I appreciate what's on offer at Chessbase, and yes although it is a
commercial orgnisation I think thye do a good job... except for one
thing that I thought slipped well below their usually high standards.

I was listening to the live radio.chessbase coverage for one of the
rounds in Linares and was astonished to find that this chap called Mig
was doing the "analysis". He was throwing pieces around the board and
literally spewing out really terrible analysis - even though I am only
just over 2200 FIDE, I could see the guy was clueless, I mean really
clueless. He was focusing on Kasparov's gane, which is fair enough,
as most people were watching that one, but could not seem to give the
impression that he was much more than a real patzer, imiitating GM's
who can analyses properly. What was interesting was that one or two
of the Chessbase regulars (especially one with a Blitz 2550 I think)
was continually suggesting much more coherent moves via the chat
window, and Mig just ignored them! Mig did pick up one line by Heine
(Danish GM how was kibbing). I looked up Mig's Chessbase rating and to
my astonishment he is rated a Rook and is 2500 in blitz! I know
that interent rating can be exaggerated (mine at blitz is 150 points
higher than my FIDE and my FIDE is much closer to my real strength)
but the analysis was what you see at local clubs when the 1600 guys
get together. Then something strange happened. One guy (he had a
guy's nick, but I guess he could have been a she) said via the chat
window that a move suggested by Mig was "crap" and Mig really lost it.
He started telling his audience that "crap" was far to strong a word
to use in English and how could somebody rated 600 points below him
pass judgement on his suggestions. I mean the guy really lost his
cool. The lower rated player then pointed out that he was the first
to suggest a move via the chat window that Kasparov had played and Mig
lost it again! He said that now everybody would be claiming to be the
first to suggest a move, and that there were thousands of Kasparovs
out there suggesting what their Fritzies was telling them...and that
the suggested move was sooo obvious (Mig was not analysisng it until
people were screaming it at him via the chat window, for the record).
Mig then said "it's a good thing that this broadcast is recored
because I can go back and prove you wrong". The lower rated guy then
dared Mig to do that and Mig immediately dropped the subject. I think
the same guy then asked cheekily why was Homer Simpson doing the
commentary which was actually really funny because that's how it
sounded. I scrolled back through the chat window and it appeared
that this guy (rated 1900 blitz on a small number of ganes) was the
first to suggest it, so there we are.

I am not a fan of Mig's writing which I find really trivial, so maybe
that biases me, but why is this guy putting himself forward as some
kind of analysis guru. He's nowhere near the same level as Shipov, or
Fed or Larry C or even Roman Dz.

I know there have been allegation in the past about accurate playing
strength, allegedly using computers etc and I don't want to rake all
that up again (but this posting will be a red rag to some I am
sure...) but Chessbase could use someone like Rogozenko or the other
GM's/IM's they have used in the past who can give really good online
analysis.

I suggest you check it out if you can at the weekend (it's an early
start) because it is really a scream. Mig's GM-butt-kissing is very
funny "oh let me call up my buddy Nigel Short...", as are the fully
paid-up Mig devotees gushing out "Mig, you are the best" and "hey
everybody bow down at the entrance of Mig!"... but don't expect
serious analysis. That's asking too much.

I note that actual IM and GM commentators don't see the possibility in chat
groups, and comment instead on any precedent in the openings, any deviations
(which are certainly the result of days of study, not 20-ply Fritz).

Today for example we have not one but two fascinating Chelyabinsk Pelikans -
probably an opening you shouldn't even try unless rated 2000 - the dynamic
complications are fearsome.

However, I think that 1900-rated MIG hosts a different kind of chess-chat
show, not deep analysis and instead a fun kibbitz. For more profound stuff I
have been reading GMs Taimanov, Aseev, Ionov, and today WIM Irina Sudakova
at www.ruschess.com.

These people are looking long at each position, and no matter that they are
very strong players, would probably not be able to provide deeper analysis
and chat at the same time.

What MIG does has its place, and doing much more in real time may not be any
more reliable or profound whoever the commentator is.

