Gm, Schmee-M!
According to the USCF site, he hasn't played since 1999 and expired in 2003. You just can't pick up where you left off 14 years later.
Joshua Waitzkin?
Sort:
Mar 8, 2013
0
#63
DrSpudnik wrote:
Gm, Schmee-M!
According to the USCF site, he hasn't played since 1999 and expired in 2003. You just can't pick up where you left off 14 years later.
xD
DrSpudnik wrote:
Gm, Schmee-M!
According to the USCF site, he hasn't played since 1999 and expired in 2003. You just can't pick up where you left off 14 years later.
Honey! I'm back!
Mar 8, 2013
0
#65
goldendog wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
Gm, Schmee-M!
According to the USCF site, he hasn't played since 1999 and expired in 2003. You just can't pick up where you left off 14 years later.
Honey! I'm back!
xDDD
JDzokic wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
He showed promise at an early age, but turns out he was a bit shit really.
His story proves that despite the world's best trainers and material not everyone can become a world champion chess player, but all of these unsuccessful stories are never talked about like the Polgar sisters are.
this isn't true. he stopped playing because he lost his passion for it. seemingly as a result of the book and movie. he insinuated this rather strongly in several interviews.
and how you can call any IM "shit" will remain a mystery to me.
yes you are right actually. But i still sort them out for me between good and bad ims, even though logically they are all strong.
Atomic_Rift skrev:
superking500 wrote:
what ever happened to that guy, the "Serching for Bobby Fischer" he was suppose to be the next big thing in chess.... but his peak rating is on 2480, he never even made it into the 2500, never a grandmaster.... he just kind of fell off the map
He made an awesome chess engine called Chessmaster when he grew up. :)
He didn't create Chessmaster.
Ontopic: Waitzkin is severely overhyped, every year some kid wins the u-something championship of USA, Canada, Norway and so forth, it hardly means everyone of them is going to be the next big thing. His dad was just extremely good at gaining publicity, nothing else.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
He showed promise at an early age, but turns out he was a bit shit really.
Fide Master at 13, Fide International Master at 16 years old Watzkin won the U.S. National Primary, Junior High School, High School, United States Junior Championships 1993 and 1994, U.S. Cadet in addition Waitzkin helped his School Dalton in New York City win several team championships.
Waitzkin might have lost his love for the game and moved on in life to other things but he wasn't a shit player nothing to be ashamed of for his acomplishments.
alec840 wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
He showed promise at an early age, but turns out he was a bit shit really.
Fide Master at 13, Fide International Master at 16 years old Watzkin won the U.S. National Primary, Junior High School, High School, United States Junior Championships 1993 and 1994, U.S. Cadet in addition Waitzkin helped his School Dalton in New York City win several team championships.
Waitzkin might have lost his love for the game and moved on in life to other things but he wasn't a shit player nothing to be ashamed of for his acomplishments.
did he held the title and the strenght by really beating people of that strenght regurlarly or was it awarded and he gained so many points through one tournament?
well dzodic the same as someone gives the right to sort stocks more professional than bankers. The sort of right that some people can judge character better then other people.. i healthy trust in my judgement i would guess...
also it matters what an im does, you can listen to im, if he says honest and logical stuff.. respect, if he makes hocus pocus lessons and does irrelevant stuff why should i see him as a strong master just because of the title.
Besides what gives an im the right critizing every move a GM does???
just look at icc, no i didnt like that move, that move i also didnt like.. oh god how can he play that i dont like that move, not a good move..
JDzokic wrote:
do you have money invested in them?
most everything an IM tries to teach to those learning will probably be legitimate and of worth.
criticizing moves made in this or that game is worlds away from "sorting good and bad ims". usually those commentators have engine analysis available and it's also been said by many that it's somehow easier to see things when you're not actually playing.
i didnt ment commentators i ment random ims commentating...
anyway i didnt say im correct with my assessment.
why are you guys talking about one great talent, but put it more promising than Carlsen, Kasparov, Nepomniastshi, Morozevich, Radiabov, Kariakin, Aronian, Ivanchuk...
The order plays no role here, i could name other players, everyone of them showed more ingenious independent ideas at early age, than Waitzkin.
Same as the (sometimes too self-confident) Nakamura.
Is it because USA is the 'best country in the world' ?
STILL most of the strong US players are immigrants.
schlechter55 wrote:
why are you guys talking about one great talent, but put it more promising than Carlsen, Kasparov, Nepomniastshi, Morozevich, Radiabov, Kariakin, Aronian, Ivanchuk...
The order plays no role here, i could name other players, everyone of them showed more ingenious independent ideas at early age, than Waitzkin.
Same as the (sometimes too self-confident) Nakamura.
Is it because USA is the 'best country in the world' ?
I really believe in Nakamura, you are right too confident is probably his biggest problem. Even though he knows a lot maybe he should study more i think. If thats even his problem i dont know, you know he seems to know every opening in blitz.
Anyway i dont know enough about chess but i beleive Nakamura can become number 1
i dont know if it was pro or contra Nakamura my english too bad, but NAkamura showed awesome promise i believe.
He will never be. He has NOT more talent than ten others. And his preparations (openings) are even not as good as of Gelfand .
This will not change, except St. Louis Chess Club buys permanently 5 GM who speak Russian...
schlechter55 wrote:
He will never be. He has NOT more talent than ten others. And his preparations (openings) are even not as good as of Gelfand .
This will not change, except St. Louis Chess Club buys permanently 5 GM who speak Russian...
if he is in the top ten and his opening prep is not as good (wich i dont know if true or not) wouldnt have he the easiest way to improve his strenght by just improving it? wouldnt he practically be the guy with the most potential and if he used it be able to reach the top?
im not an expert but isnt nakamuras tactical skill and quickness in accurate calculation and thinking the hardest part to get. And the other stuff he lacks the easy part he can obtain if he really wants it.
That means if my half baked opinions and my second hand knwoledge is true.
Kasparov was 14 when he was 15.
???