Originally posted by KorchP.S. Btw. I have heard that you have a copy of Anand's games in your study.
[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]
Oh No. It's on the link I put on to show I still run 3.1
OOPS! 😳
I was reading it today...it's not bad actually....(it's good infact).
Damn. And I was just warming up.
Korch 1 Greenpawn 0
Originally posted by pijunMaybe they are boring because you can`t understand their play? I understand that primitive "always attack & sacrifice" approach always have been more understandable for amateurs.....
Greenpawn, I've got an Amiga500 here, I'll boot it up with workbench and get battlechess fired up for ya.
As for Anand , yes most GMs are boring as they just repeat the moves a computer laid out, but every once in a blue moon they bust out something spectacular.
Originally posted by KorchI like this thread, very interesting. I think so far Korch is winning, though I don't disagree with Greenpawn either 🙂 Korch... I, being a total amateur, think what you say above is true, even though I am trying my best to keep learning and understand the game better. I myself am not an always attack and sac person...actually, I prefer quiet games and don't mind defending. I almost always will take the material and have the attacker prove that he has something.
Maybe they are boring because you can`t understand their play? I understand that primitive "always attack & sacrifice" approach always have been more understandable for amateurs.....
But anyway back to the topic... Yes, Grandmasters today do have talent and play good games, but to me, they just aren't as inspiring as the older masters. I don't know why this is, but I just feel that way. I think Kasparov was really the last "inspiring" world champion. He was the total package, before and during the beginning of the computer age.
Also, what do you guys think of my original statement:
"I'm just saying that it seems many grandmasters today have a much tougher time at the point when they are out of prep than grandmasters of the past had."
Agree or disagree and why?
Originally posted by passedpawn22Disagree - have a look at a Bologan - Vaganian French Defence game from a few years ago...
I like this thread, very interesting. I think so far Korch is winning, though I don't disagree with Greenpawn either 🙂 Korch... I, being a total amateur, think what you say above is true, even though I am trying my best to keep learning and understand the game better. I myself am not an always attack and sac person...actually, I prefer quiet games a ...[text shortened]... ey are out of prep than grandmasters of the past had."
Agree or disagree and why?
2 edits
Originally posted by passedpawn22kasparov kept being no.1 because he was the in peace with computers in that very important transition phase unlike his generation, and I think he was actually the very best at it.
Yes, Grandmasters today do have talent and play good games, but to me, they just aren't as inspiring as the older masters. I don't know why this is, but I just feel that way. I think Kasparov was really the last "inspiring" world champion. He was the total package, before and during the beginning of the computer age.
Also, what do you guys think of m tougher time at the point when they are out of prep than grandmasters of the past had."
your original statement is true, they do have a tougher "time", but not as in "gee, I don't know what to do in this position, I wish I was Capablanca", but more like "oh man, he has outprepared me and I have to find a good move over the board that could beat his days of home analysis with Rybka".
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't think I've ever disagreed with you so fiercely as this.
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 don't see how the World Champion of chess can ever be
called "An average chess player" or "non-creative" or even
something as simple as "Mechanical".
He was obviously born as a supertalent.
-GIN
1 edit
Originally posted by Jasen777You are quite right, it doesn't have to be art. To be honest my posts in this thread have been in jest mainly, of course Anand is a super talent. I mentioned Kramnik because alot of people give him stick (drawnik etc) He is my favourite player of the current generation, his endgame play is amazing. Anands games are generally very interesting too but I don't especially follow them.
But who says chess ought to be art? If chess has peaked as art, perhaps it has a long way to go as a science.
It's just that for some reason I have always been attracted to the era of lasker, rubinstein, capablanca and alekhine. I imagine most people(who like chess) have a favourite era for some reason. It's not just the chess for me but the personalitys and lifestyle. Capablanca always looked so dapper, I cannot imagine anyone with more class and style! Just my opinion of course.