Cordially, Phil Innes




"KnightTrainToGlasgow" wrote in message
om...
I appreciate what's on offer at Chessbase, and yes although it is a
commercial orgnisation I think thye do a good job... except for one
thing that I thought slipped well below their usually high standards.

I was listening to the live radio.chessbase coverage for one of the
rounds in Linares and was astonished to find that this chap called Mig
was doing the "analysis". He was throwing pieces around the board and
literally spewing out really terrible analysis - even though I am only
just over 2200 FIDE, I could see the guy was clueless, I mean really
clueless. He was focusing on Kasparov's gane, which is fair enough,
as most people were watching that one, but could not seem to give the
impression that he was much more than a real patzer, imiitating GM's
who can analyses properly. What was interesting was that one or two
of the Chessbase regulars (especially one with a Blitz 2550 I think)
was continually suggesting much more coherent moves via the chat
window, and Mig just ignored them! Mig did pick up one line by Heine
(Danish GM how was kibbing). I looked up Mig's Chessbase rating and to
my astonishment he is rated a Rook and is 2500 in blitz! I know
that interent rating can be exaggerated (mine at blitz is 150 points
higher than my FIDE and my FIDE is much closer to my real strength)
but the analysis was what you see at local clubs when the 1600 guys
get together. Then something strange happened. One guy (he had a
guy's nick, but I guess he could have been a she) said via the chat
window that a move suggested by Mig was "crap" and Mig really lost it.
He started telling his audience that "crap" was far to strong a word
to use in English and how could somebody rated 600 points below him
pass judgement on his suggestions. I mean the guy really lost his
cool. The lower rated player then pointed out that he was the first
to suggest a move via the chat window that Kasparov had played and Mig
lost it again! He said that now everybody would be claiming to be the
first to suggest a move, and that there were thousands of Kasparovs
out there suggesting what their Fritzies was telling them...and that
the suggested move was sooo obvious (Mig was not analysisng it until
people were screaming it at him via the chat window, for the record).
Mig then said "it's a good thing that this broadcast is recored
because I can go back and prove you wrong". The lower rated guy then
dared Mig to do that and Mig immediately dropped the subject. I think
the same guy then asked cheekily why was Homer Simpson doing the
commentary which was actually really funny because that's how it
sounded. I scrolled back through the chat window and it appeared
that this guy (rated 1900 blitz on a small number of ganes) was the
first to suggest it, so there we are.

I am not a fan of Mig's writing which I find really trivial, so maybe
that biases me, but why is this guy putting himself forward as some
kind of analysis guru. He's nowhere near the same level as Shipov, or
Fed or Larry C or even Roman Dz.

I know there have been allegation in the past about accurate playing
strength, allegedly using computers etc and I don't want to rake all
that up again (but this posting will be a red rag to some I am
sure...) but Chessbase could use someone like Rogozenko or the other
GM's/IM's they have used in the past who can give really good online
analysis.

I suggest you check it out if you can at the weekend (it's an early
start) because it is really a scream. Mig's GM-butt-kissing is very
funny "oh let me call up my buddy Nigel Short...", as are the fully
paid-up Mig devotees gushing out "Mig, you are the best" and "hey
everybody bow down at the entrance of Mig!"... but don't expect
serious analysis. That's asking too much.

Yes I understand that there is a market for the lowbrow and Mig
delivers that by the sloshful... but it was he who drew attention to
his "rating" on Chessbase when someone dared to offer a critical view
of one suggestion he made. If he had of said "yes we are all patzers
here" then that would at least have been honest.. but he didn't.

And I agree with you about the real GM's Aseev, and one of my favs
Shipov. I remember watching Shipov commentating on some live games a
while back and he picked up everthing - all the nuances and predicted
most of the flow of the games very accurately. The Fed is also really
good, where has he deen hiding these days? I don't hear him on
Chess.fm anymore. Then again not many people can currently be heard
on Chess.fm ;-)

--------



"Phil Innes" wrote in message ...
I note that actual IM and GM commentators don't see the possibility in chat
groups, and comment instead on any precedent in the openings, any deviations
(which are certainly the result of days of study, not 20-ply Fritz).

