13 Jun 06
Originally posted by z00tI really mean it. Your posts can be likened to smelly, obnoxious farts. They display a breathtaking degree of arrogance, compounded with a profound lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Given this, the signature z00t! z00t! at the end must conjure up a definite image and aroma of flatulence.
Once again this issue is beyond your depth. For the kiddies forum turn left then right again.
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemSo after all, that's what wind-assisted means.
I really mean it. Your posts can be likened to smelly, obnoxious farts. They display a breathtaking degree of arrogance, compounded with a profound lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Given this, the signature z00t! z00t! at the end must conjure up a definite image and aroma of flatulence.
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by z00tYour conclusion is that, due to a single bad tournament, a 2800 is playing unsound chess overall. I find that laughable.
[b]What happened to your "Meh you can't tell Anand" or you thought every other top player was going to record 1 win out of 9 games under tournament conditions not speed chess?[/b]
13 Jun 06
1 edit
Incidentally Kramnik spoke on Anand's Olympiad performance and said " I am quite surprised. He is such a good world-class player that even in bad shape, even if you wake him up in the middle of the night, he should still play very well. But you shouldn’t draw any conclusions, these things happen. In 1996, the year I overtook Kasparov in the rating lists, I played an Olympiad in Yerevan and I lost 21 rating points."
So now we leave the smartass who said Meh who are you to tell Anand on thin ice...... This is not about judging a player but on judging a position. Some smartasses on this site are unable to comment on the moves of a 2800 player just because he is a 2800 player.
13 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by z00tWhat a shock; Kramnik agrees with me.
Incidentally Kramnik spoke on Anand's Olympiad performance and said " I am quite surprised. He is such a good world-class player that even in bad shape, even if you wake him up in the middle of the night, he should still play very well. But you shouldn’t draw any conclusions, these things happen. In 1996, the year I overtook Kasparov in the rating lists, I p is site are unable to comment on the moves of a 2800 player just because he is a 2800 player.
You should take particular note of his statement: "But you shouldn't draw any conclusions; these things happen." That's what I've been trying to get you to realize all along.
I wouldn't have taken issue with you if you had merely claimed Anand's sacrifice was bad (because it was). I wouldn't have cared if you said Anand had a bad tournament at the Olympiad (If he went 1/9, he did).
But then you go off and label Anand a 'speed chess master', as if he can't play slow chess well (completely ridiculous, given his rating), and label Anand's style "wind-assisted" (whatever the hell that means) because of one bad tournament. Both of these statements are absurd.