Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Todays GM's dont play like humans


  • 12 months ago · Quote · #81

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    But... this is a pretty bitchin' forum too.  Here in America it's another way of saying cool. 

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #82

    TetsuoShima

    ScorpionPackAttack wrote:

    Tarrasch was years ahead of his time because it was Bobby Fischer that showed the definitive refutation of the king's gambit. 

    but fischer i believe played e xf with the intention of keeping the pawn

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #83

    robbie_1969

    Hmmm Americans seem so tolerant, perhaps its the constituional right to free speech and the acceptance that haters gonna hate!

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #84

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Oops, I somehow read it as 2.f4 is a blunder, my bad.  2...exf4! is the objectively best move with 2...d5 as a close second. 

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #85

    Shakaali

    TetsuoShima wrote:
    Shakaali wrote:

    I'm similarily sceptical that there's some magical ingredient that separates super GM's from mere mortals. They are just bit stronger here and there that adds to a big difference. 

    ofc thats what they are saying so that nationalmasters can charge 100 hours per lesson and some mediocre IMs can sell a million books.

    But its really like that? dont GMs give up sometimes advantages like a book advantage because they saw something deeper in return and outplay their opponent by playing indivualistically and dont just play by standard thinking???

    Well maybe im wrong...

     


     

    I doubt that anyone sells a million chess booksLaughing.

    On a more serious note, of course they give up some book advantages but quite often it's done in order to gain other well-known advantages (for example one may give up the bishop pair in order to double the opponents pawns). Usually, in any give position, there are several conflicting rules operating and it's the players task to choose which one should be given preference under the concrete circumstances. However, this is by no means unique to top players but applies to all of us in some degree. Stronger players just do it betterSmile.

    There's a great old little book discussing these questions "Questions of Modern Chess Theory", Isaac Lipnitsky, 1956. Interestingly this book has a very modern feel compared to something like Nimzowitsch's "My System" that only appeared some 30 years before. Makes me think that the huge popularity of chess in the Soviet Union and big number of strong players really lead to big advances in chess thinking during that era.


Back to Top

Post your reply: