He's good, but not that good. The downside of his impressive record vs. GMs is that he often loses to much weaker players as well with his risky brand of chess. He would only beat Magnus if he got lucky!
how good is Emory Tate
Sort:
This is how good Emory Tate is (or how bad my day was...):
so magnus would beat him 7 out of 10 matches
@kikvors : What is wrong for Black after 8...Qxf3 ? It doesn't seem so terrible to me.
9 Bd5
superking500 wrote:
he's only and IM but he has beaten like 80 GM before.... which means he might be able to beat Kasparov and Magnus etc.
lol
paulgottlieb wrote:
8...Qxf3 9.Bd5 looks pretty conclusive
second!
He could probably beat Magnus using the same means I would use: a baseball bat.
Else, no dice, sorry for that.
2000 player could probably score 3-7 against prime Kasparov by avoiding his extensive prep.
Fun Fact: Kasparov has never defeated an opponent who started out a game with 1. e4 2. Ke2 3. Ke3.
Tate's crazy style would render moot Kasparov's famous preparation. I'm figuring it's a pretty even fight.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/140/chess-other-board-games/emory-tate-vs-garry-kasparov-1306877/
would yall agree
Rendering Kasparov's preparation useless is not necessarily a good thing... I would also render Kasparov's preparation useless... because my moves would be bad.
true.. thats a good point
honestly though, wafflemaster say tate and kasparov had 10 matches, and kasparov was taking it serious... how many could tate win
pfren wrote:
He could probably beat Magnus using the same means I would use: a baseball bat.
Else, no dice, sorry for that.
A bunch of friends and I can all beat Magnus Carlsen too... it isn't very hard!
superking500 wrote:
true.. thats a good point
honestly though, wafflemaster say tate and kasparov had 10 matches, and kasparov was taking it serious... how many could tate win
Tate, or any IM, would very likely win zero. If they got lucky they could draw a game, maybe 2 if Kasparov was having a really bad day.
Any IM in a match vs any of the top 10 players in the world would most likely lose 10 games in a row, although like I said a draw here or there woudln't be too shocking.
waffllemaster wrote:
superking500 wrote:
true.. thats a good point
honestly though, wafflemaster say tate and kasparov had 10 matches, and kasparov was taking it serious... how many could tate win
Tate, or any IM, would very likely win zero. If they got lucky they could draw a game, maybe 2 if Kasparov was having a really bad day.
Any IM in a match vs any of the top 10 players in the world would most likely lose 10 games in a row, although like I said a draw here or there woudln't be too shocking.
so even tate with his crazy style trying to render kasparov legendary prep... it won't really help him that much
Chess isn't a game of styles like it was 100 years ago. Top class professional players are... well they're professional. They've taken time to gain proficiency in every aspect of the game. If you want a crazy tactical battle, that's fine. If you want a quiet positional game, that's ok too. Technical endgame? Theoretical opening? It doesn't matter, they've studied it and tested their knowledge against some of the best players in the world. They have weaknesses and uncertainties, sure, but they've studied it all. If you're going to throw them off with a certain style you at least need to be in striking distance. An IM vs a top 10 player is simply out of his league.
But all this talk of style is assuming Kasparov is weak in a tactical battle... but in truth it's the opposite, this is where Kasparov is at home. Kasparov is much more an attacking genius than Tate. Kasparov's preparation was only useful against players good enough for it to matter. Plus, if avoiding Kasparov's preparation to get a good game was as easy as playing an odd move quickly then he woudln't have dominated chess for ~20 years.
waffllemaster wrote:
Chess isn't a game of styles like it was 100 years ago. Top class professional players are... well they're professional. They've taken time to gain proficiency in every aspect of the game. If you want a crazy tactical battle, that's fine. If you want a quiet positional game, that's ok too. Technical endgame? Theoretical opening? It doesn't matter, they've studied it and tested their knowledge against some of the best players in the world. They have weaknesses and uncertainties, sure, but they've studied it all. If you're going to throw them off with a certain style you at least need to be in striking distance. An IM vs a top 10 player is simply out of his league.
But all this talk of style is assuming Kasparov is weak in a tactical battle... but in truth it's the opposite, this is where Kasparov is at home. Kasparov is much more an attacking genius than Tate. Kasparov's preparation was only useful against players good enough for it to matter. Plus, if avoiding Kasparov's preparation to get a good game was as easy as playing an odd move quickly then he woudln't have dominated chess for ~20 years.
good point wafflemaster.... your right, its amazing how kasparov became so good at chess
well shadowknight911 how does he do against kasparov
i hear he is pretty skilled player
he's only and IM but he has beaten like 80 GM before.... which means he might be able to beat Kasparov and Magnus etc.