The strongest event in this first Grand Prix series is turning out to be another tight affair. Hard fighting, lots of draws, and a few surprises on the crosstable. Ivanchuk, fresh from dropping buckets of rating points on the April list, is in the cellar with two miniature losses. The latest happy recipient of a visit from Ivanchuk's dark side was Kasimjanov, who found the nice 22..d4! (23.exd4 Nxd4 24.Qb4 and ye olde double knight fork trick on f3 wins.) Ivanchuk might have been able to suffer on for a few more moves in full grovel mode with 24.Qd1. But he put himself out of his misery and allowed a pretty finish instead. Chalk this one up in the "removing the guard" and "overloading" sections of your tactics archive.
Kamsky missing the stalemate draw trick 93..Rxe7 against Akopian was old news ten minutes after it happened. Rough stuff. That it happened on move 93 when Kamsky was already averaging 79 moves per game without a rest day provides a little mitigation. It still puts a tiny dent in Kamsky's deserved reputation as an ironman. It also knocked him back down to an even score. The day before that, Kamsky did the same thing to Peter Svidler in another long technical grind, the only decisive game of round 4. Leko again showed he came fully loaded with another sharp novelty, this time 14.Nxd5 against Karjakin. Fun stuff, including the rare chance to see White play 0-0-0 with a black knight on d2. Ivanchuk gave up his queen against Eljanov in another wild battle. A coincidence that Jan Gustafsson is seconding Leko in Nalchik? I think not. The fighting spirit of Nalchik also produced a spectacular piece sac from Boris Gelfand against Bacrot, though this one also ended up in a draw.
Grischuk still leads alone on +2. Karjakin, Leko, Aronian, and Alekseev follow. Leko-Alekseev leads round six. Live here.
I have been watching the games from Nalchik and they have not been very good. Good enough to beat me, that's for sure, but overall, none of these players seem to have the strength of Anand, Carlsen, or Topalov. There have been a lot of mistakes that can only be described as "amateurish". Maybe they are all too careful and professional, too respectful of each other. Something is missing. There needs to be a killer amongst them, but he is not there. These guys are all soft and polite. Too bad. But, like I said, they could all beat me.
"Amateurish mistakes", eh? "Soft and polite"? Is anyone out there on this blog who doesn't share the prevalent "if-it's-not-top-3-it's-crap" attitude?
Get used to it, chesshire. The prevailing attitude here is gonna get worse before it gets better. A mere one year ago, the attitude was more like, "If it's not 2700+, it's crap." And 3 or 4 years ago, the 1800-2300 Brigades of Daily Dirt were even accepting mere 2600+ chess as "not crap."
At this rate, in order to satisfy its regular customers, a year from now the Dirt will confine itself exclusively to discussion of Anand's games, plus perhaps some engine-vs-engine matches.
I've seen better chess than this.
And I've seen better comments than this...if we can just all agree on the best game of all time, we can dismiss all else as rubbish.
"...but overall, none of these players seem to have the strength of Anand, Carlsen, or Topalov."
--"Have you ever seen a monkey examining a watch?" --Steinitz
Whenever i think a higher rated player has missed something, I always remind myself to look again. And again. Then some more. Then wait for a higher rated commentator to tell me what I have missed.
I was amazed once reading a 2700 player say the difference between 2700 and 2600 is ....chess understanding! How much wider would the gulf between 2700 and 2100 be?
I don't even know what Luke means with 'good' or 'better' chess - can you even be specific about which mistakes would qualify as amateurish (five examples would be enough)?
My impression is that this tournament has seen quite a lot of creative fighting chess (even the drawn games), compared to other supertournaments. Almost inevitably, this also leads to inaccuracies or even outright blunders. Two possible reasons why the 'entertainment value' is higher - even if the 'quality' is a bit lower:
1) Many players want to leave an impression, hoping to earn invitation to 'real' supertournaments (i.e. those including any or all of Anand, Carlsen and Topalov).
2) It is still 'sort of a WCh qualification', so all players know that scoring 50% won't be enough.
Greg,
I once saw a monkey examining a watch but it soon gave up the task and moved to bananas.
> I've seen better chess than this.
Unless you're rated in the world's top-10, or perhaps Fischer back from the grave, how would you know the difference between this ~2700 chess and something better?
Well, I'm not a 2700 player, nor am I Fischer back from the grave. So, I must be a monkey examining a watch. And you guys are very excitable.
Hello [Luke the] monkey ,:)
Can you still answer my specific question? Which mistakes would qualify as 'amateurish'?
