13 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderKasparov in 1983 played weaker than 10 or 20 years later. If you think that he did not progress during these years then you are absolute moron.
So, Kasparov isn't a top modern GM either. Thanks for sharing. He obviously was "weaker" and would have been "hammered" by top modern GMs like Anand just like Fischer.
How many games did Karpov win after that in the match BTW? What were the rules of that match BTW?
Kasparov was near enough to his prime to play for t guided.
EDIT: My knowledge that Kasparov was ranked #1 in the world in 1983 is correct.
After these match both of them - Kasparov and Karpov have won many games against each other. Probably Kasparov won more, but it does not change the fact that match of 1984 Karpov played better - numbers speaks for themselves.
Unfortunately I have wasted few more minutes of my time with you.
13 Jan 09
It's little wonder that Spassky had the indian sign on Kasparov.
Kasparov is one of the great players who also has this massive board
presence. It's something I cannot emphasis enough and it does
play a critical role at the top of the tree.
Spassky of course had the experience of playing against the greatest
presense of all (RJF) little wonder that Kasparov's personality did not
affect Spassky.
It's a pity these intresting discussions turn into slagging matches
once someone disagrees with someone's point of view.
(though I do find most of it quite amusing)
I'll always stand up and claim Fischer was the greatest chess
player that ever lived. I think those of you that were not playing or
alive when he was King Coconut do not realise the impact he made.
Squelch's stats show he out scores today's top GM's over a series
of games. You can argue with me - but you cannot argue with the maths.
If he had that match on here - he would have been banned 😕
13 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34Kasparov was young and unexperienced then. But he made progress very fast. His first match with Karpov in 1984 have given him a lot of experience which he lacked before.
It's little wonder that Spassky had the indian sign on Kasparov.
Kasparov is one of the great players who also has this massive board
presence. It's something I cannot emphasis enough and it does
play a critical role at the top of the tree.
Spassky of course had the experience of playing against the greatest
presense of all (RJF) little wonder t argue with the maths.
If he had that match on here - he would have been banned 😕
13 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchAll your abusive screeching aside, you've managed to offer no evidence in support of your Olympian assertions.
Kasparov in 1983 played weaker than 10 or 20 years later. If you think that he did not progress during these years then you are absolute moron.
After these match both of them - Kasparov and Karpov have won many games against each other. Probably Kasparov won more, but it does not change the fact that match of 1984 Karpov played better - numbers speaks for themselves.
Unfortunately I have wasted few more minutes of my time with you.
13 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderTo compare with time 10-15 years later in 1983 he was weaker of course. Actually even in 1985 he was obviously stronger than in 1983.
And the #1 player in the world. But he was "weak" according to your bizarre way of "thinking".
And I`m taking next try to ignore your senile comments.
Btw. Repeating one of the same ignoring what other says (like you are doing all the time) is typical pattern of ineducable persons.
13 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchAnd how did you arrive at such conclusions? What evidence supports them? Was Kasparov a top modern GM or not?
To compare with time 10-15 years later in 1983 he was weaker of course. Actually even in 1985 he was obviously stronger than in 1983.
And I`m taking next try to ignore your senile comments.
There are a few things that are beyond dispute:
1) In 1983, Boris Spassky, the former World Champion, defeated Gary Kasparov. To that point, they had met 6 times and Spassky had won 2 and drew 4.
;
2) In 1983, by any measure, rating, match performance, etc. Spassky was well past his prime and was 46 years old;
3) Kasparov was near the top of the world in rating and would soon play for the World Championship.
Given these facts (I know you hate facts but there they are), how can it be asserted that Bosis Spassky was so much of a "weaker" player that Fischer's performance against him (11 years earlier when Spassky was beyond question at his peak) can be disregarded (as you insist it must be)?
13 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchThat's true - he admitted so himself.
Kasparov was young and unexperienced then. But he made progress very fast. His first match with Karpov in 1984 have given him a lot of experience which he lacked before.
Kasparov later developed into the all round article. But in 1984
he was still an awesome player and Karpov was the only one who
could tame him. (for a while anyway).
Him and Fischer were probaly the greatest two chess players.
Fischer just edges for me. But if I my life depended on a player
winning a game I'd choose Kaparov. He was a chips down player.
Here is a wee test people can try out.
Ask a non-player to name the current World Chess Champion.
Bet you will get either Kasparov or Karpov.
Nobody has heard of Anand or Kramnik.
Don't know what that has do with the thread - just an observation.
13 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchNow that this is settled, I was wondering if you could tell me what the meaning of life is. I'm also curious if Oswald really did kill Kennedy and is there life in outer space. Being that you are the authority on all facts, perhaps you would be so kind as to share these elusive answers with me.
If you need direct number of year then let it be 1990 - year of last Kasparov - Karpov match.
13 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by zakkwylderI've got spooky for you.
Now that this is settled, I was wondering if you could tell me what the meaning of life is. I'm also curious if Oswald really did kill Kennedy and is there life in outer space. Being that you are the authority on all facts, perhaps you would be so kind as to share these elusive answers with me.
An Oswald played a Kennedy in the Edinburgh chess league a few
seasons ago. This was amusing, then someone pointed out it was
the exact annivesary of the assassination....
As for life in Outer Space. No.
That is going to be the biggest fright that mankind will get.
To discover in the whole universe we are utterly and totally alone.
Why?
(answer on the general or religious forum - please)