| |
Main
Date: 13 Feb 2008 22:34:44
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
He's the strongest player I ever played against (Kamsky), plus he has now
finished his education and returned to his previous form.
Never saw a player with anything close to his natural talent (other than
Jorge Zamora), but he has technique to go with it, and now the desire.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 18:38:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 15, 9:12 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Roman Dzindzichashvili, who was one of Kamsky's seconds during the
> candidates' matches several years ago, reported that Kamsky was the
> most talented player he had ever worked with.
Roman D. has liven in the wrong hemisphere
for quite some time now.
As far as I know, the vast majority of what are
being termed "talented" chess players live in
Asia. (But I do not use the term "talent" to refer
to hard-working folks who study their way to
greatness-- just the opposite.)
If one is stuck here in the U.S.A., it makes
sense that the most "talented" player RD
would ever have an opportunity to work with
would be Gata Kamsky. Of course, this
means little unless you list all the others, for
comparison. For instance, has RD worked
with GM Anand? Has he worked with GM
Ray Gordon? Or with GM Kasparov? Even
a number could be helpful here.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 18:29:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 15, 7:15 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> It takes more talent to QUIT chess than to PLAY chess.
You have obviously confounded talent with
wisdom, my boy.
> America is too fruitful to waste one's youth at the board.
You can say that again! At my local chess
club, the young do not even show up-- just
the same old codgers, looking to avenge a
recent "unjust" loss.
> Our best brains give up the game. I was 24 years old, had already
> crossed 2000 within 18 months of joining USCF, looked ready to push over
> 2200, and got a job instead.
Well, there's always an exception to every
rule.
> It wasn't that I feared I wouldn't make GM; I feared that I WOULD.
If you like teaching (chess) and writing, you
could make a decent living as a grandmaster.
But you may find that you are unable to prosper
in your choice of locale (Reno?), and can do far
better in one of the larger chess centers.
> Michael Rohde is a great guy and brilliant, for example, but he could have
> made millions more out of chess than in it. His, like all American GMs, is
> a lifestyle choice few are willing to make. The economic sacrifice is
> genuine. Be kind to your GMs in this country.
'Till now, I have gone so far as to "throw"
virtually all my games to both GMs and IMs;
what more do you want from me, I ask? Heck,
even the FMs, SMs, and any other Ms you
can think of ought to be thanking me for my
generosity-- not to mention my rating points
and prize money!
> If chess paid what it should, Emory Tate could have become world champion as
> well, instead of that military career he built.
Nonsense. One can be a world champion and
still have a career in the military. For instance,
Douglass MacArthur rose to even greater heights
while in the military... to /divinity/, I believe it was.
Chess can hardly be more demanding than that.
> I think the best players in
> this country are the ones who play part-time, get close to the top, and
> occasionally demolish the best players on earth.
That would seem to describe only Paul Morphy
(assuming you mean the U.S.A.).
> That's Tate.
I've played over some of Emory Tate's games
on the 'net, and I don't think he fits your mold.
He may be a dangerous opponent, even to GMs,
but his results place him far out of contention
for what you called "the top" spot.
> Chess is like music, the world title like a concert at Carnegie
> Hall.
I take it there's a lot of finagling and intrigue there.
> Coffeehouses have hot women in them and very low standards for chess
> brilliance.
That figures. And I happened to live in a world
of fast food restaurants, and people who barely
know chess from checkers.
> After I quit play I used to laugh at the cred I'd get just for
> beating up on the weakies
At chess, or actually beating them up
physically? You'd be surprised at some
of the things Arnie Schwarzennegger got
away with, just because of his muscles... .
> but it was cool. The idea was that chess was to
> pass time, not to waste one's life on. I'm glad I quit the game at
> twenty-four.
So are a lot of other people, no doubt.
> My recent training was interesting but I quit that too, though
> more because of the imposter.
You must mean GM Kramnik; obviously, he
is no Gary Kasparov, but still, if nobody could
actually beat him, how bad can he be?
> I would have needed the web editor job and
> about five years to make IM. Instead I do document production at about $25
> an hour, freelance, from home.
