A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 2nd 03, 05:17 PM
LeModernCaveman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?

Two-game match, Garry.

Anytime during any World Open is fine.

You don't mind giving a lowly expert home city advantage do ya?

Since when is the CENTER COUNTER a "theoretical" opening anyway?



While Don Quixote was known to joust with windmills, lemoderncaveman is doing
Don one better by talking directly to a telephone pole.

To date, the telephone pole has not talked back and has not seemed to notice
the verbal assault.


I think a two-game match against ME (an expert like the one he WIMPED OUT ON)
is a fair punishment for the crap he pulled at the simul.

The point of the challenge is to remind Mr. Kasparov of why we play chess in
the first place, i.e., not for politics, or FEAR OF LOSING TO AN EXPERT ON THE
WHITE SIDE OF A CENTER COUNTER.

I say FEAR because what other motivation could there have been? Had he gone on
to win the game no one would have given a ****.

If the ratings were so important, why didn't he ask the players himself what
they were rated before he painted his white ass into a corner?

To those who say he can easily defeat an expert, I am an expert saying it might
not be as easy as you think.

Let him prove it.


  #3  
Old August 3rd 03, 04:37 AM
Angelo DePalma
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?





It's a wimp-out and a whine to stipulate this condition in his contract in
the first place -- this, from a guy who beat the Israeli national team 4-0
in a timed simul!!

My reasons:

a. he shouldn't be afraid to play someone "only" 800 points lower under any
circumstances
b. the difference between an 800 point difference and an 850 point
difference is statistically meaningless
c. once the guy had sat down and explained why he was there, a grownup Garry
would have been gracious and not asked for a "takeback". The notion that
he'd play differently against a 2050 than a 1950 is too ludicrous for words.
d. Most Important: Garry Kasparov should GROW UP. 95% of the time he's an
inspiring chess personality. The 5% of the time he's not he damages his
reputation so childishly it's sad. I wonder sometimes if he's not
contemplating moving to Japan and giving Baguio Radio a few interviews.

Angelo DePalma

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote

1. Mr. Kasparov was concerned because the conditions had not been agreed

to.
2. Mr. Kasparov offered to restart the game.

How is that crap?

How is that wimping out?

Kevin L. Bachler



  #4  
Old August 3rd 03, 09:11 AM
NoMoreChess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?

..
Since when is the CENTER COUNTER a "theoretical" opening anyway?



Since somebody wrote a book on it and since the editors of ECO decided to
allocate space to the theory?


The point of the challenge is to remind Mr. Kasparov of why we play chess in
the first place, i.e., not for politics, or FEAR OF LOSING TO AN EXPERT ON
THE
WHITE SIDE OF A CENTER COUNTER.


I say FEAR because what other motivation could there have been?



Good question. I can easily think of THREE other possible motivations,
neither of which can be shown to have been the culprit without a genuine
psychic reading (starting as low as $10):


1. Speed. Garry likes to whip around the room at lightning speed, blowing the
doors off his weakie opponents with little effort. The last thing he wants is
some booked-up wiseguy forcing him to pull up a chair, like in his TV
commercial.


2. Theory. Garry does not desire to give away his prepared lines in a mere
simul, against a measley expert. This means that he must choose between
keeping his best line(s) secret and risking a draw with a total patzer by
deliberately playing inferior moves, or take the risk that a REAL chessplayer
might somehow stumble across the gamescore and use that info against him in
some future REAL game.


3. Laziness. Garry may already have worked out a "plan" to defeat piddly
experts, and it may entail an opening style other than the one he played
against the "anonymous rated" opponent, who turned out to be an expert.
In my experience, experts tend to be tactically decent but hyperaggressive
and heavily reliant upon rote memorization in the openings. Which is to say
that Garry might easily thrash an expert by playing something solid like 1.e3
-- no more book, kid, just you and me, and sixteen pieces. How long can you
survive before inevitably blundering? This is Garry, the 44 magnum -- the
most powerful chessplayer in the world, who will most likely blow your pieces
clean off! You Gatta ask yourself one question: "do I feel lucky?" Well, do
ya? Punk?




  #6  
Old August 3rd 03, 02:48 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?

In article , "Angelo says...



It's a wimp-out and a whine to stipulate this condition in his contract in
the first place -- this, from a guy who beat the Israeli national team 4-0
in a timed simul!!


Not if you aren't timing the simul and you want it done in under 3 hours.

Have you ever given a simul? Because the statement above sounds only like it
could come from someone who has not.


