Originally posted by greenpawn34Many genial chess players had terrible loses beside of chess masterpieces they have made. The best well known example is Capablance blundering piece in 9th move against Samish ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066901 ), some horrible games by Alekhine in his 1935 match with Euwe. To say nothing about Karpov losing to Korchnoi in 19 moves in their 1974 match ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067831 ) or Kasparov getting crushed in 25 moves by Kramnik in their 2000 match ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252049 ) or by Ivan Sokolov in 28 moves ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011516 ).
Quote:
"he was crushing grandmasters in standard time controls only using
up 8 minutes of his clock!!! "
That is because he hit them with home/computer preparation and
theses dull GM's let him do it. They lean on theory like a crutch.
Fire up your database. Look at Anand's losses.
They are terrible. When his memory fails him or he loses the ...[text shortened]... has brought nothing new to the game.
Karpov summed him up correctly - a mechanical player.
I can give more examples if you want.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieQuote:
oh pawn Dude, think about what you are saying, he is simply from a different generation, yes he uses computers, but must we insist that he plays like one as well? Are there not some moments of inspiration in his play? i heard a little anecdote, that his memory is such, that he memorized the move orders, but such was his reliance, they having been er ...[text shortened]... although I cannot substantiate theses claims, however, are not his blitz matches second to none?
"are not his blitz matches second to none."
Huh! Blitz play. Monkey Chess is a better term.
Right I'm off to Bells to play some 'Monkey Chess' if you see Anand tell him where I am.
If he does not show by 10 o'clock I know he chickened out.
1 edit
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsIn 1988 Anand only became GM and definitely was not top player.
[pgn][Event "Biel"]
[Site "Biel"]
[Date "1988.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Alonso Zapata"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "C42"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "11"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5 6.Qe2 1-0
[/pgn]
1 edit
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsDo you want to state that Anand was top player then?
IM !!!!
Really funny how people like to remind this one accident. Btw - the reason why did he played that line was that it was played by GM before - http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1089022. In his youth he trusted theory too much - how could he know that that draw was pre-arranged🙂
Where would you(the great forum posters of rhp) say Anand comes, in the litany of world champs? For what its worth my opinion, based purely on style of play and admiration of games and ideas, not strictly playing strength:
1. Capablanca 2. Lasker 3. Alekhine 4. Botvinnik 5. Tal 6. Kasparov 7. Petrosian 8. Euwe 9. Smyslov 10. Spassky 11. Karpov 12. Fischer 13. Kramnik 14. Anand 15. Steinitz.
Don't you just love lists!
I saw the Kasparov-Anand match in 95. I also looked up the overall score between the two at chessgames.com. I gave up keeping up with top level chess for years after about 2000. When I came back, Anand was champion !!! I was in total shock. I still can't get over it. I guess I just don't give him credit for being that great because of the way he used to play back then.
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchWe have had this argument before.
Many genial chess players had terrible loses beside of chess masterpieces they have made. The best well known example is Capablance blundering piece in 9th move against Samish ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066901 ), some horrible games by Alekhine in his 1935 match with Euwe. To say nothing about Karpov losing to Korchnoi in 19 moves in their ...[text shortened]... ttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011516 ).
I can give more examples if you want.
Show me an 6 move loss due to following a faulty game played
by two players who had agreed a draw.
All the losses you mentioned before the advent of computers do not
count in this argument.
Kasparov was passed he peak when Kramnik (another bot) beat him.
Obviously the two greatest are Fischer (no computers at all !!!) and Kasparov (much computer analysis AND great skill).
As far as natural ability goes, there is Morphy (who invented the wheel so to speak). There is also Capablanca (who never even seriously studied the game!). His play was incredibly wonderful and deep. He also beat Lasker for the title without dropping a single game !!!
1 edit
Originally posted by jonrothwellI mentioned earlier - I would not put Anand in that list.
Where would you(the great forum posters of rhp) say Anand comes, in the litany of world champs? For what its worth my opinion, based purely on style of play and admiration of games and ideas, not strictly playing strength:
1. Capablanca 2. Lasker 3. Alekhine 4. Botvinnik 5. Tal 6. Kasparov 7. Petrosian 8. Euwe 9. Smyslov 10. Spassky 11. Karpov 12. Fischer 13. Kramnik 14. Anand 15. Steinitz.
Don't you just love lists!
That list contains World Champion Chess players.
Anand is memory man. Mr Unoriginal, a mechanical player.
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34Jesus!!! Only due to one stupid loss (due to lack of experience) when he was 18 some idiots will not admit his chess talent when he have almost 40 after all his achievements during this period...... What a nonsense!!!!
We have had this argument before.
Show me an 6 move loss due to following a faulty game played
by two players who had agreed a draw.
All the losses you mentioned before the advent of computers do not
count in this argument.
Kasparov was passed he peak when Kramnik (another bot) beat him.
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Mr Unoriginal, a mechanical player would not be able to became a World champion.
I mentioned earlier - I would not put Anand in that list.
That list contains World Champion Chess players.
Anand is memory man. Mr Unoriginal, a mechanical player.
P.S. Btw. I have heard that you have a copy of Anand's games in your study 😛
Originally posted by KorchKramnik managed it!
[b]Mr Unoriginal, a mechanical player would not be able to became a World champion.
P.S. Btw. I have heard that you have a copy of Anand's games in your study 😛[/b]
Chess peaked years ago, computers have taken the artistry out of it, that and the loss of adjourned games.
1 edit
Originally posted by jonrothwellYes yes - Kramnik lost to Anand with intention because such a mechanic player would not be able to win without assistance.....
Kramnik managed it!
Chess peaked years ago, computers have taken the artistry out of it, that and the loss of adjourned games.
P.S. From some comments about Anand I have impression that these people have studied only his earlier games which he lost 😛