I hope the watch is waterproof.
The Akopian-Kamsky endgame is full of mistakes on both sides.
I suggest that people apply the same standards to their posts that they do to super GM games. That'll raise the quality here some.
Ah, the inevitable flinging of the monkey-poo...
Oh dear! GMs can make mistakes? I am shocked.
If that's the best example you can come up with ... Akopian's post-game comment in the press conference (video on Chessvibes) is spot on: "There were many mistakes, computers will laugh at us. But we are humans and we were incredibly tired ... ."
In any case, this game was not "soft and polite"!? And BTW, your 'heroes' made similar or worse mistakes in tense situations: Carlsen also (repeatedly) lost theoretically drawn rook endings, Topalov even missed an (obvious) forced mate in the Elista match against Kramnik. Not to say that they are/were or acted like 'amateurs', just that (concerning the 'ability to blunder') the gap between 2700-2750 and stronger players is not that large, maybe even non-existing.
That's it, here I dare to propose that Luke is speaking for a small minority ... .
Chucky would be a most accurate example (this tournament, so far), but i like his play even when he loses/blunders .
In a way the guy makes you believe that he is always playing by heart .
Yep, I also thought about Ivanchuk, but here I fully agree with Manu.
BTW, if Chucky is "consistently inconsistent", we can expect a lot from him at MTel - given his 2009 supertournament performances so far:
- poor (far below his level and ELO expectations) at Corus
- shared first in Linares
- poor again in Nalchik (at least for the time being)
- next is MTel ...
Well, this assumes some logic in his play, at least "jo-joing logic" ,:)
Since you rated his performance as poor in two of those three tournaments, another possibility is that there would be a two/thirds probability that he would perform poorly in his next tournament.
It's hard to predict how Ivanchuk will perform. Maybe this is just a bad time for him and he will come out stronger for M-Tel or it's time catching up. Anyway, his play is a joy to see, as Manu and Thomas pointed out, even when he's out of form. But anyway top players are quite close. Remember how Topalov was feeling he was in good shape even when he wasn't winning in some tournaments (true, his moment came at the end of the tournament, such as the first M-Tel, when he stormed everyone). It's so close that even when you're playing well you can lose if you have only a little weak moment. And it's nice this way. The only problem is (maybe) people who can't put his Rybka analysis into perspective (not meaning it's the case here, even if it is) The usual behaviour of many relatively weak players on servers when kibitzing is "Oh, how can they not see this, my quad-core finds it inmediatly. Those top players are anything but patzers".
Anyone knows whether if Ivanchuk has a second to help him out at these tournaments? Cuz by the looks of it he needs an entire team of seconds plus a psychologist to help him stay at the top. In one tournament his chess peaks to 2850+ level while on the very next one 15 days later he is scraping the 2600 level. It's painful to watch him at times when everyone knows he was second best only to Kasparov...such a pity [now I know what it would feel like watching Rubinstein in real life!]
In any case, Luke neglects Ivanchuk's long-term record - I mean if he had performance ratings below 2700 (or even <2600) in most [more than half] of his tournaments, he wouldn't even be top 30 any more ... not even with occasional outliers in the other direction, as his 2977(!!) TPR at MTel 2008.
This has little predictive meaning for any _single_ tournament ... . Only one thing is rather unlikely: Ivanchuk finishing somewhere in the middle of the table after a series of "soft and polite" draws ... .
@Alez: You obviously mean "their"(the kibitzer's) Rybka analysis, not "his" (Ivanchuk's) !? And Rybka and colleagues have one distinct advantage over human beings: they never get tired, not even after six hours of play ... .
See comment by Peter Doggers in the previous thread: Ivanchuk seems to be one of five players who didn't bring a second (the others are Svidler, Grischuk, Mamedyarov and Kamsky). Or maybe he has one, but keeps his name secret? On the other hand, somehow I think being Ivanchuk's second is not the easiest of all tasks (not only because you may have to do A LOT of opening preparation ...)
Thomas -
You are the one who said Ivanchuk's performance in two of his last three tournaments has been poor, not me. I did not neglect his long-term record. He has a pretty good long-term record.
I think he prefers going alone, and only gets Manuel Leon Hoyos when playing Morelia/Linares (at least that's what i get from reading NiC) It seems also that in the Olympiad he wasn't going to team meetings but the captain left him in "his own world" (that's from the one Ukraine won, and on the results Ivanchuk got there i guess he's just better like that) I think he's inmensely strong but he finds it hard to work with others, which sometimes makes him too tired/out of form.
