22 Dec 11
Originally posted by ketchuploverThanks for that interesting note, as he is another player worth following. And by all accounts, a very nice fellow.
Le Quang Liem(his federation) was looking for a tutor in September. Haven't heard anything since.
Because Le's strength lies in his tremendous calculating ability (according to a well-known GM trainer), he might keep up with Garry's analysis, and also benefit from his understanding of various positions that Magnus referred to.
I hope they can hook up now that some money is there (enough?). The Vietnamese delegation has not had it in the past, to the detriment of both Le and has talented compatriot, Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son.
Both have finished very well at the very strong Aeroflot Tournament in Russia the past few years. Le has won it at least once.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by nimzo5I agree that Kasparov’s opening preparation was ahead of his opponents. But this fact is sometimes mentioned as if it was the only thing that distinguished him from other top GMs. Kasparov became the youngest World Champion, so how did he achieve this at the age of 22? Was it mainly opening preparation up to this point? I don’t think so (though it was never a weakness either). When looking over Kasparov’s games of this period (e.g. his “My Story” DVDs), his aggressive and dynamic play in the middlegame does stand out. He is far from short of examples of very creative play that he found at the board. It is no surprise that he received a Chess Oscar as early as 1982 (the first of many).
I think those who are debating Kasparov's middlegame strength are missing the point. Obviously Kasparov is wickedly strong at all aspects of the game, but his opening preparation was literally years ahead of his opponents. The fact that Naka would value his opening prep this many years after his retirement speaks volumes about how insanely deep his opening "book" truly is.
It’s not wrong for Nakamura to mention Kasparov’s great opening preparation. But it is unfair to pretend that his middlegame play wasn’t ahead of his opponents too.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by VarenkaNaka's quote -
It’s not wrong for Nakamura to mention Kasparov’s great opening preparation. But it is unfair to pretend that his middlegame play wasn’t ahead of his opponents too.
"No, like I said, his strength was in openings. You look at middlegames or endgames and I’m quite convinced there are other players who were better than he was but he was able to get advantages out of the opening, so that was his main strength. And when he wasn’t able to do that that’s why he lost his title to Kramnik. "
The way I read this he is saying that Kasparov's middlegame skills were weaker than Kramnik and perhaps a few other of the elite. I don't get the impression he is saying Kasparov was mediocre in any phase of the game.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by nimzo5Kasparov in “My Story” mentions how some people belittle his success by emphasising only his opening preparation. If Nakamura wanted to show some respect then he wouldn’t have continued this “myth” as Kasparov called it.
The way I read this he is saying that Kasparov's middlegame skills were weaker than Kramnik and perhaps a few other of the elite. I don't get the impression he is saying Kasparov was mediocre in any phase of the game.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by joesheppeKasparov would smash Nakamura! They're not in the same league. To make Kasparov an underdog against anyone is a mistake. Ok he's not what he was, but when he retired he out rated the rest of the World by nearly 100 elo points.
That is rubbish. The guy (Garry Kasparov) is still a beast of a calculator. It was NEVER just about the openings -- such a silly concept to be floating around.
You all need to read this recent interview of Magnus Carlson, the highest-rated player in the world, to put things into perspective: http://www.whychess.org/node/3490
If Kasparov were to chal ...[text shortened]... win. He just won a blitz mini-match over Max Vachier-Lagrave, who is easily as good as Nakamura.
22 Dec 11
I doubt Kasparov would "smash" any of the elite players now. At 48 he is well past his prime and I doubt he would be able to manage the energy level necessary to bang heads against the elite. He barely edged out Short in their blitz match and Short (an excellent player mind you) is simply not at the elite level anymore as his results in the London Chess Classic demonstrated.
Most likely Kasparov is a 2750 player with the ability to play like a 2800+ when well rested.
22 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by nimzo5I don't know, seirawan's been doing surprisingly well now that he's been back... I certainly wouldn't have expected that.
I doubt Kasparov would "smash" any of the elite players now. At 48 he is well past his prime and I doubt he would be able to manage the energy level necessary to bang heads against the elite. He barely edged out Short in their blitz match and Short (an excellent player mind you) is simply not at the elite level anymore as his results in the London Chess Class ...[text shortened]...
Most likely Kasparov is a 2750 player with the ability to play like a 2800+ when well rested.
but yeah of course, 'smashing' would hardly be a realistic expectation... I'm sure he could school many of the youngsters with sheer experience though.
