Vielleicht geht was mit Turm einsperren und dann auf Grundreihe Mattsetzen.
@SelfmateMan
"* It is not relevant if the idea a player shows in a game wins that game. It is enough if he resists with black. Like Kramnik did with the Berlin endgame against Kaspy.
Hahaha. Your arguments are more and more idealistic every time you post something.
Kramnik won the two games with whites in a very positional way. Solid, by positional style as hell, without taking risks.
If it were about resisting, Karjakin would not win against Caruana in the candidates, or even against Carlsen with his terrible mistakes.
Both, Karjakin and Kramnik -as Petrosian was- are positional and solid chess players that only will play something once their opponents spent all the ways to be aggresive. It is not so easy to say: "well, Karjakin only knows to exchange pieces and forcing wins". It would be interesting to watch how many of you would draw against Carlsen in almost-winning positions.
* YES, Karjakin is a great chess player. But Carlsen is better.
That's why he's losing the match and maybe, the title this weekend. That's why Caruana is very near to him at rankings. That's why Carlsen cannot break Karjakin's defences even when he's clearly winning. C'mon. You can talk about the wins Carlsen made over Karjakin in other tournaments, the historical rating, etc, etc; but Karjakin demostrated in this WCC he's better and maybe, deserves to be the 17th World FIDE Chess Champion.
I truly hate this idolatry. Only made by idealistic players without no-objective senses about chess.
"* When i relativize my own statement, as i did in #18, the original statement becomes irrelevant as well as any later critic of the original statement becomes. Move on."
I said: "No player 2600+ will draw easily against Karjakin"; so I recommend you to read better.
You said clearly: "Karjakin is simply exchanging all pieces and goes for a draw". And I responded according what you said. Now you're trying to fix it, haha.
" i am not "the masses", i am not "the nowadays chess amateurish followers" and similar concepts in your mind. You can be that if you want. But I am HERE and i stay HERE."
You are a part of the masses, as you are not a chess master. That's a fact. Maybe you can be a strong player -I do not know your FIDE rating-, but you are not exceptional -at least on chess-.
"'Lichess Master' is an honourful title, given by Thibault. if you dont accept that, go away."
I know it, because I read -unlike someone we know-. I only manifest my disagreement someone with 1800, for example, can be called "master" because their blitz, bullet or variants abilities. Titles should given according demostrable slow chess games from a determined level. This is not a dictatorship, and this is my freedom of speech. If you do not respect the above, surely you are the perfect candidate to go away.
@LM OhNoMyPants
In chess, rating -usually- can be considered perfectly and objectively an argument of authority. This is endorsed by statistics and also demostrable through by test, empirically, rationally and objectively.
In some games, Karjakin wanted to simplify suddenly the position with a Nd2 insted of fighting for the initiative. Since those games, Karjakin started to be slightly better until Carlsen destroyed himself. Talking about Caruana, you should analyze the candidate's game played between Caruana and Karjakin, you will see how in times of need, Karjakin would be a lyon. Taking the advantage little by little is Karjakin's style like Petrosian or Kramnik. Both positional, both solid.
Well, I recommend you to start analyzing his games. Then, you will understand why he is known as the most brilliant chess defence in the world -and, perhaps, in history-. He does not like to take risks, he is psychologically stable and he's a chess genius after all. This is simillar to Petrosian, according to Botvinnik: "He only attacked when he felt secure. His greatest strength was in defence." talking about when Petrosian lost against Korchnoi. I have played against these kind of players -from FMs to GMs- and they knowledge of positional view is very very deep, at the same time they are very accurate calculating, something a vague Carlsen will never have -Capablanca's style, haha-.
