11 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder1) Anand wasn't a modern top GM?;
1) Anand wasn't a modern top GM?;
2) I haven't seen any stats that prove that White wins a higher percentage of GM games now then they did 30 or even 100 years ago. Please cite them if you have them;
3) Anand played for the World Championship within three years of that embarrassing loss; when did Larsen play for the title again?;
4) So Anand losing in 17 moves isn't as bad as Larsen losing in 17 moves?🙄
Then he was. But aim of that remark was to prevent you from posting games of usual GMs
2) I haven't seen any stats that prove that White wins a higher percentage of GM games now then they did 30 or even 100 years ago. Please cite them if you have them;
You missed my point. I wanted to say that modern GMs are playing better, if they are not getting such bad opening positions as Fischer and Larsen did. And I don`t see what`s the point of these stats?
3) Anand played for the World Championship within three years of that embarrassing loss; when did Larsen play for the title again?;
In 1992 Anand was very far from World Championship match. during these few years he made progress - you are allowed to search for his quick loses in 1995.
4) So Anand losing in 17 moves isn't as bad as Larsen losing in 17 moves?🙄
For every qualified player is obvious difference between loss as White and loss as Black. Between loss due to one blunder and between loss due to chain of weak moves.
11 Jan 09
I have stayed out of discussions until now but most seem rather pointless to be honest.
It is clear that if Fischer had been born in 1972 & had access to latest theory, the advent of online databases and computerised chess opponents, tactics trainers and so on in his prime, then he would clearly be a top GM now as he was then.
His play would no doubt be even more accurate & most probably have even more remarkable engine matchup results.
I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.
11 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI`m tired to repeat that matchup obviously also defends on how strong is your opposition - it`s easier to play better against weaker players. In modern chess his opposition would be stronger than in 1970ties.
I have stayed out of discussions until now but most seem rather pointless to be honest.
It is clear that if Fischer had been born in 1972 & had access to latest theory, the advent of online databases and computerised chess opponents, tactics trainers and so on in his prime, then he would clearly be a top GM now as he was then.
His play would ...[text shortened]... ve even more remarkable engine matchup results.
I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchYes but Fischer would no doubt be stronger too.
I`m tired to repeat that matchup obviously also defends on how strong is your opposition. In modern chess his opposition would be stronger than in 1970ties.
Anyway, the result is surely the same - both players would pick more top 3 engine moves & not less.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchYes but Fischer would no doubt be stronger too.
Yes but Fischer would no doubt be stronger too.
Anyway, the result is surely the same - both players would pick more top 3 engine moves & not less.
Taking into account that his advantage over his contemporaries were based on better use of options accessible in 1970ties, I don`t see the base to be for 100% sure that he would be able use modern options with the same success.
Anyway, the result is surely the same - both players would pick more top 3 engine moves & not less.
Why do you think so?
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchI can't see modern Fischer with access to modern resources & modern chess training techniques being more prone to blunders/inaccurate moves than '70's Fischer.
[b]Anyway, the result is surely the same - both players would pick more top 3 engine moves & not less.
Why do you think so?[/b]
I don't see any possible logic in arguments that his play would be less accurate now than it was then unless you can think some up?! 😀
11 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchA cheap shot. To be honest, your analysis of my games was virtually entirely made up of recycled engine analyis. I could have just run the games through Fritz (as I did) and got just as useful results. Another player supposedly rated lower OTB than you gave much better human analysis and useful suggestions for improvement.
[b]You're an obvious idiot.
So Mr.1500 OTB player has started personal attacks? The same player who have been send to "idiot" his OTB games asking to help with analysis?
Sure it's easier now to prepare openings with the tools that are available. That hardly means the players are "better" now.
For your notice - important part of chess streng ted I knew before this thread. When we will start to search lets see who will find more.[/b]
How about Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue where he fell into an opening trap in the Caro-Kann? Or isn't he "modern" enough?
Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.11"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann: 4...Nd7"]
[ECO "B17"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6
8.Nxe6 Qe7 9.O-O fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4 b5 12.a4 Bb7 13.Re1 Nd5
14.Bg3 Kc8 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Qd3 Bc6 17.Bf5 exf5 18.Rxe7 Bxe7 19.c4 1-0
EDIT: BTW, it was you who said:
Anand had Black, Larsen had White. In modern top GM chess its important difference.
I asked for stats showing this supposed "important difference" was greater in "modern top GM chess" than it had been in not so modern top GM chess. Predictably, you couldn't produce anything to support your grandiose claim.
Originally posted by no1marauderA cheap shot. To be honest, your analysis of my games was virtually entirely made up of recycled engine analyis. I could have just run the games through Fritz (as I did) and got just as useful results. Another player supposedly rated lower OTB than you gave much better human analysis and useful suggestions for improvement.
A cheap shot. To be honest, your analysis of my games was virtually entirely made up of recycled engine analyis. I could have just run the games through Fritz (as I did) and got just as useful results. Another player supposedly rated lower OTB than you gave much better human analysis and useful suggestions for improvement.