Today for example we have not one but two fascinating Chelyabinsk Pelikans -
probably an opening you shouldn't even try unless rated 2000 - the dynamic
complications are fearsome.

However, I think that 1900-rated MIG hosts a different kind of chess-chat
show, not deep analysis and instead a fun kibbitz. For more profound stuff I
have been reading GMs Taimanov, Aseev, Ionov, and today WIM Irina Sudakova
at www.ruschess.com.

These people are looking long at each position, and no matter that they are
very strong players, would probably not be able to provide deeper analysis
and chat at the same time.

What MIG does has its place, and doing much more in real time may not be any
more reliable or profound whoever the commentator is.

Cordially, Phil Innes




"KnightTrainToGlasgow" wrote in message
om...
I appreciate what's on offer at Chessbase, and yes although it is a
commercial orgnisation I think thye do a good job... except for one
thing that I thought slipped well below their usually high standards.

I was listening to the live radio.chessbase coverage for one of the
rounds in Linares and was astonished to find that this chap called Mig
was doing the "analysis". He was throwing pieces around the board and
literally spewing out really terrible analysis - even though I am only
just over 2200 FIDE, I could see the guy was clueless, I mean really
clueless. He was focusing on Kasparov's gane, which is fair enough,
as most people were watching that one, but could not seem to give the
impression that he was much more than a real patzer, imiitating GM's
who can analyses properly. What was interesting was that one or two
of the Chessbase regulars (especially one with a Blitz 2550 I think)
was continually suggesting much more coherent moves via the chat
window, and Mig just ignored them! Mig did pick up one line by Heine
(Danish GM how was kibbing). I looked up Mig's Chessbase rating and to
my astonishment he is rated a Rook and is 2500 in blitz! I know
that interent rating can be exaggerated (mine at blitz is 150 points
higher than my FIDE and my FIDE is much closer to my real strength)
but the analysis was what you see at local clubs when the 1600 guys
get together. Then something strange happened. One guy (he had a
guy's nick, but I guess he could have been a she) said via the chat
window that a move suggested by Mig was "crap" and Mig really lost it.
He started telling his audience that "crap" was far to strong a word
to use in English and how could somebody rated 600 points below him
pass judgement on his suggestions. I mean the guy really lost his
cool. The lower rated player then pointed out that he was the first
to suggest a move via the chat window that Kasparov had played and Mig
lost it again! He said that now everybody would be claiming to be the
first to suggest a move, and that there were thousands of Kasparovs
out there suggesting what their Fritzies was telling them...and that
the suggested move was sooo obvious (Mig was not analysisng it until
people were screaming it at him via the chat window, for the record).
Mig then said "it's a good thing that this broadcast is recored
because I can go back and prove you wrong". The lower rated guy then
dared Mig to do that and Mig immediately dropped the subject. I think
the same guy then asked cheekily why was Homer Simpson doing the
commentary which was actually really funny because that's how it
sounded. I scrolled back through the chat window and it appeared
that this guy (rated 1900 blitz on a small number of ganes) was the
first to suggest it, so there we are.

I am not a fan of Mig's writing which I find really trivial, so maybe
that biases me, but why is this guy putting himself forward as some
kind of analysis guru. He's nowhere near the same level as Shipov, or
Fed or Larry C or even Roman Dz.

I know there have been allegation in the past about accurate playing
strength, allegedly using computers etc and I don't want to rake all
that up again (but this posting will be a red rag to some I am
sure...) but Chessbase could use someone like Rogozenko or the other
GM's/IM's they have used in the past who can give really good online
analysis.

I suggest you check it out if you can at the weekend (it's an early
start) because it is really a scream. Mig's GM-butt-kissing is very
funny "oh let me call up my buddy Nigel Short...", as are the fully
paid-up Mig devotees gushing out "Mig, you are the best" and "hey
everybody bow down at the entrance of Mig!"... but don't expect
serious analysis. That's asking too much.