Well, if you understand "chess ambassador" as "sold capitalist icon", then, I do not have anything else to say about. A World Chess Champion is won then, something different is to support chess difussion. In fact, communist countries were those extended and adored chess -with Fischer's exception-. Did Carlsen fight for introducing chess in poor countries? Did Carlsen fight for introducing chess in rich countries schools? Did Carlsen supported universal initiatives for chess players like Lichess? The only thing Magnus Carlsen is ambassador is of money, exploiting his image instead of extending chess as, for example, a tool for mind development, from kids to old people. Then, you can say Karjakin could do the same, but come one, let's talk about reality, instead of giving him an unfair title -to him- he does not deserve as "the ambassador of chess".
"* It is not relevant if the idea a player shows in a game wins that game. It is enough if he resists with black. Like Kramnik did with the Berlin endgame against Kaspy.
Hahaha. Your arguments are more and more idealistic every time you post something.
Kramnik won the two games with whites in a very positional way. Solid, by positional style as hell, without taking risks.
If it were about resisting, Karjakin would not win against Caruana in the candidates, or even against Carlsen with his terrible mistakes.
Both, Karjakin and Kramnik -as Petrosian was- are positional and solid chess players that only will play something once their opponents spent all the ways to be aggresive. It is not so easy to say: "well, Karjakin only knows to exchange pieces and forcing wins". It would be interesting to watch how many of you would draw against Carlsen in almost-winning positions.
* YES, Karjakin is a great chess player. But Carlsen is better.
That's why he's losing the match and maybe, the title this weekend. That's why Caruana is very near to him at rankings. That's why Carlsen cannot break Karjakin's defences even when he's clearly winning. C'mon. You can talk about the wins Carlsen made over Karjakin in other tournaments, the historical rating, etc, etc; but Karjakin demostrated in this WCC he's better and maybe, deserves to be the 17th World FIDE Chess Champion.
I truly hate this idolatry. Only made by idealistic players without no-objective senses about chess.
"* When i relativize my own statement, as i did in #18, the original statement becomes irrelevant as well as any later critic of the original statement becomes. Move on."
I said: "No player 2600+ will draw easily against Karjakin"; so I recommend you to read better.
You said clearly: "Karjakin is simply exchanging all pieces and goes for a draw". And I responded according what you said. Now you're trying to fix it, haha.
" i am not "the masses", i am not "the nowadays chess amateurish followers" and similar concepts in your mind. You can be that if you want. But I am HERE and i stay HERE."
You are a part of the masses, as you are not a chess master. That's a fact. Maybe you can be a strong player -I do not know your FIDE rating-, but you are not exceptional -at least on chess-.
"'Lichess Master' is an honourful title, given by Thibault. if you dont accept that, go away."
I know it, because I read -unlike someone we know-. I only manifest my disagreement someone with 1800, for example, can be called "master" because their blitz, bullet or variants abilities. Titles should given according demostrable slow chess games from a determined level. This is not a dictatorship, and this is my freedom of speech. If you do not respect the above, surely you are the perfect candidate to go away.
@LM OhNoMyPants
In chess, rating -usually- can be considered perfectly and objectively an argument of authority. This is endorsed by statistics and also demostrable through by test, empirically, rationally and objectively.
In some games, Karjakin wanted to simplify suddenly the position with a Nd2 insted of fighting for the initiative. Since those games, Karjakin started to be slightly better until Carlsen destroyed himself. Talking about Caruana, you should analyze the candidate's game played between Caruana and Karjakin, you will see how in times of need, Karjakin would be a lyon. Taking the advantage little by little is Karjakin's style like Petrosian or Kramnik. Both positional, both solid.
Well, I recommend you to start analyzing his games. Then, you will understand why he is known as the most brilliant chess defence in the world -and, perhaps, in history-. He does not like to take risks, he is psychologically stable and he's a chess genius after all. This is simillar to Petrosian, according to Botvinnik: "He only attacked when he felt secure. His greatest strength was in defence." talking about when Petrosian lost against Korchnoi. I have played against these kind of players -from FMs to GMs- and they knowledge of positional view is very very deep, at the same time they are very accurate calculating, something a vague Carlsen will never have -Capablanca's style, haha-.
