Seriously, doesn't anybody want to win this thing? After four rounds in the Corus A group we have five players on +1, three on even, and five on -1. Two years ago by this point Radjabov was on 3.5/4 with Topalov a half-point behind. Three players, including Carlsen, believe it or not, were on -2 already. And Shirov was really helping out the cause by losing three out of four to start off. Last year after four rounds the eventual co-winners Carlsen and Aronian were on +2 and three players, including Topalov, were on -2. Leko had drawn 4/4, but he's not even around to blame this year, nor is Kramnik around to scapegoat. Morozevich and Ivanchuk are responsible for six out of the seven decisive games!
Whatever the reason, we had a rare day of 7/7 draws in round four yesterday. Last year this happened in the third round and it was the first time in anyone's memory. Last year we had 20 draws from the first 28 games. This year it's 21. This tournament is significantly weaker, swapping Anand, Topalov, and Kramnik, for Smeets, Stellwagen, and Dominguez, a net loss of nearly 200 400 points. Most expected this drop to liven things up. Outsiders looking to prove themselves usually play aggressively and, let's face it, 2700s make more mistakes than 2800s. Or so we thought. Instead, both Dutch newcomers, who scored -1 in the B group last year, have played both well and conservatively. Smeets got a gift time forfeit from Ivanchuk in the first and drew the next three. (Not sure what to call playing the ultra-sharp Botvinnik Semi-Slav when you have already analyzed the final position. Not exactly conservative.) Stellwagen and Dominguez have drawn all four games. Stellwagen in particular seems bent on making nothing out of something and seems happy with draws despite gaining good positions consistently. You have to figure that Elo being destiny most of the time this policy will eventually backfire. Outsiders should be playing for scalps, not half-points!
Aronian and Carlsen are also unlikely drawing masters, if for reverse reasons. They played a wild battle in round four, Aronian sacrificing a piece for a pair of pawns and then desperately holding on to draw the knight-down endgame. Radjabov is doing his usual routine of offering up quick draws with white so he can rest up for do-or-die battles with black, especially in the King's Indian. His round-three win with it over Ivanchuk repeated his standard formula of being positionally crushed only to break loose in time trouble and win. Kasparov pointed out several ways for Ivanchuk to continue on to a nice zugzwang win. But the time-trouble addicted Ukrainian wizard was down to a few minutes by move 30 and just couldn't handle the sudden complications. Horrible.
That moved Radjabov up to a share of the lead with, it seems, half the field. Smeets, Karjakin, Movsesian, and Kamsky are also on +1. Kamsky destroyed Morozevich in a remarkably straightforward game. Kamsky's openings still look suspect on occasion, but when he gets a tailwind and can attack, he is as good as anyone in the world. Fast and merciless. We've seen some impressive endgame saves in the first third of the event. Wang Yue has been on both sides, holding off Karjakin in a marathon and then being frustrated by good defense by van Wely. Adams held on to draw Morozevich in a rook endgame that must have been very close to lost. Stellwagen had the better of the draw against Ivanchuk. With Black so tied down I wonder if Ivanchuk would have gone for 31.g4!? as a winning attempt had colors been reversed.
Thursday's round five: Aronian-Movsesian, Ivanchuk-Carlsen, Karjakin-Stellwagen, van Wely-Radjabov, Kamsky-Wang Yue, Adams-Smeets, Dominguez-Morozevich. We should get the latest chapter in the epic tale of King's Indian battles between van Wely and Radjabov. The ball is in the Azerbaijani's court right now after van Wely beat him at the Dresden Olympiad. Carlsen owned Ivanchuk for a while, but Chucky has begun balancing the ledger lately with two classical wins late last year and knocking Carlsen out of Cap d'Agde. At this point it would just be good to see more hard punches thrown and a little blood on the canvas.
Moro and Chucky aren't going to change... They have been like this and will remain like this until they retire. You watch their games, you don't understand a thing and they can win with beauty or loose in tragedy.
What is this book? "Kasparov: How his predecessors misled him about chess". Funny title. Is it any good?
No idea, haven't seen it. Fun idea. Chess could use more parody. The problem is that when it does come along it's usually done so badly everyone figures it just doesn't work with chess.
I've read a couple of other books by the guys behind "How his predecessors misled him." They're full of decent chess content, but dry as a bone to read.
Off-topic, but Frederic Friedel summarizes what he would've PREFERRED people to take away from the Kramnik interview, part one:
"Kramnik was especially disturbed by the constant changes to the system and by the unfair distribution of privileges. Essentially he proposed that nobody get any special privileges in their quest for the World Championship title, and certainly not himself. ("I am ready to start at ANY stage of the world championship... I would be ready to play in the Khanty-Mansiysk World Cup or anything")."
Strange how Kramnik's "would be ready" instead of "am ready" isn't explained at all. And if Kramnik is "epecially disturbed" by changes to the system, why is he the first to propose another one himself, CHANGING the decision taken by the General Assembly in Dresden?
Chess politics disguised as chess journalism is something I find rather agitating. I assume Greg Koster must be very upset with Friedel now, assuming that Friedel is scrutinized similarly to the treatment Mig gets here.
Full story: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5167
Suddenly chessbase and Kramnik never said that Kramnik wanted the same privileges as Topalov..., very sad.
I congratulate the guy who corrected and edited the interview (maybe it would be more accurate to call it press release or presentation).
But it is crystal clear that the interview reflects the way Kramnik wants to be seen by people and not his real intentions.
Half-jokingly, the only guys really wanting to win this event may well be .... Ivanchuk and Morozevich, but their efforts have backfired at least for the time being.
@Mig: Did Kasparov find the winning continuations for Ivanchuk against Radjabov while watching the game live, or afterwards based on extensive (maybe computer-assisted) analysis? Even if it was during the game [having sort of the same time trouble as Chucky], he still didn't have the same pressure, and not the same consequences to face if his analysis turns out to be wrong after all ... . I am just a patzer, but somehow I quite often tend to find 'obvious' winning continuations in teammates' games, but not in my own game ,:).
And generally, I would say several draws were hard-fought [round 4 was an exception], and a draw is a normal result between players of roughly equal strength. If the tournament goes on like this, it may still become exciting and remain so until the very last round .... or there will be a fourway tie for first place.
[BTW, I do not (yet) comment on the latest posts by frogbert and Manu - it is too late in my timezone to find the right words .... good night as far as I am concerned!]
Naah, Koster's behaviour is more like 'let's troll the famous guy', brilliant boy makes a way of life out of it, he'll be upset only if there'll be no Mig to troll!
About the Kramnik interview Part II, or rather the summary of Part I: Almost by definition, a summary emphasizes some points at the expense of other aspects. The "full story" can still be found in Part I of the interview - and I do not see that anything was modified, corrected or retracted. Maybe some things were clarified, that's not the same.
