"John Lamont" wrote in message
om...
The World Champion isn't always the best player in the world..
Post WW1 Lasker was weaker than Capablanca.
Alekhine was arguably weaker than Capablanca.
Euwe was weaker than Alekhine, and maybe Botvinnik
Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian could all be argued to be weaker than
Botvinnik, Bronstein and Keres..
Karpov Weaker than Fischer..
and up to today Kramnik weaker than Kasparov or Anand.

But Kramnik's chess sure is boring.. he makes Petrosian look
exciting..

Anyone who finds Kramnik's chess boring doesn't understand the subtleties of
the game, the difficulty of winning with seemingly nothing. It's far more
exciting than, say, seeing Polgar come up with two-move cheapos.
--
Ian Burton
[Please Reply to Newsgroup]

ian burton wrote:
Anyone who finds Kramnik's chess boring doesn't understand the
subtleties of the game, the difficulty of winning with seemingly
nothing.

I certianly don't understand the subtleties of the game to the level that
Kramnik does! The only games of Kramniks I've taken a close interest in
have been those in the match against Deep Fritz. chess.fm's commentary
(by which I mean mainly GM Fedorowicz's, especially when he was answering
questions `Why doesn't he just play [some plausible-looking move]?') did a
good job of making those games very interesting and much more comprehen-
sible than they would have been without guidance..


Dave.

--
David Richerby Permanent Nuclear Peanut (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a roasted nut that's made of
atoms but it'll be there for ever!

Anyone who finds Kramnik's chess boring doesn't understand the subtleties of
the game, the difficulty of winning with seemingly nothing. It's far more
exciting than, say, seeing Polgar come up with two-move cheapos.

....

1. I understand the subtleties of Kramniks game fine, if not at a GM
level.

2. It's insulting and untrue to J Polgar to describe her games as
full of two-move cheapos, and I never said she was my favorite player
anyway.

3. It's all well and good when Kramnik conjures a win up out of a
stale boring position that's had no real play for 40 moves or so.
Fine, he's a genius. But why wait 3 hours for a brief bit of
excitment when Shirov or Anand, let's say, provides action and
interest from the opening move?

Maybe your idea of a good date is a kiss on the cheek at the end...but
some people prefer a little more excitment.

One will have to consider that chess is no good if one can be a top player
playing like Kramnik. I don't think he is that good because there are no top
players at the moment, as the players today are better than they have ever
been. A game where the right attitude makes the best players is the best
game, but then again what game that would be? I think Kramnik would do just
as well at Fischer Random. I have never liked Kasparov's style either. Leko,
Anand, Topalov have more natural styles, while those two best players have
something very different, and maybe it's because of their "left handed"
style that have given them a small edge over others, but I don't really
think so. So, I might think there's something wrong at chess, but as those
other top players are playing chess naturally and are so close, it's just
something minor, something that completes it, like imperfection completes
everything in life, it being something that makes it complete.

Well if you don't see it then what can I tell ya.

EZoto

EZoto wrote:
Well if you don't see it then what can I tell ya.

Well, you could suggest the winning move that Leko missed, for a start.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Poetic Impossible Newspaper (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a daily broadsheet but it
can't exist and it's in verse!