15 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThese first 11 moves were not such a rocket science - First 5 moves were Najdorf. 6...e5 was typical Najdorf move even then. 7...Be7 and 8....0-0 were also obvious and natural. 9....Be6 10...Nbd7 and 11...b5 were also typical options for Sicilian systems of that time.
No such claim was made. A claim was made by you that Fischer had no knowledge of the English Attack (obviously wrong).
I think I already have pointed out that in modern opening theory novelties are usually made between 20th and 30rd move (some of them - after 30rd move)
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThat game, played when Spassky was well past his prime, was a piece of evidence to refute your unsupported claim that Spassky was a "weaker" player.
That game, played when Spassky was well past his prime, was a piece of evidence to refute your unsupported claim that Spassky was a "weaker" player.
Claim that someone is no "weaker" based on one game is imbecility.
With your logix you can "prove" that W Hartmann was no "weaker" than Karpov.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068351
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderAll these points were addressed.
All these points were addressed. Some are absolutely false categorizations of statements I made. Others are just grandiose assertions of yours without any objective evidence to support them.
Can you show your posts in this thread to support your claim?
Some are absolutely false categorizations of statements I made. Others are just grandiose assertions of yours without any objective evidence to support them.
Are my questions (on your 1st and 3rd statement) "false categorizations" or
"grandiose assertions"?
My second statement can be checked by everyone who has read Kasparov`s "Revolution in the 70s". Have you read this book?
What arguments about strenght of past GM`s you has except "blunder percentage"?
15 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34
You have missed pages 7-16 - when sober go back and read them.
Is there any point? Do they contain anything that the others don't? It seems like such a pointless discussion. The original posting was interesting, as was most of the first few pages of discussion. After that it seemed just to decend into "My opinion's better than yours".
15 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchAre you really going to keep making an utter fool of yourself?
These first 11 moves were not such a rocket science - First 5 moves were Najdorf. 6...e5 was typical Najdorf move even then. 7...Be7 and 8....0-0 were also obvious and natural. 9....Be6 10...Nbd7 and 11...b5 were also typical options for Sicilian systems of that time.
I think I already have pointed out that in modern opening theory novelties are usually made between 20th and 30rd move (some of them - after 30rd move)
No opening is "rocket science" esp. for a player of Fischer's caliber. But how could 6 ...... e5 be a typical Najdorf move in response to the English Attack, when , according to you, Fischer was totally unfamiliar with the English attack?
So all modern games stay in book until at least the 20th move? Do I have to pull up a bunch of games and prove that idiotic statement wrong, too?
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchThis point has already been addressed. How about 6 games, none of which Kasparov could win against Spassky though Spassky was past his prime?
[b]That game, played when Spassky was well past his prime, was a piece of evidence to refute your unsupported claim that Spassky was a "weaker" player.
Claim that someone is no "weaker" based on one game is imbecility.
With your logix you can "prove" that W Hartmann was no "weaker" than Karpov.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068351[/b]
Again, what evidence do you have that Spassky is a "weaker" player than say, Svidler or Shirov?
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchTry to focus.
Really? Then how comes that you posted their games when we started to talk about what modern top GMs play?
Quiting your text about Short in page 6: "2663 rating isn't a "top GM"?"
Your claim was that "hardly anyone" of the top GMs now plays 6 Bg5 7 f4 in the Najdorf. That turned out to be ludicrously wrong, correct? I pointed out Anand and Shirov. I also mentioned Short and Shabalov in a separate sentence.
At any rate, your definition of a "top GM" is utterly arbitrary. Both Short and Shabalov have been in the high 2600's in the last few years and have been rated in top 60 or so. There are something like 1000 GMs worldwide. Your nonstandard use of the term "top GMs" to exclude all but the top 20 or so is not something I or anybody else has to recognize when the only support for that claim is your usual "CUZ I SAID SO!"
16 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you really going to keep making an utter fool of yourself?
Are you really going to keep making an utter fool of yourself?
No opening is "rocket science" esp. for a player of Fischer's caliber. But how could 6 ...... e5 be a typical Najdorf move in response to the English Attack, when , according to you, Fischer was totally unfamiliar with the English attack?
So all modern ...[text shortened]... 20th move? Do I have to pull up a bunch of games and prove that idiotic statement wrong, too?
Ask this question to yourself
But how could 6 ...... e5 be a typical Najdorf move in response to the English Attack, when , according to you, Fischer was totally unfamiliar with the English attack?
For your notice - In Najdorf 6...e5 has been played also against 6.Be2; 6.a4; 6.g3; 6.f4; So 6...e5 is typical Najdorf move. Your ignorance seems to be really surprising for 1900 rated player here.
So all modern games stay in book until at least the 20th move? Do I have to pull up a bunch of games and prove that idiotic statement wrong, too?
Not all of course, but most, especially in such popular openings like Sicilian, Gruenfeld, Ruy Lopez, Nimzowitch, Kings Indian defence, Queens Indian defence etc. Most of opening systems used by Fischer in 70ties are very well explored today.
16 Jan 09
Originally posted by SquelchbelchUnbased speculation.
One thing I am certain of is that if we were trying to suggest that all top modern GM's were better than Fischer was as a result of developments within the game, then I can pretty much guarantee that Korch would be arguing the opposite! 😛
16 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThis point has already been addressed. How about 6 games, none of which Kasparov could win against Spassky though Spassky was past his prime?
This point has already been addressed. How about 6 games, none of which Kasparov could win against Spassky though Spassky was past his prime?
Again, what evidence do you have that Spassky is a "weaker" player than say, Svidler or Shirov?
How about to compare their tournament/match results in 80ties?
I already have pointed out that if we use only their games played against each other to determine who is better then we can come to absurd conclusions - for example that Portish was better than Petrosian during Petrosian`s reign (1963-1969). Petrosian had bad score against Portish then.
Again, what evidence do you have that Spassky is a "weaker" player than say, Svidler or Shirov?
I`m tired to repeat that knowledge is one of important components of your chess strength. But yes - I forgot that according to you changes in theory during these 30 years were "minor". 😀
16 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBoth Short and Shabalov have been in the high 2600's in the last few years and have been rated in top 60 or so. There are something like 1000 GMs worldwide. Your nonstandard use of the term "top GMs" to exclude all but the top 20 or so is not something I or anybody else has to recognize when the only support for that claim is your usual "CUZ I SAID SO!"
Try to focus.
Your claim was that "hardly anyone" of the top GMs now plays 6 Bg5 7 f4 in the Najdorf. That turned out to be ludicrously wrong, correct? I pointed out Anand and Shirov. I also mentioned Short and Shabalov in a separate sentence.
At any rate, your definition of a "top GM" is utterly arbitrary. Both Short a se has to recognize when the only support for that claim is your usual "CUZ I SAID SO!"
And its said by you who claimed that Donner in beginning of 70ties (when his results in top competitions were at least no worse than Short`s results today) was not top GM. In your maniac passion to defend your opinion by any means you have lost any consequence.