|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-08-23 | | devere: <Damenlaeuferbauer: I am 100% sure, that super-elite chess players like Magnus Carlsen, Vladimir Kramnik, and Hikaru Nakumara know and feel, if their opponent or another player is cheating or not.> Carlsen is certainly a super-elite player, and he made a complete ass of himself at the Sinquefield Cup last year; so I am 100% sure you are mistaken. |
|
| Sep-08-23 | | Bobby Fiske: <Petrosianic:>
When discussing that game, and Carlsens action, you should include also this statement: "throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup, I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do. The game contributed to changing my perspective." ---------
When being outplayed, Magnus usually praises his opponent, and he blames himself. Happens regularly, especially in broadcasted online tournaments. So, I don't consider him a "bad looser" per se.
But when Niemann found the critical moves, while seemingly being unfocused at the board, it triggered Magnus' gut feeling. |
|
Sep-08-23
 | | MissScarlett: Carlsen had never played Niemann OTB before Sinquefield (excepting their beach frolics in Miami) so any assessment of Niemann's demeanour wasn't based on prior experience. He may have been observing him during the first two rounds, but as Niemann scored 1.5 points against Aronian and Mamedyarov he was presumably cheating then, too, so that wouldn't serve as much of a counterpoint. |
|
Sep-08-23
 | | ketchuplover: I think looser is where anal beads come/go in |
|
Sep-08-23
| | MissScarlett: < I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions..> https://twitter.com/Enezator/status... |
|
Sep-13-23
| | MissScarlett: Hans challenges Vlad to a training camp...
https://twitter.com/HansMokeNiemann... |
|
Sep-13-23
 | | offramp: YES! I just bought a used car from Hans Niemann! |
|
Sep-13-23
 | | Messiah: <offramp: YES! I just bought a used car from Hans Niemann!> wat de fök |
|
| Sep-18-23 | | Petrosianic: <EvanTheTerrible>: <I don't mean this as an attack on you Petrosianic, but I really don't like the recent fascination with accuracy scores from Chess.com or lichess or wherever. First off, we don't know how those scores are calculated. Secondly, certain positions are much easier to play than others. From the moves themselves, there is nothing suspicious, even if they were to highly correlate with an engine's suggestions.> Don't blame me, I heard several people insisting that Niemann had 100% accuracy in that game against Carlsen, when in fact he had nowhere near it. We don't know how Accuracy is calculated (although, unlike Baseball WAR, we have a pretty good idea), but the computer did not, in fact, point a finger at him. |
|
| Sep-18-23 | | Petrosianic: <Bobby Fiske>: <When being outplayed, Magnus usually praises his opponent, and he blames himself. Happens regularly, especially in broadcasted online tournaments. So, I don't consider him a "bad looser" per se. But when Niemann found the critical moves, while seemingly being unfocused at the board, it triggered Magnus' gut feeling.> Magnus has so little experience losing to players below 2700 that it's hard to know how he reacts when he does. (When was the last time?) I don't know whether he's habitually unsporting when he loses to a low-rated player, or if he was just in a bad move that time, but Carlsen's behavior did range from unsporting (dropping out without putting the matter before the tournament committee) to downright illegal (throwing his next game to Niemann, and affecting the standings at Baer). A gut feeling that Niemann seemed unfocused seems like a pretty shaky reason for turning to a life of crime. (We all know that some players sit there with the same dull expression whether they're mating or being mated). Did Carlsen at least say what those critical moves were, or did he not want to give us any hints? |
|
Sep-21-23
| | ketchuplover: GL to HWN in Mexico City at the World Junior's |
|
| Sep-21-23 | | EvanTheTerrible: I think a longer event should benefit him over the other players. Not only is he the strongest player in the event, which benefits from the lower variance over more games, but he also likely has greater stamina than the other competitors due to his grueling schedule. |
|
Sep-23-23
 | | fredthebear: Always follow the money! Hans gets tripped up by junior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPg... |
|
Sep-23-23
| | fredthebear: Hikaru sports big mass grin while poking fun of Hans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHc... |
|
| Sep-24-23 | | EvanTheTerrible: I don't understand how anyone can sit through an entire Hikaru video. |
|
Sep-24-23
 | | Check It Out: Hikaru is tough to listen to. Even his intro, "Welcome back everybody!! For todaaaaays video..." is off-putting. However e'ss so good at chess that his game analysis is fascinating. |
|
Sep-24-23
 | | perfidious: There is a well-known poker pro who has the same type of weaknesses; while topnotch at explaining concepts, his delivery and voice are what one might call grating. |
|
Sep-24-23
 | | paulalbert: Hikaru's voice is not grating, but perhaps a little bit too high pitched, enthusiastic, and delivered too quickly to listen to for an extended period of time.