That's far less than you could have charged
per hour as a grandmaster, for chess lessons.
The folks at my local chess club talked of
a fellow named "Walt", who they say charges
$35 per hour for lessons; if he is who I think,
he's /maybe/ 1900 strength!
> I don't play chess in my leisure time.
> Actually prefer Microsoft pinball for mental exercise now.
Pinhead, pinball-- makes sense, I suppose.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 06:12:29
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 15, 12:11=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:01 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > =A0In answer to your question: no, of course not.
> > > As someone said, this "kid" is all talent, and he
> > > never studied chess a day in his life! =A0Why, he
> > > has more natural-born talent than anybody who
> > > ever lived. =A0It's all so clear to me... now.
> > That might not be as far off as you think.
>
> > He took time out to finish law AND medical school. =A0Chess is a child's=
game
> > and he's doing it one last time before he quits.
>
> =A0 If you ask me, finishing law school and
> medical school is indicative of a hard
> worker-- not of natural-born chess talent.
>
> =A0 In fact, I would think that evidence of
> extreme *laziness* is the best recipe for
> distinguishing the "talented" from the
> worker-bees.
Roman Dzindzichashvili, who was one of Kamsky's seconds during the
candidates' matches several years ago, reported that Kamsky was the
most talented player he had ever worked with.
Another thing about Kamsky is that for a long time he was notorious
for his lack of opening preparation (by top-GM standards).
I think Larry Parr, quoting what Sosonko said to Alburt, is quite
right about this one.
LT
=2E
>
> =A0 Obviously, if by "talent" you mean a
> proclivity for study and hard work, then
> we are simply on different wavelengths.
> I'm picturing a kid who has never seen
> the game before, who walks up and
> beats the tar out of me at chess-- not
> unlike Fritz 1.0 or Genius 1.0.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 21:11:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 14, 9:01 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > In answer to your question: no, of course not.
> > As someone said, this "kid" is all talent, and he
> > never studied chess a day in his life! Why, he
> > has more natural-born talent than anybody who
> > ever lived. It's all so clear to me... now.
> That might not be as far off as you think.
>
> He took time out to finish law AND medical school. Chess is a child's game
> and he's doing it one last time before he quits.
If you ask me, finishing law school and
medical school is indicative of a hard
worker-- not of natural-born chess talent.
In fact, I would think that evidence of
extreme *laziness* is the best recipe for
distinguishing the "talented" from the
worker-bees.
Obviously, if by "talent" you mean a
proclivity for study and hard work, then
we are simply on different wavelengths.
I'm picturing a kid who has never seen
the game before, who walks up and
beats the tar out of me at chess-- not
unlike Fritz 1.0 or Genius 1.0.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 07:15:29
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
>> > In answer to your question: no, of course not.
>> > As someone said, this "kid" is all talent, and he
>> > never studied chess a day in his life! Why, he
>> > has more natural-born talent than anybody who
>> > ever lived. It's all so clear to me... now.
>
>> That might not be as far off as you think.
>>
>> He took time out to finish law AND medical school. Chess is a child's
>> game
>> and he's doing it one last time before he quits.
>
>
> If you ask me, finishing law school and
> medical school is indicative of a hard
> worker-- not of natural-born chess talent.
It takes more talent to QUIT chess than to PLAY chess. America is too
fruitful to waste one's youth at the board.
> In fact, I would think that evidence of
> extreme *laziness* is the best recipe for
> distinguishing the "talented" from the
> worker-bees.
Chess "talent" doesn't translate into "money" the way white-collar work does
here. Our best brains give up the game. I was 24 years old, had already
crossed 2000 within 18 months of joining USCF, looked ready to push over
2200, and got a job instead. It wasn't that I feared I wouldn't make GM; I
feared that I WOULD.
Michael Rohde is a great guy and brilliant, for example, but he could have
made millions more out of chess than in it. His, like all American GMs, is
a lifestyle choice few are willing to make. The economic sacrifice is
genuine. Be kind to your GMs in this country.
