Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:19:05 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 05:15:54, Jorge Pichard wrote: >A beauty prize should NOT have any blunder, and should be considered a beauty >only on the merit of being a hard fought game, where forceful combinative play >and originality are the main ingredient. This indeed was an insult to the >greatest genius of all times in chess. First of all this is complete nonsense! 1) There is no official definition of a beauty prize! 2) Therefore such a prize has a "social" implementation in an event. 3) This time the prize was somewhat a "recompensation" for a brilliant stamina which is not the same as brilliant, correct chess. Comensation for the kid who came in last. Not the worst example for consolation! 4) But Kasparov, the Autist, is incapable of feeling such implementations, such implications, in short, in reality he, Kasparov, is the KID, not Radjaboj. Both had their mama at hand, yes, but Kasparov is 40 and the youngster is just turning 15 to 16!!! 5) Now let's analyse the real scandal. Was it that K. was offended and shouted to the invited and journalists? No. The real scandal is something else! And it has almost psychiatric dimensions. Beyond the chess ranking Kasparov has the same rights, human rights, like all the rest of the people. The rest of the people have their own right independent of Kasparov. But, and that is the point, Kasparov is seeing himself as the center of interest, as if the whole event is only organized to his benefit. More, all the other people are only there to please him and his mommy. He is God and all others useful idiots each one on his functional place. But that other people have their own reality and a reality that could be well above the one of a Kasparov, all this is unknown to the chess genius. 6) Frederic Friedel one of those important persons, who probably assisted in the early development of Kasparov in the West as the spoilt gourmet child, writes: "Instead, the fact that he was essentially correct in his allegations will be lost amid the accusations that he is a sore loser. We knew that already, however, and even have a certain degree of admiration for Kasparov's childlike emotional honesty. There is no spin, no false smile." This is completely false and only shows how Fred is himself a child in questions of educastion and psychology. Psychopathology is the field that comes to mind when someone acts like mad only because he has a point to make which in itself has certain good reasons. But does that alow public amoking? Exactly the gaffe without self-control or worse with the egoistic misjudment of the whole situation, that is a pathologic fact. Friedel, the lay psychologist, sees childlike honesty in madness. Of course that is only working if the whole event is seen through the eyes of Kasparov. The child always say "I, I will have, no, better, I must have". And this should be honest if expressed by a 40 year old man-kid with mommy near-by? No way! And also, he was essentially correct with his allegations? No way! He didn't even understand why Radjaboj got the prize. Perhaps for the same reasons his unconscousness told him to lose against the kid after he had sacked those million dollars for literally nothing! 7) And Jorge, I always thought Jorge could be a good pseudonym for Freddy, speaks of the greatest chess genius of all times. What a mistake! No one ever can touch the heights of Bobby Fischer. Note well! Bobby did not play with mommy. He could already go to the loo on his own when he was 16 and participating in the Wch circus. Also in his chess Bobby was all alone on himself. He did it all on his own while Garry had the great Soviet support machine. Nothing bad against the trainer system in the former USSR. But Bobby must be regarded as the greater genius because he did it all on his own. So, this repetition of nonsense does not become true also if posted on a daily base. Not Kasparov, but Bobby Fischer is the greatest chess genius of all times. And let's wait a couple of years, then we will see that also Karpov is above Kasparov! Kramnik and younger players might show their height, so that Kasparov could be forgotten. 8) Ok, I dare it. If Judit Polgar is so good because she's a woman in the male circus, then Kasparov is so successful because his opponents are distracted by the madness in his habits. Perhaps it's a subconscious compassion with the Autist. Rolf Tueschen > >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=851
This page took 0 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.