Zahier, this is the last time that I adress to you, because I'm not interested in debating anything with you (chess or anything). But the fact is, your behavior is not acceptable in my point of view. Since I have more things to do with my life than arguing on internet or feeding someone's ego, I'll just add this and close this discussion from my part. Thanks.
@phlegm
Well, if we are talking about chess, we are talking about being objective. I am an average GM and a 2650+ would defeat me easily in Rapid and Standard games, but hardly in blitz (3+2, or bullet -online chess-) that's a fact and I live my life without complexes nor sadness.
Another fact is that @justthere is talking about chess and history legend like he was a wise-chess-history person when he does not prove even to avoid a simple checkmate with enough time.
I am not talking about his unknown body, sexual behaviour or other ways to humillate someone through internet with the plan to hurt. I am talking about chess, because I like chess and how objective it is.
Well, if we are talking about chess, we are talking about being objective. I am an average GM and a 2650+ would defeat me easily in Rapid and Standard games, but hardly in blitz (3+2, or bullet -online chess-) that's a fact and I live my life without complexes nor sadness.
Another fact is that @justthere is talking about chess and history legend like he was a wise-chess-history person when he does not prove even to avoid a simple checkmate with enough time.
I am not talking about his unknown body, sexual behaviour or other ways to humillate someone through internet with the plan to hurt. I am talking about chess, because I like chess and how objective it is.
i like how gm zahier manages to communicate with people that are obv offended by zahier for no apparent reason. Since he is a GM i obv respect his opinion more than some amateur, when we are talking about and around chess. I am always here to be verbaly abused by him and other GMs anyway if they like to.
@GM Zahier '' I am an average GM and a 2650+ would defeat me easily in Rapid and Standard games, but hardly in blitz (3+2, or bullet -online chess-) that's a fact and I live my life without complexes nor sadness. ''
Would you play bullet vs Nakamura, and when he wins ''hardly'' in the ratio about 100:2 (probably +-1), would you like someone to post that on the forum and use it as a joker card in random chess discussion?
I agree about the Carlsen-Karjakin part, but posting the game of @justthere in the forum and use it as an argument just to mock him is pathetic.
Would you play bullet vs Nakamura, and when he wins ''hardly'' in the ratio about 100:2 (probably +-1), would you like someone to post that on the forum and use it as a joker card in random chess discussion?
I agree about the Carlsen-Karjakin part, but posting the game of @justthere in the forum and use it as an argument just to mock him is pathetic.
people who got checkmated even once in history of lichess should not have the right to comment on forums or use the chat, basically any kind of input by their keyboard should not be accepted from lichess, if they press a keyboard button (intentionally or not) with a lichess tab open they should get a yellow card, next button press equals a closed account, one less parasite on lichess, world becomes a better place
@cheapTricks: To be fair, whatever you might think of the requirement to attend the press conference, that was in the contract the players and their managers agreed to.
To agree to something, whatever you might think of it, and then ignore it when it suits you is just poor behavior.
Yes, they're under a lot of stress, and yes, they take losses, especially on a stage like this, extremely hard.
Still, they should be professional about it. Having a stressful job is not a valid justification to break the rules laid out in the employee handbook.
We can rationalize it however we'd like, but ultimately this is what happened:
1) Carlsen agreed to some rules by agreeing to a contract where he gets oodles of money
2) Carlsen gets upset for losing a game, and decides to break the rules he agreed to.
That's a mistake on his part, period, in the same way blunders are blunders, whether induced by stress/time trouble or simply the result of lack of knowledge/right thinking.
At any rate, on that note, I've liked the recaps here at lichess very much so far, but the annotations for this one are bit off.
c5 is just a blunder, however clever the point might be. It definitely shouldn't be !?.
Also, white's h4 at the end is not really a blunder. It takes the position from mate in 33 to mate in 13, so yeah, it speeds up the loss, but the game was already lost.
Qe6?? is the real objective blunder, although as several annotators pointed out, once Ne5 was allowed the position was very difficult to defend (objectively probably drawn, SF at depth 55 or so had it at 0.00; that's no guarantee, but makes it seem likely).
To agree to something, whatever you might think of it, and then ignore it when it suits you is just poor behavior.
Yes, they're under a lot of stress, and yes, they take losses, especially on a stage like this, extremely hard.
Still, they should be professional about it. Having a stressful job is not a valid justification to break the rules laid out in the employee handbook.
We can rationalize it however we'd like, but ultimately this is what happened:
1) Carlsen agreed to some rules by agreeing to a contract where he gets oodles of money
2) Carlsen gets upset for losing a game, and decides to break the rules he agreed to.
That's a mistake on his part, period, in the same way blunders are blunders, whether induced by stress/time trouble or simply the result of lack of knowledge/right thinking.
At any rate, on that note, I've liked the recaps here at lichess very much so far, but the annotations for this one are bit off.
c5 is just a blunder, however clever the point might be. It definitely shouldn't be !?.
Also, white's h4 at the end is not really a blunder. It takes the position from mate in 33 to mate in 13, so yeah, it speeds up the loss, but the game was already lost.
Qe6?? is the real objective blunder, although as several annotators pointed out, once Ne5 was allowed the position was very difficult to defend (objectively probably drawn, SF at depth 55 or so had it at 0.00; that's no guarantee, but makes it seem likely).
Vishwanathan Anand won similarly after Drawing 8 games , Won 9th . But Kasparov won the Match by winning 4 games out of 5 .
Lets see ! I am very excited .
What are your thoughts guys ?
Lets see ! I am very excited .
What are your thoughts guys ?
Karjakin family to feed. I'm rooting for Karjakin.
lOl @ ujcn
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.