|
Main
Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:18:11
From: Zero
Subject: Why is Anand so good?
|
I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does he posses which maks him such a good chess player?
|
|
|
Date: 27 Sep 2007 07:37:50
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On Sep 26, 11:51 pm, Chvsanchez <[email protected] > wrote: > > Botvinnik won a match-tournament, that is, he won 4 matches of 5 games > each! True, which I think further supports my point that one is on shaky ground using Hague-Moscow as a precedent for Mexico City 2007. Both the format of the 1948 tournament and the fact of the vacant title were quite different from the situation today. > On 26 sep, 14:22, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 26, 11:58 am, Miguel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree the World Championship must be normally decided in a match, > > > but don't forget Botvinnik got his title in a tournament like this > > > one; so this title isn't less valid. > > > True, but that was only because the incumbent champion Alekhine died > > while still holding the title. Hague-Moscow 1948 does not apply as a > > precedent for Mexico City 2007 or any of the FIDE "world > > championships" of the past 10-15 years.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
|
|
Date: 27 Sep 2007 07:19:47
From: Miguel
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On 27 sep, 02:13, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > > I don't agree with that. It isn't common to have +4 and one point and > > a half ahead of the second in a tournament as hard as this one, where > > I would say only Topalov is missing from the great ones. > > Fischer and Kasparov are chopped liver? > > -- > Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/seduction.html > Limit of TEN students. Act now! > > For older free material that is now mainstream:http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html > Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy > > Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which > have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really > is game over for community material. > > http://moderncaveman.typepad.com > The Official Ray Gordon Blog Kasparov retired (and has just won opposition priies in Russia). I haven't seen many games of Fischer lately...
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:51:36
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
Botvinnik won a match-tournament, that is, he won 4 matches of 5 games each! On 26 sep, 14:22, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Sep 26, 11:58 am, Miguel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree the World Championship must be normally decided in a match, > > but don't forget Botvinnik got his title in a tournament like this > > one; so this title isn't less valid. > > True, but that was only because the incumbent champion Alekhine died > while still holding the title. Hague-Moscow 1948 does not apply as a > precedent for Mexico City 2007 or any of the FIDE "world > championships" of the past 10-15 years.
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:16:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On Sep 26, 7:13 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > > I don't agree with that. It isn't common to have +4 and one point and > > a half ahead of the second in a tournament as hard as this one, where > > I would say only Topalov is missing from the great ones. > > Fischer and Kasparov are chopped liver? Admittedly, those two were fairly decent players, but he said "great ones"; that's like, say, Jackie Gleason, or Babe Ruth. (Must I bring up 6,000 pound male hippos again?) -- hep blot
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:36:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good? (he's not)
|
On Sep 26, 12:07 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote: > > Look at Topalov a few years ago. Players have great moments, but Anand is > > far from a dominant player. > > Has there been any time in the last 10 or 12 years when Anand has not > been in the top 5? I don't have the stats at hand, perhaps some other > rgc reader does. Seems to me his average rank during that period would > probably be somewhere between 2 and 3. Is that not dominant enough for > you? That is very good, but it is still not dominant. Dominant is where the top player, um, dominates, like each of the following world champs did for a time in their respective eras: Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Karpov, Kasparov. Domination is not being among the top three; it is rather, being the top one. Domination is what I was doing at GetClub before Zebediah came along and took affront. It is not merely squeaking out a tiny edge, but establishing a clear and wide protective moat. It is what a 6,000 pound male hippo does, that keeps even the hungriest crocs at a safe distance. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:23:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On Sep 26, 9:03 am, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote: > On Sep 26, 12:37 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But that aside, the superior tactician will often prevail. > > (This is why I am ...so far... undefeated at ChessWorld.) > > And that's why Crafty can rate past champions according to how few > tactical mistakes (in all lines) they make, as per our earlier thread > Bot. Glad you agree with me. You sure were unreasonable in that > thread. ;-) That is quite a L-E-A-P! I agree that Crafty can rate past champions based on tactical mistakes, but where we part is in your blind assumption that Crafty's evals are sufficiently accurate to do the job in a reasonable amount of time. Hey, if somebody has let's say the patience to let her rip for 12 hours per move on those games, maybe we can come to terms; yet even then, there are serious problems with such a narrowly focused approach. One example is the fact that we chess geniuses (as the highest-rated player in the world -- ahem, on GetClub that is -- I think I can speak for the others here) often *deliberately* make inferior moves, for reasons a computer could never even begin to comprehend. Penalizing players for deliberately not playing like a machine is, well, just stupid; the thinking is that they were not good enough to find the optimal moves, but in fact they were doing something else besides looking for that sort of optimality. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:22:26
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On Sep 26, 11:58 am, Miguel <[email protected] > wrote: > I agree the World Championship must be normally decided in a match, > but don't forget Botvinnik got his title in a tournament like this > one; so this title isn't less valid. True, but that was only because the incumbent champion Alekhine died while still holding the title. Hague-Moscow 1948 does not apply as a precedent for Mexico City 2007 or any of the FIDE "world championships" of the past 10-15 years.
