Disgusting Video - Chess Forums - Page 12

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#221

So he's the best one in his family?

Wow. Great job.

I bet his mom is proud...

... unfortunately what I've gathered from Naka interviews is that his parents aren't particularly impressed with his life choice of playing a children's board game at a high level. So you and I will have to give him the attention mommy and daddy didn't.

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#222

saeadborji wrote:

llama wrote:

Are the 7th best chess players remembered for years after they stop playing?

It depends on the propaganda machine that supports them. Hikaru has as enough grounds to claim the chessgod title as Fisher did. Look at here.

Fischer played this game what date??? It was called the game of century in 20th century, now we are what? 21th century?? The game is still the game of century. I dont know which century or what kinda calendar is being used here

https://www.chess.com/terms/game-of-the-century-chess

It is an average game where White plays horribly. After the queen sac, white chooses the wrong path and it created the storm in a teacup that is still going on.

That being said, with enough minions around him as praise singers, he might as well ascend godlike and turn into something chesgod figure

The problem with minions is they're not literate enough to write history books.

So sure the children may like him today. But will they remember him a few years from, now?

And even if they do, they won't be writing the books...

sndeww

Sep 22, 2020

0

#223

If people can remember the russian dude that decided "nah I won't fire the nuclear missile from my submarine" during the cold war, then they will definitly remember nakamura.

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#224

SNUDOO wrote:

If people can remember the russian dude that decided "nah I won't fire the nuclear missile from my submarine" during the cold war, then they will definitly remember nakamura.

Oh, that must be one of those things you just learned in school recently.

Don't worry. You'll forget it in a few years (I have no idea what his name is.)

Just like the chess world will forget Nakamura.

UWillResignYesUWill

Sep 22, 2020

0

#225

@SNUDOO have you watched this

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#226

crocodilestyle1 wrote:

llama wrote:

SNUDOO wrote:

If people can remember the russian dude that decided "nah I won't fire the nuclear missile from my submarine" during the cold war, then they will definitly remember nakamura.

Oh, that must be one of those things you just learned in school recently.

Don't worry. You'll forget it in a few years (I have no idea what his name is.)

Just like the chess world will forget Nakamura.

I think the problem people like you have is one simple number - the year of one's birth, I think you have a problem with anyone whose number is larger than yours (I'll introduce you to a little bit of maths, that would mean people who are YOUNGER than you.)

Generations are all different, it doesn't make them automatically bad people. Both myself and my grandad studied broadly the same thing at university, and both amateur musicians - he thought all of my lecturers were idiots, and even though I was pitch perfect in classical and jazz music, all of the music I was brought up listening to was garbage. I experience it now too - I dislike my young nephew's band because he is surrounded by keen young people, and I all of my discussions are arcana with people who are 40+.

Nakamura and Levy are slightly foolish - head's up, all people in their 20 and even early 30s are idiots to people 40+, not because we're necessarily smarter, but because we wish we could use what we know now with the benefit of their age.

I remember Korchoi made a similar annotation, but he was wise enough to be self depreciating.

Something like "it is very pleasant to use the experience afforded to us by age to critique the mistakes of youth, mistakes they could hardly have guessed existed"

(He was criticizing a move he'd made some 40 years ago.)

And yes, it's somewhat distasteful... both that I often resort to age as an insult, and what such habits reveal about me.

But in this case I'm not saying Hikaru Nakamura is a foolish young person. I'm saying let's compare how he rates himself (as a "legend" and above Caruana) to how his peers rate him. Let's poll all players who are, or have ever been, >2700 on an official FIDE rating list. Let's see how many rank Naka above Caruana. Let's see how many call Naka a legend.

That's my main point.

My point is they will not be nearly so generous...

Prometheus_Fuschs

Sep 22, 2020

0

#227

llama escribió:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

btickler escribió:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

So your argument is that Judit had little support and that the misoginy in chess dragged down her chess?

The first one is quite clearly wrong, to the point of having raised the debate about how genius happens which in fact, was the goal of her father. The second one doesn't seem to be the case given that she always had a positive public light in her professional career and as other mentioned, was the best prodigy in the world in her young years.

The only real disparity against women is that there are less of them, but as it happens, there are other ways to partition human population which result in less of each group.

It's misogyny...and no, I didn't say that was Judit Polgar's issue. I said that women's representation is lower for that reason. Judit is just the first woman to prove that a woman can beat any player in the world on an equal footing. I guess for you that is meaningless unless she pulls a Fischer and conquers the chess world single-handed.

