It's not about results it's about knowledge and skills. Kramnik plays the best chess. Magnus relies on cheap tricks in almost all of his games.
Kramnik is stronger then magnus
Sort:
MrDamonSmith wrote:
This poster should learn to play chess first before trying to ponder who's better than who. I mean, this is the same beginner that claims a 2300 player (Emory Tate) is really better than Carlsen and Kasparov, we just don't know it yet. Even when presented with tons of evidence showing otherwise,
he still spouts 50 IQ level mumbo jumbo based on nothing more than feelings and misguided assumptions.
This is a bit rich coming from the goon who made himself look stupid spouting off about how Kramnik couldn't lose today.
Facts mean nothing to this beginner. He doesn't actually play chess. Be was claiming that a player ranked about seven and a half THOUSANDth was really better than Carlsen and Kasparov. If he would
focus on learning something about chess before forming special ed level opinions maybe be would get more out of a chess site like this
nope
Newwbbbbbbbbbbbbb alert, dude stfu, you dont know anything about chess if you say magnus relies on cheap tricks, thats idiotic.
lol
uhohspaghettio wrote:
This guy is a known troll, it's amazing he isn't banned by now. Don't listen to him, he doesn't believe what he's saying himself. Look at his history.
I am 95%+ sure he is a cheater also. I know people throw around that word, but just take a look at some of his blitz games starting with 1. a4 or 1. h4, and how he beats NMs and higher with it, and you'll see what I mean.
Ahaha, that's what we get when we allow patients in sanatoriums to use internet. Yeah, that's true babe now let's continue with the cartoons.
Yeah Magnus relies on cheap tricks. Just imagine how high his rating would be if he buckled down and studied the fundamentals!
Yeah I know Oldhastonian. I actually admitted I was wrong as opposed to this retard. Ok bitch?
paulgottlieb wrote:
Do you really think you have the chess ability to decide that Magnus is winning with "cheap tricks?" Where do buy these cheap tricks? Since they're cheap, we all should be able to afford them. God knows I could use some.
His win against Radjabov was cheap and dirty. Played on time. That's not something you want in a candidates tournament.
paulgottlieb wrote:
And by the way, it is all about results--results are the only thing that counts. Did you think chess was a beauty contest?
I'm glad it isn't. I'd be even lower rated in a beauty contest, 
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
paulgottlieb wrote:
Do you really think you have the chess ability to decide that Magnus is winning with "cheap tricks?" Where do buy these cheap tricks? Since they're cheap, we all should be able to afford them. God knows I could use some.
His win against Radjabov was cheap and dirty. Played on time. That's not something you want in a candidates tournament.
Because, after all, a player is certainly not responsible for his clock.
MrDamonSmith wrote:
Yeah I know Oldhastonian. I actually admitted I was wrong as opposed to this retard. Ok bitch?
I'm a good judge of character, so we can be grateful you were wrong; the ensuing bragging would have been unbearable...
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
It's not about results it's about knowledge and skills. Kramnik plays the best chess. Magnus relies on cheap tricks in almost all of his games.
Wouldn't "knowledge and skills" and "playing the best chess" eventually show up in the "results"? As well as the rating?
"Kramnik is stronger than Magnus."
But Kramnik is not the challenger in the upcoming World Chess Championship Match against Anand!!! Magnus is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I let it go. Im even a fan of Kramnik (second favorite current player). You haven't heard me gloating over Carlsens victory, that's something you made up. So quit with YOUR unfounded assumpions
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
It's not about results it's about knowledge and skills. Kramnik plays the best chess. Magnus relies on cheap tricks in almost all of his games.
Now that's a ridiculous statement. Just take a look at the amazing game Carlsen played against Grischuk last week.
Here's a link to a good youtube analysis of the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qymvBY7XuA&feature=youtu.be&a
Let's put this to rest; Carlsen had a relatively bad tournament and won, Kramnik had a damn good tournament and came second.
superking 500 says, "Kramnik is stronger then magnus"
Basing the statement on overall lifetime win/loss percentage you may have a point.
Judging on games played between the two since 2010 began you may have to reach the opposite conclusion, as I count 5 wins for Carlsen,(four with black), against 4 wins for Kramnik, in this time frame.
Or maybe I've missed something?