I have heard better and worse commentators than mig. But you,
KnightTrainToGlasgow, take chess way too seriously.

Think about it. His comments are intended to help people follow the
basics. He is not there to show he can outplay the players. With a
commentator giving the broad strategy and a good chess engine running
calcs on specific lines, these matches are fun to watch.


(KnightTrainToGlasgow) wrote in message . com...
Yes I understand that there is a market for the lowbrow and Mig
delivers that by the sloshful... but it was he who drew attention to
his "rating" on Chessbase when someone dared to offer a critical view
of one suggestion he made. If he had of said "yes we are all patzers
here" then that would at least have been honest.. but he didn't.

And I agree with you about the real GM's Aseev, and one of my favs
Shipov. I remember watching Shipov commentating on some live games a
while back and he picked up everthing - all the nuances and predicted
most of the flow of the games very accurately. The Fed is also really
good, where has he deen hiding these days? I don't hear him on
Chess.fm anymore. Then again not many people can currently be heard
on Chess.fm ;-)

--------



"Phil Innes" wrote in message ...
I note that actual IM and GM commentators don't see the possibility in chat
groups, and comment instead on any precedent in the openings, any deviations
(which are certainly the result of days of study, not 20-ply Fritz).

Today for example we have not one but two fascinating Chelyabinsk Pelikans -
probably an opening you shouldn't even try unless rated 2000 - the dynamic
complications are fearsome.

However, I think that 1900-rated MIG hosts a different kind of chess-chat
show, not deep analysis and instead a fun kibbitz. For more profound stuff I
have been reading GMs Taimanov, Aseev, Ionov, and today WIM Irina Sudakova
at www.ruschess.com.

These people are looking long at each position, and no matter that they are
very strong players, would probably not be able to provide deeper analysis
and chat at the same time.

What MIG does has its place, and doing much more in real time may not be any
more reliable or profound whoever the commentator is.

Cordially, Phil Innes




"KnightTrainToGlasgow" wrote in message
om...
I appreciate what's on offer at Chessbase, and yes although it is a
commercial orgnisation I think thye do a good job... except for one
thing that I thought slipped well below their usually high standards.

I was listening to the live radio.chessbase coverage for one of the
rounds in Linares and was astonished to find that this chap called Mig
was doing the "analysis". He was throwing pieces around the board and
literally spewing out really terrible analysis - even though I am only
just over 2200 FIDE, I could see the guy was clueless, I mean really
clueless. He was focusing on Kasparov's gane, which is fair enough,
as most people were watching that one, but could not seem to give the
impression that he was much more than a real patzer, imiitating GM's
who can analyses properly. What was interesting was that one or two
of the Chessbase regulars (especially one with a Blitz 2550 I think)
was continually suggesting much more coherent moves via the chat
window, and Mig just ignored them! Mig did pick up one line by Heine
(Danish GM how was kibbing). I looked up Mig's Chessbase rating and to
my astonishment he is rated a Rook and is 2500 in blitz! I know
that interent rating can be exaggerated (mine at blitz is 150 points
higher than my FIDE and my FIDE is much closer to my real strength)
but the analysis was what you see at local clubs when the 1600 guys
get together. Then something strange happened. One guy (he had a
guy's nick, but I guess he could have been a she) said via the chat
window that a move suggested by Mig was "crap" and Mig really lost it.
He started telling his audience that "crap" was far to strong a word
to use in English and how could somebody rated 600 points below him
pass judgement on his suggestions. I mean the guy really lost his
cool. The lower rated player then pointed out that he was the first
to suggest a move via the chat window that Kasparov had played and Mig
lost it again! He said that now everybody would be claiming to be the
first to suggest a move, and that there were thousands of Kasparovs
out there suggesting what their Fritzies was telling them...and that
the suggested move was sooo obvious (Mig was not analysisng it until
people were screaming it at him via the chat window, for the record).
Mig then said "it's a good thing that this broadcast is recored
because I can go back and prove you wrong". The lower rated guy then
dared Mig to do that and Mig immediately dropped the subject. I think
the same guy then asked cheekily why was Homer Simpson doing the
commentary which was actually really funny because that's how it
sounded. I scrolled back through the chat window and it appeared
that this guy (rated 1900 blitz on a small number of ganes) was the
first to suggest it, so there we are.