@frogbert: The difference between "would be ready" and "am ready" [to play the World Cup] is clear from Part I. "In programming language" (and my syntax may well be wrong ,:) ):
If A then B
A = no privileges for Topalov and Kamsky
B = Kramnik will play the World Cup
Else, If C then D
C = privileges for Topalov and Kamsky
D = Kramnik asks for privileges for himself, or he will skip the next WCh cycle
The clarifying part is that Kramnik prefers the "A-B option".
@Manu: Also with respect to your comment, the summary was IMHO a clarification, not a correction. Taking the first two sentences (as quoted by frogbert):
"Kramnik was ... disturbed ... by the unfair distribution of privileges"
[He considers privileges for Topalov and Kamsky unfair, if he doesn't get anything similar - his opinion, some agree some disagree ... . Some don't really know, e.g. GM Shirov had posted "Kramnik is not completely wrong" (nor completely right)]
"Essentially he proposed that NOBODY [emphasis added] get any special privileges ...."
[Nothing new, only the addition "and certainly not himself" at the end of the sentence may well be a reaction to discussions going on here and elsewhere].
"Almost by definition, a summary emphasizes some points at the expense of other aspects. "
This is hardly much different from my own description:
"Frederic Friedel summarizes what he would've PREFERRED people to take away from the Kramnik interview, part one"
Now, we that have actually read the entire first part, only see the internal contradictions of Kramnik's statements CLEARER after such a one-sided summary. That summary is PR, not journalism, imnsho. Do we really want ChessBase to be a PR agency for a selected few players, twisting the truth if need be?
Saying, like Friedel does, that Kramnik's message was that he "certainly not" would want "special privileges in [his] quest for the World Championship title" comes this close to being a clear and intended MISREPRESENTATION of what the first part conveys. Kramnik CERTAINLY wants special privileges if the loser of Topalov/Kamsky gets any of those. [Whether that's understandable or not, is a _different_ matter.]
Also, if Kramnik appeared to be "especially disturbed" my something in part one, then it was by the "injustice" done to himself. He spent 5 times more space talking about this issue than anything else. Moreover, it's incredible that neither of Friedel nor Kramnik seem to realize that Kramnik is proposing ANOTHER CHANGE to the current system as decided by the GA. And IT WILL be a CHANGE REGARDLESS of whether:
1) Topalov/Kamsky lose rights (Officially what Kramnik prefers)
2) Kramnik gains new rights (What I suspect Kramnik to get, this way or another)
Kramnik proposes 1) or 2) === Kramnik proposes another change to the rules. So far the Topalov/Kamsky camps have been pretty silent (as they currently belong to the "privileged few"), but just wait for the chaos that will errupt if FIDE actually changed things according to Kramnik's "primary wish".
I have a question :
If Topalov/Kamsky lose their rights and Kramnik gets seeded because Russia hosts the candidates tournament, then what?
Kramnik´s interview is a HUGE correction of the first part , now trying to build a false image of fairness that no one can buy.
Kramnik is rightfully concerned about what people think of him (which is a BIG contrast with the spirit of the painter that just paints), because he is no longer champ and needs some support to make his back door entry into the challengers tournament.
It is like with politicians really , when you see them smiling and holding babies you should start checking your wallet.
"If Topalov/Kamsky lose their rights and Kramnik gets seeded because Russia hosts the candidates tournament, then what?"
Then the tournament will probably start and eventually finish.
"...he is no longer champ and needs some support to make his back door entry into the challengers tournament."
Just like Topalov, another ex-champ (you may recall Kramnik beat him in a match) who expects favors and privileges. So they should share privileges or get none at all. Plain and simple.
"It is like with politicians really , when you see them smiling and holding babies you should start checking your wallet."
So Kramnik's new baby makes him a bigger thief? Manu, you really, really want this guy dead and buried. Why are you so obsessed with Kramnik? You hate him so much that you haven't presented an argument here in several months. And your frothing attacks are getting more and more ghoulish, so before you rupture another blood vessel, tell us: WHY do you cheerfully prove yourself a bigger fool every single day on this blog? What did Kramnik do to you?
Show us on the doll and remember it's okay to cry. Just try not to do it in English.
@clubfoot:
Kramnik´s new baby makes him a father , more than a thief.
Mixing politic statements with pictures of his own daughter makes him a bad publicist.
It makes no sense to argue with Clubfoot , but i want to state that i do not hate Kramnik at all , in fact i do not hate in generall terms.
Kramnik s case is very peculiar to me , ´that´s all.
"i want to state that i do not hate Kramnik at all , in fact i do not hate in generall terms.
Kramnik s case is very peculiar to me , ´that´s all."
Let's say you're not lying for just a moment: you don't hate Kramnik, yet your every post features a segment of Kramnik character assasination. By your lights he's a liar, a thief, a poseur, a weakling, a passive-aggressive impostor, a cheater, a spoiled child, a hypocrite, a poor parent and even a lousy publicist.
But you say you don't hate Kramnik, not at all. How confoundingly peculiar.
But wait, forget about that, the experiment's over. Just answer the question, Manu. Why do you hate Kramnik? Why do you devote so much of your time to Kramnik defamation? What on earth did Kramnik do to you??
A spoiled child? , a poor parent?
When did i said that ?
Whatever i think of Kramnik is more than what your writing suggest you are.
You seem to have anger issues , pls dont project on me your frustration .
Karjakin into 1st place and the ChessBase can't even give us the game that did it. Whoever fills up on the Dutch Lowlanders optimally will be the ultimate victor.
Stellwagen lost his first game, dropped down to shared 10th place (together with Ivanchuk, still ahead of Morozevich), and suddenly you declare that "optimally filling up against the local players" will be decisive for tournament victory !!?
BEFORE the tournament, I would have agreed ... but as of today, but as of today, the evidence in support of your statement is, well, quite limited.
Im not a big fan of chessbase at all but they did give us the game.
http://www.chessbase.com/news/2009/wijk/games/corus05a.htm
Ifnot:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/corus-r5-super-sharp-struggles/#comment-92850
MANU. So you agree on the other things. You are truly pathetic. Your dig at Kramnik in every single post show that you are without class and furthermore an idiot.
LosDedosDelPie probably meant that Karjakin's game wasn't _annotated_ at ChessBase, while three other games from yesterday's round were (and Aronian-Movsesian got no annotations, but two diagrams). Most space is devoted to Ivanchuk-Carlsen, conceivably because two pre-tournament favorites played each other - the game itself was interesting despite being short, but not the most spectacular one.
But generally I would appreciate that we get "quite something" (relatively detailed analyses soon after the games were played), not complain that we do not get everything. As Manu already wrote, other sites "fill the gap", http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/ is another one with comprehensive "express analyses".
