14 Jan 05
Originally posted by The whiteKnightlike xantos has said before
What is art ,what is language ,what is luck, what is intuition.?? I think we are starting to see a pattern here that people dont know anything.What definrs a sport.It is not physical this is just conceptial to the modern world and modern times. I have never seen an apple pip put into the ground and it turned out to be an orange tree. There are natura ...[text shortened]... sing the point what greater sport is there apart from chess. The white knight has spoken........
"a sport is an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition" (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sport)
so its a fact that chess is not a sport since it involves no physical exertion.
except maybe when you playing a simul against a 100 people😛
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by The whiteKnightWow, what the heck is your problem? You have taken a discussion about chess and instantly degenerated it into a U.S. vs. the World debate.
one more thing most of you seem to be American. I think there might be a kiwi and someone from the UK that has replied. The problem with Americans is you do not think globaly. The sun does not revolve around the U.S.A the earth revolves around the sun. You must find the absolute truth in ideas not the false truth in your way of thinking. What is spor ...[text shortened]... bated. You anoraks are talking about the subtilties of chess not sport. Grow up.................
Um, it might just be this kind of attitude (incessant knee-jerk hatred of the U.S.) that we (Americans) don't like very much at all.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardthe internet site you use to back up your argument is nonsencical. Because its on the internet that makes it right. That is my point have your own definition of what a sport is . If sport is defined by physical excertion does that make street fighting a sport? In your book it does. I am not knocking Americans persa ,just reminding you the world is a big place and everybody has a view no matter how small they are. So dont get all aggressive. See my earlier posts and look up the word Athlete..not on any stupid internet site..Find the origin of the word...Ancient greek.....meaning two people who compete for a prize....no mention of physical excertion.....
like xantos has said before
"a sport is an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition" (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sport)
so its a fact that chess is not a sport since it involves no physical exertion.
except maybe when you playing a simul against a 100 people😛
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by The whiteKnightBasicly you dont know what you're talking about.
Greyeyesfor sorrow your only problem is your getting emotional. if you try to thinkusing both sides of your brain when your emotional you wont think correctly.Unless chess moves into the higher echelons it will always stay in the ghetto. We need the Olympics. It is the only sport that could be played for the first time mixing chess athletes from the ...[text shortened]... te knight is always right.....and working for the powersof light...............................
Thinking with both sides of my brain? I practicly live chess and most people I know are happy with it the way it is. Sure we could use more sponsors for local torunaments, but otherwise its all good.
Unless chess moves into the higher echelons it will always stay in the ghetto.
What the **** are you talking about, do you really play chess are we on different planets? Do you actually go to chess tournaments?
Ghetto? You dont have a clue do you.
Why try and lump chess in with sports that its clearly not. The olympics is about physical activity, chess is about mental thought.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardNo. Just like a long jumper can't jump 200m. However the depth to which a player can look in a given position varies. Kasparov will look much deeper than me. I would look deeper than a 1200 player.
So you think it is possible for a ches player to learn how to think ahead as many moves as he likes??? Like a million😀
Is Kasparov just lucky that he can analyse better than me?
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZKasparov wont look deeper than you. Better players dont look deeper they just see the mistakes thats less experienced players dont.
No. Just like a long jumper can't jump 200m. However the depth to which a player can look in a given position varies. Kasparov will look much deeper than me. I would look deeper than a 1200 player.
Is Kasparov just lucky that he can analyse better than me?
15 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowI meant mine as look deeper correctly. But I do think Kasparov would look deeper than me. Take a look at Kasparov - Topolov at Wijk aan Zee in 1999. Kasparov plays 24. Rxd4!! with 37. Rd7 in mind. I couldn't look that deep. Not even close.
Kasparov wont look deeper than you. Better players dont look deeper they just see the mistakes thats less experienced players dont.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI havent looked at the game but its a myth that better players look deeper. Most GMs dont look past 5-6 moves deep, you get a feel for the right move which might go a lot deeper than 6 moves but its not as though you have worked it out. If moves are forced then you can of course look a lot deeper.
I meant mine as look deeper correctly. But I do think Kasparov would look deeper than me. Take a look at Kasparov - Topolov at Wijk aan Zee in 1999. Kasparov plays 24. Rxd4!! with 37. Rd7 in mind. I couldn't look that deep. Not even close.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrowhttp://medlem.spray.se/tal0/replay/kas-top_game1.htm
I havent looked at the game but its a myth that better players look deeper. Most GMs dont look past 5-6 moves deep, you get a feel for the right move which might go a lot deeper than 6 moves but its not as though you have worked it out. If moves are forced then you can of course look a lot deeper.
There is Kasparov's analysis of it.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZIts still not looking deeper than you. Its doing it with precision. He even admits that the move 24.Rxd4!! (his !!) fails after 24.. Kb8.
http://medlem.spray.se/tal0/replay/kas-top_game1.htm
There is Kasparov's analysis of it.
He also talks about not being sure of the moves, its a feeling that the combination will come off. A lot of sacs arent clear, even in correspondence chess, you have to trust your instinct for them, since you cant look deep enough to cover all possiblities.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowOh I agree completely. But Kasparov can definately analyse a position better than I can. Or anyone else can for that matter. His intuition is better and his calculation more precise.
Its still not looking deeper than you. Its doing it with precision. He even admits that the move 24.Rxd4!! (his !!) fails after 24.. Kb8.
He also talks about not being sure of the moves, its a feeling that the combination will come off. A lot of sacs arent clear, even in correspondence chess, you have to trust your instinct for them, since you cant look deep enough to cover all possiblities.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZIts all about the time you spend. Time for time Kasparov will out do the likes of us. But give Kasparov 5 mins to think about a move and you or me and hour and it would be Kasparov losing.
Oh I agree completely. But Kasparov can definately analyse a position better than I can. Or anyone else can for that matter. His intuition is better and his calculation more precise.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowI don't know if that's true. Kasparov has beaten the entire Czech National team of Sergej Movsesjan (2631), Zbynek Hrácek (2610), Vlastimil Babula (2565) and Tomáš Oral (2546), all GMs 5.5-2.5 in two clock simuls.
Its all about the time you spend. Time for time Kasparov will out do the likes of us. But give Kasparov 5 mins to think about a move and you or me and hour and it would be Kasparov losing.
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt is true :-)
I don't know if that's true. Kasparov has beaten the entire Czech National team of Sergej Movsesjan (2631), Zbynek Hrácek (2610), Vlastimil Babula (2565) and Tomáš Oral (2546), all GMs 5.5-2.5 in two clock simuls.
Tebb beat Kasparov in a simli.