11 Jan 09
2 edits
So far we have:
17 games in which top players of 60-70ties have got hopeless opening positions (If needed I can search more).
7 games in which top players of 90-ties - modern days got hopeless opening positions (I also included Anand loss in 1992, Kasparov loss to Deep Blue and Short & Wan Wely loses). Feel free to post more.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchLMAO! Donner is a "top GM" of the 1970's but Short who played for the World Championship isn't a "modern top GM"??
[pgn]
[Event "Hoogovens"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Date "1973.01.13"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Jan Hein Donner"]
[Black "Albin Planinc"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A61"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2 Bg7 8. Nc4 O-O 9. Bf4 b6 10. Bxd6 Re8 11. Bg3 Ne4 12. Nxe4 Rxe4 13. e3 b5 14. Nd6 R ...[text shortened]... veral top GM tournaments) actually was well know for losing many miniatures.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchAll that proves is that you have had nothing better to do this afternoon.
So far we have:
17 games in which top players of 60-70ties have got hopeless opening positions (If needed I can search more).
7 games in which top players of 90-ties - modern days got hopeless opening positions (I also included Anand loss in 1992, Kasparov loss to Deep Blue and Short & Wan Wely loses). Feel free to post more.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you included such "top GM" as Wan Wely then I`m including Donner, who at least have won some strong tournaments of his time (like Venice 1967 ahead of World Champion). To say nothing about 2nd place in Leiden 1970 behind only Boris Spassky and ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik and Bent Larsen. But I would not be surprised if you have never heard about him before 😀
LMAO! Donner is a "top GM" of the 1970's but Short who played for the World Championship isn't a "modern top GM"??
Calling Short top GM in 2002 is really funny. But let it be his games counted - Also I added some more miniatures lost by ex-top players after their peak.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAll this discussion only proves your poor knowledge of chess history which does not allow you to understand progress during last 30 years. You started to nit-pick my the less serious argument about miniatures and at the same time ignored others. Unfortunately I had to do something better - finishing post in my blog which was much more useful instead of discussion with ill-mannered jerk.
All that proves is that you have had nothing better to do this afternoon.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchWorking on your blog is the same as talking to an ill mannered jerk.
All this discussion only proves your poor knowledge of chess history which does not allow you to understand progress during last 30 years. Unfortunately I had to do something better - finishing post in my blog which was much more useful instead of discussion with ill-mannered jerk.
Your initial claim was that no "modern top GM" could possibly lose a game as Black in classical time controls in less than 20 moves. Would you like to withdraw such an idiotic and unfounded assertion? Or would you like to clasp it deeply to your chest though it is obviously wrong like your claim that in "modern" chess White is more of an advantage than it was in "pre modern" chess?
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by Korchi think its Van Wely... im not sure who wan wely woo woo woody wuuse was 😛
If you included such "top GM" as Wan Wely then I`m including Donner, who at least have won some strong tournaments of his time (like Venice 1967 ahead of World Champion). To say nothing about 2nd place in Leiden 1970 behind only Boris Spassky and ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik and Bent Larsen. But I would not be surprised if you have never heard about him before ...[text shortened]... his games counted - Also I added some more miniatures lost by ex-top players after their peak.
12 Jan 09
6 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWorking on your blog is the same as talking to an ill mannered jerk.
Working on your blog is the same as talking to an ill mannered jerk.
Your initial claim was that no "modern top GM" could possibly lose a game as Black in classical time controls in less than 20 moves. Would you like to withdraw such an idiotic and unfounded assertion? Or would you like to clasp it deeply to your chest though it is obvio ...[text shortened]... im that in "modern" chess White is more of an advantage than it was in "pre modern" chess?
Working on my blog is much more useful and much more interesting. Unfortunately some ignorant ill-mannered jerks are posting too much nonsense. I`m trying to ignore it, but sometimes without success.
Your initial claim was that no "modern top GM" could possibly lose a game as Black in classical time controls in less than 20 moves. Would you like to withdraw such an idiotic and unfounded assertion?
Quote me where have maid that claim "no "modern top GM" could possibly lose a game as Black in classical time controls in less than 20 moves"? Or admit in your another blatant demagogy. If you mean text "I haven`t noticed [see the differenc between your qutation liar?]any game in which top GM have managed to get in opening position in which to resign. The fastest defeats I remember had more than 20 moves and loser was Black. "
Or would you like to clasp it deeply to your chest though it is obviously wrong like your claim that in "modern" chess White is more of an advantage than it was in "pre modern" chess?
Taking into account that you are unable to find so much bad top modern GM bad opening positions as I did with GMs of 60-70ties (and I doubt if you will be able to do it), it would be better for you to finally shut up and read some more chess books or at least talk with some GMs (if someone of them will agree to communicate with you).
Would you like to start argue about main statement that modern chess during these 30 years has developed too much for Fisher to get top results today with his level of 70ties? Still no replies against my main arguments. It`s typical for you - nit-picking on less important arguments at the same time ignoring the most important ones.
And are you still claiming that Capablanca did not play against weaker opposition than modern GMs?