View karjakin.blogspot.com for an analsysis for this win. ChessBase tends to scope the big ELO egos. If they manage to scrub today's Carlsen-Karjakin from comment, you'd have a complaint.
So why do you hate Kramnik?
Clubfoot, you are obviously not a believer in not throwing the first stone.
If you are going to ask such a question, how about you first telling us why you hate Kasparov so much?
With such a venom, obsessiveness and bitterness.
And while you're at it, explain same re Koster as he is obviously unable to explain it himself.
Is your name Manu? Wait your turn.
Just answer the question, Clubfoot. Why do you hate Kasparov?
Its amazing how insults started to bloom among the Kramnik's fan club , i don't understand why is that because they have so many reasons to be happy.
So hey Manu, try not to hide behind Chris B's garters and tell us: why do you hate Kramnik?
Im hiding behind Chris? , Do you really have that feeling?
does people seem to hide from you all the time?
mmm , not that i care who you might be , but im using my real name here and you are just a wordless troll.
From that perspective it seems to be you the one whos hiding.
Okay, I'm a wordless(??)troll. So why do you hate Kramnik?
I can see why someone would like to hide from you,Do you have children dude?
Do they fear you?
Would you fight me if you have the chance?
Clubfoot and Manu, It's gone too far, it's bloody ridiculous. Both of you just quit it. You're a pair of teenagers in puberty by the sounds of things. Every post diminishes any respect anyone still has for you. Exchange email addresses and insult each other there instead of using this blog as your dumping ground.
If the last 3 answers were yes :dear clubfoot you need to find help.
Im not insulting anybody , chesshire. I will stop answering clubfoot , but this is not a 2 sided argument , and i like to answer when being insulted sometimes.
I think is fair if i have some fun with a person who constantly insults people, but i will follow your advice.
Okay, that's it. I'll take the absence of a response from Manu as a clarion "I hate Kramnik for no reason!" followed by a flood of tears. Somehow I wish it were a surprise, but no luck there, all too predictable.
And ill take your posts as a manifestation of love to me , dear psycho.
:)
Clubfoot I beg you, see your psychiatrist and have your dosage adjusted
Clubfoot I beg you, see your psychiatrist and have your dosage adjusted
Clubfoot and Koster certainly showed on the 'Kramnik in from the cold?' thread just what nasty, destructive people they are.
Clubfoot must be the nastiest poster on this blog. Even the very reasoned criticism of Kramnik by Frogbert, and Clubfoot goes ape****.
It is amusing to see how accurately Clubfoot's prolific ravings and insults reflect himself. The psychiatrists call it transference don't they?
As for Koster, he is certainly the dumbest poster on this blog.
Particularly pathetic and quite breathtakingly stupid was his attacking Frogbert for his very interesting new information on why Carlsen wasn't all that interested in participating in the Grand Prix from the outset. [This reasoning of Carlsen's was very much the reason I had thought from the outset that this Grand Prix qualification thing was a very poor idea - it puts the top players on a ridiculously long treadmill.] Great contributors to the chess community like Frogbert shouldn't have to waste their time and energy on idiots like Koster.
Clubfoot and Koster are just trolls. Don't they have anything constructive to do with their sad lives?
Of course Mig will be accused of bias if he bans these two from 'Daily Dirt', but there must be some limit to which trolling is tolerated.
If you dont like to be insulted by the trolls , dont insult them!!
Every time you or clubfoot or frogbert or koster insults anyone , the insult points in the direction of the person who is using it (Confusio registered that).
Thats why the most common insults are ¨idiot¨ or ¨pathetic¨ ,or even frogbert´s ¨you are funny little guy¨ directed to me , hehe .
Insults are frecuently a reflection of what one consider to be his worst defect , or to say it in another way the failure that makes you suffer the most.
And when we are mad with someone we like to inflic that pain (that we know hurts because we are suffering it) to our adversary.
So lets try to keep it clean , bunch of idiots.
hehe ,kidding , just kidding
correction: ¨inflict¨ that pain
"suddenly you declare that "optimally filling up against the local players" will be decisive for tournament victory !!?"
Actually, at the moment it seems more like the event will be decided by which first place contender who doesn't manage to beat Morozevich ;o) If say Carlsen or Aronian fails to do that, or even loses (which is perfectly possible - Moro can suddenly play an awesome game), Karjakin might take it due to his first round (!) win over Moro.
Exactly. Dustbin the 3 tail-siders last year, and Anand wins with +2. Aronian and Carlsen were only +1 without the +2 help from those on -3.
Nice interview with Loek in chessvibes.
Just some facts, everyone can draw his own conclusions:
1) Karjakin is leading at the moment
2) Karjakin already played, and won, against, Morozevich
3) Karjakin was the only one winning against Stellwagen so far
4) Yesterday, Karjakin somehow survived against Carlsen - with quite some help from his opponent
Too early to say if Karjakin wins in the end, and which of the above was decisive. Frogbert, you may not be happy about point 4), but I know you are objective enough to accept/acknowledge that it's true .... take this as a compliment ,:).
Anyway, end of this post - I am now leaving my commputer to watch today's action live !
I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding point 4 of yours. That Carlsen was winning at two different points? Or that he didn't find the right continuation when he was?
Unlike what Shipov's live comments on ChessBase seem to convey, I think it was very hard to calculate the win after Nxf8 Kxf8! Qxg7+ Ke7 Bxh6!! I don't consider it very strange that Carlsen didn't evaluate all of the following lines correctly - black had the option of both Qxb6 and Nxb6 after Bxh6, and neither is easy to get right.
I did think Carlsen would be able to convince himself that Qxg6 won (instead of d5 which only draws), and I was slightly disappointed that he couldn't do the "math" correctly. At that point, he should've had enough time.
Anyway, any or all of your points 2-4 might prove decisive, if we compare to Carlsen. Note, however, that Carlsen faces both Moro and Stellwagen with black, while Karjakin beat them with the white pieces. Maybe the drawing will decide? :o) Moreover, Radjabov beat Ivanchuk from a strategically lost position, while Carlsen equalized easily and Chuky accepted a repetition in the middle game. Many small such points.
The dutch players have done clearly better than expected (based on their ratings), but still slipped below 50% as a team today. Regardless, so far they have given the best possible reply to the many critical voices before the event - by playing good chess!
Btw, playing good chess is probably the single, most important reason for deciding the eventual winner. :o)
My comment this morning (European time) was written in a bit of a hurry ... because I had a train to catch to watch the action on site ,:). "Quite some help" may be exaggerated and a bit unfair towards Carlsen - admittedly I scanned some of the Internet comments and didn't analyse the game myself thoroughly.
