Yes because Caruana should have won the right to challenge Carlsen ... no matter how well he could have performed against everyone else who was also contending for a title shot. My logic is impeccable!
Yes, Caruana and Nakamura should have replaced Andreikin/Mamedyarov in the Candidates.
Caruana and Nakamura should have replaced Andreikin/Mamedyarov in The Candidates...because of what reason? Everyone knew that they had to qualify to participate...it is not given because you are liked, or play entertaining chess. The playing field was fair, and the outcome was just.
Besides, most people that were asking for inclusion of Nakamura or Caruana in the candidates, wanted to see Anand out of the tournament, since he was supossedly no longer in the level required.
...I understand that...but Caruana and Naka could not even make the cut...they failed to qualify, they were not good enough to be at The Candidates this year.
yes Carlsen was brilliant right up until the moment that he wasn't ..I must say I was very pleased to see that he too can make pretty obvious mistakes..very amusing so it was.
Obvious with your engine, maybe. Admit it, you can't even understand what is going on in a Carlsen game without one...
What a nasty piece of work you are to post such a bitter message to a complete stranger ... get a life and stop being such a hater. now keep ouf of my virtual space..i dont need to communicate with haters .
Read your own quote above. Why does it please and amuse you that someone makes mistakes? Note how you did not say "it gives me hope" or "it shows he is human after all". You didn't profess any gladness for Carauna's victory. You profused your glee at Carlsen's missteps. You've been spouting off about Nakamura, who has lost to Carlsen, what, 10 times now? ...and never won against him.
So, who's bitter again?
Just holding up a mirror. You might have missed it, having the trots and all.
As for being in "your" space...you posted an inflammatory post on a public messageboard inviting responses, Sherlock. Do you get upset when you click the remote on your telly and it changes the channel?
Why can't the top 8 participate in candidates? 
Why can't the top 8 participate in candidates?
The top 8 isn't a stable group of 8 players. It changes constantly every couple of months. Sometimes ratings can also fluctuate depending on the number of tournaments one plays. Therefore, top 8 ratings aren't a perfect yardstick for best 8 players. Take Radjabov for example; he was 2793 in april 2013, but slipped to 2745 next month and kept declining. How are you going to decide which rating to consider for qualification? The current system is probably the only feasible system at the moment.
I suppose so... just feel like Caruana and Nakamura should have been in the candidates by some method...
I suppose so... just feel like Caruana and Nakamura should have been in the candidates by some method...
Playing by the rules set by an ass-hat who believes in and sees UFOs is something all the players made peace with at some point or the other.
In hindsight, it's easy to target Andreikin and Mamedyarov as dead weight in the candidates ... (even more amusing that a lot of people would have earnestly asked Anand to retire at once let the next person in line take his seat!)
Though it has become a fairly interesting development for chess that people are now excited when Carlsen *gasp* loses one single game. Reminds me of an Iron Man 2 quote:
Ivan Vanko: [laughs] If you could make God bleed, people would cease to believe in him, there will be blood in the water, the sharks will come. All I have to do is sit back and watch as the world consumes you.
Why can't the top 8 participate in candidates?
Therefore, top 8 ratings aren't a perfect yardstick for best 8 players. Take Radjabov for example; he was 2793 in april 2013, but slipped to 2745 next month and kept declining. How are you going to decide which rating to consider for qualification?
Interesting example, considering what happened today! That's Chess!
Why can't the top 8 participate in candidates?
maybe you too should participate.....
lol +1
btickler wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
btickler wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
yes Carlsen was brilliant right up until the moment that he wasn't ..I must say I was very pleased to see that he too can make pretty obvious mistakes..very amusing so it was.
Obvious with your engine, maybe. Admit it, you can't even understand what is going on in a Carlsen game without one...
What a nasty piece of work you are to post such a bitter message to a complete stranger ... get a life and stop being such a hater. now keep ouf of my virtual space..i dont need to communicate with haters .
Read your own quote above. Why does it please and amuse you that someone makes mistakes? Note how you did not say "it gives me hope" or "it shows he is human after all". You didn't profess any gladness for Carauna's victory. You profused your glee at Carlsen's missteps. You've been spouting off about Nakamura, who has lost to Carlsen, what, 10 times now? ...and never won against him.
So, who's bitter again?
Just holding up a mirror. You might have missed it, having the trots and all.
As for being in "your" space...you posted an inflammatory post on a public messageboard inviting responses, Sherlock. Do you get upset when you click the remote on your telly and it changes the channel?
I also like how in post #42 he spouts off an asinine diatribe, with silly talk of prostrating, and servile behavior towards higher titled players...yet his only reasoning for his stupid OP is repeating over and over..."because Carlsen says so!" So there is no line or variation, but Carlsen called it a comfortable win...and this guy is ready to bet the house on Carlsens opinion in a post game interview... I think he wished to show us this servile attitude he speaks of...
You are obviously another bitter keyboard warrior with far too high an opinion of himself . My great grandmother used to say to me "trotters, if you can't be nice , try at least not to be nasty".This is advice I happily pass onto you . Life is too short to be too exercised by a chess internet forum but when I am gratuitously attacked I defend myself , otherwise I prefer not to insult complete strangers.
otherwise I prefer not to insult complete strangers.
But you have no problem with choosing to revel in their misfortunes, apparently.
otherwise I prefer not to insult complete strangers.
But you have no problem with choosing to revel in their misfortunes, apparently.
Not you again.I have no interest in anything that you have to say on any subject...you might have better luck conversing with someone else..maybe a psychotherapist could help you.
I will not be contributing any furthur to this particular thread so you will have to find another outlet for that bitter interior self that you have...have a nice life.
Oh please continue to post on here trotts, it will leave us all sad if you left. Please don't go.
otherwise I prefer not to insult complete strangers.
But you have no problem with choosing to revel in their misfortunes, apparently.
Not you again.I have no interest in anything that you have to say on any subject...you might have better luck conversing with someone else..maybe a psychotherapist could help you.
I will not be contributing any furthur to this particular thread so you will have to find another outlet for that bitter interior self that you have...have a nice life.
I know, hypocrisy hurts. It's tough to discover you're not the man grandma hoped you'd be.
Try to be little less gleeful about people that are better than you (at chess, in this particular case) making missteps. Maybe your next thread could be a positive one? That would be nice.
Playing by the rules set by an ass-hat who believes in and sees UFOs
Speaking of which, anyone notice how the term "UFO" used to mean unidentified flying object, but now it just simply means alien spaceship? So now when you see something in the sky and you can't identify it, people will misunderstand you when you say you saw a UFO. They will think you are claiming you saw aliens from outer space.
Agreed, people are quick to confuse the two. Though in the ass-hat's example, it was little green men that abducted him.
Yes because Caruana should have won the right to challenge Carlsen ... no matter how well he could have performed against everyone else who was also contending for a title shot. My logic is impeccable!