Alberich wrote:
I'd be interested in a [Fischer random] match between say...Kramnik
vs. Judit Polgar. Kramnik has a overwhelming score over Judit Polgar.
But does that mean he's THAT much a better player than Judit Polgar?!
Hardly. Judit Polgar could easily beat anyone she wants to...it's
because the opponent has become so nuanced in the variations they're
playing that Judit Polgar doesn't have a chance.

That's a pretty offensive remark. You're arguing that Polgar's play
has no nuance, that she's negligent in her preparation and that she
patronizes her opponents by not beating them even though she can. This
is clearly nonsense.


Remember, Kramniks comments are implying very strongly that a deep
knowledge of a few core variations can go along way in ensuring draws
whichever way the opponent chooses to play. Memorization becomes
critical at this stage of the game.

Memorization is critical to chess. Tests have shown that, when GMs play
chess, a large part of their thinking is recalling positions and ideas
they've seen before. Even if you make them play FRC, they'll move towards
positions that are familiar to them and will use their memories.


You would have to wait literally up to move 35 or 40 in some lines
before original chess is actually played!

That just isn't true. Back up your statement with some variations.


They'd be swimming with no life boat safely in tow

Um, interesting metaphor.


In my book Leko is the world champion because he was willing to play
Fischer Random and beat Michael Adams.

???


Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Whisky (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky but it's also a
crime against nature!