That being said, it could still be argued that Karjakin was lucky against Carlsen, and "at the end of the day" it means both an extra 1/2 point for him, and 1/2 point less for a potential competitor. IMHO and as far as I can tell, Aronian was _not_ lucky against Carlsen: he simply defended well, and here I don't see where Carlsen went wrong giving away the win. To my knowledge, neither did anyone else (Shipov at most gives some vague suggestions which moves by Carlsen MAY have been second-best).
Playing good chess is obviously important (to win the event), but a bit of luck doesn't hurt either ,:). And it may be the difference with everything else being equal ... . However, over 13 rounds there is some balance between good and bad luck: Today Carlsen seemed to have a narrow escape against Van Wely - based on comments I have seen so far and my own impression. However, during the critical phase of the game I was watching games from the C group, both the time scramble I mentioned in the other post and yet another entertaining game by Manuel Bosboom ... I know him personally and had a short chat with him before the round.
About color distribution: Having white against certain players means having black against some others, so that shouldn't be too crucial. Maybe some players argue being unlucky if they have to waste one of their white games against Radjabov ... who is arguably stronger and/or more ambitious with the black pieces ,:).
"Having white against certain players means having black against some others, so that shouldn't be too crucial."
I'm not completely able to make up my mind about this, in general.
Is it better to have the white pieces against your strong opponents, or is it better to have this advantage against your slightly weaker opponents?
In the current corus A field, there is very little difference between the top 11 players, theoretically. Karjakin, rated 2706, has been leading the pack for 7 out of 8 rounds so far, and the new leader is rated 5th. Hence, the chance of winning a specific game is theoretically rather small, regardless of the colours.
However, the 3 weakest players (based on their results _before_ the tournament) aren't at all weak players. Additionally, we now know that they are all in relatively good shape. Hence, in order to manage to win games, the advantage of having the white pieces against the "right" players, might turn out to be decisive.
Let's lump together the 3 pre-tournament outsiders ("the dutch") and the 3 other opponents (of Movsesian, Aronian, Karjakin, Radjabov, Dominguez, Carlsen) seemingly in worst shape (Morozevich, Ivanchuk, Wang Yue), and consider colours and results:
Movsesian: colours 3-3, nothing significant in results
Smeets (white) 1/2
Stellwagen (black) 1/2
van Wely (black) r11
Morozevich (white) 1-0 win
Ivanchuk (black) 0-1 win
Wang Yue (white) r10
Aronian: colours 5-1, advantageous according to hypothesis, but nothing significant in the results
Smeets (black) r13
Stellwagen (white) 1/2
van Wely (white) 1/2
Morozevich (white) r12
Ivanchuk (white) 1/2
Wang Yue (white) 1/2
Karjakin: colours 4-2, both wins with white against outsiders/low-performers
Smeets (black) 1/2
Stellwagen (white) 1-0 win
van Wely (white) r10
Morozevich (white) 1-0 win
Ivanchuk (black) 1-0 loss
Wang Yue (white) 1/2
Radjabov: colours 2-4, but Radjabov is a bit "strange" when it comes to colours, and van Wely - Radjabov and the KID is a story of its own. No "evidence" in results
Smeets (white) r10
Stellwagen (white) r13
van Wely (black) 1-0 loss
Morozevich (black) r9
Ivanchuk (black) 0-1 win
Wang Yue (black) r11
Dominguez: colours 3-3, hypothesis somewhat supported by results
Smeets (black) 1/2
Stellwagen (white) r9
van Wely (black) 1/2
Morozevich (white) 1-0 win
Ivanchuk (black) r12
Wang Yue (white) 1/2
Carlsen: colours 1-5, disadvantageous according to hypothesis, somewhat supported by results so far
Smeets (white) r12
Stellwagen (black) 1/2
van Wely (black) 1/2
Morozevich (black) r11
Ivanchuk (black) 1/2
Wang Yue (black) r13
With the rather high number of drawn games so far, it clearly is hard to say too much from the results. The hypothesis I implicitly suggested, is that in a mostly even field like this, it's an advantage to have the white pieces against a) the outsiders and b) the relative low-performers. Point a) is known pre-tournament, while point b) is only know post-tournament, of course.
But honestly I think general stuff like this seldomly is of very much help, since the individual variations are big. Some players perform relatively better against weaker (= lower-rated) opponents, while others do the opposite. Some score particularly well with the white pieces, while others have an unusually high score with black. And then there is the individual differences between players and their styles: Shirov's terrible record against Kasparov is but one example of skewed strength relationships.
Still, my basic feeling is that colour distribution is NOT completely insignificant. Who you get to play with white and black, has a great impact on which openings you get to play during an event, just to mention one aspect.
Interesting analysis, frogbert, and there seems to be some empirical evidence for your preferred hypothesis. However, the alternative one in your initial statement ("Is it better to have the white pieces against your strong opponents, or is it better to have this advantage against your slightly weaker opponents?") still cannot be discounted.
And if the direct result between players was taken as tiebreaker in the end (not the case here), it may well be advantageous to have white in this game. Or, if a draw is considered an achievement for black, it may be better to have black !?
At least for one detail there is strong empirical evidence against your hypothesis: All of Ivanchuk's losses were with the white pieces, so it may be better to have black against him (though Karjakin may disagree). Chucky may well be more ambitious with white, making him at the same time dangerous and vulnerable. It increases his chances to get into time trouble (all three games) and/or to choose an ambitious but wrong plan (Movsesian). And against Radjabov, he chose an ambitious and probably correct plan, but got things wrong in time trouble. His blunder was understandable - in a way, he aimed at winning the c7 pawn for the entire game, but then did cash in at the very wrong moment.
Is everyone getting a load of these two guys and their endless tilting at decommissioned windmills?
Thmas starts off by apologizing for a post that wasn't properly researched (??) with "admittedly I scanned some of the Internet comments and didn't analyse the game myself thoroughly." But damn the torpedos, he then presses forth with a medium-length post anyway ("That being said...aaarrrgggghhh etc").
But luckily, in response to frogbert's recondite thesis: "btw playing good chess is probably the single, most important reason for deciding the eventual winner"...Thomas, after much reflection, incredibly, finds that he has to agree! "Playing good chess is obviously important (to win the event)" These guys clearly are out to change the world. You GO girls!!
Then, a frogbert trademark classic. He opens his next post with: "I'm not completely able to make up my mind about this, in general." We could take him at his word here, but how about nearly 600 more words instead? Much better idea to give us another highschool essay complete with overhead projection than simply making up one's mind. And of course Thomas responds, as he always does to any and every post on Chessninja with one of his "yeah, maybe and maybe not..." longueurs.
