Radjabov is amazing! He wiped Kasparov off the board and now Anand!

What a great way to start his chess career!


http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1091

-Scott

Radjabov is amazing! He wiped Kasparov off the board and now Anand!

Uh, he didn't wipe either off the board, look at the games.

John Fernandez

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...
Radjabov is amazing! He wiped Kasparov off the board and now Anand!

Uh, he didn't wipe either off the board, look at the games.

John Fernandez

Radjabov plays brilliant in sharp positions. Anand is in poor form, but the
fact is: Radjabov sacrificed the queen for the rook and the knight (that was
positional sacrifice), but he had strong center and good coordination of the
pieces. His pawns were better. He absolutely deserved to win.

Goran Tomic

Radjabov plays brilliant in sharp positions.

Not really. He's been on the receiving end of some huge boo-boos. He's a sharp
player, but not THAT special.

Radjabov sacrificed the queen for the rook and the knight (that was
positional sacrifice)

The sacrifice was forced after f4. Brilliant play by Anand to win the queen.

but he had strong center and good coordination of the
pieces. His pawns were better. He absolutely deserved to win.

Not really. Anand doesn't play Bb5? and we're all talking about how Anand wiped
Radjabov off the board.

John Fernandez

Ok, fine, I know ... but that doesn't make him any less cool! :-P

-Scott




Radjabov is amazing! He wiped Kasparov off the board and now Anand!

Uh, he didn't wipe either off the board, look at the games.

John Fernandez

What are you? Radjabov's press agent? The games don't show Anand or
Kasparov getting wiped off the board. If your in charge of public
relations then Radjabov should fire you quickly. Looks more like
Anand and Kasparov lost rather than Radjabov won.

EZoto

The first I recent you because you blindly trust in analysis published about
game on site: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1091

I have seen them, maybe before you, but I think free and independent. (By
the way, that's reason why I overthrowed some refutation of the famous
winning combination in the game Botvinnik-Capablanca (I hope you can find it
by internet).

So, I'll answer on "your" comments some moves:

The sacrifice was forced after f4. Brilliant play by Anand to win the
queen.

What was the result? Look at Anand's pieces on the first row. Position after
22. move:
wKg1,Qd1,Nb1,c3,Bc1,f1,Re1,Pa3,b4,g2,h2/bKg8,Qf2,Nd4,e7,Be6,f6,Ra8,f8,Pd5,e4
,g7,h7
So, you can also see that there is very bad cooperation between white
pieces. I needn't persuade you that white had to play 22. Rf2 and suffered
Radjabov queen sacrifice.


Not really. Anand doesn't play Bb5? and we're all talking about how Anand
wiped
Radjabov off the board.


Your chess statements are ridiculous. You put question mark for 26. Anand's
move. Why? You are better chess player than Anand? Do you know what Anand's
idea was? Or you only copy that mark from the site.

In your mail there is main logic fault. You resound chess player and after
that you put question mark for his move. So it seems that you mean: Anand is
a good player who don't play good? You are obviously better than Anand.
You have to comprehend that the game was excellent and the sparkles of he
Radjabov's genius decide the game. New chess star is born.

Regards,
Goran Tomic

eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message ...
Radjabov plays brilliant in sharp positions.

Not really. He's been on the receiving end of some huge boo-boos. He's a sharp
player, but not THAT special.

Radjabov sacrificed the queen for the rook and the knight (that was
positional sacrifice)

The sacrifice was forced after f4. Brilliant play by Anand to win the queen.

but he had strong center and good coordination of the
pieces. His pawns were better. He absolutely deserved to win.

Not really. Anand doesn't play Bb5? and we're all talking about how Anand wiped
Radjabov off the board.

John Fernandez

Is that so? Bb5 didn't make a good impression, but I wasn't sure how
to evaluate the position. What was the best move? Is good analysis
posted somewhere?

One thing I'm wondering about is whether Anand foresaw ...Nb5! when he
played f4. Given the actual continuation, this doesn't seem likely.

Larry

Scott wrote:
What is the difference between Kasparov and Anand losing vs. Radjabov
winning How many "lucky" games does he have to win for you to see
his skill as genuine?


With a 2600+ rating his skill is "genuine" enough. But to be able to
rationally say with some confidence that he is better than the top five
the answer is really quite simple. All he has to win enough games to
get his rating higher than theirs.

Two wins against the best won't make it. He also lost today to another
2600 player, so we get to consider that, too. At least if we are
sensible we do.

"John Fernandez" wrote in message

Funny- I hadn't even looked at this analysis. I wonder how I could
"blindly
trust it"?

I don't believe you. Because that evaluation about Bb5 is wrong. But you
rewrite somebody's wrong evaluation. I'm quite sure that you and other will
loose the game againt Anand after Bb5. Because it's only one of the severeal
equaly valid moves. I think that's nonsense to talk with you about chess.
(My rating on chess21.com is 2550, I flumped a bit).

But, I'm sure that you don't advocate Anand. You advocate Kasaparov. Why?
I have to recall how kasparov acted in Linnares (the report is from my
friend, journalist, who voted):
----------------------------------
Kasparov created a terrible scene at the closing ceremony of the event over
the awarding of the beauty prize by journalists to Teimour Radjabov for his
win over Kasparov in round 2. The award was a difficult one to make. There
were 20 journalists who voted and the lack of a clearly great game meant
that the game Kasparov vs. Radjabov from round 2 won with only 6 votes. Both
players were called to the stage and a clearly angry Kasparov took the
microphone and complained "It is not correct to award a prize to a game
where a piece was blundered. I take it as a public insult and a
humiliation."

Kasparov left the stage without taking part in the group pictures. He was
still complaining about the verdict and asked Ian Rogers who he voted for.
When he answered the Radjabov game he launched into a further tirade.
"Rogers, are you a chess player? what is your Elo rating? Don't you
understand what a best game is? Quality. Where is the quality in a piece
blunder? By voting for this game you show that you would vote for any game
where Kasparov loses. Any game would be better than this for the prize.
Blundering a piece is not beauty!" This went on for about ten minutes in a
similar vein. Then Ian said to Kasparov something like: "ask to the others",
and Kasparov turned and asked to Leontxo: "Did you vote for this game"?

Leontxo Garcia justified his choice of the game by saying "beauty is a
subjective concept for me and Nxe5 (Radjabov's piece sacrifice) was really a
beautiful move and it is beautiful to see a 15 year old boy play with such
imagination". Kasparov replied that "Nxe5 was not a brilliant move, it was
just the only move. You are insulting me and insulting chess. Do you
considere yourselves chess journalists? You (and journalists like you) are
responsible for the bad state of the chess world, you are damaging chess
with your attitudes". And, again, he remarked that blundering a piece is not
beauty. Radjabov's mother was recording all the scene in his video-cam, but
Clara Kasparova asked her kindly to stop recording.

Apart from this, acording to some sources Kasparov said "I won't be back!"
when leaving the room, but I was only spectator of the above related part of
the scene.
----------------------

So, your choler is directional against Radjabov, who disrupted your favorite
Kasparov. And, what's the result of Kasparov's defeat? He has not so "high
worth"?! You couldn't organize suspicious matches K-Fritz or K-Junior? Maybe
your income will plop but the chess will elevate. Maybe it arrived a new
generation non corrupt chess players who wouldn't fix their matches under
patronage suspicious "chess organizers" and "chess politicians"? Some chess
players like Bobby? Maybe your "fight" against Radjabov is extenson of your
fight against Bobby? Against the chess players you couldn't corrupt? What do
you mean?

Best regards,
Goran Tomic