Originally posted by ketchuploverHopefully your butt has been repaired from the damage caused by the simian flights in November 2000 when Kramnik defeated Kasparov 8.5 - 6.5 and the so-called "Greatest Player of All Time" was not able to muster a single victory.
That'll happen when monkeys fly out of my butt 🙂
Originally posted by no1marauderEveryone looses. Kasparov has to be the most analysed player on the professional circuit. How many victories did Kramnik have in 2000? Can't remember the number but it wasn't a lot, hardly a convincing win. I think He'd be hard pushed to repeat that victory. His standard has dropped since then, not enouph tournament practice. Kind of like Kasparov before he lost his title 😉
Hopefully your butt has been repaired from the damage caused by the simian flights in November 2000 when Kramnik defeated Kasparov 8.5 - 6.5 and the so-called "Greatest Player of All Time" was not able to muster a single victory.
Originally posted by marinakatombKasparov was the first champion to lose his crown in a match where the titleholder failed to win a game since Emanuel Lasker in 1921. And Lasker lost to perhaps the real greatest player of all time, Capablanca. My point is simply that Kasparov is not the player some on this site believe. Most people believe that Kasparov would win a rematch with Kramnik; I dare say that those are the same people who believed that Kasparov would easily defeat the 25 year old Kramnik in 2000. Hopefully the match will come off and we'll see.
Everyone looses. Kasparov has to be the most analysed player on the professional circuit. How many victories did Kramnik have in 2000? Can't remember the number but it wasn't a lot, hardly a convincing win. I think He'd be hard pushed to repeat that victory. His standard has dropped since then, not enouph tournament practice. Kind of like Kasparov before he lost his title 😉
Originally posted by no1marauderYour right, Kasparov probably isn't as great as everyone thinks he is, but then again Kramnik is no Capablanca. I would love to see a truely amazing newbie take the title rather than the same old names over and over. Kamzinowhateverhisnameis is pretty bloody good if you ask me. He beat a good player in M. Adams. I don't think he's No1. material though. Im just looking forward to seeing young Magnus Carlson have a pop. Now there's an exciting player!
Kasparov was the first champion to lose his crown in a match where the titleholder failed to win a game since Emanuel Lasker in 1921. And Lasker lost to perhaps the real greatest player of all time, Capablanca. My point is simply that Kasparov is not the player some on this site believe. Most people believe that Kasparov would win a rematch with K ...[text shortened]... easily defeat the 25 year old Kramnik in 2000. Hopefully the match will come off and we'll see.
Originally posted by marinakatombGawd, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Kramnik compared to Capablanca!!! I agree with you that some young blood is needed.
Your right, Kasparov probably isn't as great as everyone thinks he is, but then again Kramnik is no Capablanca. I would love to see a truely amazing newbie take the title rather than the same old names over and over. Kamzinowhateverhisnameis is pretty bloody good if you ask me. He beat a good player in M. Adams. I don't think he's No1. material thoug ...[text shortened]... just looking forward to seeing young Magnus Carlson have a pop. Now there's an exciting player!
Originally posted by marinakatombthas' true young players but I prefer Sergey karjakin than Carlson magnus.
Your right, Kasparov probably isn't as great as everyone thinks he is, but then again Kramnik is no Capablanca. I would love to see a truely amazing newbie take the title rather than the same old names over and over. Kamzinowhateverhisnameis is pretty bloody good if you ask me. He beat a good player in M. Adams. I don't think he's No1. material thoug ...[text shortened]... just looking forward to seeing young Magnus Carlson have a pop. Now there's an exciting player!