To call these unbearable posts a bunch of artificial filler is an insult to all pie-bakers in the West. Start your own chess-sonambula blogs and don't forget to install a new-age swooshy music soundtrack so visitors can pass out by the middle of the 2nd or 3rd thousand words.
See clubfoot , is much better when you dont insult .
@Manu: This time YOU weren't insulted, because words such as "unbearable" and "not properly researched" were directed at other people (not sure what to think about "recondite").
@Clubfoot:
1) If you don't like certain posts - because they are too long in your opinion and/or written by the wrong persons - just ignore them rather than writing a long reply completely devoid of own ideas.
2) Maybe just accept that the world can be at times grey rather than black or white ... requiring balanced statements and "That being said"-phrases.
3) You would never even think about apologizing for anything you posted !!??
Briefly about "not properly researched": The main fact stands, Karjakin WAS lucky because Carlsen missed one or actually two forced wins. My apology referred to the aspect whether Carlsen can be blamed for missing those wins, and to what extent.
I mean , in spite of the attacks , he is being a lot more creative with his destructive post.
In a certain way you (and frogber)should be flattered , he uses a lot more imagination than when he writes to me ...
:)
On luck: I don't buy the concept. Carlsen missed wins. Karjarkin also missed better opportunities to defend.
Same with Ivanchuck's time trouble. In the extra time he took to find better moves and gain a better position, perhaps with more time the opponent could have defended better.
The "X had 5 winning positions, by right he should be leading" concept is one I hear all the time. It just ain't logical.
Thomas,
Funnily, I quickly considered putting a disclaimer at the end of my previous post, noting that it was meant primarily for YOU, but I considered that too stupid, and hence dropped it.
Obviously, regarding parasites like Clubfoot, "too stupid" doesn't even exist. The idea that someone in the world can be slightly different from himself, and value slightly different ideas and conversations, is clearly a concept too difficult for him to grasp.
I kindly suggest that we ignore all further "comments" of this kind from him. As a grown-up I consider it a waste of our time, but if you do find any purpose in responding to his vomit, then... what can I say? It's your time. :o)
footy, here's the short version for you:
More often than not, you're pretty dumb! It must be strange having such a limited outlook on the world.
"The only obligation to which in advance we may hold a novel, without incurring the accusation of being arbitrary, is that it be interesting."
--Henry James
Agree or disagree with his points, but who better than Clubfoot consistently fulfills his obligation? I'd give up hundreds of Daily Dirt novelettes in exchange for that Clubfoot/Mig picture of Kramnik standing nonchalantly in Dealey Plaza.
Frogbert, I still wouldn't rule out that some other people on this forum found our recent discussion interesting .... or at least more interesting than some other stuff as the recent "discussion" between Clubfoot and Manu.
My response was in the first instance directed to Manu. BTW he is right that Clubfoot was somewhat creative, at least I saw a new-to-me English word (recondite). I did a quick Google search, but won't spend too much time trying to understand its true meaning(s) unless I encounter it more frequently .... .
I have to say, i find very interesting how you think that your "discussion" with clubfoot-frogbert is much more elevated than mine.
Your partner just said that clubfoot is
a too dumb/stupid parasite .
I do not see the quality difference you seem to be talking about, please enlighten me.
But for the love of God , be brief.
:)
Recondite:
Difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge
"some recondite problem in historiography"
source:wordweb
point , game , set and match to chesshire
So much vituperation on a weblog with very little actually at stake. How much more deadly would the hostile interactions of bright, ambitious, selfish chess professionals and wily politicians be when pecuniary interests are so strong? I now understand why there has always been chaos in the chess world.
You can go to a poker site and bet your house , there is no chaos there , and a lot at stake.
People there are usually very kind and generous , specially with money.
@ Manu: I can be brief .... my discussion with Frogbert was about chess, your recent one with Clubfoot was not. And I will not discuss/try to find out who started with the personal insults, that was sort of a chicken and egg question.
Mmm is really not that difficult , i don't do direct insults .
But the search might take you to a RECONDITE place , i give you that.
Is there bad luck in chess? Arguably not, because you cannot blame anyone but yourself for mistakes, blunders or losing on time. Regarding Ivanchuk, maybe I was misunderstood: He was lucky (as he admitted himself) to survive several time scrambles at the MTel Masters; he was not as lucky at Corus. Here, "no luck" does not mean "bad luck"!
Is there good luck in chess? I would say yes, because if similar things happen to your opponent it is beyond your own control - though you can 'help' a bit by keeping the game complex, inviting blunders and/or time trouble.
Chesshire cat (or anyone else), did you ever have "moments of agony" in your own games - seeing the win for your opponent when you could do nothing but sit and wait and hope he/she wouldn't find it? Or would you resign immediately without "giving luck a chance"?
Finally two questions without answers:
1) Is it good luck if you find an "only move" defense whcih you hadn't seen beforehand? Or would that be "intuition"?
2) Is it bad luck if your attack/creative play leads to an endgame a pawn up which still cannot be won?
Blunders, hmm, admittedly even the top players blunder now and again, but for the most part much LESS than amateurs. So much, if not perhaps all of that can be attributed to skill not luck.
I don't see how good luck can exist without bad.
If someone doesn't see a winning continuation i attribute it to a lack of skill. I see good moves for weaker opponents. They don't see them not due to luck but due to their weakness.
"only move" defences can only exist if your position merits it, i.e. you have played well enough.
Pawn up/no win is part of chess. Ivanchuck was up material in several rapid games v Leko- Leko defended well, he wasn't lucky.
I agree with chesshire cat. Chess is a game of skill unlike dice games or ludo that require luck.
Addendum: at Linares Radjabov defeated the world champion in a game that was later awarded a brilliancy prize. The world champion considered the prize unmerited and threw an embarrassing public hissyfit to advance this claim. Since then Radjabov has been singled out where possible for special and singular contempt, with recent echoes ringing through the Corus 2009 summaries:
"I don't know how Radjabov does it but it's not anything you can teach or explain. Keep these games away from your students, they're bad examples unless you come in near the end."
"I doubt Ivanchuk protested, while Radjabov certainly did. Not because he knew the rule; he was trying to find some way out of flagging...Add another to his list of incidents."
"It's unfair to consider it sharp play since it probably wasn't intentional, but knocking down pieces and then hitting your clock is pretty Washington Square Park in my book."
"Radjabov fiddled around with some mystifying moves with white against Stellwagen until offering a quick draw when he realized he was probably going to be worse."
...and a nice example to wrap up:
"Radjabov is doing his usual routine of offering up quick draws with white so he can rest up for do-or-die battles with black, especially in the King's Indian. His round-three win with it over Ivanchuk repeated his standard formula of being positionally crushed only to break loose in time trouble and win. Kasparov pointed out several ways for Ivanchuk to continue on to a nice zugzwang win."
