Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:23:01 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 09:49:22, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 07, 2003 at 09:31:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 07, 2003 at 09:11:24, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>> >>>>You again! You know what I think about you. In free usenet you lost all "games" >>>>but before you had to sign your loss officially you chickened out. >>> >>>Very funny. It was quite the opposite and you insistently changed the subject >>>everytime your arguments ran out of fuel. Bob no doubt remembers as he was a >>>participant. >> >>Dream on. My arguments running out of fuel? Please do not confuse your >>perception with my talents. How could you judge my qualities without a minimum >>of logic? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>I will never >>>>forget that. Here we have a different situation. Here you are not allowed to >>>>insult (well - you might still be because you belong to the untouchables...). >>>>You claim you know GM. Fine for you. You mean you also understand them? Tatata. >>> >>>Understand them? The issue is how they prepare and not whether or not I >>>understand them. I described what I know, that is all. So did Bob for that >>>matter. You want to believe that all GMs only play moves they have studied in >>>great depth for themselves, but you are wrong, that's all. >> >>Can you reason with some logic? With understad I didn't mean that you should >>understand the chess. I was talking about their prep too. Look, even IF you were >>a GM yourself, fine, but then if you did it the way youpretended here, then you >>would be a real weak GM. A joke GM. > >I do not think that a GM who trust memory to play moves fast without >understanding them has to be a weak GM. > >I see no proof for this claim. > >It is clearly possible that part of the GM's do it when another part of the GM's >do not do it. > >Uri Uri, please do not try to interprete what I wrote if you snip and takeoly part of it. Most important for the understanding is what I wrote about repertoire. Don't you see what that means? Then you might play "fast" but you rely on yourown analyses. Of course really great players never play like that. Anand is therefore not a great player. He's a gambler. And Kasparov well proved where Anand is weak. Because otherwise he were Wch. But against the very best he is weaker. By force he must play slower.But he can't as a gambler. All Wch I could watch are very careful at moving. And then this: I argued that those GM who might take lines in a fly and THEN who would also play down such a line without further thinking during the game - _then_ they can't be strong GM - that was my point. PLease take the long version if you comment. If you still doubt that then it must be due to language reasons. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.