Originally posted by philidor positionau contrare, it was a perfectly reasonable request, you have stated that Kramanik is worthy of our consideration, where is the beauty? where is the art? if you cannot back up your assertions with substantiating eveidence, then do not make them! simply stating something does not make it so, unless of course, you are a dictator in your own dominion!
sorry but that's plain dumb. you're not worth anyone's time.
Originally posted by wormwoodno wonder, every time we try to consider the beautiful aspects of Morphys play, you get these numb nuts, he wasn't this, he wasn't that, Kasparov would have him, Kramnik is better, Anand is the greatest! Someone even had the audacity to suggest that he played, to them, like a patzer. i had to feel my bum to make sure my pulse was still running and that i wasn't in a dream. Chess is art wormwood my illustrious friend and Morphy was an artist, why they cannot appreciate this, without reference to the Russkies, or whoever, i do not know!
you guys sound exactly like comic book nerds fighting about who can bench press more, the hulk or superman. 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn fairness to Kramnik, Morphy had much more help from his opposition. Defensive technique wasn't as good, and players weren't as prepared in the opening.
ok, i have tried in vain to use the analogy of the difference between traditional art and modern art. the mere imitation of nature and the will of the individual to impose himself on his immediate environment.
Did you follow the last world championship series? Anand v Kramnik? was there beauty present? perhaps you would like to point it out? ...[text shortened]... is art, in which ever period it is expressed!
Morphys chess is beautiful, deny it you cannot!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit's not that they don't appreciate morphy, it's just that you're claiming hulk actually benches more than superman!! 😉
no wonder, every time we try to consider the beautiful aspects of Morphys play, you get these numb nuts, he wasn't this, he wasn't that, Kasparov would have him, Kramnik is better, Anand is the greatest! Someone even had the audacity to suggest that he played, to them, like a patzer. i had to feel my bum to make sure my pulse was still running and ...[text shortened]... y they cannot appreciate this, without reference to the Russkies, or whoever, i do not know!
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodIts a moot point since eventually they would reach a weight that would push them through the ground rather than them lifting the weight in the air. 😛
you guys sound exactly like comic book nerds fighting about who can bench press more, the hulk or superman. 🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34"What we understand - we like.
'Kramnik'
He appears dull and his name Kramnik (as in cramming on openings)
does not do him any favours. He looks like a school teacher.
All these guys are really excellent chess players but 'brilliant' I reserve
for Kasparov, Fischer, Alekhine Tal and or course Morphy.
Why do the crowd moan about Kramnik and Anand?
To get under the skin of ...[text shortened]... t understand - we fear and call names at.
We are just people and that's all we can be.
What we dont understand - we fear and call names at."
Congratulations in admitting your ignorance Mr.Greenpawn.
Originally posted by heinzkatThis sums up just about everything.
Kramnik may seem like a boring person, but as a chess player he is brilliant, not sure why the yelling U1500 crowd likes to look down on him so much
GP you also say yourself the nuances are so subtle, we can't understand them. Morphy we can understand. Tal ?...well thats just
plain questionable. The rest, we can understand.
Kramnik and Anand no? I wonder why that may be?
Maybe its because they are at a level of understanding we're not?
Seems logical.
Wouldn't that lend to them being extraordinary talents?
-GIN
Originally posted by NowakowskiNo, just a different style. Think about how much Morphy understood without having the resources or the coaching there players had. We cannot comment on how good he would be if he had that because we can't prove it. Whatever is said on the subject is just heresy.
This sums up just about everything.
GP you also say yourself the nuances are so subtle, we can't understand them. Morphy we can understand. Tal ?...well thats just
plain questionable. The rest, we can understand.
Kramnik and Anand no? I wonder why that may be?
Maybe its because they are at a level of understanding we're not?
Seems logical.
Wouldn't that lend to them being extraordinary talents?
-GIN
1 edit
Originally posted by Nowakowskiits not that, its because they are Borgs! we understand Morphy because he was human, and made beautiful human like moves, not the sterile world of machine inspired chess of the todays heroes! Half men, half machine! spit ding!
This sums up just about everything.
GP you also say yourself the nuances are so subtle, we can't understand them. Morphy we can understand. Tal ?...well thats just
plain questionable. The rest, we can understand.
Kramnik and Anand no? I wonder why that may be?
Maybe its because they are at a level of understanding we're not?
Seems logical.
Wouldn't that lend to them being extraordinary talents?
-GIN
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambithey i like Britney Spears, i supported her during her troubled times and sang along 'you wanna a piece of me'! id rather watch her play chess than ol Kramnik. 😛
First Kramnik and now Britney Spears. At least your taste is [b]consistently god-awful. 🙄[/b]