EPT[chess] Topalov vs Kramnik - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
| ||
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
| ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
| ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
| ||
|
lightman
United States731 Posts
On October 04 2006 04:45 BlackJack wrote: [removed quote within quote] rofl, this is too good. The Kramnik - Fritz coincidence should be no surprise to anyone. Kramnik (to me) plays like a machine. He simply does not play like a human player, and I have been following his career since the mid 90s. He himself has said in interviews that he trains with fritz. Then it should be no surprise that Kramnik has high success against aggressive players, like Judit Polgar, Kasparov and Topalov himself. Kramnik holds an impressive +22-0=25 (may be wrong but it's something like that) record against Polgar (that's right no losses),,,, and is one of the few players that holds a positive record against Kasparov and Topalov,,, perhaps maybe the only player to hold positve record against both of them. A lot of people do not like Kramnik's style, but personally I love it. He plays safe secure and for the win of the overall match, not the game. When he's winning he plays not to lose. When losing he plays to win. He simply plays cold minded and solid as a rock, waiting until his opponent blunders, which is ok. I mean.... Strategically he's perfect. He truly must be the most passive World champion player of all time, and like I said,,, his cold mind play is simply awesome. | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
When he take an early lead because of a blunder it works, but if Topalov would have been more patient the result could have been totaly different. That's why I don't like his style a lot. it depend too much on what the others do. | ||
|
larrysbird
375 Posts
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3401 in all seriousness, is it possible that any of top GM can have identical moves(incredibly, all in 1st line analysis) with a super computer chess program such as fritz9? imo i doubt it, but i hope there should be a thorough investigation on the matter esp. that kramnik has been accussed of having an excessive/(unprecedented lol) visits on his pivate toilet during all his games in this match.  btw, fritz9 - this chess monster can have multipe line analysis with the 1st line being the strongest line the computer can have. | ||
|
Agone
American Samoa231 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9107 Posts
| ||
|
larrysbird
375 Posts
On October 04 2006 14:02 Jonoman92 wrote: what happened to the one guy Bobby Fisher? he wasn't fictional was he? i thought he was like a master chess guy that went into seclusion. yea, bobby the great fisher.. is there any1 better than him? (talent and principle). sadly and too bad, people around him(politics and country; US and Russia) made it difficult and hard for him to be what he wanted it to be(imo should supposed to be) the way chess as a whole is to be and should be played. | ||
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
In any case, I have always enjoyed watching positional players at their best. Tactics might be more flashy and crowdpleasing, but there's nothing more satisfying than doing a python squeeze on an opponent. It's also MUCH harder; as the game of chess hinges primarily on tactics, the person doing the squeeze must also on top of any tactics that may even potentially arise. I've lost many a game having outplayed the opponent, only to fall to a four move combination that wins a pawn/piece. Petrosian is one of my favorite champions because of this; he wins 'at will' when he wants to, somewhat like Kramnik. However, he's content with minimal advantages and trying to convert them. He doesn't overextend that much either, waiting for his opponent to make the first mistake. Winning by +1 rather than +2 is just fine for him. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Kramnik is strategically 'perfect', but he's one of the hardest people to beat out there. | ||
|
Shymon
United States620 Posts
On October 04 2006 14:48 larrysbird wrote: [removed quote within quote] yea, bobby the great fisher.. is there any1 better than him? (talent and principle). sadly and too bad, people around him(politics and country; US and Russia) made it difficult and hard for him to be what he wanted it to be(imo should supposed to be) the way chess as a whole is to be and should be played. too bad he went batshit crazy. | ||
|
lightman
United States731 Posts
shymon,,, Fischer didn't go crazy, he was born crazy. Read the interview of him when he was 16. He makes any crazy person you've ever met look like normal. And then read the pre-interview of the 1972 World championship match. And then, read the interview of his 1992 match wis Spassky. Gotta love his: "Karpov, Kasparov, Korchnoi have absolutely destroyed chess by their immoral, unethical, prearranged games. These guys are really the lowest dogs around" haha | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
| ||
Empyrean
17050 Posts
Also, to the poster like ten above me. "He truly must be the most passive World champion player of all time, and like I said,,, his cold mind play is simply awesome."....what about Petrosian? EDIT: It was in the endgame. The blunder, I mean. Kramnik resigned. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On October 04 2006 13:29 larrysbird wrote: in all seriousness, is it possible that any of top GM can have identical moves(incredibly, all in 1st line analysis) with a super computer chess program such as fritz9? imo i doubt it Let's assume Fritz's 1st line move is also the "best" move. Then Kramnik is, on average, playing the "best" move 78% of the time (outside of openings). Is that so hard to believe? Moreover, a 78% agreement rate is a MEANINGLESS figure on its own. We have no idea what a typical agreement rate is. Maybe the average rate is higher than 78%. In any case, it is stupid to jump to conclusions given a meaningless figure like that. I think Team Topalov makes themselves look very bad with this accusation: either they are really that stupid to think this is convincing evidence, or else they have abandoned logic and are just trying to convince people's emotions instead of their minds. Anyway, I just got caught up on this topic and the games. I did not expect them to be wrapped in so much drama! Thanks for those links, Blackjack: looks like there are a number of cool games among them  . | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 04 2006 19:42 Bill307 wrote: [removed quote within quote] Let's assume Fritz's 1st line move is also the "best" move. Then Kramnik is, on average, playing the "best" move 78% of the time (outside of openings). Is that so hard to believe? Moreover, a 78% agreement rate is a MEANINGLESS figure on its own. We have no idea what a typical agreement rate is. Maybe the average rate is higher than 78%. In any case, it is stupid to jump to conclusions given a meaningless figure like that. I think Team Topalov makes themselves look very bad with this accusation: either they are really that stupid to think this is convincing evidence, or else they have abandoned logic and are just trying to convince people's emotions instead of their minds. presumably it is meaningful, you said yourself you dont know what the average rate is. if theyre making such an accusation theres a pretty good chance the averate rate is below 78%, it doesnt seem like the type of thing youd want to rush into with little information. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On October 04 2006 20:04 IdrA wrote: presumably it is meaningful, you said yourself you dont know what the average rate is. if theyre making such an accusation theres a pretty good chance the averate rate is below 78%, it doesnt seem like the type of thing youd want to rush into with little information. I see it differently. I think this is exactly the kind of thing where people might intentionally rush in without knowing the full story: because they know it will be enough to convince (or fool) the average person into taking Topalov's side, and to sway others too. Even my own first reaction to those figures was "gee, those are pretty big fractions: it must be quite an improbable coincidence that they occurred!" and so my initial impulse was to agree with them. In addition, if they know the average rate is below 78%, then why don't they say so explicitly, or back it up with other analyses? From my perspective, making premature accusations is a very common thing, faaaaar more common than making well-backed accusations. This is because with a premature accusation, you can damage another person's reputation even if you have no real evidence at all, and even if your accusation is proven false in the end. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
| ||
| ||