If chess paid what it should, Emory Tate could have become world champion as
well, instead of that military career he built. I think the best players in
this country are the ones who play part-time, get close to the top, and
occasionally demolish the best players on earth. That's Tate.
> Obviously, if by "talent" you mean a
> proclivity for study and hard work, then
> we are simply on different wavelengths.
> I'm picturing a kid who has never seen
> the game before, who walks up and
> beats the tar out of me at chess-- not
> unlike Fritz 1.0 or Genius 1.0.
Fantasy. Chess is like music, the world title like a concert at Carnegie
Hall.
Coffeehouses have hot women in them and very low standards for chess
brilliance. After I quit play I used to laugh at the cred I'd get just for
beating up on the weakies, but it was cool. The idea was that chess was to
pass time, not to waste one's life on. I'm glad I quit the game at
twenty-four. My recent training was interesting but I quit that too, though
more because of the imposter. I would have needed the web editor job and
about five years to make IM. Instead I do document production at about $25
an hour, freelance, from home. I don't play chess in my leisure time.
Actually prefer Microsoft pinball for mental exercise now.
If Kamsky's on, Topalov will be slaughtered like a cockroach.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2008 11:57:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess "talent" doesn't translate into "money" the way white-collar
> work does here. Our best brains give up the game. I was 24 years
> old, had already crossed 2000 within 18 months of joining USCF,
> looked ready to push over 2200, and got a job instead. It wasn't
> that I feared I wouldn't make GM; I feared that I WOULD.
Oh, get over yourself, already. A 2000 rating in 2002 would have put
you in the top 3500 players in the USA[1]. That's great, and all, and
much better than I'll ever be but it's still only the 95th percentile
of non-scholastic players. Or, to put it another way, if you get
fourteen adult chess players at random in a room, there's better than
a fifty-fifty chance that one of them is rated over 2000. Yaaaaaawn.
Dave.
[1] http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.html
--
David Richerby Psychotic Gigantic Gnome (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a smiling garden ornament but
it's huge and it wants to kill you!
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 17:42:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 14, 8:48 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Well, I think Kamsky might be a day late and a dollar short.
>
> I believe we should be keeping an eye on Magnus Carlsen as the next
> super talent.
I went to the Web site chessmetrics.com, and while
I was there I noticed that their graph makes it /appear/
that Gata Kamsky is finished, kaput. But they don't
have the latest results, the results from the last few
years, so this is probably a mirage. I think once they
get the latest results entered the graph will look a bit
bizarre, like a two-humped camel, where GK reached
a peak, then declined severely, then re-emerged like
a phoenix.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 17:37:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 14, 8:41 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > Natural talent? This "kid" was practically
> > forced to study chess, night and day, by
> > his evil father, Rustam Kamsky.
>
> That's not EXACTLY how it went down, and regardless, his dad isn't forcing
> him now, is he?
Sorry for the delay; I just got out of the hospital,
having suffered multiple contusions and abrasions
at the hands of some thug who looked exactly like
old Chess Life photos of Rustam Kamsky, only
much older.
In answer to your question: no, of course not.
As someone said, this "kid" is all talent, and he
never studied chess a day in his life! Why, he
has more natural-born talent than anybody who
ever lived. It's all so clear to me... now.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 21:01:38
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
> In answer to your question: no, of course not.
> As someone said, this "kid" is all talent, and he
> never studied chess a day in his life! Why, he
> has more natural-born talent than anybody who
> ever lived. It's all so clear to me... now.
That might not be as far off as you think.
He took time out to finish law AND medical school. Chess is a child's game
and he's doing it one last time before he quits.
I'd put my money on him in this match in a heartbeat. It's now or never.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Feb 2008 11:40:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [Kamsky] took time out to finish law AND medical school.
Actually, he dropped out of medicine after a year and did law instead.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Peanut (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ roasted nut but it's completely
transparent!