Ever wonder who broke into his hotel room in Mexico...;))?
Right, so my game commentaries for Corus are based on an incident between Radjabov and Kasparov five years ago. Brilliant. You are deranged. I'm sure you can work out a bizarre conspiracy theory for every good and bad thing I've every said about anyone and work it backward so something vaguely related to Kasparov. In fact, you probably have. Get a life, troll.
Or, and this would be novel, refute any of the statements you quote. Radjabov did make three 15-move draws. He did knock the pieces over and protest. He did get positionally crushed by Ivanchuk before winning. (Update: he was similarly in trouble against Wang Yue and also won.) He has done similar things before. Wow, facts, neato. Or has Kasparov also been responsible for all the incidents Radjabov has been involved in over the years? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a crybaby just a crybaby.
I can't wait to find out what fantasies you can concoct about Kasparov having issues with Smeets and Stellwagen, who also came in for some criticism during Corus.
No fair fuzzing my high-def, strawbaby: of course your commentaries were based on Corus event information. Your comments on Radjabov, however, reflected your employer's animus against him.
"Get a life, troll."
Hang on -- are you saying you DIDN'T break into his hotel room on the eve of Linares??
I could have saved time with "Kasparov is the hobgoblin of small minds."
Animus toward Radjabov? Why? He was an innocent bystander at Garry's Linares tantrum. All he did was win a chess game. Garry yelled at just about everybody in the room *except* for Radjabov, and spoke with him and his mother afterward. The entire basis for your argument that I write mean things about Radjabov because Garry controls the world is fatally nonsensical from the start.
I was nowhere near Radjabov's hotel room when his laptop was stolen. I was in the hotel garage sawing through the brake cables of their rental car at the time and I have witnesses to prove it.
My remarks about Radjabov-Stellwagen were based on comments by GM Har-Zvi during the game ("mystifying knight maneuvers") and Radjabov after the game, who said that he "wasn't sure what was going on" and "was worried I could be worse" when he offered the draw. He's probably in on the conspiracy though.
'I could have saved time with "Kasparov is the hobgoblin of small minds."'
To "hobgoblin" you could also have added "paymaster". How better to explain the cheap shots aimed at Radjabov in the summaries?
"Animus toward Radjabov? Why?"
Radjabov is on record asking the same question.
"The entire basis for your argument that I write mean things about Radjabov because Garry controls the world is fatally nonsensical from the start."
Again, no fair framing -- that was certainly not the basis of my argument. I never said he controls the whole world. Just yours.
But good to hear about the hotel room thing. Given a choice I'd go with the brake cables as well.
Clubfoot are your haemorrhoids playing up again?
"Add another to his list of incidents."
And all these years I thought Mig was AGAINST making lists of top-GM atrocities.
I honestly dont understand Mr and Mrs C Koster. One half of the two, Clubfoot, seems to be in a bad place, and the whiff of insanity seems to pervade his rants even more than usual. Just shouting and screaming at everybody, and wanting to have the last word, however petty. I just wish he would hurry up with the Clubfoot vanity appreciation website already.
The other half, for better or worse, is just spewing up the same old stomach churning bilge delivered as always with a hint of a whine, an overtone of grievous injustice, and guaranteed to reward the reader with a large dollop of irrittation. If it is still surprising that the owner of a blog titled the Daily Dirt records his own point of view now and then, here's the thing: YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT! Amazing that, isn't it? Start the Koster "I hate Kasparov and I love Kramnik; ps. I also hate Topalov" blog. Invite the erstwhile members of the rabid gang who seem to have found happier hunting grounds, and live happily ever after. Why moan, when you don't need to suffer?
d-tal,
Some people need to suffer for in their inappropriate martyrdom lies a pyrrhic fulfilment of their worldly desires.
This blog, and similar devices, gives a life to some who would otherwise have none, courage to some who lack it and an appearance of erudition where there is no intellectual hinterland.
As always, Clubfoot twists the truth.
Kasparov's anger was not with Radjabov, but with the judges of the brilliancy prize who made the ridiculous decision to award it to Radjabov for a game in which he was worse, but then won on a Kasparov blunder. Had it been a player other than Kasparov who lost, it wouldn't have got near a briliancy prize.
As far as I know, Kasparov held no grudge against Radjabov for this game either at the time nor since. To connect this incident to Mig's comments on Corus 2009 is just bizarre. I didn't think Clubfoot was quite as stupid as Koster, but now I'm beginning to wonder.
Interesting that Clubfoot considers Kasparov to be the World Champion at the time of Linares 2003. Guess he agrees after all that Kramnik de facto forfeited that Title in 2002. I don't think, however, that even Kasparov considered himself to be World Champion at the time of Linares 2003.
Methinks maybe it's time Clubfoot considered going to an institution.
Since you are talking about Kasparovs incidents , may i ask about the Polagar incident and if someone saw the videos of that?
Anyone remember ? when Kasparov move the night twice.
i been always curious about that.
"As far as I know, Kasparov held no grudge against Radjabov for this game either at the time nor since."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2120
As long as you, Hardy and d play prostitutes, Mig will continue pimping for his employer. Not strictly a bad thing, but you must also deal with unwelcome facts every now and again.
Actually the above link more supports the thesis that Radjabov is a crybaby rather than the one that Kasparov obstructed his career. Of course, both statements could be true...
So your answer is an interview with Radjabov proving my point that he whines a lot? Glad you've come around to the right side. That was quick.
None of the things you quote me saying about Radjabov were cheap, gratuitous, unique to him, or incorrect. (At least not beyond my usual quotient of cheap, gratuitous, and incorrect, which I rely on to distinguish this site from The Informant.) Assumption of animus doesn't equal proof of it. Same goes for Radjabov back in 2005.
Four years of Kasparov's retirement have exposed the tragic lack of knowledge and creativity in our local trolling population. Maybe we need to introduce some new trolls from the wild to beef up their thin bloodlines. Greg and Flubfoot might enjoy a good rogering from a Limbaugh fan who posts at the Daily Kos or an animal hater who hangs out at Cute Overload.
Chris B.,
You may have overlooked that the prize in question was not for "brilliancy" but for "beauty."
The sub-heading of Mig's contemporaneous report asks "Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?" and evidently the Linares journalists found beauty in the remarkable accomplishment of a 16-year-old boy upending a legend. But that's hardly worth arguing now as even Kasparov himself acknowledged his inappropriate behavior.
"To connect this incident to Mig's comments on Corus 2009 is just bizarre."
At first glance, maybe. But whether or not you find Radjabov-Kasparov "beautiful" don't you have to label the subsequent tantrum "bizarre" as well?