For me, it is as meaningless as it would have been had it been the first person of X race or Y place or Z condition which is to say, pretty meaningless. As I said, the partition of genders in chess is pretty arbitrary.

Judit is impressive, but not for the reason most people think heh.

Statistically females are more interested in people and less interested in things. So given a free choice, most of them will apply their talents outside of chess (and STEM fields).

Many liberals (and I'm a liberal myself, just not a stupid one) want to pretend there is no difference between genders, so Judit's accomplishments weight on the side of equality.

But it's more the exception that proves the rule. She's amazing, and worth ranking in the legendary category, precisely because women aren't as predisposed to chess excellence. Not because they're less intelligent, but because of 2 things:

1: Males dominate the extremes. That means negative things too like suicide and low IQ

2: Women are statistically less interested in things and more interested in people

If your gender is statistically bad at chess, as the female gender is, it's not something to be upset over. It means you care about things like people.

So indeed it is because she's a woman...

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#228

Yes. Of course it's because of her chromosomes. You don't see any other lame world 7th ranker being put up there do you?

I mean other than Naka himself of course... but that's because it's his youtube channel so he's indulging himself.

Prometheus_Fuschs

Sep 22, 2020

0

#229

llama escribió:

So should they include Judit Polgar?

Well first of all, Naka definitely should include her. Because his audience is both stupid and sympathetic towards such things.

But putting Hiakru's inadequacies aside, and ranking in pure logical terms, is Judit legendary?

Yes, she's statistically amazing... and even if you don't agree with the maths side of it, you're unable to name a better female chess player in the past 10,000 years... therefore she's amazing whether you're an ignorant fool or not.

Women Chess is a proper subset of Chess so no, in the overall scheme of things she doesn't have legendary material in the latter one.

Prometheus_Fuschs

Sep 22, 2020

0

#230

llama escribió:

Yes. Of course it's because of her chromosomes. You don't see any other lame world 7th ranker being put up there do you?

I mean other than Naka himself of course... but that's because it's his youtube channel so he's indulging himself.

Indeed, hence she's not spectacular outside of the scope of women chess.

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#231

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

llama escribió:

So should they include Judit Polgar?

Well first of all, Naka definitely should include her. Because his audience is both stupid and sympathetic towards such things.

But putting Hiakru's inadequacies aside, and ranking in pure logical terms, is Judit legendary?

Yes, she's statistically amazing... and even if you don't agree with the maths side of it, you're unable to name a better female chess player in the past 10,000 years... therefore she's amazing whether you're an ignorant fool or not.

Women Chess is a proper subset of Chess so no, in the overall scheme of things she doesn't have legendary material in the latter one.

Well, even if you think women and men are exactly the same (they clearly aren't... and I don't mean that as a value judgement) it's clear that Judit's social impact is different than any of her peers (peers in terms of FIDE rating only).

Therefore there is something special about her and we can argue for a higher ranking.

The same way Anand is obviously not as good as Kasparov, but we can say he's great based on criteria other than FIDE rating and titles.

Prometheus_Fuschs

Sep 22, 2020

0

#232

llama escribió:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

llama escribió:

So should they include Judit Polgar?

Well first of all, Naka definitely should include her. Because his audience is both stupid and sympathetic towards such things.

But putting Hiakru's inadequacies aside, and ranking in pure logical terms, is Judit legendary?

Yes, she's statistically amazing... and even if you don't agree with the maths side of it, you're unable to name a better female chess player in the past 10,000 years... therefore she's amazing whether you're an ignorant fool or not.

Women Chess is a proper subset of Chess so no, in the overall scheme of things she doesn't have legendary material in the latter one.

Well, even if you think women and men are exactly the same (they clearly aren't... and I don't mean that as a value judgement) it's clear that Judit's social impact is different than any of her peers (peers in terms of FIDE rating only).

Therefore there is something special about her and we can argue for a higher ranking.

The same way Anand is obviously not as good as Kasparov, but we can say he's great based on criteria other than FIDE rating and titles.

I don't think women are the same as men but some people want to have their cake and eat it as well, regardless, I don't see why this should be a criteria to be in the list.

On another note, wasn't this list about chess skill and your critique was on the consideration of things as vague or subjective as popularity or impact?

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#233

Pure chess skill is a boring metric because Carlsen > Kapsarov > Fischer > Lasker etc.

It's just the date they happened to be born.

So criteria like how far ahead of their peers were they is a good one. For example Fischer's peak rating was something 125 points ahead of #2.