22 Dec 11
Nakamura plays far too speculatively to match kasparov imo. Kasparov, given time to prepare and reaquire match fitness would still be a monster opponent. Now if Kasp was playing Anand/Aronian/Kramnik/Carlsen then yes, he would not dominate, but he could certainly beat any of those players. As for the rest of the top 100, my money would be firmly be behind Kasparov. He has immense experience, he's played countless World championship matches. None of the top players in the World, with the possible exception of Anand, has fought as many World championship matches. Carlsen said in his interview that Kasparov had a much deeper understanding of the game, even he struggled to keep up at times. Nakamura is not strong enough yet, possibly in the future (he has improved immensely over the last two years) but Kasparov is a proven champion. Age doesn't come into it as much as people are making out, the man has incredible energy, even now.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by MarinkatombWell let's consider some other WC playing strengths as they progressed towards 50.
Nakamura plays far too speculatively to match kasparov imo. Kasparov, given time to prepare and reaquire match fitness would still be a monster opponent. Now if Kasp was playing Anand/Aronian/Kramnik/Carlsen then yes, he would not dominate, but he could certainly beat any of those players. As for the rest of the top 100, my money would be firmly be behin ...[text shortened]... oesn't come into it as much as people are making out, the man has incredible energy, even now.
Karpov was about 2680ish in 99 when he was 48 (and lets not forget that there was considerable rating inflation over that period.) so he was about 100 pts below his peak strength and he had been active throughout that whole period.
Fischer played his return match at age 49 vs a 2560 Spassky and it was clear his game was not nearly at it's prior level- granted Fischer had been inactive much longer but he had "time" to prepare.
Spassky who was perhaps less motivated than others had fallen off dramatically by 48.
Kortchnoi peaked ratingwise at age 48 but was off almost 100 pts within a two years and only flirted once in the late 90s with that elo again.
I think it is highly likely that Kasparov would be 2750ish if he were to be active again. Which make him a 50/50 bet vs Nakamura.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by wormwoodSeirawan was = in match with Adams in 1999. So a rating of 2680ish seems about right for him now. I would guess that an elite player loses 100 elo a decade from age 40 on assuming motivation and health hold up.
I don't know, seirawan's been doing surprisingly well now that he's been back... I certainly wouldn't have expected that.
but yeah of course, 'smashing' would hardly be a realistic expectation... I'm sure he could school many of the youngsters with sheer experience though.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by nimzo5Nakamura has won one super GM tournament and only then after he started working with Kasparov. Would he have won Tata without Kasparov? To me, that tournament had the same feel as Nanjing 2009 when Carlsen won with a 3000+ rating performance. Both had assistance from Kasparov after every round of those tournaments respectively. To me, that demonstrates the experience that Kasparov has. Choosing openings for specific opponents. I don't doubt that Kasparov would play below his best. Obviously he is going to have lost a little bit here and there, but he was SO far ahead of everyone else at his best. His second best is still going to be pretty special if you ask me...
Well let's consider some other WC playing strengths as they progressed towards 50.
Karpov was about 2680ish in 99 when he was 48 (and lets not forget that there was considerable rating inflation over that period.) so he was about 100 pts below his peak strength and he had been active throughout that whole period.
Fischer played his return match at age ...[text shortened]... arov would be 2750ish if he were to be active again. Which make him a 50/50 bet vs Nakamura.
22 Dec 11
Originally posted by nimzo5Carlsen clearly commented upon the ability of Kaspar's liveliness and energy level, at such a man of his age.
I doubt Kasparov would "smash" any of the elite players now. At 48 he is well past his prime and I doubt he would be able to manage the energy level necessary to bang heads against the elite. He barely edged out Short in their blitz match and Short (an excellent player mind you) is simply not at the elite level anymore as his results in the London Chess Class ...[text shortened]...
Most likely Kasparov is a 2750 player with the ability to play like a 2800+ when well rested.
Quite simply, they we're Carlsen's words.
Forgetting Blitz games for a moment, would you bet against Kasparov in a well timed and executed, fully judged, timed tournament?
My money would be on him, and it would treble if the odds were 5-1 against Kaspar.
Agreed?
(Although I'd have a few bob on Anand too... lol 😀)
-m.