Well, if you understand "chess ambassador" as "sold capitalist icon", then, I do not have anything else to say about. A World Chess Champion is won then, something different is to support chess difussion. In fact, communist countries were those extended and adored chess -with Fischer's exception-. Did Carlsen fight for introducing chess in poor countries? Did Carlsen fight for introducing chess in rich countries schools? Did Carlsen supported universal initiatives for chess players like Lichess? The only thing Magnus Carlsen is ambassador is of money, exploiting his image instead of extending chess as, for example, a tool for mind development, from kids to old people. Then, you can say Karjakin could do the same, but come one, let's talk about reality, instead of giving him an unfair title -to him- he does not deserve as "the ambassador of chess".
Hahaha.
Do not wrestle with the pig, because you both get dirty but the pig likes it.
Do not wrestle with the pig, because you both get dirty but the pig likes it.
For the records, you said:
'No player with less than 2600+ will draw "easily" (as you say) against Karjakin.' (see #20)
... and not ...
'No player 2600+ will draw easily against Karjakin' (see #42)
which is a completely different meaning. I recommend YOU to read better.
"Now you're trying to fix it, haha."
"I know it, because I read -unlike someone we know"
"I truly hate this idolatry. Only made by idealistic players without no-objective senses about chess."
The world is laughing about you.
'No player with less than 2600+ will draw "easily" (as you say) against Karjakin.' (see #20)
... and not ...
'No player 2600+ will draw easily against Karjakin' (see #42)
which is a completely different meaning. I recommend YOU to read better.
"Now you're trying to fix it, haha."
"I know it, because I read -unlike someone we know"
"I truly hate this idolatry. Only made by idealistic players without no-objective senses about chess."
The world is laughing about you.
@GM Zahier do not waste your time. Some people will always claim that 'their' player is better. He can lose, but they will still claim that this is because other player played in a crappy way, or their opponent wanted to be creative and not as boring as another player. Or he was simply not in the best shape, or opponent just got lucky. If you want really creative you can even tell that russian hackers stole all the preparation or used ultra-super-technology to mess up with the mind of 'their' player.
I have not participated in any chess competition but I have been in many sport competitions. And I know that when you are in a match you do not really think how to impress the audience (you do not care about them, it is about you and opponent). In a game with an equal or even better opponent your main point is not to win at all cost to impress some 1700 rated guys. Your point is not to lose. I have been in too many bars where people who watched boxing/wrestling or MMA where constantly complaining that opponents are not trying to destroy the opponent in a first few matches. This is annoying because the only thing I though is that once you appear on the stage and get the very first hit you are not thinking about winning fast - you want not to lose and then may be you can win.
Chess is most probably a theoretical drawish game. So it is logical that you try to play as solid as possible and hope to exploit opponent's mistake. For every 1700-2300 rated guy, if they think that it is so easy to just exchange the pieces and get a draw, my question is 'why are you not still GMs'? Just go to the competition, win against some low-rated players and exchange all the pieces and draw against all high-rated players.
I have not participated in any chess competition but I have been in many sport competitions. And I know that when you are in a match you do not really think how to impress the audience (you do not care about them, it is about you and opponent). In a game with an equal or even better opponent your main point is not to win at all cost to impress some 1700 rated guys. Your point is not to lose. I have been in too many bars where people who watched boxing/wrestling or MMA where constantly complaining that opponents are not trying to destroy the opponent in a first few matches. This is annoying because the only thing I though is that once you appear on the stage and get the very first hit you are not thinking about winning fast - you want not to lose and then may be you can win.
Chess is most probably a theoretical drawish game. So it is logical that you try to play as solid as possible and hope to exploit opponent's mistake. For every 1700-2300 rated guy, if they think that it is so easy to just exchange the pieces and get a draw, my question is 'why are you not still GMs'? Just go to the competition, win against some low-rated players and exchange all the pieces and draw against all high-rated players.
