Yeah, it's still a Class B player thinking he knows Grandmaster Chess.
I normally don't bring up credentials, but the specific arguments here are purely speculative and implied to be absolutely correct.
if you have seen any of his other nuggets of wisdom. He advocates learning nothing but openings, and tactics. From things i have read, he is about where he should be with that study method..a class B lifer.
Actually, my rating wiill continue to rise.
go Magik!! there's just no stopping him!
Think about it guys. Who was Kasparov's competition back then? Peter Leko? That guys rating is going down. Kasparov would barely make it in the top twenty with today's competition. Both Kasparov and Karpov are the product of their times, the pre computer era.
yeah, they couldn't even boot up an Amstrad :)
Chess has evolved, but great players do adapt, and picks up the new stuff fast. I guess Morphy, if he stood up from the grave with the brainpower he had on top, would lost a lot in a few tournaments, but picked up ideas for every loss and after some months been up fighting close with Magnus, Vishy and the top 50.
Think about it guys. Who was Kasparov's competition back then? Peter Leko? That guys rating is going down. Kasparov would barely make it in the top twenty with today's competition. Both Kasparov and Karpov are the product of their times, the pre computer era.
Who were they? Vishy was one of them. Vishy still is top 2-10.
Think about it guys. Who was Kasparov's competition back then? Peter Leko? That guys rating is going down. Kasparov would barely make it in the top twenty with today's competition. Both Kasparov and Karpov are the product of their times, the pre computer era.
Kasparov is the man who pioneered the use of computers in chess
Think about it guys. Who was Kasparov's competition back then? Peter Leko? [Leko wasn't really one of Kasparov's main competitors ~SF] That guys rating is going down. Kasparov would barely make it in the top twenty with today's competition. [Kasparov would be ranked 2nd in the world if he came back today. He would probably drop some, but he wouldn't fall below Gelfand, aged 46. Gelfand is 2747 and is 16th in the world~SF] Both Kasparov and Karpov are the product of their times, the pre computer era.
Kasparov is the man who pioneered the use of computers in chess
Comments in red are facts. Comments in blue are my responses ~SF
There are only two facts that Magikstone got right in that quote, and you chose to address one of them.
Leko's rating is indeed slowly dropping from a high of 2763. It's currently 2713. Yeah, he's still one of the best in the world (36th overall, including inactive players)!
The other fact that Magikstone got right was that Kasparov was a product of the pre-computer era. He became an international sensation with his break-out tournament in 1979. He would have started playing earlier, but the Soviets held him back.
The beginning of the computer era in chess is about 1996, when Deep Blue became the first engine to defeat a sitting world champion in a single game, or 1997, when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in a match.
Think about it guys. Who was Kasparov's competition back then? Peter Leko? [Leko wasn't really one of Kasparov's main competitors ~SF] That guys rating is going down. Kasparov would barely make it in the top twenty with today's competition. [Kasparov would be ranked 2nd in the world if he came back today. He would probably drop some, but he wouldn't fall below Gelfand, aged 46. Gelfand is 2747 and is 16th in the world~SF] Both Kasparov and Karpov are the product of their times, the pre computer era.
Kasparov is the man who pioneered the use of computers in chess
Comments in red are facts. Comments in blue are my responses ~SF
There are only two facts that Magikstone got right in that quote, and you chose to address one of them.
Leko's rating is indeed slowly dropping from a high of 2763. It's currently 2713. Yeah, he's still one of the best in the world (36th overall, including inactive players)!
The other fact that Magikstone got right was that Kasparov was a product of the pre-computer era. He became an international sensation with his break-out tournament in 1979. He would have started playing earlier, but the Soviets held him back.
The beginning of the computer era in chess is about 1996, when Deep Blue became the first engine to defeat a sitting world champion in a single game, or 1997, when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in a match.
Kasparov was using computers to catalog games by opening and variations long before there were strong engines. He was paying grandmasters to input games into databases and organize them in the late 80s.
Now ... how much do you think engine analysis helps grandmasters and how do you think being able to click through thousands upon thousands of games with a mouse helps grandmasters? ... and amateurs at that.
Kasparov's peak strength was certainly a product of the computer era.
hi all. I'm FM AFSHARI FROM IRAN
Hi Afshari. That is one super high blitz rating.
kasparov also defeated mvl in blitz a couple of years ago. guy is just a beast
Capalanca's understanding of chess was flawed. Petrosian conceded a lot of space and that is supposedly why he lost that 2nd match to Spassky...