In order to justify my handle, I find it is necessary to occasionally make some astute chessic observations. Here comes one (I'll let the reader decide just *how* astute it is!) ...
I find it increasingly interesting that of the many people who feud (if that's the word) on this -- and even on other -- site(s), they all tend to agree on one thing (to be explained in a sec...) --
Do you hate or love ...
Kasparov?
Topalov?
Kramnik?
Leko?
Karjakin?
Radjabov?
Any other chessplayer?
Why do you love or hate them? Is it style, ideology, integrity, or even heritage? Or one of countless other reasons?
No high majority will sway the scales either way for these players (except maybe indifference to Leko, which would mirror *his* tendencies in a unique way!).
But what about Ivanchuk? Is there anyone who reads this site that *doesn't* like Chucky for any reason? To a soul, each of the frequent posters here have made their voices heard about many players. But I have NEVER seen a bad word about Ivanchuk, even when it looked like he might be in some trouble. People rush to defend him, and excuse him for any failing that would have vilified the likes of Mamedyarov or Topalov.
I've been behind him since he was a kid playing up-and-comers like Beliavsky and Kasparov, and wondering which of the three would make the leap to superstardom. Well, we know the answer to that now, so we ask it about other young ones today.
But Mr. Vassily Ivanchuk has remained a stellar example of and for the elite chessplayers of the world. I'm sure his peers feel the same way. No second? WOW! Doesn't his wife travel with him? How awesome. I'm not asking for people to start ganging up on him here, but quite the contrary. I want to see him do very well, and qualify for some WCC action.
You've always been MY hero, sir, and it says a lot that there have been very few instances of attacks on you that were not on the chessboard. Good luck and Caissa's grace.
CO
Good one chess observer. If one breaks it down, certain factors make it impossible to dislike Ivanchuk. Humility, integrity,unwordliness, deep love of chess, visibility minus controversy....and above all, he's a fantastic and versatile player in the style of Spassky and Keres.
1) "And I've seen better comments than this...if we can just all agree on the best game of all time, we can dismiss all else as rubbish."
2) --"Have you ever seen a monkey examining a watch?" --Steinitz
3) "I hope the watch is waterproof."
While I disagree regarding "low quality" and "amateurish" anything, I think the quality of the debate here would've been hightened _more_ if Luke could be met with counterarguments to his _view_, instead of personally oriented ridicule and insults.
If everyone in the future would focus more on the _subject_ of the debate than the _subjects_ of the debate, the chance for fruitful exchanges between a higher number of participants would increase notably, in my opinion.
Someone who starts reading this blog, will soon realize that anyone opening his/her mouth her risks having the head bitten off by a small group of regular commentators, a group which typically takes stabs at each other instead, when out of "fresh meat".
As a forum for true debate, I think the dirt is becoming increasingly dysfunctional - and I've been a reader for 3-4 years now. The "signal to dirt" ratio is simply too low. I'm sorry that more dirt will probably fly due to this post of mine - please stick to the matter of my concern instead of producing more sticky matter.
Oh gimme a break Frogbert. How does one "rationally argue" with such arrogant notions? If you make an arrogant and unfounded claim, you get your head bitten off, that's the law of the jungle. I expect no less for my comments. No-one's against anyone, new or old, opening their mouth, as long as they don't spew out complete rubbish. It's not like there's a pack of seasoned, hungry Dirt wolves lurking to tear apart newbies, ridiculous statements are attacked regardless of the identity of the poster.
The so-called "substance" of this debate was that "sub"-top level chess ain't good enough, only our heroes Anand and Toppy can produce good enough chess. A self-confessed amateur condemns games of extremely strong GMs as being of poor quality, "amateurish", in fact, while at the same time claiming the ability to differentiate between such games and those of Carlsen et al. If that's not worthy of attack then I wonder what is?
Your self-righteous tone grinds.
You have a point, frogbert. Yet it is difficult to come up with counterarguments to Luke's provocative post (not supported by arguments!). Still I tried, so did Hardy Berger ... .
@Luke: When I described Ivanchuk's play at Corus as 'poor', I explained - in brackets - what I mean: way below his usual (or "average") level. In statistical terms, Chucky's average level clearly comes with an unusually large standard deviation.
Back to the start: "I have seen better chess" - fair enough, but I have also seen worse chess [for example, but not only in our own club competition, including my games ,:)]. Still that competition is interesting and meaningful to me - be it only because I occasionally also play strong moves (which may even survive scrutiny by computers) .... .