Number of title defenses is another good one I think. IIRC Kasparov won 5 world chess championship matches (4 defenses and 1 where he won it).

Number of years as #1 is also a good one. Lasker had... what was it? 27 years?

Each by themselves is lacking... ratings, by their nature, only compare contemporary players. Title defenses don't take into account if some were easy (Kasparov - Short) and years of dominance don't take into account ducking matches (Lasker)

Contributions to theory is a good one too. Kramnik is an all time great by that ranking.

So there are many legitimately good ways to rank players... none of them involve giving Naka "legend" stats... that's the main thrust of this topic. Of course you can disagree, and we can argue, but that's my main point.

---

Whether or not Judit deserves whatever rank she was given (I didn't watch the whole video, I was too disgusted after the first few minutes) is a different topic. Maybe she should be ranked much lower than wherever he put her... but I do think that there are legitimate criteria beyond e.g. peak or average FIDE rating.

Prometheus_Fuschs

Sep 22, 2020

0

#234

Of course raw rating is naive, but Judit didn't shine in any of your criteria, hell, some aren't even aplicable given there she was never a World Champion.

Prometheus_Fuschs

Sep 22, 2020

0

#235

The reasons why she is listed are not related to her rank, chess skill, theory contribution or dominance...

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#236

Yeah, and not only was Naka never a world champ, he only stumbled into one candidate's tournament.

Consider someone like MVL, who we might be able to argue is overall better than Naka. He was robbed of a candidate's tournament when he didn't lose a single game in the world cup (he lost 1 armageddon game) and then again this year he was almost robbed because they wanted to invite some no name garbage Russian player (Alekseenko).

But some odds circumstances (including COVID) caused MVL to get a shot this year... and guess what, he more than deserved it, he's currently tied for first (paused due to COVID).

Anyway, back to my point, Naka gets lucky to attend a candidates and the result is he scores 50%. He spends his whole career around #5 in the world or below... which is clearly not world champion material... then he wants to rate himself as a "legend" because xQc popularized chess among non-players, and Naka wants to ride xQc's coattails.

It's shameless. It's pathetic... and as the title says, it's disgusting.

Judit you can at least make an argument for because 50 years from now she'll be a footnote somewhere. Naka will be nothing.

llama

Sep 22, 2020

0

#237

saeadborji wrote:

llama wrote:

..........

But as usual, his ego gets in the way of any honest assessement.

........

And I can assure him that this is his ego that has kept him from achieving his wanna-be dream. Its not Magnus who held him back, its his own grudging envy of Magnus that messes him up every single time. After all, being god of chess is not just knowledge of the game itself. Id say character is one main factor and , sadly, Nakamura lacks this one considerably, and as you said, he is 32 now. No time is left for him to correct it, and much less when a number of teenagers are already ahead of him in quality, speed, character, energy etc

Well, that's a little harsh... because character is somewhat determined by luck...

Carlsen had very intelligent and skilled parents... skilled in the art of raising a child I mean.

From interviews Naka has given, I suspect his parents weren't nearly as skilled... that's hardly Naka's fault... and to be the #1 in the world at anything requires an enormous amount of luck (as well as work of course). If Naka's luck was 99 then Carlsen's was 100... this is hardly something I want to look down on Naka for... even though I agree with you that his personality is not as well suited as Carlsen's.

... but rating himself higher than Caruana and calling himself a legend... that will make me say something

Klepatus

Sep 22, 2020

0

#238

Polgar before Karpov on this list ? Thats wrong.

blueemu

Sep 22, 2020

0

#239

AthenaTheChessCub wrote:

Deranged wrote:

blueemu wrote:

vishnu_vijay_93 wrote:

autobunny wrote:

Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:

Judit Polgar a legend? That's even dumber than having Hikaru in that spot.

Youngest ever IM and GM at the time the bunny believes, forget that she's a pioneer that broke into top 10 dominated by men. The bunny thinks it's less dumb at least.

the human agrees with the bunny.

She has also won tournament games against eleven former World Champions (Carlsen, Spassky,
Karpov, Kasparov, Smyslov, Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, Ponomariov, Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov).

The deranged madman agrees with the human, the emu and the bunny.

The wolf cub agrees with the emu bunny, human and deranged madman, altough the wolf has no idea who is Kasimdzhanov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustam_Kasimdzhanov

DiogenesDue

Sep 22, 2020

0

#240

autobunny wrote:

At that point it may just be another elite group...

Eventually, there won't be any "races" (and good riddance), and so it will just be gender.