My reasons:

a. he shouldn't be afraid to play someone "only" 800 points lower under any
circumstances


Obviously, he wasn't since he offered to play the gentleman.

b. the difference between an 800 point difference and an 850 point
difference is statistically meaningless


But if one doesn't follow the rules, then why not have a 2200 play, or a 2400,
or a 2600?

Kasparov is essentially playing blitz against people who are playing something
closer to normal chess. This removes some of his ability for long exact
calculation, but at the same time removes some of his ability to focus on
positional subtlety.

c. once the guy had sat down and explained why he was there, a grownup Garry
would have been gracious and not asked for a "takeback".


Why apply to a word like grown-up to a situation in which Garry simply asked
that the rules that he agreed to be adhered to?

If the player had made an illegal move, would you tell Garry to be a grown-up
and not ask the guy to take it back?

The notion that
he'd play differently against a 2050 than a 1950 is too ludicrous for words.


Again, it sounds like this is spoken by someone who has not given a simul.
First, several of the players were much weaker than that, perhaps 1200-1400.
Garry may be thinking that he was playing a 1400-1600 player. I know that when
I give a simul, I would play an A player or expert much differently than a C
player.

d. Most Important: Garry Kasparov should GROW UP. 95% of the time he's an
inspiring chess personality. The 5% of the time he's not he damages his
reputation so childishly it's sad. I wonder sometimes if he's not
contemplating moving to Japan and giving Baguio Radio a few interviews.


I don't see anything childish about insisting that people play by the rules he
agreed to. Grown-up do that every day.


Angelo DePalma


Kevin L. Bachler

  #7  
Old August 3rd 03, 07:24 PM
joe mccarron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?

Its called freedom to contract as you like. I remember Bobby Fischer
compalining about this class limit and making fun of Kasparov for it.
Well we all want to whine and moan and insist that everytime Kasparov
gives a simul he must play higher rated players too. Even if that
means it will take him all day. Next thing you know Kasparov and
Fischer will be giving an equal number of simuls every year.

You guys whining about Kasparov and his policy on simuls reminds me of
a story. As a guy was going into a Wendys a bum asked him for change
or some food maybe a cheeseburger or something. The guy comes out and
give the bum a burger. The bum rips it open and starts SCREAMING I
SAID I WANTED A *CHEESE* BURGER! THIS ISN'T A *CHEESE* BURGER!

Its time to grow up. Your post is ridiculous.


(LeModernCaveman) wrote in message ...
Two-game match, Garry.

Anytime during any World Open is fine.

You don't mind giving a lowly expert home city advantage do ya?

Since when is the CENTER COUNTER a "theoretical" opening anyway?

  #8  
Old August 4th 03, 03:42 AM
Angelo DePalma
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote
Have you ever given a simul? Because the statement above sounds only like

it
could come from someone who has not.


Yes, with my 1890-ish rating, I am in great demand to give simuls all over
the world. However, in my contract I stipulate that for reasons of getting
out in 3 hours I will not play anyone rated above 600 USCF, 550 FIDE.

But if one doesn't follow the rules, then why not have a 2200 play, or a

2400,
or a 2600?


The point is the guy was just a bit over. He wasn't rated 2400 or 2200, he
was rated 75 points or so above the magical 2000 cutoff. Garry should learn
to be gracious in situations like this. His inability to "lose" graciously
probably cost chess IBM's sponsorship.


Why apply to a word like grown-up to a situation in which Garry simply

asked
that the rules that he agreed to be adhered to?


Because a grownup knows which battles to fight, when to fight them, and
under which circumstances. Almost nobody but "chess lawyers" and fanatical
Kasparov supporters believe a grown man should have behaved like that in a
friendly simul situation where he was probably being paid thousands of
dollars. Part of the "deal" in such situations is to be a good sport and
show some graciousness.

If the player had made an illegal move, would you tell Garry to be a

grown-up
and not ask the guy to take it back?


Don't be ridiculous.

Again, it sounds like this is spoken by someone who has not given a simul.
First, several of the players were much weaker than that, perhaps

1200-1400.
Garry may be thinking that he was playing a 1400-1600 player. I know that

when
I give a simul, I would play an A player or expert much differently than a

C
player.


The difference between the cutoff and this guy's rating was 75 points, not
600 points you give in your example.


Kevin L. Bachler


I should add here that your rating is 2207. Do people actually pay you to
play simuls? Let's assume they do. Do you ask for a rating cutoff of 1400?
If you do and someone rated 1475 shows up, do you throw a fit like your hero
Kasparov? Do you think you'd have trouble vs. a 1475 player? If you do
congratulations: You're as big of a wimp as Garry K.