Folks have argued that the beauty prize would not have been awarded to that game if anyone but Kasparov had been the loser. Of course. On the other hand, would Kasparov have thrown a tantrum if the upstager and overthrower had not been a 16-year-old boy from Kasparov's homeland?
Kasparov has long shown intolerance for anyone daring to share his spotlight. His reaction to the Radjabov prize was surely bizarre in intensity and who's to say it's not also bizarre in longevity?
What I found odd was that after over a decade of playing down Kasparov's "mercurial episodes," Mig spoke of adding an incident of questionable behavior to Radjabov's "list." After a decade of telling you to ignore the San Andreas fault, a seismographer on Mr. Andreas' payroll now tells you to worry about those tremors in Toronto.
Mig would be more than human if no bias ever made its way into his writing. But reducing arguments about possible bias to Kasparov-sucks-no-he-doesn't, Kramnik-sucks-no-he-doesn't, poster-is-off-his-meds, needs-instituitional-care, demonstrates-indicia-of-psychiatric-disorder is beyond tedious.
Whether Kasparov-bias bleeds through into Mig's treatment of Kramnik, the Berlin Defence, Radjabov, (or whatever) obviously causes Mig the greatest distress, but the issue is surely debatable without wasting time debating the personalities of mostly anonymous posters.
Yes, just because Radjabov claimed something doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
We all remember Radjabov saying he hates all Armenians or something to that effect. And Kasparov is half-Armenian, half Jewish. (He had to rescue his family from an Azerbaijani pogrom in Baku about 1990.)
And Radjabov's claim that 'Kasparov has always wanted to remove competition as early as possible' is highly questionable. Who helped Kramnik's career in the 1990's more than anybody?
In any case the main point is that Clubfoot tried to imply that Kasparov's anger in this incident was directed against Radjabov when it was obviously directed against the judges.
As for the Polgar incident, not one of Kasparov's better moments for sure. The guy is not perfect. I have never claimed he is. Neither has Mig. Unlike Koster's and Clubfoot's claims for Kramnik. And even the greatest gentleman of the game, Keres, had two or three dubious incidents to his name.
This incident has been extensively discussed elsewhere. I think the general conclusion is that it's not 100% black and white. As I understand it, it was a split second affair, Polgar did not protest during the game and the arbiter did not intervene. In a game you desperately could not afford to lose, how many of us would have acted differently?
There were indeed cheap and gratuitous comments in the examples I posted. You were parroting your boss and that's not a new thing on this site. Often it's entertaining and useful, but here it was in the negative. There is no assumption of animus but a very real and demonstrable reinforcement of his biases and grudges in your writing. And your concluding wish that I be the recipient of virtual anal rape by rightwing Net trolls doesn't make it less true. In fact it only reflects the truth about the darker side of riding on his payroll.
And ChrisB, about
"In a game you desperately could not afford to lose, how many of us would have acted differently?"
...you should speak for yourself. How many of us would have cheated and lied about it, as did Kasparov? You're welcome to the illusion.
Ok Chris thx for answering , sorry for sending you to feed the fish.
I wonder if there is some material of that on the web , like that game with Anand when Gary blunders and put like 300 faces in seconds.
Ok, Manu, forgiven.
I think we agree on many things, but obviously you do not appreciate my support for Frogbert's posts. You had some sort of argument with him that I found difficult to see any real reason for, but let's not go there. I think we should all appreciate the great work Frogbert does on the Live Rating List and give him a big thank you for it.
I don't claim to be an expert on this Polgar incident and have not really investigated it. I've not searched the Web for it.
Greg,
A beauty prize should still be based on the game itself, not on who played it. If you're talking about an upset prize, then of course, but not beauty. I think Kasparov probably made this point at the time. I do think that Kasparov would have complained at such a game being given the award no matter who it was that beat him.
As I've said previously, I think Kasparov's main fault is that he is on too short a fuse. This incident was clearly a case of this. Kasparov's anger was justified but got away on him.
So Kasparov has some sins, no doubt. Certain other players have done much worse things than this.
And if you're finding the slanging tedious, well take your complaint to Clubfoot, he's done most of it in the last two months. If he puts that much of it about, then he should not be surprised if he gets some back, and well deserved.
All these examples just suggest that Kasparov, Radjabov and the rest of them are human with their foibles and imperfections. I think it's bizarre that Kasparov's improper conduct earns the undying hatred of some but Kramnik's often less than stellar conduct is rigorously defended. Neither of these gentlemen are saints, or devils for that matter.
The animus towards Topalov is even more unfair given that he and his Manager reacted to slime put in his direction by pushing filth towards the friends of his traducers.
I remember GM Short stating something like Garry was unable to see what a great compliment was to give an award just because he was the opponent.
I believe Garry was undefeated with white for a long time before that game.
The ugliest thing (IMHO) was that Garry ended the game leaving the board alone and losing in time, THAT is something to regret.
I couldnt find the video of the Polgar incident , some friends told me the Spanish tv aired at the time , lets see if i can find it.
I agree with you that all the players you named (and most if not all others) are neither saints nor devils, all somewhere in between. BTW, this also applies to comments on this site: Kramnik got roughly as much rigorous unconditional defence as he got undying hatred, the same applies to Topalov.
Hardy, can you please explain/expand upon your last sentence? I didn't really understand, maybe because I don't get the precise meaning of 'animus' and 'traducer' (I am not a native English speaker ...).
And, last point, if anyone from the current world top is a saint (or close), it is probably Anand. At least I am not aware of any "incidents" involving his person ... .
"precise meaning of 'animus..." with respect, Thomas, you have more than once claimed that you don't understand words when in fact looking them up in an online dictionary would take less time than to write the above sentence.
cat,
Do you really think Thomas is going to find the meaning of Hardy's last sentence in an online dictionary? I suggest you do the right thing and explain Hardy's sentence to him.
Thomas,
My last sentence was about the Elista Toiletgate scandal.
Prior to the WCC match, there were rumours/insinuations/suggestions that Topalov's crushing wins were achieved by cheating of some kind. These stories were allegedly put about by people such as Bareev, Barsky, Morozevich and Breutigam- all friends of Kramnik (although Kramnik himself was silent on the issue). Some people believe that Danailov and Topalov's dramatic accusations during the match were as much a retaliation for the earlier slanders as gamesmanship. All in all, these were grave accusations without proof, akin to accusations of doping in physical sports. Thankfully the accusations have died down but the resultant ill-will lingers on all sides.
Thomas,
''And, last point, if anyone from the current world top is a saint (or close), it is probably Anand. At least I am not aware of any "incidents" involving his person ... ''
GM Loek van Wely accused Anand of distracting opponents by making funny sounds and leg movements during his games (i believe this was in a New In Chess interview but don't remember the precise issue). Some others accuse him of being passive and too obliging for a top player with influence.