I am not a fan of Mig's writing which I find really trivial, so maybe
that biases me, but why is this guy putting himself forward as some
kind of analysis guru. He's nowhere near the same level as Shipov, or
Fed or Larry C or even Roman Dz.

I know there have been allegation in the past about accurate playing
strength, allegedly using computers etc and I don't want to rake all
that up again (but this posting will be a red rag to some I am
sure...) but Chessbase could use someone like Rogozenko or the other
GM's/IM's they have used in the past who can give really good online
analysis.

I suggest you check it out if you can at the weekend (it's an early
start) because it is really a scream. Mig's GM-butt-kissing is very
funny "oh let me call up my buddy Nigel Short...", as are the fully
paid-up Mig devotees gushing out "Mig, you are the best" and "hey
everybody bow down at the entrance of Mig!"... but don't expect
serious analysis. That's asking too much.

KnightTrain's post hasn't appeared on my news server so I've taken the
quoted text fom Phil Innes's post and edited the references header to
put this post at the right point in the tree. Please accept my apologies
if two levels of selective quoting have distorted KnightTrain's post.

"KnightTrainToGlasgow" wrote:
I was listening to the live radio.chessbase coverage for one of the
rounds in Linares and was astonished to find that this chap called Mig
was doing the "analysis". [...] Then something strange happened. One
guy (he had a guy's nick, but I guess he could have been a she) said via
the chat window that a move suggested by Mig was "crap" and Mig really
lost it.

He started telling his audience that "crap" was far to strong a word
to use in English and how could somebody rated 600 points below him
pass judgement on his suggestions.

Kind of ironic, really, given that Mig is, himself, only rated 1824
USCF[1], which puts him much more than 600 points behind Kasparov. I
haven't heard commentary you refer to and it's possible that Mig was
merely commenting on Kasparov's moves and not passing judgement on them.


Dave.

[1] http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/?nm=12525629
I assume there are no other Michael Greengards in New York State.

--
David Richerby Edible Crystal Peanut (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a roasted nut but it's completely
transparent and you can eat it!

(joe mccarron) wrote in message . com...


But you, KnightTrainToGlasgow, take chess way too seriously.

Really? What do you base that on, Doctor?


Think about it. His comments are intended to help people follow the
basics.

He wasn't able to do even that with any skill.

David Richerby wrote:

KnightTrain's post hasn't appeared on my news server so I've taken the
quoted text fom Phil Innes's post and edited the references header to
put this post at the right point in the tree. Please accept my apologies
if two levels of selective quoting have distorted KnightTrain's post.

"KnightTrainToGlasgow" wrote:
I was listening to the live radio.chessbase coverage for one of the
rounds in Linares and was astonished to find that this chap called Mig
was doing the "analysis". [...] Then something strange happened. One
guy (he had a guy's nick, but I guess he could have been a she) said via
the chat window that a move suggested by Mig was "crap" and Mig really
lost it.

He started telling his audience that "crap" was far to strong a word
to use in English and how could somebody rated 600 points below him
pass judgement on his suggestions.

Kind of ironic, really, given that Mig is, himself, only rated 1824
USCF[1], which puts him much more than 600 points behind Kasparov. I
haven't heard commentary you refer to and it's possible that Mig was
merely commenting on Kasparov's moves and not passing judgement on them.

Look Dave, Mig has pretentions to be a journalist - ( a profession I'd
urge younger & less mature readers against, for obvious reasons. Such
filth) that being said, if he's an honest 1800 player, you'd have to be
a bit of an arrogance to crap on the way you do. Lets see it from you
son & pls. ditch the 'hampstead' trailers. Thanks..