Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 14th 16, 08:40 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Default We all know Kasparov is still a world-class blitz player but is hisopening play a strength or a weakness?

I've been debating this point with Phil Innes who says that Kasparov's particular strength is in the opening. I said that, on the contrary, his opening play is a weakness and that he's good in spite of this. He then said that GMs agree with him. Well, Caruana agrees with me.
This is what Caruana said:

"He’s still a very strong player. I don’t think that really came as a surprise to anyone. Especially at blitz he still has fantastic instincts. Those really go a long way. Opening preparation and knowledge of current opening trends and what’s happened for the past decade is much less relevant. He does occasionally blunder, he’s definitely a lot weaker than at his peak, but he’s still a very, very good player."

In other words, he's a great player despite relatively poor opening preparation and knowledge. He calls these aspects "less relevant". This clearly means "less relevant so Kasparov can play well despite being weak in these aspects." If he was impressed by Kasparov's opening preparation and knowledge, it wouldn't make sense to draw attention to the lesser relevance of these aspects.

Paul Epstein
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 14th 16, 08:57 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Default We all know Kasparov is still a world-class blitz player but ishis opening play a strength or a weakness?

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:40:21 AM UTC+1, Paul wrote:
I've been debating this point with Phil Innes who says that Kasparov's particular strength is in the opening. I said that, on the contrary, his opening play is a weakness and that he's good in spite of this. He then said that GMs agree with him. Well, Caruana agrees with me.
This is what Caruana said:

"He’s still a very strong player. I don’t think that really came as a surprise to anyone. Especially at blitz he still has fantastic instincts. Those really go a long way. Opening preparation and knowledge of current opening trends and what’s happened for the past decade is much less relevant. He does occasionally blunder, he’s definitely a lot weaker than at his peak, but he’s still a very, very good player."

In other words, he's a great player despite relatively poor opening preparation and knowledge. He calls these aspects "less relevant". This clearly means "less relevant so Kasparov can play well despite being weak in these aspects." If he was impressed by Kasparov's opening preparation and knowledge, it wouldn't make sense to draw attention to the lesser relevance of these aspects.



To justify my interpretation further, Caruana's quote is exactly analogous to a remark like "Navratilova is still good at doubles where speed of movement is less relevant." Clearly, this comment implies that Navratilova's movement is slow.

So when Caruana says that Kasparov is good at blitz where opening preparation and knowledge is less relevant, he is saying exactly what I've been saying -- that Kasparov's opening play is a relative weakness, rather than a strength.

Paul

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 19th 16, 08:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 111
Default We all know Kasparov is still a world-class blitz player but ishis opening play a strength or a weakness?

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:40:21 AM UTC+1, Paul wrote:
I've been debating this point with Phil Innes who says that Kasparov's particular strength is in the opening. I said that, on the contrary, his opening play is a weakness and that he's good in spite of this. He then said that GMs agree with him. Well, Caruana agrees with me.
This is what Caruana said:

"He’s still a very strong player. I don’t think that really came as a surprise to anyone. Especially at blitz he still has fantastic instincts. Those really go a long way. Opening preparation and knowledge of current opening trends and what’s happened for the past decade is much less relevant. He does occasionally blunder, he’s definitely a lot weaker than at his peak, but he’s still a very, very good player."

In other words, he's a great player despite relatively poor opening preparation and knowledge. He calls these aspects "less relevant". This clearly means "less relevant so Kasparov can play well despite being weak in these aspects." If he was impressed by Kasparov's opening preparation and knowledge, it wouldn't make sense to draw attention to the lesser relevance of these aspects.



To justify my interpretation further, Caruana's quote is exactly analogous to a remark like "Navratilova is still good at doubles where speed of movement is less relevant." Clearly, this comment implies that Navratilova's movement is slow.

So when Caruana says that Kasparov is good at blitz where opening preparation and knowledge is less relevant, he is saying exactly what I've been saying -- that Kasparov's opening play is a relative weakness, rather than a strength.

Paul


Paul, remind us of who came LAST in this particular tournament

R

O

F



L



!


Who came in exactly 3 points behind Kasparov? Chess is about what you do, not silly anecdotes or metaphors about another sport and Navratilova's forehand.

But while Paul quotes the big loser at this tournament, who maybe we can understand wants to talk rather than perform, this comment is completely backwards "he's a great player despite relatively poor opening preparation and knowledge."

His opening performance is Better than other participants — the only qualification really is that it is out of proportion at blitz speed — which is a RELATIVE difference, and only by experiment could Kasparov find that out.

