23 Dec 11
The post that was quoted here has been removedWe have less women playing chess and that is because chess is not a very popular sport with women.I have tried to get many of my lady friends interested.But none of them enjoyed it.They cant fathom the reason why some one would tax their mind over a board game with no apparent tangible benefits when you win.I think this is where the aggression bit comes in.Men feel the need to prove their superiority over the other men and chess is one such sport that does help ion this regards .Women do not feel the need to do so and hence results less interest towards the sport.Its basically in the male mind set.We could spend hrs arguing over something just to prove that we are better than the other guy.We could spend hrs playing chess just to show the other guy I am better.Women from what i have noticed rarely feel this competitive urge especially towards an activity that does not result on any positive social benefits .
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by nimzo5Kasparovs last tournament that i can find is Linares 2005 which he came joint first with Topalov. I don't really see that 6 years is going to turn him into an Old age pensioner. He scored 8/12 (+5 -1 =6). Carlsen still doesn't have great results against the top 4. His record against Anand and Kramnik is definitley not dominant yet (though you'd have to expect it to be sooner or later). I think the level of the game isn't that much higher now than it was then, in fact it's probably slightly lower if it's changed at all. If someone turned around and offered Kasparov $1m to ome out of retirement and play Linaires next year i'd put money on him coming back and winning it. The man doesn't do second place!
I would bet against Kaspy in an elite tournament with Carlsen etc. unless Shirov was in it. Kasparov would have a +2 advantage in that case. 🙂
The post that was quoted here has been removedyou speak of social conditioning, yet there are lady wrestlers, lady kick boxers, lady
rugby players and lady tennis players who frequently, demonstrate aggression with
clenched fist and sound effects to match! Is not Athena, goddess of wisdom and
warfare a lady? Britannia herself, complete with shield and spear, Boadicea ancient
Celtic warrior queen, Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, Cleopatra last of the Pharaohs,
reminiscent of an egalitarian tradition stemming back thousands of years? What is
aggression but the last bastion of those who are deviod of reason? Is it any wonder
that a lady finds it less than acceptable to display it publicly? saying that, there was a
chess game on youtube where Kostinueks opponent who had to win a tie break and
essentially threw a tantrum and swept her chess pieces off the board, i cannot find
the video, but it would be interesting to see.
24 Dec 11
Originally posted by MarinkatombI would say that there is far less wiggle room now in elite chess due to the massive influence of chess engines/clusters etc.
Kasparovs last tournament that i can find is Linares 2005 which he came joint first with Topalov. I don't really see that 6 years is going to turn him into an Old age pensioner. He scored 8/12 (+5 -1 =6). Carlsen still doesn't have great results against the top 4. His record against Anand and Kramnik is definitley not dominant yet (though you'd have to e ...[text shortened]... t year i'd put money on him coming back and winning it. The man doesn't do second place!
25 Dec 11
Originally posted by nimzo5Poppycock. Chess still has all kinds of wiggle-room! The more daring youngsters are beginning to prove that you simply cannot memorize enough cooked up box nonsense to save you from late game complexities. The only way to remain an elite player is through study and understanding of chess.
I would say that there is far less wiggle room now in elite chess due to the massive influence of chess engines/clusters etc.
The greats were all endgame masters. Every single one of them. This "Kasparov is an opening specialist" blah blah blah! Its horse patooey! Each one of the World Champions was an endgame connoisseur. Period! Even the beloved Morphy was a magician in the endgame. This mastery doesn't just come from studying the opening or the middle-game. Let alone memorizing his Bill Gates box's suggested complications. All these computers are good for is high level kibitzing. Once the game is on - then its on! May the best student win!
Q
25 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PhySiQHm. The second game of the first Fischer-Spassky match indicates that not all World Champion endgame connoisseurs are created equal.
Poppycock. Chess still has all kinds of wiggle-room! The more daring youngsters are beginning to prove that you simply cannot memorize enough cooked up box nonsense to save you from late game complexities. The only way to remain an elite player is through study and understanding of chess.
The greats were all endgame masters. Every single one of them. is high level kibitzing. Once the game is on - then its on! May the best student win!
Q
Among the World Champions, I would probably consider Smyslov to be the true connoisseur among the group. I'm not sure who we would consider the weakest in a relative sense, but it would be a good topic of discussion.
Not all World Champions are or were equally proficient in every aspect of the game, and it does not strike me as unreasonable for someone to suggest that a particular World Champion excelled at a particular aspect of the game, compared to other World Champions or to his contemporaries.
25 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul LeggettAh, touche!
Hm. The second game of the first Fischer-Spassky match indicates that not all World Champion endgame connoisseurs are created equal.
Among the World Champions, I would probably consider Smyslov to be the true connoisseur among the group. I'm not sure who we would consider the weakest in a relative sense, but it would be a good topic of discussion. ...[text shortened]... at a particular aspect of the game, compared to other World Champions or to his contemporaries.
You can certainly argue that some are better than others. It'd be silly to pretend otherwise. However the class of "Masters" "GM's" and "SuperGM's" are divided more by their understanding of endings than their understandings in openings. I am not demeaning the importance of the other two phases of the game. To the contrary, the other areas are studied to the point of relative equality (note I said relative, not absolute).
Players of relatively similar strengths have similar tactical foresight, and most likely opening understanding. The separating factor is typically the understanding of the endgame. How does one win at all without understanding how the win is to be conceived? Much of the opening and middle game study taking place among these SGM's is made relevant only by analysis of endgame advantage - or lack thereof!
Ending mechanics Mr. Watson! er- Leggett!
Now how does a box save any of these players from this reality? It is only a tool for dedicated students!
Q
25 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by PhySiQI just separated this sentence because I don't believe it is true.
However the class of "Masters" "GM's" and "SuperGM's" are divided more by their understanding of endings than their understandings in openings.
I could be very wrong about that, of course! I am curious to see what others think.
25 Dec 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettMr. Leggett,
I just separated this sentence because I don't believe it is true.
I could be very wrong about that, of course! I am curious to see what others think.
Reducing an entire idea down to one single phrase is a tad bit bastardizing don't you think? The message is that opening and middle-game play by players of varying strengths is predominately based on endgame understanding.
How could a player with no training in pawn endings play for a pawns advantage? Control of the d file in a materially even game? These good ideas are good because of endgame technique and understanding. I stand by my statement that these players are separated more-so by ending understanding than any other phase of the game - because there is naught any separation without it!
Q