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:07:11
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good? (he's not)
|
On Sep 26, 6:31 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > Chessplayers' performance can vary by up to 400 points just on the openings > their opponents' play. Their form can vary, and it's just one tournament. You could force Anand to play random openings and he'd still be much stronger than any 2400 player on the planet. > > Look at Topalov a few years ago. Players have great moments, but Anand is > far from a dominant player. Has there been any time in the last 10 or 12 years when Anand has not been in the top 5? I don't have the stats at hand, perhaps some other rgc reader does. Seems to me his average rank during that period would probably be somewhere between 2 and 3. Is that not dominant enough for you? LT > > "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > >I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s > > and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does > > he posses which maks him such a good chess player?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:58:49
From: Miguel
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On 26 sep, 17:10, "Ian Burton" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > >I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s > > and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does > > he posses which maks him such a good chess player? > > You could ask the same questions about whoever won the tournament. The > winner would be the one "to outplay a bunch of other 2700s." Nothing > wonderous about it. It's just one tournament. > > -- > Ian Burton > (Please reply to the Newsgroup) > > > > - Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - I don't agree with that. It isn't common to have +4 and one point and a half ahead of the second in a tournament as hard as this one, where I would say only Topalov is missing from the great ones. And it is not just one tournament, it is the World Championship, where all the players try to give their best. About Anand being dominating or not, i think in the last years he has won more tournaments than anyone, several FIDE oscars, etc, and he is the top seed in the FIDE list. Together with Kramnik he plays a different kind of chess, so let's hope to see an Anand-Kramnik match. I agree the World Championship must be normally decided in a match, but don't forget Botvinnik got his title in a tournament like this one; so this title isn't less valid. But this is my opinion of course!
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:13:18
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
> I don't agree with that. It isn't common to have +4 and one point and > a half ahead of the second in a tournament as hard as this one, where > I would say only Topalov is missing from the great ones. Fischer and Kasparov are chopped liver? -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/seduction.html Limit of TEN students. Act now! For older free material that is now mainstream: http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really is game over for community material. http://moderncaveman.typepad.com The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:10:32
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s > and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does > he posses which maks him such a good chess player? You could ask the same questions about whoever won the tournament. The winner would be the one "to outplay a bunch of other 2700s." Nothing wonderous about it. It's just one tournament. -- Ian Burton (Please reply to the Newsgroup) >
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 07:03:27
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On Sep 26, 12:37 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > But that aside, the superior tactician will often prevail. > (This is why I am ...so far... undefeated at ChessWorld.) And that's why Crafty can rate past champions according to how few tactical mistakes (in all lines) they make, as per our earlier thread Bot. Glad you agree with me. You sure were unreasonable in that thread. ;-) RL
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 06:31:03
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good? (he's not)
|
Chessplayers' performance can vary by up to 400 points just on the openings their opponents' play. Their form can vary, and it's just one tournament. Look at Topalov a few years ago. Players have great moments, but Anand is far from a dominant player. "Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s > and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does > he posses which maks him such a good chess player? >
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 00:37:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On Sep 25, 10:18 pm, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s > and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does > he posses which maks him such a good chess player? I don't know all that much about GM Anand, but the last time I checked, every one of the world's top players was rated under 2800, a few in a tight pack. This contrasts sharply with the era during which Gary Kasparov held a wide lead over every one of his rivals except for GM Karpov, if they had recently played a close match. If any of these "equals" pulls ahead in a single event, it simply shows that they were lucky and/or in great form. A famous quote observes that chess games are lost, not won; and so all that is required is to remain tough until the other guy does his thing: makes a tactical error or a strategical blunder. One game I replayed recently had GM Anand as White in a Ruy Lopez whipping off a nice combination, beginning with the move Rxh4. Yet even after he gained what looked to be a decisive edge many moves later, he had made little forward progress until his opponent (GM Ivanchuk?) decided he had to "play actively", and self-destructed. The same characteristic was apparent in a match victory by world champion Kramnik over GM Leko; many times there was no real headway being made by the ultimate winner, until the loser boldly -- and stupidly -- self destructed. But that aside, the superior tactician will often prevail. (This is why I am ...so far... undefeated at ChessWorld.) At the top levels, openings preparation is huge -- maybe GM Anand is doing a better job in that area? -- help bot
|
|
Date: 26 Sep 2007 07:22:13
From: Miguel
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On 26 sep, 05:18, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s > and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does > he posses which maks him such a good chess player? No idea, but he is clearly several steps ahead the rest of the players (except Kramnik). I think the only player that could beat him now would be Kramnik in a match, where the chances would be about equal (by the way, a match Anand-Kramnik would be great for chess). But a tournament with this format is far better for Anand than for Kramnik because of their styles.
|
|
Date: 25 Sep 2007 23:10:40
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Why is Anand so good?
|
On Sep 26, 8:18 am, Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s > and be ahead by a nice gin i nthe tournament. What qualities does > he posses which maks him such a good chess player? If yoiu know that then you can beat him............ Ha Ha Ha. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|