Thomas, I noticed that you tried, and I wasn't referring to your posts.
Really good one Chess Observer. Chuky is a modern day Chess romantic, and I dont mean just playing style. He plays for the love of the game, like some of our most beloved past champions.
"Your self-righteous tone grinds."
I'm not at all perfect in this respect, but I suggest that we don't talk about you or me or anyone else in particular - IMHO that's counter-productive.
"If that's not worthy of attack then I wonder what is?"
I don't consider much to be worthy of personal attacks - hardly even personal attacks. But attacking the _statement_ in a thorough, methodical and non-insulting way would be good, in my opinion.
If that is perceived as "hard", then take it as a challenge!
In my opinion, it's no longer hard for amateurs like myself to point out moves of super-GMs that were objectively weak - Rybka and friends can do that for us in most positions (not all, though, yet). I'm not talking about the typical disagreement of some tenths of a pawn or similar (that make some people shout "blunder" on ICC and Playchess), but clear mistakes and the like.
However, computers understand nothing about time trouble, fatigue, tournament situation and other off-the-board concerns and influences that might impact the chess game of a human player. Those are the kind of things that can be pointed out if someone seems to neglect the actual context of some mistake.
Of course, sometimes even the strongest players make inexplicable mistakes, but that doesn't make them "amateurs" even if some isolated mistake might _seem_ "amateurish" - and 99% of the time we still can assume that some high-level (based on their awesome knowledge and understanding of the game) reasoning preceded the move, even if it turned out to be a bad one.
I agree with the notion that _all_ the 2700+ players are very strong - in a single game there is not much that divides the top rated from the relatively lower rated of the bunch. Even their chess understanding doesn't have to be much different - the rating differences are mostly related to difference in _consistency_ (not only, but very much, I think). The primary example is of course Ivanchuk, who in the last 8-10 months has been 2790+ and now is 2720-, due to very extreme variations in performance.
Judging the _quality_ of chess games is very hard, I think, due to all the external factors that need to be taken into account. I guess most people would agree that number of "clear mistakes" is a bad measure. Some players more consistantly choose to unbalance matters, play moves that bring the situation (more or less) out of control, etc. Faced with very complex situations, human players demonstrably aren't able to manage with only 2-3 minutes per move on average - and the "error rate" goes up. But does that mean "lower quality"? I'm not sure there's a foregone conclusion to that question.
I think newbies deserve to run the risk of 'having the head bitten off by a small group of regular commentators', ol'bies also btw.
Go dirt wolves, go
"The so-called "substance" of this debate was that "sub"-top level chess ain't good enough, only our heroes Anand and Toppy can produce good enough chess."
For starters, this is not sub-top level chess. It is top level chess played in a less conservative style than Linares or WC matches.
The very same Carlsen and Anand that were portrayed by some as being head and shoulders stronger than players in Nalchik just finished Linares below Ivanchuk and Grischuk. Anand also was a non-factor in Linares for much of the tournament.
That just goes to show how close it is at the top. Yesterday you won Linares, supposedly the strongest event of the year, now you are at the bottom of "sub-top level" event.
"The very same Carlsen and Anand that were portrayed by some as being head and shoulders stronger than players in Nalchik just finished Linares below Ivanchuk and Grischuk."
osbender, as I said above, it's more about consistency than notable differences in chess understanding. For some it might even be about playing the "appropriate" opposition.
But while Ivanchuk and Grischuk demonstrably have the potential to win Linares, I don't think that applies to _all_ the participants in Nalchik. Probably only about half of them - at least now.
"That just goes to show how close it is at the top."
I certainly agree that it's very close at the top. I even consider the notion that "Topalov currently is clearly ahead of the rest" to be wrong - he is only clearly ahead in terms of rating. Over time, he's no more consistent at that level than Anand, for instance. And I don't think his chess understanding is notably better than that of Kramnik, Aronian or Carlsen either. But his latest string of results have indeed been excellent.
It'll be interesting to see for how long Topalov can keep it up - so far I consider it a "visit" to 2810+, I will be slightly surprised if he isn't rated lower than that by the january 2010 list.
Even though there are some bad moves occasionally, most of the Nalchik games are interesting to watch. Sometimes, what I think is a mistake at first, turns out to be a good move.
As for Ivanchuk, he is a great player most of the time. He'll have better tournaments than this. I'd rather watch his games than Mamedyarov, Leko, Gelfand, or a few others.
