|
|
#11
03-12-2005, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Garry Kasparov
[ QUOTE ]
Kasparov loses all of his edge in the game of poker. Do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] if any college student with an iq of 100 who knows how to read can be a winning player, there is no reason why he couldnt. The real question is if he could beat the big games like sklansky'(I believe its 300-600) or the bellagio one 
|
|
#12
03-12-2005, 03:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Kasparov loses all of his edge in the game of poker. Do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] if any college student with an iq of 100 who knows how to read can be a winning player, there is no reason why he couldnt. The real question is if he could beat the big games like sklansky'(I believe its 300-600) or the bellagio one [/ QUOTE ] Did I say Kasparov could not be a winning player? Anyone who dedicates countless hours to study and analyze the game can become a winning player, I'm using the term winning player loosely. If you're up $1 from where you started, you're a winning player. Anyway the point is, Kasparov dominates at chess because he has memorized every possible variation at any position in the game. Chess is a game of repetition, almost every board position has been studied it's a game of waiting for your opponent to make one mistake. That mistake may not be evident right away, but ten moves later you know it was made. Poker is different because Kasparov can only put you on a range of hands, thus he's limited in deciding which approach to take to force you into making a mistake. Without full knowledge, he will eventually make mistakes. There is no luck factor in chess, it's a true competition of brain-power.
|
|
#15
03-12-2005, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
It's coming back to me as I look at this game after a lot of years.
The "monster" move was Fischer's last, the 21...Qd7, when Byrne resigned. The analysts were stunned, assuming Byrne was way ahead the entire game. It wasn't until they saw the 23...Re1!! that they realized Byrne was completely lost.
|
|
#16
03-12-2005, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
Would you mind enlightening a total novice here?
I don't understand why black is ahead, let alone why the game is over...
|
|
#17
03-12-2005, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
My favorite Fischer game is this one:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361 It was also against Byrne in 1956 when Fischer was only 13 years old. He made a really nasty Queen sacrifice
|
|
#19
03-12-2005, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
It's pretty esoteric at this point, but . . .
. . . I always thought Anatoly Karpov was the epitome of the book-knowledge automaton at the chess board. Not a lot of flair or creativity -- he just was better prepped than his opponent and ground out victories for the USSR. The point I was trying to make it that Kasparov has a higher degree of cunning and craft that might transfer to the poker table. If your point is that chess and poker are profoundly different games, I'll gladly agree. I've played em both competitively for a long time. You probably have, too. If our debate is over which chess players might be temperamentally suited to, oh, say, high-stakes heads up play, I still think Kasparov brings more to the table than most.
|
|
#20
03-12-2005, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
[ QUOTE ]
I always thought Anatoly Karpov was the epitome of the book-knowledge automaton at the chess board. [/ QUOTE ] Karpov was remarkably creative but not in an exciting tactical way. Karpov's style of "active prophalaxis" was innovative but difficult even for his top rivals in the late '70s and early '80s to get a handle on. Remember, Karpov had the best tournament record of any world champion. I also think the competition with Karpov is the #1 reason Kasparov became so great. Karpov completely outclass Kasparov for most of their first World Championship clash. It took months of Kasparov playing drawish chess before he could get a handle on Kaprov.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
