Is it a disaster if Anand wins the candidates tournament? - Chess Forums - Page 11

shailendra123

Mar 26, 2014

0

#201

anand wil regain his crown ,Carlsen will learn how anand is when he is at his best i bet on this !

reboc

Mar 26, 2014

0

#202

Dudido111 wrote:

reboc wrote:

Dudido111 wrote:

i_will_not_resign wrote:

Well, I may not be a good chess player, but I do know this..Anand is the best from the East, and he was d first and till now, only one to challenge Western domination in chess...to all Westerners who can't stomach this simple fact, I have just this to say...chess is nobody's monopoly......... etc etc

Completely agreed. Some very good facts and undeniable truth with very good description and attitude. Truly Indian and proud to be Indian.

Not facts, these are his opinions about what westerners supposedly think. In my experience (I'm an ethnic-european Canadian) chess players around here are divided more by age than by race.

Those of us who are a bit older seem to be rooting for Anand, while the younger crowd seems to want to see Aronian and youngers guys get a shot.

I don't see this as a racist thing. For example, as a "European", I'm certainly not backing Russians or Armenians just because I consider them to be "western".

Don't make this about race. 99% of the time, it's just not.

Who says these r not facts?.. Now if u find these r only personal opinion then I must say go first educate ur self and then come back for further arguments if really of any logic at all... And one more thing learn also the distinctions between opinions and facts so to understand them properly and clearly...

Dudido... i_will_not_resign wrote a long post about how westerners can't stand to have Anand win. This is his OPINION about what westerners think. It certainly does not represent what I think. As stated, I am a white european Canadian, and I hope Anand wins.

Thus, his characterization of my opinion is not fact. Period.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#203

InfiniteFlash wrote:

It's all about Anand getting crushed in the world championship rematch to happen later this year.

Why do you think others will have better chances, if they are unable to play better than Anand?

Scottrf

Mar 26, 2014

0

#204

Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#205

Scottrf wrote:

Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.

Kramnik had to lose against Topalov in their 2006 match, according to yout statement - he had only 2743 against Topalov`s 2813.

Anand should not have to crush Kramnik with such a margin in their 2008 match too - he had only ELO 11 points more than Kramnik (2783 vs 2772).

Do you need more examples, which will refute your rating fetishism?

Scottrf

Mar 26, 2014

0

#206

Pacifique wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.

Kramnik had to lose against Topalov in their 2006 match, according to yout statement - he had only 2743 against Topalov`s 2813.

Anand should not have to crush Kramnik with such a result in their 2008 match too - he had only ELO 11 points more than Kramnik (2783 vs 2772).

Do you need more examples, which will refute your rating fetishism?

Nope, you just don't understand what very good predictor means it seems.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#207

Scottrf wrote:

Pacifique wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.

Kramnik had to lose against Topalov in their 2006 match, according to yout statement - he had only 2743 against Topalov`s 2813.

Anand should not have to crush Kramnik with such a result in their 2008 match too - he had only ELO 11 points more than Kramnik (2783 vs 2772).

Do you need more examples, which will refute your rating fetishism?

Nope, you just don't understand what very good predictor means it seems.

You just don`t understand chess.

Scottrf

Mar 26, 2014

0

#208

Terrible response after getting found wanting.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#209

Your forum content is terrible - another arrogant patzer, able only to belittle superior players.

Scottrf

Mar 26, 2014

0

#210

I don't belittle anyone. You're just annoyed that I pointed out how hypocritical you were being in your thread about Ponz. But keep changing subject because you can't beat me remaining on topic.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#211

Scottrf wrote:

I don't belittle anyone. You're just annoyed that I pointed out how hypocritical you were being in your thread about Ponz. But keep changing subject because you can't beat me remaining on topic.

Who is changing the subject mentioning Ponz? In fact you demonstrated your only your prejudice. Like you do in this thread.

Scottrf

Mar 26, 2014

0

#212

That post isn't even legible.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#213

Scottrf wrote:

That post isn't even legible.

It`s not true. See http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/ponziani-discussion-without-spam post #13. My reply is in #15.

Scottrf

Mar 26, 2014

0

#214

I meant post 250 in this thread. Maybe get a translator?

Anyway I'm not interested in you. Have fun.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#215

Scottrf wrote:

I meant post 250 in this thread. Maybe get a translator?

You lie.

getmated_

Mar 26, 2014

0

#216

I think that Carlsen is gonna beat Anand even more than he did last year. I think Magnus will win five games and draw the rest.

red-lady

Mar 26, 2014

0

#217

Ok... Scott and Pacifique, sit down and oh well, whatever. We are going to be nice to each other.

Or I'll send you both a hamburger trophy! And we do not want that to happen, right?

Irontiger

Mar 26, 2014

0

#218

Pacifique wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.

Kramnik had to lose against Topalov in their 2006 match, according to yout statement - he had only 2743 against Topalov`s 2813.

Anand should not have to crush Kramnik with such a margin in their 2008 match too - he had only ELO 11 points more than Kramnik (2783 vs 2772).

Do you need more examples, which will refute your rating fetishism?

That's anecdotal evidence. Of course having a superior rating does not mean a sure win - it only means a win is more probable. A die landing on 5 would not refute a claim that "obtaining 4 or less is more likely".

That being said, there is a good argument that in WC matches both players prepare opening novelties, play different lines and end up in position we are not used to see them in, and that affects their relative strength. But that's not the point you made.

NM ozzie_c_cobblepot

Mar 26, 2014

0

#219

The players have longed for years to reinstate the rule where the champion gets an automatic rematch a year later -- we're just witnessing the formality of the tournament - the outcome was already determined based on the handshakes and winks pre-tournament.

NM Pacifique

Mar 26, 2014

0

#220

Irontiger wrote:

Pacifique wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ratings are a very good predictor of future results in a long series of games with a single opponent. They were in the last world championship and they will be in the next. Much better than people's subjective opinions about who is more experienced, home advantage or other factors. As I said before the last match and the women's championship.

Kramnik had to lose against Topalov in their 2006 match, according to yout statement - he had only 2743 against Topalov`s 2813.

Anand should not have to crush Kramnik with such a margin in their 2008 match too - he had only ELO 11 points more than Kramnik (2783 vs 2772).

Do you need more examples, which will refute your rating fetishism?

That's anecdotal evidence. Of course having a superior rating does not mean a sure win - it only means a win is more probable. A die landing on 5 would not refute a claim that "obtaining 4 or less is more likely".

That being said, there is a good argument that in WC matches both players prepare opening novelties, play different lines and end up in position we are not used to see them in, and that affects their relative strength. But that's not the point you made.

Do you (and other rating fetishists) have any statistical evidence of World championship tournament & match ratings to back up your claims?