Angelo DePalma



  #9  
Old August 4th 03, 04:03 AM
Kevin L. Bachler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?

In article , "Angelo says...


"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote
Have you ever given a simul? Because the statement above sounds only like

it
could come from someone who has not.


Yes, with my 1890-ish rating, I am in great demand to give simuls all over
the world. However, in my contract I stipulate that for reasons of getting
out in 3 hours I will not play anyone rated above 600 USCF, 550 FIDE.


I on the other hand, have given a number of simuls, and while not nearly as
strong as Kasparov, understand his position.

But if one doesn't follow the rules, then why not have a 2200 play, or a

2400,
or a 2600?


The point is the guy was just a bit over. He wasn't rated 2400 or 2200, he
was rated 75 points or so above the magical 2000 cutoff. Garry should learn
to be gracious in situations like this. His inability to "lose" graciously
probably cost chess IBM's sponsorship.


Wrong. That's not the point. The point is that many of the players were much
weaker, and all the players were supposed to have their rating written down.
From Kasparov's perspective, it wasn't that it was a 75 point difference, it's
that it was a 600 point difference.

Garry WAS gracious in the situation. He was very polite, as was his opponent.
Kasparov offered to play another game.


Why apply to a word like grown-up to a situation in which Garry simply

asked
that the rules that he agreed to be adhered to?


Because a grownup knows which battles to fight, when to fight them, and
under which circumstances. Almost nobody but "chess lawyers" and fanatical
Kasparov supporters believe a grown man should have behaved like that in a
friendly simul situation where he was probably being paid thousands of
dollars. Part of the "deal" in such situations is to be a good sport and
show some graciousness.


He was a very good sport. He was gracious. The hosts/sponsors were not upset.
The player was not upset. The people were were there all seem to think he did
the right thing. Only people like you, who were not there, seem to be trying to
make something out of nothing.

Just who is the one not being gracious here?


If the player had made an illegal move, would you tell Garry to be a

grown-up
and not ask the guy to take it back?


Don't be ridiculous.


It's not ridiculous. There were rules for the simul. I learned long ago to
always make sure the players knew the simul rules, and most did not. This could
sometimes lead to strange situations, like the novice who didn't know about
castling and thought I was making an illegal move!

Here Garry was relying on someone else to make certain that the players knew the
rules for the simul. They fell down on the job. It was completely within his
rights to know the player's rating, and he would have adjusted his play if he
had.


Again, it sounds like this is spoken by someone who has not given a simul.
First, several of the players were much weaker than that, perhaps

1200-1400.
Garry may be thinking that he was playing a 1400-1600 player. I know that

when
I give a simul, I would play an A player or expert much differently than a

C
player.


The difference between the cutoff and this guy's rating was 75 points, not
600 points you give in your example.


And Kasparov didn't know that. He played 1 d4 in his games against the strong
players, and 1 e4 in his games against the weaker players. He played 1 e4 in
this game. What do you think that meant?



Kevin L. Bachler


I should add here that your rating is 2207.


My current rating is. It's been over 2300 and my FIDE rating is 2350. (I tend
to play in FIDE events only when I can take chess seriously.)

Do people actually pay you to
play simuls?


They have. I also give simuls to promote chess, and at chess camps.

Let's assume they do. Do you ask for a rating cutoff of 1400?


If I had to be done within a specified period of time, I might.

If you do and someone rated 1475 shows up, do you throw a fit like your hero
Kasparov?


Garry didn't throw a fit. If I knew a player was 1475, I may play against them
differently than the 1000 player on the next board.

Do you think you'd have trouble vs. a 1475 player?


Generally, no. But one year at a chess camp when I was running the camp I had
to fill in for a missing GM at the last minute, and struggled against several C
players. It happens.

If you do
congratulations: You're as big of a wimp as Garry K.

Angelo DePalma


All you've illustrated Angelo, is that you haven't a clue.

Kevin L. Bachler

  #10  
Old August 4th 03, 06:39 AM
NoMoreChess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I'm an expert too, Garry. Are you gonna DUCK me?

..
Well, the booked up expert could transpose to the white side of a French...



This assumes that the booked-up expert is booked-up on both the
Center-Counter and the French (but in reverse, tempo's being off by one move).
I think Garry could probably survive, since that tempo problem would be
significant for the weak expert. In any case, Garry would not have to reveal
his anti-French preparation, because of that crucial tempo!

The French is just the sort of opening where a great player (like Kasparov)
can demolish a weaker one, from either side.

I believe the fact that Kasparov offered to restart that game is evidence
that he did not fear *the expert*, but something else.







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.