Dear mxiangqi,
there is no doubt that, thanks to globalization, everyone in the globe has gained the right to be a moron.
Yet, the percentage of morons in chess.com (as well as other sites) who are residents of a very specific country is rather frightening.
Regards.
Dear mxiangqi,
there is no doubt that, thanks to globalization, everyone in the globe has gained the right to be a moron.
Yet, the percentage of morons in chess.com (as well as other sites) who are residents of a very specific country is rather frightening.
Regards.
The moron has spoken.
Thank you for the link, Bresando.
Godena is definitely an enigma. He ALWAYS, invariably, plays the same openings (Sicilian c3 and Italian/2knights as white, e5 and traditional slav as Black), he never, ever cared to play something else, or surprise someone. His knowledge in that openings (the c3 sicilian in particular) is one of the greatest in the world, his positional understanding is superb, his technique next to flawless. So- why he is devoting so much time in the opening, when he faces positions he has probably played hundreds of times before? This is quite a mystery...
Yes, the surprising thing is that he often stops thinking for 20 minutes at move 8 or so, then you look at a database and you find that he already had the very same position 8 times in previous games.
Right now, he used 7 minutes on move 2...
Is that really your best excuse?
Ivanchuk has the same issue.
Thank you for the link, Bresando.
Godena is definitely an enigma. He ALWAYS, invariably, plays the same openings (Sicilian c3 and Italian/2knights as white, e5 and traditional slav as Black), he never, ever cared to play something else, or surprise someone. His knowledge in that openings (the c3 sicilian in particular) is one of the greatest in the world, his positional understanding is superb, his technique next to flawless. So- why he is devoting so much time in the opening, when he faces positions he has probably played hundreds of times before? This is quite a mystery...
No, it's not. The fact he has remained a 2500+ is not a mystery at all.
I suspect he will end his career with an even lower rating of 2400+ if he's lucky.
He has a nice opening database, but he sucks at both playing the middlegame and endgame.
That's where it counts.
Quite disapointing: that patzer GM Godena agreed a draw today as Black after just 12 moves against his weak opponent (a 2495 rated GM).
Although not all of them have big flappy ears.
Uh-oh (somebody's been to a seminar).
Players have certain skill sets and strengths that hold them back.
Ivanchuk has been up and down the rating list his whole career. He is a genius but his nerves get to him at times and he collapses. he will never be worldchampion. He cannt deal with the stress of a match and he has aluded to this in interviews but in tournaments if he is on his game.... look out!
There is no such thing as an average GM. Average exceptional player in the top .1 percent of players in the world. yep totally normal.
his limitations are not knowledge or skills but personal. There have been great players though out history that have been held back by a personal flaw.
The analogy with ESPN was correct though. The commentators often rely on ex-pro coaches or atheletes to make judgements about situations. The problem with amateurs doing so on specifics is absurd. In general maybe but unless your ready to back up a statement with concrete facts and proof then a better response might be: If player X results are poor after having such an detailed understanding of the opening I wonder why his results are not better. but making a declaration that aludes to something like your knowledge is greater or equal to the person in question is just absurd.
there is a HUGE difference in a player beating ivanchuck or Polgar than any class player beating another classplayer or expert or even a 2200 player.
The level that Ivanchuk and Polgar play at is MUCH higher than even normal GMs so to beat them on any day is more than a good result.
Well, you can say "Ad Hominem" but so can a parrot. In any case, you don't seem to understand the words. Ad Hominem would refer to irrelevant personal attack. If I were to attack Yereslov's character, or make fun of his personal appearence, then I would be making Ad hominem arguments, substituting personal abuse for argument. But that's not what was doing. I was simply pointing out that Yereslov's chess knowledge was completely insufficient to make the claim that Godena's middlegame and endgame play "sucked." Yereslov was simply lacked the chess understanding to make such a comment. To give a simple analogy, if the prosecution were to introduce an expert witness to testify on matters of physics, it would not be an "Ad Hominem" argument for the defense to point out that the witness had not, in fact, mastered grade school mathematics.
The logical fallacy you make is that you assume I have poor chess knowledge.
How I play has nothing to do with what I know.
I know a player in my club who gives fantastic commentary, but is a lowly 1000 USCF rated player.
He has read countless chess books and is like a walking library, but, when he sits down on the table, the nerves get to him, and he loses.
If you look at my games, I tend to play in under five minutes in every game.
I don't really put any effort into it because I know my opponents are going to be 1200-1400.
Why bother trying to win against such weak opponents?
I could easily restart this account and get a 1600-1700 rating, but I already payed for this account. It would be a waste.
In short, you are using an ad hominem attack.
I have beaten players way above my level and have lost to players rated just 1000+.
If you need a rating to understand a good game, then Jeremy Silman should stop writing books. What does he know about a players 300 points higher than him?
Last time I checked he is nowhere near Kramnik's or Kasparov's FIDE ratings.
I have coached players to the class A level and My rating is less.
The problem is there is a massive difference between class players and those at a gm level. As a coach and someone that enjoyed reading a lot about chess I can see massive holes in certain players games and comments that just tell me they dont know what they are talking about to make an assessment about a GM;s play as broad based as they dont know how to play the middlegame and endgame or any other part of the game.
your missing my point about beating Polgar. It might be an unusual result but that fluke is more in range of a standard deviation or so than say the chance of a class player beating polgar. especially in an OTB game. The ability to play at that level for 1 game does show a certain degree of skill and abilty. 1 move blunders are flukes but to beat Polgar you have to play a Lot of good moves so the fluke factor is reduced.
I have coached players to the class A level and My rating is less.
