12 Dec 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34Looking at his last game vs Kramnik, it was clear he was on another level, in the middlegame at least. Kramnik said he played well himself, didn't really make any mistakes and Carlsen still won cleanly. He proceeded to say he couldn't really be mad at himself, because he lost to such a great player who played so well.
If we are being pedantic it's Harry Weinstein.
In the game in question, Magnus (see how I avoided the surname trap)
will not looking at computer evaluations as they can be misleading
if there are no tactics in the position.
This ability to create problems for your opponent even in the most tepid
looking positions is the sign of a good chess pl ...[text shortened]... v's experience in this field will benefit him greatly when the time comes...
....and it will.
Kind of reminds me of the Taimanov quote about Fischer, ''We were playing chess, he was playing something else''.
I think we're witnessing a true chess legend in the making!
13 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Maxacre42I agree, he is something else. Carlsen does seem to be struggling with Nakamuru recently though. His Draw today comes off the back of losing to him the other day in that Blitz tournament (forget which one...)
Looking at his last game vs Kramnik, it was clear he was on another level, in the middlegame at least. Kramnik said he played well himself, didn't really make any mistakes and Carlsen still won cleanly. He proceeded to say he couldn't really be mad at himself, because he lost to such a great player who played so well.
Kind of reminds me of the Taimanov q playing something else''.
I think we're witnessing a true chess legend in the making!
Just goes to show he does suffer from psychological spats just like the rest of us. I was starting to wonder if anything ever phases him... Looks like Nakamura can lay claim to that at least. 🙂
Carlsen v Nakamura
13 Dec 09
8 edits
Originally posted by Maxacre42I think he has joined the elite club (where Topalov, Anand and Kramnik reside) but even Kasparov, when at his best (2850) wasn't on another level than Kramnik. It's a huge exaggeration to argue such a thing with just one game.
Looking at his last game vs Kramnik, it was clear he was on another level, in the middlegame at least. Kramnik said he played well himself, didn't really make any mistakes and Carlsen still won cleanly. He proceeded to say he couldn't really be mad at himself, because he lost to such a great player who played so well.
Kind of reminds me of the Taimanov q playing something else''.
I think we're witnessing a true chess legend in the making!
Besides, Kramnik didn't say he didn't make any mistakes, because he is obviously not stupid and understands the game of chess enough to know that one needs to make a mistake for the other to win.
He clearly said he made some mistakes and miscalculations several times. He just said he "at least didn't lose like an idiot" by making a huge blunder and it was no drama to lose against such a good player and he took it normally.
So it's not even close to the remark of Taimanov about Fischer.
http://www.londonchessclassic.com/videos.htm
13 Dec 09
Originally posted by philidor positionI think that in the past 3 tournaments he proved exactly what you said: "he has joined the elite club (where Topalov, Anand and Kramnik reside)"
I think he has joined the elite club (where Topalov, Anand and Kramnik reside) but even Kasparov, when at his best (2850) wasn't on another level than Kramnik. It's a huge exaggeration to argue such a thing with just one game.
Besides, Kramnik didn't say he didn't make any mistakes, because he is obviously not stupid and understands the game of ...[text shortened]... to the remark of Taimanov about Fischer.
http://www.londonchessclassic.com/videos.htm
If he continues like this for 2-5 years(including winning a WCh) I would say: "he has joined the elite club (where Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov reside)"
13 Dec 09
quote:
"...but even Kasparov, when at his best (2850) wasn't on another level than
Kramnik. "
I'm not quite understanding this bit, possibly worded wrong.
When Kasparov was at his peak he was on a much higher level than his
contempories as was Fischer and Karpov at their peaks.
Look at his playing record through the 80's. Especially at the start of his career
when he was winning GM tournaments before he was actually a GM.
Banja Luka 1979 Gary (16) was not even an IM when he finished unbeaten 2
points ahead of a field that included Petrosian, Adorjan, Smejkal, Browne, etc.
Try not to look at grades to determine how strong a player is/was.
At Banja Luka Gary did not even have a FIDE grade!
13 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34A slight adjustment then: "even Kasparov has never been on a different level than Kramnik when they were both competitive at the top in their one on one games" + "even Kasparov at his best wasn't on a different level than Kramnik at his best".
quote:
"...but even Kasparov, when at his best (2850) wasn't on another level than
Kramnik. "
I'm not quite understanding this bit, possibly worded wrong.