"Okay, if I can just get everyone to stop laughing for a moment, I think we're ready to give this thread its trophy now..."
Have you read Chess Fundamentals? He advocates greedily eating material. He says to take it if you think you can defend. That's not a very modern approach. He spent most of his match against Alekhine defending and he lost that match. Capa's calculating abilities were 2nd to none. However, his understanding was deeply flawed.
Actually Alekhine, Lasker, and Reshevsky were contemporaries who had much stronger calculation than Capablanca. I think you have it backwards: taking material if you think defending it ultimately leads to an objective superiority is what modern defense is all about. Taking material knowing it's quite risky, why do you think the Najdorf poisoned pawn variation is popular at the highest levels? It illustrates this principle perfectly.
Whose better Wesely So or Hikaru Nakamura?
magikstone wrote:
My method is for those who do not have a good memory (me) and for those who are too lazy, or just plain cannot calculate deeply (me)
The beautiful thing about chess, and I am proof of this, is, you do not need to memorize a lot of positions and games, hec, in my method, you don't ever have to memorize anything for the rest of your life. You don't even need to calculate anything. Why do you think so many chess players can play a decent game of chess with only 3 minutes on the clock? Because chess is more about intuition then it is about brute force calculation. A Grandmaster with superb calculation skills will not be able to beat a lesser play, who with mere intuition, has been playing solid good moves. Ask any grandmaster, if any strong player wants to play solidly, he can easily draw against a super calculator like Anand.
All you need to do to improve at chess is become familiar with the openings you use. A lot of times, depending on how your opponent moves, will require tactics your brain won't be able to pick up on. That's why you must have a computer program to teach you how you could have proceeded. I'm not saying you will be able to memorize the exact move orders, but in your subconcious, there will be a vague concept, an idea that you've just discovered. And since chess is unpredictable, you might never reach the same position twice, but the beautiful thing is, subconciously, by learning from your own games, you will learn to make wiser decisions, even though confronted with a set of new problems over the board. Just watch me climb.
Sigh!! When I read the above ccomments, I can help but feel sorry for a player who believe in this Mickey Mouse system. Don't need to memorize games, openings, theoretical endgame positions and middlegame concepts, or I forgot, you don't need to calculate. Yes, if only chess was that simple, just put my game through a engine, yeah baby analyzing for me because I too stupid or too lazing to do it myself and my chess program is my genie and will do all my work for me and make me the greatest player. I don't need to study to become a master or look at past master games like Carlsen, just let my chess program play for me and I will be world champion soon. Well, I have some sad news for you, the higher you are rated, the tougher is your opponent. That means you better have chess knowledge and, yes, sigh!; that means you have to study and memorize some chess knowledge and that also means hard work. (: Oh, I forgot, you better calculate well against experts and masters, if you plan to achieve such coveted title. A player who can't calculate can't expect to go far, he will stay low rated and that is a fact!! Prove me wrong!!! I never met a player who is an expert and could not calculate at least five moves deep and that is low for a expert, most experts can calculate at least ten move deep.
I view your Mickey Mouse opening, it is really bad and your tactics is horrible, I wish I can say your tactics is bad but I can't.
I noticed you don't do tactical trainer, yes, I understand it can be quite embarrassing having it below 1200. Players who boast how strong they are but don't do tactical trainer, tell me they don't have faith and confidence in their tactical abilities.
Gm. Danial Narodisky wrote: The study of theoretical endgames is a necessary evil. For most players, it is a rather torturous experience simply because there is no room for innovation or creativity.
Darrrnnnn!!! I have to memorizing theoretical endgame, that is work!! 
Can't use my chess program to help me to become a grandmaster, you know the lazy system, don't have to calculate, memorize opening and any chess games. 
No, sorry GM Daniel Narodisky, you have to study. magikstone said, that sucks, I hate hard work, I just let chess program do all the work for me. 
No, that won't work, you will never be a GM, it requires hard work.
Yeah, it's still a Class B player thinking he knows Grandmaster Chess.
I normally don't bring up credentials, but the specific arguments here are purely speculative and implied to be absolutely correct. I'm not trying to make an adhominem so much as bring people down to earth.