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 05:57:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
NATURAL TALENT
>Natural talent? This "kid" was practically forced to study chess, night and day, by
his evil father, Rustam Kamsky. Many years ago, all they talked about
in Chess
Lies magazine was his mean daddy, and how Gata was a victim (and how
anyone
who got in daddy's way got beaten up). I'm glad someone from the
U.S.A. is in
contention again, but let's not get our facts all out of whack over
it; like most
really strong players, GK got good by studying chess a lot. A lot! > --
Greg Kennedy
At the time of Gata Kamsky's defection in 1989,
GM Genna Sosonko telephoned GM Lev Alburt to offer
congratulations on America having a new world
champion. No one doubted Kamsky's enormous genius
for the game, which had manifested itself even in
conditions very unfavorable for his development.
Kamsky comes as close to matching the Fischer
do-it-yourself model as any top grandmaster today.
And needless to say, the coverage in Chess Life as
described by Greg Kennedy largely did not exist.
Yours, Larry Parr
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 11:01:46
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
> Kamsky comes as close to matching the Fischer
> do-it-yourself model as any top grandmaster today.
> And needless to say, the coverage in Chess Life as
> described by Greg Kennedy largely did not exist.
I used to see him play the four-game action tournaments at the Manhattan a
few months after his defection.
I did manage to exhaust his book in the Pelikan (15 moves in the line we
played) in one of our games in the opening round of the 1989 World Open
Blitz, and after that he clobbered me, of course.
That he's even in the match is a good sign he's about to win it. He's too
old to be messing around, and too talented to dismiss.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 05:48:11
From:
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
Well, I think Kamsky might be a day late and a dollar short.
I believe we should be keeping an eye on Magnus Carlsen as the next
super talent.
Mike Petersen
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 10:59:45
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
> Well, I think Kamsky might be a day late and a dollar short.
More like right on time. He rebuilt his game from scratch too. Did what I
did more or less, after a layoff, only at a level about 700 points highe.
His age and layoff won't harm him.
> I believe we should be keeping an eye on Magnus Carlsen as the next
> super talent.
The superkiddies will bust, they just have more book info to prop up their
ratings until they get to 2600.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2008 23:10:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 14, 12:01 am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> I think Gata's ELO is 27I5 ?
> Tops ELO i think is 2850 ?
>
> Gata will have to be at his best in every game.
>
> Top can be a little off and still be powerful ...
Kramnik: 2799
Anand: 2799
Topalov: 2780
Kamsky: 2726
Maybe somebody could plot the trends,
showing who is improving and who is
going down? Me, I'm sinking... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2008 23:03:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
On Feb 13, 10:34 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> He's the strongest player I ever played against (Kamsky), plus he has now
> finished his education and returned to his previous form.
>
> Never saw a player with anything close to his natural talent
Natural talent? This "kid" was practically
forced to study chess, night and day, by
his evil father, Rustam Kamsky. Many
years ago, all they talked about in Chess
Lies magazine was his mean daddy, and
how Gata was a victim (and how anyone
who got in daddy's way got beaten up).
I'm glad someone from the U.S.A. is in
contention again, but let's not get our
facts all out of whack over it; like most
really strong players, GK got good by
studying chess a lot. A lot!
-- hep blot
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2008 08:41:39
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
>> He's the strongest player I ever played against (Kamsky), plus he has now
>> finished his education and returned to his previous form.
>>
>> Never saw a player with anything close to his natural talent
>
> Natural talent? This "kid" was practically
> forced to study chess, night and day, by
> his evil father, Rustam Kamsky.
That's not EXACTLY how it went down, and regardless, his dad isn't forcing
him now, is he?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2008 21:01:27
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
I think Gata's ELO is 27I5 ?
Tops ELO i think is 2850 ?
Gata will have to be at his best in every game.
Top can be a little off and still be powerful ...
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2008 20:56:04
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Kamsky should beat Topalov
|
I hope your right , i want Gata to win ..
The thing is Top saved that knight sacrifice for 3 years when he
sprung it on Karmank in that last tournament ..Top won the game too ...
Gata has to be ready for any strange move Top mite make .
Will Gata vs Top and Kram vs Anand be going on at the same time ? I am
pumped up for these games ..
|
|