Clueless, I was paraphrasing my own words, and it is known what is said in my original message -which has not been edited as you do-. It was a typing mistake.
"The world is laughing about you." At least I have life outside Lichess forum's and I recognize myself as human. In fact, some people had the brilliant idea to call theirselves as "selfmateman".
You do not have any argument so, the only thing you can do is to search typing mistakes or trying to make pain with sentences like "the world is laaughing about you" "pigs..."; but anyway. The debate was about Karjakin-Carlsen; Karjakin is almost winning, you will still be a bored patzer without social life and the rest of mortals will continue their lifes.
"The world is laughing about you." At least I have life outside Lichess forum's and I recognize myself as human. In fact, some people had the brilliant idea to call theirselves as "selfmateman".
You do not have any argument so, the only thing you can do is to search typing mistakes or trying to make pain with sentences like "the world is laaughing about you" "pigs..."; but anyway. The debate was about Karjakin-Carlsen; Karjakin is almost winning, you will still be a bored patzer without social life and the rest of mortals will continue their lifes.
deep brah
@nikolajtesla
Well said. Finally someone thought about objectively without kid complexes nor idealistic thinking like: "Carlsen will win"; "Karjakin'style is about making draws"; "Magnus does not have his full strength". All them hypothetical justifications made by idealistic and non-objective people about chess, chess players and the reality, in general.
Well said. Finally someone thought about objectively without kid complexes nor idealistic thinking like: "Carlsen will win"; "Karjakin'style is about making draws"; "Magnus does not have his full strength". All them hypothetical justifications made by idealistic and non-objective people about chess, chess players and the reality, in general.
The goal is to win. Beautiful chess will always be played. That we never have to worry about. If I'm Karjakin I'm saying to Carlsen, "Beat Me," Come get me big bad World Champion man. You got nothing. I'm going to wear him down. I'm going to grind him into the ground then drop the hammer. Carlsen may be frustrated because of his past successes against Karjakin and he's realizing he's underestimated him. He's breaking.
On the other hand, mayhap this is where he solidifies and draws upon some inner reserve previously left untouched as his title hangs in the balance. He realizes that he's going to have to bring the Fire and slam into Karjakin's fortress of granite with the smashing power of a thousand legions.
This is chess. It's not always pretty. It's not always beautiful and intriguing. Sometimes it's a grind. A mud-crunching slog through the trenches; blood, sweat, and an endless trail of brain cells wrapped in the woven cloth of countless variations left strewn across the battlefield.
Winner take all. Rooting for Magnus. ;-)
On the other hand, mayhap this is where he solidifies and draws upon some inner reserve previously left untouched as his title hangs in the balance. He realizes that he's going to have to bring the Fire and slam into Karjakin's fortress of granite with the smashing power of a thousand legions.
This is chess. It's not always pretty. It's not always beautiful and intriguing. Sometimes it's a grind. A mud-crunching slog through the trenches; blood, sweat, and an endless trail of brain cells wrapped in the woven cloth of countless variations left strewn across the battlefield.
Winner take all. Rooting for Magnus. ;-)
@GM Zahier #46
Nononono. its not the fact that you misquote your words.
It is the fact that you spread false data in paragraph 2 of your post #20, Mr. objective, and that you dont apologize for it when i point you to it in #22 and in #44.
So let me make that clear a second time, as you seem to be a bit slow in understanding:
I did NOT say that a "player with less than 2600+ will draw easily against Karjakin."
Hope this issue is now resolved.
Nononono. its not the fact that you misquote your words.
It is the fact that you spread false data in paragraph 2 of your post #20, Mr. objective, and that you dont apologize for it when i point you to it in #22 and in #44.
So let me make that clear a second time, as you seem to be a bit slow in understanding:
I did NOT say that a "player with less than 2600+ will draw easily against Karjakin."
Hope this issue is now resolved.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.