My point is that every top player (and many ordinary ones) naturally generates some ill-will for various reasons and we should put these things in some perspective.By the way, the current antagonisms are quite tepid when compared with the incidents involving Blackburne, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca and Aljechin etc.
About ill-will :
I just read this quote of Topalov in new in chess and i think it is the right time to share it with you:
‘At the moment there is only one rival, Anand.’
I happen to agree with the guy.
At this moment Topalov must be thinking in Kamsky , and how to get to that match , he has a tremendous rival to beat if he want to claim Anand´s crown.
I think the top 10 are about equal in strength, harking back to Botvinnik's notion of the WCC being 'primus inter pares'.
That said, the Topalov-Kamsky match should be very interesting. Both are dogged fighters and fairly universal in style. And Kamsky has considerable match experience to match Topalov's repuredly better preparation. My money is on Topalov but it could be close.
Kamsky seems to be the kind of guy that knows when is better to use his full capacity , after all he is a former kid prodigy that made it to the top .
And he has a lot of reasons to be optimistic about this match , if he wins he will play against an opponent that he already beat many times (and after the comeback).
For him the match with Topalov may be the harder part of becoming WCH , at least in his mind or spirit.
I think it will depend a lot on Topalov's state of mind ,and if he learnt a lot from Elista or not.
I believe he did.
It is really curious to see people overcome loses so well when others cant recover from winning.
I actually DID look up those words ('animus' and 'traducer') in an online dictionary. As I hadn't encountered these words ever before, prior to doing so I didn't have ANY idea about their meaning (or at most, I could make educated guesses from the context). And _after_ doing so, I was still unsure about the _precise_ meaning. In any case, as Greg Koster (a native speaker) pointed out, the sentence I referred to was still cryptic even if one understands all of the words ... .
More generally, I would consider my English at least average for a non-native speaker - here and at other occasions in life (my opinion, though confirmed by other people in the latter case). So I do suspect that some other posters also didn't understand, but didn't dare or didn't care to ask.
Generally I grant everyone his/her own writing style (length of posts, use of capital letters, ...). But is it too much to ask from native speakers to bear in mind that part of the audience is somewhat less proficient in English? Sometimes (here not referring to anyone or any post in particular) I have the impression that complicated/ uncommon/ cryptic words are used just to show how smart one is, which I consider unnecessary and inappropriate. "Cryptic" here refers to words with multiple definitions, where online dictionaries aren't all that helpful.
And - if my previous comment was off-topic - back to on-topic things.
HardyBerger wrote:
"Thomas,
My last sentence was about the Elista Toiletgate scandal."
Thanks for clarifying. Much has been written about Toiletgate already. But even if you are right about Topalov's underlying reasons (read: if his seemingly hopeless match situation at that point didn't have any influence), I have one question:
Is the proper response to (real or perceived) "grave accusations without proof, akin to accusations of doping in physical sports" ... grave accusations without proof (and putting things to a higher, more official level)???
"The animus towards Topalov is even more unfair given that he and his Manager reacted to slime put in his direction by pushing filth towards the friends of his traducers."
Granted, not an easy sentence, native speaker or no. (My point is that individual words should not be a prob).
Translation- The anti-Topalov spirit is unfair. He and Danailov were merely reacting to unjust attacks by counterattacking the friends of his attackers.
Yes, the statement breaks all of Orwell's rules for writing clearly. All the same, I don't think T's statement-
"I have the impression that complicated/ uncommon/ cryptic words are used just to show how smart one is, which I consider unnecessary and inappropriate"
is generally justified, though in this specific case (and a few others, but really not so many) fair enough, the quote is poor English by any standards. Asking mainly English speakers on an American blog to write with non-natives specifically in mind is a little much; I would never ask German bloggers to simplify their language for me.
Chris,
"And even the greatest gentleman of the game, Keres.."
Umm, how about Tal? :)
"But is it too much to ask from native speakers to bear in mind that part of the audience is somewhat less proficient in English?"
Yes it is. This is a blog, with people posting according to their general stylistic preferences. Perhaps if you are in a lecture or seminar, especially if you have paid for it, you have the right to ask this of the presenter; but not here.
"Sometimes (here not referring to anyone or any post in particular) I have the impression that complicated/ uncommon/ cryptic words are used just to show how smart one is, which I consider unnecessary and inappropriate."
That's quite an arrogant assumption. Just because you find it cryptic doesn't mean somebody else does. I found the sentence in question quite entertaining. Every now and then you find a standard or writing that is interesting; why on earth should they change it to satisfy somebody's lack of comprehension? Its up to you to learn. For example, I have frequently said that I enjoy Clubfoot's writing, when I can get past the haze of vituperation. Oops, will he accuse me of selling my morals and prostrating myself before the altar or good taste for that confession?
Hi d_tal,
I suppose I was meaning 'gentleman' in the more cultured sense.
I would say Tal was a more fun character, a bit of boozing, womanising...not sure that 'gentleman' is quite the right word here.
But in terms of personal integrity, Tal may well have been Keres' equal.
I'd be interested to see other opinions.
Oops, I truly didn't mean to be arrogant or insult anyone ... . Let me quote myself and then explain what I mean:
"But is it too much to ask from native speakers to bear in mind that part of the audience is somewhat less proficient in English?"
'At face value', this was a question which doesn't have a single valid answer, rather everyone can decide for himself - d_tal and, to a lesser extent, answered "Yes it is [too much to ask]". I concede that the words I chose may be considered unnecessarily provocative or arrogant.
"Sometimes (here not referring to anyone or any post in particular) I have the impression that complicated/ uncommon/ cryptic words are used just to show how smart one is, which I consider unnecessary and inappropriate."
"I" appears twice in this sentence, so here Thomas doesn't claim to speak for anyone else ... . And d_tal, while 'cryptic' is subjective, maybe we can still agree about 'uncommon'? chesshire cat missed the 'sometimes' at the beginning of the sentence - maybe my fault, parenthetical comments in between (part of my writing style) don't make things more readable!?
And 'in a few cases' rather than 'sometimes' may be more accurate. All this is at most a minor problem for me as it concerns probably less than 1% of all posts. From the brighter side, I can also appreciate the opportunity to expand my (passive) English vocabulary ,:).
BTW - not sure about Mig's opinion, nor if it is relevant at all: I primarily consider this site not as "American", but "international" (maintained by an American, presumably hosted on a server somewhere in the US). This is because I see it as continuation of Mig's earlier activities elsewhere on the Web: TWIC (British), Chessbase (German company, international ambitions, separate German section of the webpage), Kasparovchess (Russian and/or international).
chesshire,
And when each thread peters out would you mind terribly preparing a brief summary?