Everyone else was SHOCKED by his opening advantages. But Paul, give it up, you are quoting the last-place person in that completion, and Paul, you are not mentioning that

Nuff said?

Phil
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 20th 16, 12:25 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Default We all know Kasparov is still a world-class blitz player but ishis opening play a strength or a weakness?

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 8:27:25 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:40:21 AM UTC+1, Paul wrote:
I've been debating this point with Phil Innes who says that Kasparov's particular strength is in the opening. I said that, on the contrary, his opening play is a weakness and that he's good in spite of this. He then said that GMs agree with him. Well, Caruana agrees with me.
This is what Caruana said:

"He’s still a very strong player. I don’t think that really came as a surprise to anyone. Especially at blitz he still has fantastic instincts. Those really go a long way. Opening preparation and knowledge of current opening trends and what’s happened for the past decade is much less relevant. He does occasionally blunder, he’s definitely a lot weaker than at his peak, but he’s still a very, very good player."

In other words, he's a great player despite relatively poor opening preparation and knowledge. He calls these aspects "less relevant". This clearly means "less relevant so Kasparov can play well despite being weak in these aspects." If he was impressed by Kasparov's opening preparation and knowledge, it wouldn't make sense to draw attention to the lesser relevance of these aspects.



To justify my interpretation further, Caruana's quote is exactly analogous to a remark like "Navratilova is still good at doubles where speed of movement is less relevant." Clearly, this comment implies that Navratilova's movement is slow.

So when Caruana says that Kasparov is good at blitz where opening preparation and knowledge is less relevant, he is saying exactly what I've been saying -- that Kasparov's opening play is a relative weakness, rather than a strength.

Paul


Paul, remind us of who came LAST in this particular tournament

R

O

F



L



!


Who came in exactly 3 points behind Kasparov? Chess is about what you do, not silly anecdotes or metaphors about another sport and Navratilova's forehand.

But while Paul quotes the big loser at this tournament, who maybe we can understand wants to talk rather than perform, this comment is completely backwards "he's a great player despite relatively poor opening preparation and knowledge."

His opening performance is Better than other participants — the only qualification really is that it is out of proportion at blitz speed — which is a RELATIVE difference, and only by experiment could Kasparov find that out.

Everyone else was SHOCKED by his opening advantages. But Paul, give it up, you are quoting the last-place person in that completion, and Paul, you are not mentioning that


No, Caruana was 4 points behind Kasparov, not "exactly 3". Nakamura said something similar to what you did but that was about Kasparov at his peak rather than the recent Kasparov -- "No, like I said, his [meaning Kasparov's] strength was in openings. You look at middlegames or endgames and I’m quite convinced there are other players who are better than he was, but he was able to get advantages out of the openings so that was his main strength, and when he wasn’t able to do that, that’s why he lost his title to Kramnik."

Paul

  #5   Report Post  
Old September 21st 16, 02:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 111
Default We all know Kasparov is still a world-class blitz player but ishis opening play a strength or a weakness?


Everyone else was SHOCKED by his opening advantages. But Paul, give it up, you are quoting the last-place person in that completion, and Paul, you are not mentioning that


No, Caruana was 4 points behind Kasparov, not "exactly 3". Nakamura said something similar to what you did but that was about Kasparov at his peak rather than the recent Kasparov -- "No, like I said, his [meaning Kasparov's] strength was in openings. You look at middlegames or endgames and I’m quite convinced there are other players who are better than he was, but he was able to get advantages out of the openings so that was his main strength, and when he wasn’t able to do that, that’s why he lost his title to Kramnik."


You are right, it was 4. Even so, you will allow me to emphasize that the loser of the competition may not be the best source for objective opinion.

And I think several opinions can exist — here is one somewhat between yours and mine

"It's just that Kasparov played much better chess than any of the three Americans and really deserved to win the tournament. A couple of blunders took that away, but he is and was always in a league of his own, way above any of the three (not so bad) Americans will ever be. And he even beat both Caruana and Nakamura in their respective mini-matches. For all of these reasons Nakamura's half derogatory comments are a little out of place. He ought to have admitted that he was just very lucky to have won ahead of this giant, who beat him at the age of 53 and after 11 years of rust."

Reference: https://chess24.com/en/read/news/nak...te-blitz-day-2

Phil

Paul



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 19th 05 05:36 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 4th 05 05:29 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 18th 05 05:36 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 19th 05 05:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017