In contrast to frogbert, I thought that most of the response to Luke was substantive, if not polite. For example, frogbert copies the following:
1) "...if we can just all agree on the best game of all time, we can dismiss all else as rubbish."
2) --"Have you ever seen a monkey examining a watch?" --Steinitz
To me, those quotes contain arguments about Luke's point, not personal insults.
While we try to avoid getting into personal attacks, we should also try to avoid seeing personal attacks where none were meant.
I did not feel any personal attacks. If they were intended, I did not feel them.
Some people did not like it when I said "soft and polite". Take a look at the Leko-Bacrot game. It's pablum.
a peaceful chessblog sounds like a grandmaster draw to me
Besides Ivanchuk and Grischuk, Karjakin, Aronian and Leko have also demonstrated the potential to win supertournaments in the past (it's been a while ago for Leko). And we can argue case by case (name by name) if Svidler, Kamsky and Gelfand have the same potential.
This may depend on how one rates other tournaments:
World Cup for Kamsky (different format, where nerves and maybe a bit of luck play a larger role), Russian Championship for Svidler (nominally slightly weaker field, but including many young, unknown, dangerous and hungry players).
Indeed, about half of the field ... and, related to what I wrote earlier, the other participants want to show that - at least - they deserve invitations to supertournaments in the near future.
On Leko-Bacrot: Here you may have a point, however
1) It is not clear to me (as a patzer) which player should have avoided the early repetition, and how. And I don't think an 'easy and lazy' answer is sufficient, such as: the higher-rated player or the one with the white pieces. As suggested by Hardy Berger, I will wait for comments by stronger players ... .
Maybe there was also some psychology involved (chess players are human after all), and Leko still remembers his drastic loss against Bacrot in the previous GP tournament?
2) This game was clearly an exception, both with respect to the entire tournament and concerning Leko's play in Nalchik.
Mig called Leko's pawn sacrifice against Akopian in an earlier round " un-Leko-like" - I am not that sure if Leko's reputation as a solid (boring) player is still justified or rather 'history' by now. If it is home preparation (read: influence of his second Jan Gustafsson), it is still surprising - because 'Gusti' has a similar boring reputation [I think he said so himself once in a ChessFM interview].
Re: your comment that "...I will wait for comments by stronger players ..."
That's fine. I may be proved wrong in my initial assessment that this game is pablum.
Heartfelt gee-whiz piece from Observer, but likely the principal reason people go easy on Ivanchuk around here is because he's all but hors concours for WC cycles. To Ivanchuk the WC is somewhere between an imaginary playmate and chess phlogiston. In money tour events (eg Sofia last year) he can still terrorize with beauty, but if it has anything to do with a WC cycle he folds quicker than Superman at the laundromat. It was even rumored that the producers of the 2008 film "Choke" considered changing the film's name so the public would not confuse it with an Ivanchuk biopic.
So there's no point Dirtslanging this bizarre chess genius. One is better off clipping a butterfly's wings or mocking a retard. Ivanchuk is absent from chess politics, which is not at all a bad thing.
Re: Ivanchuk. There's a good press conference report with photos here (in Russian): http://chesspro.ru/_events/2009/nalchik7.html
After losing to Aronian Ivanchuk said that before the game he understood that he was essentially a drug addict. He needs his hit - a won game. He said overdosing was ok :) But if he can't win a game he feels terrible. He said he was desperate to beat Aronian and when he realised he didn't have any winning chances any more he couldn't keep things together...
Aronian was asked the next day at a press conference if players, generally friendly with each other, feel sorry for their opponents when they beat them. Aronian responded that chess GMs are like lone wolves - they might hunt in packs but if one of them is injured they'll put him out of his misery as quickly as possible!
frogbert said:
¨I don't consider much to be worthy of personal attacks - hardly even personal attacks. But attacking the _statement_ in a thorough, methodical and non-insulting way would be good, in my opinion.¨
frogbert said:
¨If you would be less annoyed by the length of posts where I provide YOU data that you subsequently use (or you would keep your "annoyance" within your tiny little head), then the chance for a non-insulting reply from me would've gone up a lot.¨
Make up your mind , dude.
frogbert said:
"I'm not at all perfect in this respect, but I suggest that we don't talk about you or me or anyone else in particular - IMHO that's counter-productive."
Stop telling people what to do , then.
Luke didnt feel attacked (and IMO he wasnt attacked at all) ,but you claim that he had suffered ¨personally oriented ridicule and insults¨.
You also had your share of insults ,but yet you feel the need to moderate this forum.