The problem is there is a massive difference between class players and those at a gm level. As a coach and someone that enjoyed reading a lot about chess I can see massive holes in certain players games and comments that just tell me they dont know what they are talking about to make an assessment about a GM;s play as broad based as they dont know how to play the middlegame and endgame or any other part of the game.
your missing my point about beating Polgar. It might be an unusual result but that fluke is more in range of a standard deviation or so than say the chance of a class player beating polgar. especially in an OTB game. The ability to play at that level for 1 game does show a certain degree of skill and abilty. 1 move blunders are flukes but to beat Polgar you have to play a Lot of good moves so the fluke factor is reduced.
You are arguing from a one-sided view.
He didn't have to play at her level if she played at his.
Obviously Polgar was playing like crap and lost.
Well, here's your chance to shine, and to prove that your 1252 rating doesn't tell the whole story. Where do you think Polgar made her big mistakes, and what were they? Could you explain, in words, what was wrong with her moves, and could you suggest some better moves? I would be particularly interested if you could indentify the places in the game where she obviously played like crap.
I would have to input each move and then write a comment.
I'm not wasting my time.
The fact that Polgar (a 2700 FIDE rated played) lost to some 2500+ is enough evidence.
Well, here's your chance to shine, and to prove that your 1252 rating doesn't tell the whole story. Where do you think Polgar made her big mistakes, and what were they? Could you explain, in words, what was wrong with her moves, and could you suggest some better moves? I would be particularly interested if you could indentify the places in the game where she obviously played like crap.
I would have to input each move and then write a comment.
I'm not wasting my time.
The fact that Polgar (a 2700 FIDE rated played) lost to some 2500+ is enough evidence.
you mean you rely on the engine for your analysis ?
Well, here's your chance to shine, and to prove that your 1252 rating doesn't tell the whole story. Where do you think Polgar made her big mistakes, and what were they? Could you explain, in words, what was wrong with her moves, and could you suggest some better moves? I would be particularly interested if you could indentify the places in the game where she obviously played like crap.
I would have to input each move and then write a comment.
I'm not wasting my time.
The fact that Polgar (a 2700 FIDE rated played) lost to some 2500+ is enough evidence.
you mean you rely on the engine for your analysis ?
I only rely on the engine after I experience some doubt in my calculation.
I knew, for example, that my brilliant game with the queen sacrifice was justified, but I wasn't exactly sure how the game would finish.
Some games have a theoritical win and some have a clear win.
I use the engine for theoretical wins that wouldn't exactly be played in the correct order by the average player.
GM's do the same thing. It's more of a precaution for me.
Well, here's your chance to shine, and to prove that your 1252 rating doesn't tell the whole story. Where do you think Polgar made her big mistakes, and what were they? Could you explain, in words, what was wrong with her moves, and could you suggest some better moves? I would be particularly interested if you could indentify the places in the game where she obviously played like crap.
I would have to input each move and then write a comment.
I'm not wasting my time.
The fact that Polgar (a 2700 FIDE rated played) lost to some 2500+ is enough evidence.
Your comment is evidence of something thats for sure... but probably not what you think.
-untracked
Well, here's your chance to shine, and to prove that your 1252 rating doesn't tell the whole story. Where do you think Polgar made her big mistakes, and what were they? Could you explain, in words, what was wrong with her moves, and could you suggest some better moves? I would be particularly interested if you could indentify the places in the game where she obviously played like crap.
I would have to input each move and then write a comment.
I'm not wasting my time.
The fact that Polgar (a 2700 FIDE rated played) lost to some 2500+ is enough evidence.
Your comment is evidence of something thats for sure... but probably not what you think.
-untracked
Yes, it's evidence that I don't feel like wasting my time putting energy into preparing this game on a diagram.
Unlike you, I don't feel the need to prove myself to strangers.
Uh-oh (somebody's been to a seminar).
Nope, I just went to school. Maybe if you paid attention in school you would know that you don't have to attend a seminar to learn about logical fallacies.
Ah I see, so I was a flighty slacker...but ad hominems are what you don't use (lol).
This sort of thing is the problem with this canned, debate-club, "critical thinking" jive.
Some people have a wrong impression about the relative strengths of chessplayers. Have a look at this game:
Here is a not-so infamous game where Judit is facing an opponent rated some 370 points lower (my former student, and very good friend WGM Botsari). The game is used as a model game for Black in the recent Palliser's Benoni book- something that would surely make GM Antic (who prepared Anna for that game) to laugh out loudly.
Palliser, using engines, databases and all assorted stuff fails to realize how precarious Black's position actually is. Anna conducted her attack in great style, and had she played the simple 28.f7! Black had no choice but entering the forced continuation 28...Rg7 29.Re8+ Nf8 30.Qd6! Qh4+ 31.Kg1 Qxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Rxf7+ 33.Kg1 Rxe8 34.Qxc5, when Black has two rooks for the Queen, but her king is constantly very exposed, and that huge pawn on d5 is going to cost Black material. Houdini initially evaluates the final position as +0.24, but after due thought the avaluation changes to +1.16, which translates to "Black is basiclly toast". Palliser does not mention 28.f7 at all in his analyses.
Instead, Anna preferred to further complicate this, while already in time trouble, and blundered the game away a couple of moves later (29.Qd4? which ovelooked Black's very strong reply).
Would Polgar had "her bad day" if she lost that game against a player who's fairly strong, but for sure much weaker than Godena?
A couple of rounds earlier, Judit had mild trouble drawing as white against WGM Zawadska, rated 300 points lower than her.
I,ve encountered the variation before, but for me, after 5...exd4 6.Nxd4 - Nxd4 7. Qxd4 it appears that white has a pretty wicked attack going on. That is according to the "army of hopefuls" opinon