found the move 19. Qd2 !! a typical kasparovian move (sacrifice to have initiative). I don't know if what Kasparov has said is true, but i would never be able to said "of course this guy is lying!". |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | littlefermat: <Kasparov is trustworthy because not only he was a genuine genius but also because he was a fantastic discoverer of novelties in opening...> Kasparov is a chess genius, but he's hardly trustworthy. If you know anything about his career, then you should know he is absolutely terrible with the facts. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Abejorral: <Well just to reiterate Drawnik getting destroyed in a Petrof is GREAT for chess because players like him should be punished more often! > You said it, man, a player like Kramnik, that whenever touches a black piece is looking for a short draw, SHOULD BE PUNISHED, and now it became true. |
|
Jul-02-08
 | | JointheArmy: <And every time someone plays a good move you hear Kasparov had already seen it ten moves in advance just by glancing at the screen while working on his new book, his new business project and his overthrowing of Putin.> <acirce> You've been trolling Kasparov since you thought he was on the decline in 2004 before he won the Russian Championship and breezed through Linares. Grandmasters often find novelties that they never get to use. Is this really that hard to accept? For the record, Kasparov didn't even claim it was this exact line. Just a similar position. <On the Playchess server there was great excitement over Naiditsch' dramatic novelty – except that one visitor, Garry Kasparov, who is in Barcelona, preparing for an ICBI lecture on Wednesday, told us that he had analysed this back in 1999 (with the moves 16.a4 b4 17.Bf4 inserted).> Not to mention Fredrich relaying what Kasparov says to him on playchess is nothing new. Many times Fredrich has said, "Kasparov says this line should be played." Then it is. Most of the time if it isn't, they get a worse game. < If you know anything about his career, then you should know he is absolutely terrible with the facts.> Care to give examples? |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | littlefermat: <Care to give examples?> That Kasparov is lazy with the facts? I really don't have to because Winter has already done it. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
I was going to cut and paste several sections but the entire article is worth reading. Consider the K-K match of 1986 when he kicked Evgeny Vladimirov out of his team when he claimed that Vladimirov was giving away his opening secrets (after Kasparov lost games 18-20). No evidence was provided, ever. It's especially outrageous when you go through some of the games too. His losses don't appear to be due to the opening but due to blunders occuring late into the middlegame or under time pressure. Kasparov has also had a history of <inventing> facts and theories when they suit his whim. I can point to Deep Blue 1997 as one example. I could also point to his claim to a rematch with Kramnik. You don't think it's strange that he went back on his word before the match (not having a rematch clause), but then claims he deserves one afterwards? And cites his a vague <moral right> to have a rematch? Kasparov fudged the facts throughout his career. It's not something he does all the time, but the thread of manipulating evidence to suit his views is certainly there. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Xenon Oxide: Okay, so a person made unsubstantiated claims that Kramnik offered draw on move 15, and now everybody believes him. C'mon, where's the evidence? |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | you vs yourself: <and now everybody believes him.> Really? |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Xenon Oxide: <you vs yourself>
Okay, it was an exageration, but you get my point :) |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | Jim Bartle: I was just reading an article by Adorjan about the Kasparov/Vladimirov situation. Adorjan (an unpaid member of K's team) was furious about his team's missing a the best 44th move for Karpov during the adjournment. He soon took his anger out on Vladimirov, claiming he was passing secrets to the other K. According to Adorjan, Vladimirov had merely been copying down analyses for his own future use. This was forbidden, but relatively innocent, and he was not actually passing it on to anyone. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | OneArmedScissor: <littlefermat>
If you're going to make a claim, it is your responsibility to back that claim up. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | pawn to QB4: Poor old Gazza. Sounds like all he said was that he'd looked at something along these lines this, and possibly underestimated it; hardly adds up to claiming Naiditsch's novelty as his own. As for guesses that he's lying, cor, improper attitude. You can hardly assume that if a player of his class has the position on his analysis board, he wouldn't be imaginative enough to wonder if allowing ...QxR is a possible sac. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | vanytchouck: littlefermat>
You just don't answer correctly:
a) You focus on the part of my response that doesn't bother you (Kasparov is a chess genius) to ignore the part that did give a point (he's fantastic in discovering novelties in the opening, and indeed he has studied the Petrov). b) The evidences asked is about his claims to have already found out a novelty played after he retired. There again, no single evidence... On the other hands, i do remember Kasparov finding in live, the perfect (29...Qe2 wich hasn't been played) move wich would allowed Kramnik to escape from Topalov crawls during the famous game in Wijk Aan Zee 2008. Surprisingly, Kasparov didn't claim to have already found 12.Nxf7 ... |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | abcpokerboy: It isn't at all surprising that Kasparov had seen this move in earlier analysis. Many well prepared GMs have moves in their bag of tricks but don't get to play them. After Browne-Bisguier 1974 , Fischer claimed he had seen 14.bh6!! before but hadn't had a chance to use it.Browne vs Bisguier, 1974. These things happen to the best prepared players. I remember in the Kramnik-Topalov world champiionship match Kasparov reeling off winning lines for Topalov in superior positions that Topalov somehow missed. It ain't too tough to believe that the greatest chess player ever saw this, especially when he claims that he did not see the moves strength. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | Jim Bartle: Yes, of course this happens, what you say is true.
But what is almost comical, as acirce has pointed out, is that seemingly every time a winning novelty is played in a big tournament Kasparov casually looks up from his (more important) work and says, "Oh yeah, I saw that years ago." |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | PinnedPiece: <All the Discussers about Kasparov>
How about we show a little discipline here, ourselves. Why don't you take your Kasparov remarks to the Kasparov page, for goodness sake? This page belongs to a beautiful game by Naiditsch. Kasparov's chess legacy speaks for itself whatever facts about the man you have or don't have. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | acirce: <JointheArmy> I haven't been trolling anyone; I've criticized him when I have found it appropriate. I think his political activities are despicable, for instance, and will keep saying so. I've defended him at times, such as about the Polgár incident in Linares 1994. As for this remark, as I have already said, it was a simple, innocent joke with no particular target. (Not an original one, and not very good in the very exaggerated way it was phrased, but still.) I've never said I don't believe him in this case, I see no reason I wouldn't. So don't confuse me with some other people here. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | acirce: <PinnedPiece> Seems like Kasparov's remark about this game is a perfectly appropriate thing to discuss on the page of this game. I agree, though, it's been overblown and the focus should return to Naiditsch's achievement. |
|
Jul-03-08
 | | tamar: <Why don't you take your Kasparov remarks to the Kasparov page, for goodness sake? This page belongs to a beautiful game by Naiditsch.> Naiditsch certainly played well in closing out Kramnik. My respect for his game increased when I pondered how he could break down what looked to me a defensible fortress type position. Previously I had thought of him as well-prepared but overall chess skills suspect. However, Qd2 was undoubtedly thought up and tested by a computer in both Naiditsch' and Kasparov's cases, so that muddies either taking credit for the move. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | MichAdams: <Adorjan (an unpaid member of K's team) was furious about his team's missing a the best 44th move for Karpov during the adjournment. He soon took his anger out on Vladimirov, claiming he was passing secrets to the other K.> So Adorjan started it and Kasparov jumped on the bandwagon? |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | Jim Bartle: My mistake, Mich, sorry.
What I should have written was: "Adorjan wrote that Kasparov was furious about his team's missing..." |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | MichAdams: I suspected as much. You are excused.
|
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 15 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