Start by cleaning your home , then the world.
The monkeys are flinging poo again...!
See frogbert , that is a personally oriented insult , thx noyb.
"Aronian responded that chess GMs are like lone wolves - they might hunt in packs but if one of them is injured they'll put him out of his misery as quickly as possible!"
Hehe, that Aronian is a witty guy.
"Stop telling people what to do , then. [...]
You also had your share of insults ,but yet you feel the need to moderate this forum."
Manu, I've given my OPINION on what I think would be a fruitful way to counter "provocative posts" (Thomas' description), without focusing on any individual in particular - I gave 3 quotes of what I considered more or less futile replies, but on PURPOSE I didn't mention who'd made the comments. (Of course it's easy to look that up, but in order to make sense, I wanted to give some examples.)
I've also admitted that I'm not perfect (far from it, actually), and repeated that I don't think personally oriented remarks or focus is very productive - which is my clear BELIEF.
How Luke reacted isn't very relevant to my VIEW on what I consider a fruitful discussion or not. Luke's statements where met with a number of reactions on those statements, several of which could be interpreted as "that's a stupid comment to make - stop making such comments, or else..."
Regarding "moderation" - YOU are explicitly telling ME what to do, in an agressive manner - something I've learnt is a typical modus operandi for you, so I take rather lightly on it. You might want to compare your "stop telling people what to do" with what YOU do, and with how I voiced my OPINION on
1) some specific statements
2) what I consider a fruitful way to counter "provocations"
"See frogbert , that is a personally oriented insult"
Hence, saying someone is like a monkey that flings poo IS an insult, while saying someone is like a monkey who doesn't understand how a watch works, is NOT an insult.
I honestly don't see any significant difference, Manu, but I guess it makes sense to you.
Anyway - OF COURSE everyone does as he/she likes here in the dirt, but I hardly need to be an angel or a saint to give my opinion about what I consider a rewarding and interesting discussion, and what I consider mere bickering.
At the end of the day I simply STATE MY OPINIONS, and I guess mine are as good as anyone's. Or do you reckon that I'm not allowed to offer my OPINION, manu?
And of course, this plea in my first post just fell to the ground:
"I'm sorry that more dirt will probably fly due to this post of mine - please stick to the matter of my concern instead of producing more sticky matter."
I've voiced my concern, and I see no point in prolonging the "debate". Let the dirt fight continue. :o)
So , by telling you to not tell everyone what to do im actually giving you a direct order , hence comitting the same disgusting sin that you commited in first place... intriguing.
What if i say that when i tell you to not tell everyone what to do im just giving an opinion , and then ask you if i am allowed to have one?
Wouldnt that be a little childish and counter-productive?
I did NOT tell any ONE what to do, while YOU did.
To ME it matters HOW you voice your opinion, not only what your opinion is. Here's an example of a different way to express yourself that is more similar to what _I_ said:
"Personally I prefer that people don't post comments about how discussions are and should be lead on the dirt. I think everyone is entitled to throw dirt and belittle others all they like, including comparing them to monkeys and expressing disgust about their ridiculous posts.
Whether or not that disrupts normal, polite conversation, is honestly of no major concern to me, as long as nobody is trying to make me feel bad for ridiculing and shouting at others. I find any comments of that kind to be a serious attack on my personal freedom. After all, this is the daily dirt, and you are expected to maintain some minimum level of evilness."
I would very much welcome a statement like that, manu, and I wouldn't feel it as if you were telling ME what to do. I would've actually felt it like you were being honest about your stand. :o)
¨I did NOT tell any ONE what to do, while YOU did.¨
Sure,see u@.
Well, it is the dirt after all... The Steinitz quote from Greg was on point and funny, which is the dirt the way I like it. All decorum and no play makes the posters dull boys.
Q
"The Daily Civilized Discussion"- you're right, Q, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. Jeeves, fetch me some poo.
Manu: Stop telling people what to do , then.
Funny, this is exactly what you do to everyone else in this forum!
Examples pls.Do some work.(you can use that)
Only valid examples count , not just every imperative use of words.
BTW , you reacted a little late against my authoritaranism , if i were a real dictator all your people would be arrested.
Ideally you should be able to quote me telling you what to do.
Just a though.
"Only valid examples count"
manu, who's going to perform the "validation"?
Simply curious... :o)
The Grischuk - Alekseev ending was very nice.
You seem to have rope on both hands, you can do it.
Akopian - Bacrot was also a nice ending, but I think Bacrot must have made a mistake somewhere to lose this.