shiv wrote:Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).
Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.
What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.
In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.
I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.
GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.
They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus
Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.
I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview
shiv wrote:Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).
Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.
What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.
In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.
I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.
GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.
They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus
Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.
I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
He did not say he is non intelligent. He does not correlate chess skills with intelligence. He did not say he is lazy, he said he "tends" to be. Knowing that, the training is adjusted to his chaotic character. The title has been obviously modified by the journalist, who seemed to ask the typical stupid questions: "What is your IQ?", "How many moves do you calculate ahead?" Gee...
MC is not being a false modest. He says he has a better intuition than Kasparov!
Sound like he is wise, and above all, "knows himself" as the old Greek proverb says.
Uri Blass wrote:
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
I don't believe he is a lazy player, but strong chess players are not necessarily particularly intelligent.
Intelligence is not important, otherwise computer programs wouldn't play such a dominant role.
shiv wrote:Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).
Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.
What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.
In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.
I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.
GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.
They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus
Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.
I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
He did not say he is non intelligent. He does not correlate chess skills with intelligence. He did not say he is lazy, he said he "tends" to be. Knowing that, the training is adjusted to his chaotic character. The title has been obviously modified by the journalist, who seemed to ask the typical stupid questions: "What is your IQ?", "How many moves do you calculate ahead?" Gee...
MC is not being a false modest. He says he has a better intuition than Kasparov!
Sound like he is wise, and above all, "knows himself" as the old Greek proverb says.
Miguel
I agree with this. Magnus was giving honest answers, and indeed as an 18-19 years old he should be getting that "you don't work hard enough" from people like his dad or Garry when he was his trainer. When he will be 25 he will indeed work much more and be more disciplined, he knows this and honestly admits it. He also knows that he is an exceptional player, and pointing that he, at 18-19, has a better positional understanding than Garry Kasparov, is an indicator that he knows
Also, while chess players are not dumb, they are probably not extremely smart either, at least most of them. Let's take top-20 scientists in some discipline like biology or physics and compare their IQs to chess players' top-20. Anyone wanna bet on chess-players having higher?
shiv wrote:Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).
Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.
What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.
In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.
I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.
GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.
They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus
Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.
I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
He did not say he is non intelligent. He does not correlate chess skills with intelligence. He did not say he is lazy, he said he "tends" to be. Knowing that, the training is adjusted to his chaotic character. The title has been obviously modified by the journalist, who seemed to ask the typical stupid questions: "What is your IQ?", "How many moves do you calculate ahead?" Gee...
MC is not being a false modest. He says he has a better intuition than Kasparov!
Sound like he is wise, and above all, "knows himself" as the old Greek proverb says.
Miguel
I agree with everything you say. I too noticed Carlsen's claim that he already has an intution superior to Kasparov's. In addition, to get a real feeling for an interview one needs to see the person talking rather than simply read his words. I have watched several Carlsen interviews: he seems like a very pleasant and well-balanced young guy.
shiv wrote:Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).
Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.
What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.
In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.
I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.
GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.
They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus
Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.
I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
He did not say he is non intelligent. He does not correlate chess skills with intelligence. He did not say he is lazy, he said he "tends" to be. Knowing that, the training is adjusted to his chaotic character. The title has been obviously modified by the journalist, who seemed to ask the typical stupid questions: "What is your IQ?", "How many moves do you calculate ahead?" Gee...
MC is not being a false modest. He says he has a better intuition than Kasparov!
Sound like he is wise, and above all, "knows himself" as the old Greek proverb says.
Miguel
You are right that he only said that he tends to be lazy but about the intelligence part
he said:
" My father is considerably more intelligent than I am."
It means based on my understanding that he claims to be realtively not intelligent.
I also think that it is impossible to have "intuition" and not to be intelligent(I put intuition in quotation marks because I do not believe in intuition and I think that it is practically knowledge about chess).
I believe that people know how to evaluate a position and what plan is needed mainly because of knowledge that they have from previous games.
They remember a similiar position and the right plan or the right evaluation and get from it conclusions about new positions that they have in their games.
I do not think that it is possible to memorize a lot of information and use the memory to get the right conclusions without being very intelligent.
Uri
Uri Blass wrote:
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
I don't believe he is a lazy player, but strong chess players are not necessarily particularly intelligent.
Intelligence is not important, otherwise computer programs wouldn't play such a dominant role.
The fact that computers play a dominant role does not prove that intelligence is not needed.
In theory computers that are fast enough can solve every finite game so based on this theory you can say that intelligence is not needed in thinking games.
shiv wrote:Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).
Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.
What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.
In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.
I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.
GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.
They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus
Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.
I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
He did not say he is non intelligent. He does not correlate chess skills with intelligence. He did not say he is lazy, he said he "tends" to be. Knowing that, the training is adjusted to his chaotic character. The title has been obviously modified by the journalist, who seemed to ask the typical stupid questions: "What is your IQ?", "How many moves do you calculate ahead?" Gee...
MC is not being a false modest. He says he has a better intuition than Kasparov!
Sound like he is wise, and above all, "knows himself" as the old Greek proverb says.
Miguel
I agree with this. Magnus was giving honest answers, and indeed as an 18-19 years old he should be getting that "you don't work hard enough" from people like his dad or Garry when he was his trainer. When he will be 25 he will indeed work much more and be more disciplined, he knows this and honestly admits it. He also knows that he is an exceptional player, and pointing that he, at 18-19, has a better positional understanding than Garry Kasparov, is an indicator that he knows
Also, while chess players are not dumb, they are probably not extremely smart either, at least most of them. Let's take top-20 scientists in some discipline like biology or physics and compare their IQs to chess players' top-20. Anyone wanna bet on chess-players having higher?
I know many scientists that have a fairly high IQ and are not
very smart. It takes a lot more than IQ to be smart.
Most chess players i know have a above avg.IQ and are also
smart.
The young chess player Magus is very smart.
Often when some people excel in one subject they tend to
be dumb in a lot of other everyday subjects.
Show me one Grand Master who is stupid. - And I dont mean who did something stupid -- since intelligent people can do stupid things - I mean really STUPID.
In this politically correct age , it is common for people to make inane statements like everyone is equal genetically etc.
shiv wrote:Interesting match. Anand did not play well (judging from his blunders and missed opportunities) but Topalov played worse. Feel bad for Topalov's last game performance as a player of his caliber should be able to passively defend such positions to a draw (though this is a clear Topalov weakness).
Was also glad there was no toiletgate or other incidents from Danailov.
What are you talking? Anand played well- and so did Topa.
Anand played better.
In chess, there is no single best move. The moves vary as per the level of opponent as well, and sometimes, even the top players blunder, which is natural and "human" in a pressure cooker situation.
I am sure if Anand was to play Rybka, he would play a different type of game. If he played against a 2100 ELO rated player, his moves would be different ( probably more risky? Would he try to complicate the game?)
Against a 2800+ player, he played what he felt was the best.
GM have missed mate in one, so I do not see too much into how Anand or Topa played.
They are 2800 rated players for a reason, and both deserve to be there..
Now to the next biggie
Anand v/s Magnus
Hopefully Magnus is going to lose against Boris Gelfand.
I am clearly against Carlsen and hope Carlsen is going to lose not only against Gelfand after the following interview
I do not like chess players who pretend to be relatively non intelligent and lazy players.
Uri
He did not say he is non intelligent. He does not correlate chess skills with intelligence. He did not say he is lazy, he said he "tends" to be. Knowing that, the training is adjusted to his chaotic character. The title has been obviously modified by the journalist, who seemed to ask the typical stupid questions: "What is your IQ?", "How many moves do you calculate ahead?" Gee...
MC is not being a false modest. He says he has a better intuition than Kasparov!
Sound like he is wise, and above all, "knows himself" as the old Greek proverb says.
Miguel
I agree with this. Magnus was giving honest answers, and indeed as an 18-19 years old he should be getting that "you don't work hard enough" from people like his dad or Garry when he was his trainer. When he will be 25 he will indeed work much more and be more disciplined, he knows this and honestly admits it. He also knows that he is an exceptional player, and pointing that he, at 18-19, has a better positional understanding than Garry Kasparov, is an indicator that he knows
Also, while chess players are not dumb, they are probably not extremely smart either, at least most of them. Let's take top-20 scientists in some discipline like biology or physics and compare their IQs to chess players' top-20. Anyone wanna bet on chess-players having higher?
I know many scientists that have a fairly high IQ and are not
very smart. It takes a lot more than IQ to be smart.
Most chess players i know have a above avg.IQ and are also
smart.
The young chess player Magus is very smart.
Often when some people excel in one subject they tend to
be dumb in a lot of other everyday subjects.
Best,
Gerold.
Correct.
For some reason people think that intelligence can be measured by solving some stupid puzzles. This is as reliable as measuring your ability to play a sport by how fast you run 100 meters.
