I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s
and be ahead by a nice margin i nthe tournament. What qualities does
he posses which maks him such a good chess player?

On Sep 26, 8:18 am, Zero wrote:
I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s
and be ahead by a nice margin i nthe tournament. What qualities does
he posses which maks him such a good chess player?

If yoiu know that then you can beat him............ Ha Ha Ha.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On 26 sep, 05:18, Zero wrote:
I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s
and be ahead by a nice margin i nthe tournament. What qualities does
he posses which maks him such a good chess player?

No idea, but he is clearly several steps ahead the rest of the players
(except Kramnik). I think the only player that could beat him now
would be Kramnik in a match, where the chances would be about equal
(by the way, a match Anand-Kramnik would be great for chess). But a
tournament with this format is far better for Anand than for Kramnik
because of their styles.

On Sep 25, 10:18 pm, Zero wrote:

I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s
and be ahead by a nice margin i nthe tournament. What qualities does
he posses which maks him such a good chess player?


I don't know all that much about GM Anand, but the last
time I checked, every one of the world's top players was
rated under 2800, a few in a tight pack. This contrasts
sharply with the era during which Gary Kasparov held a
wide lead over every one of his rivals except for GM
Karpov, if they had recently played a close match.

If any of these "equals" pulls ahead in a single event, it
simply shows that they were lucky and/or in great form.
A famous quote observes that chess games are lost, not
won; and so all that is required is to remain tough until
the other guy does his thing: makes a tactical error or a
strategical blunder.

One game I replayed recently had GM Anand as White
in a Ruy Lopez whipping off a nice combination, beginning
with the move Rxh4. Yet even after he gained what looked
to be a decisive edge many moves later, he had made
little forward progress until his opponent (GM Ivanchuk?)
decided he had to "play actively", and self-destructed.

The same characteristic was apparent in a match victory
by world champion Kramnik over GM Leko; many times
there was no real headway being made by the ultimate
winner, until the loser boldly -- and stupidly -- self
destructed.

But that aside, the superior tactician will often prevail.
(This is why I am ...so far... undefeated at ChessWorld.)
At the top levels, openings preparation is huge -- maybe
GM Anand is doing a better job in that area?


-- help bot

On Sep 26, 12:37 am, help bot wrote:

But that aside, the superior tactician will often prevail.
(This is why I am ...so far... undefeated at ChessWorld.)

And that's why Crafty can rate past champions according to how few
tactical mistakes (in all lines) they make, as per our earlier thread
Bot. Glad you agree with me. You sure were unreasonable in that
thread. ;-)

RL

"Zero" wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s
and be ahead by a nice margin i nthe tournament. What qualities does
he posses which maks him such a good chess player?

You could ask the same questions about whoever won the tournament. The
winner would be the one "to outplay a bunch of other 2700s." Nothing
wonderous about it. It's just one tournament.


--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

On 26 sep, 17:10, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Zero" wrote in message

oups.com...

I don't understand how he is able to outplay a bunch of other 2700s
and be ahead by a nice margin i nthe tournament. What qualities does
he posses which maks him such a good chess player?

You could ask the same questions about whoever won the tournament. The
winner would be the one "to outplay a bunch of other 2700s." Nothing
wonderous about it. It's just one tournament.

--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)



- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

I don't agree with that. It isn't common to have +4 and one point and
a half ahead of the second in a tournament as hard as this one, where
I would say only Topalov is missing from the great ones. And it is not
just one tournament, it is the World Championship, where all the
players try to give their best.

About Anand being dominating or not, i think in the last years he has
won more tournaments than anyone, several FIDE oscars, etc, and he is
the top seed in the FIDE list. Together with Kramnik he plays a
different kind of chess, so let's hope to see an Anand-Kramnik match.

I agree the World Championship must be normally decided in a match,
but don't forget Botvinnik got his title in a tournament like this
one; so this title isn't less valid.

But this is my opinion of course!

On Sep 26, 11:58 am, Miguel wrote:

I agree the World Championship must be normally decided in a match,
but don't forget Botvinnik got his title in a tournament like this
one; so this title isn't less valid.

True, but that was only because the incumbent champion Alekhine died
while still holding the title. Hague-Moscow 1948 does not apply as a
precedent for Mexico City 2007 or any of the FIDE "world
championships" of the past 10-15 years.

On Sep 26, 9:03 am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:37 am, help bot wrote:

But that aside, the superior tactician will often prevail.
(This is why I am ...so far... undefeated at ChessWorld.)

And that's why Crafty can rate past champions according to how few
tactical mistakes (in all lines) they make, as per our earlier thread
Bot. Glad you agree with me. You sure were unreasonable in that
thread. ;-)


That is quite a L-E-A-P! I agree that Crafty can rate
past champions based on tactical mistakes, but where
we part is in your blind assumption that Crafty's evals
are sufficiently accurate to do the job in a reasonable
amount of time. Hey, if somebody has let's say the
patience to let her rip for 12 hours per move on those
games, maybe we can come to terms; yet even then,
there are serious problems with such a narrowly
focused approach. One example is the fact that we
chess geniuses (as the highest-rated player in the
world -- ahem, on GetClub that is -- I think I can speak
for the others here) often *deliberately* make inferior
moves, for reasons a computer could never even begin
to comprehend. Penalizing players for deliberately not
playing like a machine is, well, just stupid; the thinking
is that they were not good enough to find the optimal
moves, but in fact they were doing something else
besides looking for that sort of optimality.


-- help bot

On Sep 26, 12:07 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:

Look at Topalov a few years ago. Players have great moments, but Anand is
far from a dominant player.

Has there been any time in the last 10 or 12 years when Anand has not
been in the top 5? I don't have the stats at hand, perhaps some other
rgc reader does. Seems to me his average rank during that period would
probably be somewhere between 2 and 3. Is that not dominant enough for
you?


That is very good, but it is still not dominant. Dominant is
where the top player, um, dominates, like each of the following
world champs did for a time in their respective eras: Steinitz,
Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Karpov,
Kasparov. Domination is not being among the top three; it
is rather, being the top one. Domination is what I was doing
at GetClub before Zebediah came along and took affront. It
is not merely squeaking out a tiny edge, but establishing a
clear and wide protective moat. It is what a 6,000 pound
male hippo does, that keeps even the hungriest crocs at a
safe distance.


-- help bot