However, he is highly articulate and the game explanation is absolutely first class and instructive.
I prefer a little slower pace both because of my age ( 80 ) and no where near ever the ability to see the possibilities so quickly in the position. That really defines an important aspect of the incredible talent of top players. Many years ago when i would attend Danny Kopec's summer chess camps and take private lessons with IM Danny, and GMs Walter Browne and Lubomir Ftacnik and analyze my games with them, they would in seconds see and analyze all kinds of variations and possibilities that I did not even consider during the classic time control or see in my own subsequent analysis.
Hard work, study, serious dedication and general high intelligence unfortunately never overcame my good( but limited ) raw, natural chess talent. Emanuel Lasker's assertion that anyone of reasonable intelligence with dedicated study could become a chess master in my view is not valid. |
|
| Sep-24-23 | | EvanTheTerrible: I think it's his intro that puts me off. Once he gets into the content, it might be fine, but the intro makes me close the video every time. Maybe I'm impatient and immature, but I accept that. |
|
| Sep-24-23 | | nimh: <anyone of reasonable intelligence> He probably had in mind the mean intelligence of his own acquaintances. Being a philosopher, mathematician and a top-notch chessplayer himself... |
|
Sep-24-23
 | | keypusher: < nimh: <anyone of reasonable intelligence>
He probably had in mind the mean intelligence of his own acquaintances. Being a philosopher, mathematician and a top-notch chessplayer himself...> A pleasure to "see" you, <nimh>, however briefly. |
|
Sep-24-23
| | Check It Out: It depends on what he meant by "chess master", which I'm sure meant something different then than it does now. |
|
Sep-25-23
| | paulalbert: I went back to refresh my memory on exactly what Lasker asserted.
It is in the final chapter of Lasker's Manual of Chess ( the original German version written in 1925) . Chapter Title : "Final Reflections on Education in Chess".
Lasker lays out a 200 hour course using the ideas in his book then says: " Even if the young man has no talent at all, by following the above course he would advance to the class specified." What is specified is the ability to compete successfully against even a chess master if given any odds.
My own view is that there is a special talent for chess: some persons have none, some have to a degree, and some like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, Carlsen, and others have to an enormous degree.
I definitely agree with Lasker on teaching chess or anything else that concepts and understanding are more important than mere memorization. Some of Nimzowitsch's thoughts on teaching chess to children contained similar ideas.
The first English language version of Lasker's Manual of Chess ( written in English by Lasker himself ) was in 1932 in London. I have a 1960 Dover New York version.
It is worth reading not only for the chess content including Lasker's discussion of Steinitz's theories but also to understand Lasker's philosophic view of chess as a metaphor for life and its challenges. |
|
Sep-25-23
| | Check It Out: <paulalbert>: Nice posts. Your chess experience has umami, if youll pardon the esoteric food reference. Lasker hedged with, "if given any odds", but no matter. Whats important is that Lasker created a 200 hour course for chess! He was ahead of his time, the OG of today's plethora of online instructional content. |
|
| Sep-25-23 | | nimh: <A pleasure to "see" you, <nimh>, however briefly.> I should say likewise, but I've seen you here all the time already! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