When Kasparov was at his peak he was on a much higher level than his
contempories as was Fischer and Karpov at their peaks.
Look at his playing record through the 80's. Especially at the ...[text shortened]... o determine how strong a player is/was.
At Banja Luka Gary did not even have a FIDE grade!
That should leave out the times you're talking about when Kramnik was a little boy reading My System.
I'm not arguing against the fact that he performed better than him in tournaments most of the time, but Kramnik has always played on par with him when they faced each other, and no need to mention their WC match where he outplayed him.
13 Dec 09
Originally posted by philidor positionnot to take anything from kramnik, but kasparov was hardly at his prime in 2000 anymore.
A slight adjustment then: "even Kasparov has never been on a different level than Kramnik when they were both competitive at the top in their one on one games" + "even Kasparov at his best wasn't on a different level than Kramnik at his best".
That should leave out the times you're talking about when Kramnik was a little boy reading My System. ...[text shortened]... when they faced each other, and no need to mention their WC match where he outplayed him.
13 Dec 09
Originally posted by philidor positionI thought I was singling out one aspect of one game, but I'll try again. His ''middlegame'' was on another level during that game.
I think he has joined the elite club (where Topalov, Anand and Kramnik reside) but even Kasparov, when at his best (2850) wasn't on another level than Kramnik. It's a huge exaggeration to argue such a thing with just one game.
Besides, Kramnik didn't say he didn't make any mistakes, because he is obviously not stupid and understands the game of ...[text shortened]... to the remark of Taimanov about Fischer.
http://www.londonchessclassic.com/videos.htm
On another note, I truly think his middlegame is on another level in general. Lately, he seems to get a winning position every game. His draws against Nakamura and Howell in his 2 last games are good examples, plus the draw in Nanjing to clinch the title, he could have won, but just wanted to clinch first prize. His weakness seems to be his ability to convert the win though. No doubt that he toys with the best in the world between move 15 and 25, since he started working with Kasparov anyways.
You're right about me misinterpreting what Kramnik said and that my comparison to the Fischer quote was unfounded, it was just a feeling at the time.
On another note, it is possible to lose a game of chess without making a mistake at a particular move, take wins against computers for example. Sometimes they do make an obvious positional mistake from a move (not that I could see it), but something it's just a lack of plan and strategy from the computer's part, not a mistake at a particular move. unless the ''mistake'' is the lack of planning on the computer's part...
Of course these are all opinions, feel free to prove me wrong, I certainly won't mind the lesson.
13 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Maxacre428 years? Which 8 years? I didn't know that, and it's pretty hard to believe, I'd appreciate more data please.
Seriously... Kasparov in his prime didn't lose with white in 8 years and was arguably the best player of all time.... who is Kramnik?
I agree Kasparov is the best player of all time, but asking Who is Kramnik?: Kramnik is probably the most accurate player to have ever lived and the guy who dethroned Kasparov convincingly, he has been playing the highest level of chess humanity has ever seen (with his fellows Anand and Kasparov, of course) for more than a decade now. so there you go.
13 Dec 09
Originally posted by philidor positionsorry, 7 years. 😕 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=851 this is an article about the controversy after the game that ended it and http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260681 this is the game
8 years? Which 8 years? I didn't know that, and it's pretty hard to believe, I'd appreciate more data please.
I agree Kasparov is the best player of all time, but asking Who is Kramnik?: Kramnik is probably the most accurate player to have ever lived and the guy who dethroned Kasparov convincingly, he has been playing the highest level of chess ...[text shortened]... (with his fellows Anand and Kasparov, of course) for more than a decade now. so there you go.
13 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Maxacre42OK, he just didn't lose with the white pieces IN LINARES for 7 years! (that is of course quite an achievement but it's hardly comparable with 7 years of non-defeat with white in all classical games).
sorry, 7 years. 😕 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=851 this is an article about the controversy after the game that ended it and http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260681 this is the game
He has 18 losses in the period 1998-2003 with white in my database, and 4 of them are wins by kramnik.
He may be the best player of all time but no one gets to play such aggressive chess and not lose for 7 years with white🙂.