How about Kasp Deep Blue where he fell into an opening trap in the Caro-Kann? Or isn't he "modern" enough?
Claim that you got the identic results with Fritz are blatant lie. If you want so much I can reproduce them in my blog for others to see how "made up of recycled engine analysis" they were. Of course there were many stupid tactical inaccuracies which engines can see immeadiately, but not only that.
How about Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue where he fell into an opening trap in the Caro-Kann? Or isn't he "modern" enough?
According to Kasparov himself he did play that well known line with idea that engine never will make 8.Nxe6. Taking into account that this line is really well known it sounds very plausible. So he would not make such move against human and that game has nothing common with his real chess strength.
Btw. You still did not show any games in which modern topGm were crushed playing White.
Anand had Black, Larsen had White. In modern top GM chess its important difference.
I asked for stats showing this supposed "important difference" was greater in "modern top GM chess" than it had been in not so modern top GM chess. Predictably, you couldn't produce anything to support your grandiose claim.
Can you show any modern topGM game where White were crushed like Larsen against Spassky? Or after getting hopeless position after move 10 as Fischer against Matulovich?
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchLearn how to read. I said I could get just "as useful results" not "identical" ones. There were a few stupid tactical inaccuracies in your last OTB tourney also so your typical arrogance is a bit disingenuous.
[b]A cheap shot. To be honest, your analysis of my games was virtually entirely made up of recycled engine analyis. I could have just run the games through Fritz (as I did) and got just as useful results. Another player supposedly rated lower OTB than you gave much better human analysis and useful suggestions for improvement.
Claim that you got the iden ...[text shortened]...
Btw. You still did not show any games in which modern topGm were crushed playing White.[/b]
I'll find some when I get around to it; I think we both know they are out there. In the meantime, perhaps you could produce some evidence supporting your claim that having White is a bigger advantage in "modern top GM chess" than it had been previously.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderLearn how to read. I said I could get just "as useful results" not "identical" ones.
Learn how to read. I said I could get just "as useful results" not "identical" ones. There were a few stupid tactical inaccuracies in your last OTB tourney also so your typical arrogance is a bit disingenuous.
I'll find some when I get around to it; I think we both know they are out there. In the meantime, perhaps you could produce some ev ...[text shortened]... having White is a bigger advantage in "modern top GM chess" than it had been previously.
So just your subjective claim
There were a few stupid tactical inaccuracies in your last OTB tourney also so your typical arrogance is a bit disingenuous.
Are you really want to start count who had them more? Like when both players missed one tactic threat during 3 moves😀 And who would talk about arrogance....
I'll find some when I get around to it; I think we both know they are out there. In the meantime, perhaps you could produce some evidence supporting your claim that having White is a bigger advantage in "modern top GM chess" than it had been previously.
If top GMs in past got in lost positions playing White after 10th move and modern GMs does not, how would you explain that?
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchExplain this:
[b]Learn how to read. I said I could get just "as useful results" not "identical" ones.
So just your subjective claim
There were a few stupid tactical inaccuracies in your last OTB tourney also so your typical arrogance is a bit disingenuous.
Are you really want to start count who had them more? Like when both players missed one tactic threat d itions playing White after 10th move and modern GMs does not, how would you explain that?[/b]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250376
I don't remember losing any pieces and resigning in 12 moves; do you?
EDIT: I'm sorry let me correct that sentence:
I don't remember losing any pieces and resigning after 8 moves; do you?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=95721&page=6
11 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by heinzkatFinally found one. Anyway I found one White fail more and in less number of moves 😛
This one comes to mind (World Champion, playing White, loses in just 20 moves). What does it tell us about the level of play? Not much.
[pgn][Event "Corus Chess Tournament"]
[Site "0:22:16-1:04:45"]
[Date "2005.01.16"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[Bla h3 Nxe4 6.Be2 Ne5 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Bd4 Nc6 19.Bc3 d5 20.Nbc5 Qa7 0-1[/pgn]
But to be serious - in 2005 Kramnik definitely was not on his peak what we can`t said about Fisher in 1970.
Btw. I`m still awaiting refutation to statement that during these 30 years chess has developed much.
11 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250376
Explain this:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250376
I don't remember losing any pieces and resigning in 12 moves; do you?
EDIT: I'm sorry let me correct that sentence:
I don't remember losing any pieces and resigning after 8 moves; do you?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=95721&page=6
You need to be very ignorant to call Short topGM in 2002
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=95721&page=6
And what about some of your games in which you are making stupid positional mistakes even in 3rd move? 😀
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Korch2663 rating isn't a "top GM"? How about Van Wely in 2005:
[b]http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250376
You need to be very ignorant to call Short topGM in 2002
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=95721&page=6
And what about some of your games in which you are making stupid positional mistakes even in 3rd move? 😀[/b]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1348984
I got to make a 9th move even with that "stupid positional mistake" which is more than you can say about your last game at the Riga Open.