Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:08 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24850 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:00 am 
Offline
Flyweight

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:39 am
Posts: 21
To Enigma , I guess I did not complete my statement. When I said beating Carlsen , I mean beating him in match for the world championship, not in a one on one game. And that certainly is not a 50/50 chance for any of those GMs which I predicted as having zero chances, including "your boy" , So. I based it on their strenght and track records on one on one matches where they play a series of games against each other at different time speeds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline
Middleweight

Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Posts: 567
Location: Boxing Gym
TheEnigma wrote:
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
Champion Magnus Is so good I don't see anybody beatiing him in the next 4-5 years. Here are the chances of some of the top GMs:
Aronian- small chance
Nakamura- miniscule chance
Liren- no chance
Caruana- no chance
So- no chance
Kramnik- no chance
Karjakin- no chance

You may be right in your conjectures, but according to the 50-50-90 rule:

Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there’s a 90 percent probability you’ll get it wrong. :lol:
Ha ha ha, you got it right bro!

Besides, Wesley has surprised the world so many times, that nobody can literally rule out his chances.


And before we forget, there's a certain someone who picked "our boy" as the most dangerous challenger to Carlsen himself. The opinion of a former World Chess Champion, one of the game's greats, certainly has heavier weight than some of the other opinions here, to be honest.

Quote:
On Carlsen’s most formidable opponent

COWEN: One final question I forgot. Who is the most likely challenger to Magnus Carlsen this next time around?

KASPAROV: Considering the logic of the world championship history, Magnus should face opposition from a younger player, or the same age. So I would say there are three players that, I guess, could challenge him. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, I would rate him as least probable among the three. Second, Caruana, and the most likely, Wesley So.

The reason I put Wesley ahead of two others is that he has phenomenal concentration, absolutely phenomenal, and that’s very important. These days, concentration trumps everything. I would put it on top of other things, though he’s a very, very good player. I think that he might be the most dangerous for Magnus.

COWEN: Because he has nothing to lose, he feels?

KASPAROV: No, because his concentration could overboard Magnus. Magnus’s concentration was always his strength. He was always very concentrated. He could mobilize all his resources for the game. We saw Magnus could feel…despite again I guess So has to qualify for the Candidates; he still has to win it.

But against Wesley So, Magnus could have some serious problems in reading his opponent, and also messing up his energy. So could reflect. I think his match with Caruana could be also uncertain, and if Vachier-Lagrave makes some improvements, more psychological improvements, he could be also dangerous. He’s the same age; Caruana is younger. So is even younger than Caruana.

So I would bet on these three as one of the Magnus challengers, ranking them in the following order: So, Caruana, MVL.

Link here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 3120
Location: Piero Pelù
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
To Enigma , I guess I did not complete my statement. When I said beating Carlsen , I mean beating him in match for the world championship, not in a one on one game. And that certainly is not a 50/50 chance for any of those GMs which I predicted as having zero chances, including "your boy" , So. I based it on their strenght and track records on one on one matches where they play a series of games against each other at different time speeds.


brad, kung ang turing mo kay Wesley ay "your boy", baka mas ok refrain from posting negative comments or mga pasaring na nag-u-undermine sa efforts ni Wes.....base naman sa title ng thread, pangsuporta ang layunin dito, turing namin kay Wes, "our boy".....suggestion lang naman, hopefully maging makulit ka pa para mga mods na ang bahala sa yo :biglaugh:

siyanga pala, eto si Pichay baka interested ka

Image
Quote:
Photos from a GMA News Online screen grab show Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert ‘Ace’ Barbers pointing a finger at Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay following a heated exchange over a motion during a House panel hearing on Charter change. Pichay shoved Barbers then stood up but was restrained before a fistfight could break out.


Pichay pleads not guilty to criminal raps over anomalous chess tourney
GMANews wrote:

Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay Jr. pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges filed against him over his alleged misuse of P1.5 million of Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) funds to sponsor a chess tournament in 2010.

Pichay entered the plea during his arraignment before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division on Thursday.





Pichay, along with former LWUA administrator Daniel Landingin, former deputy acting administrator Wilfredo Feleo, and former senior deputy administrator Emmanuel Malicdem were all charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Pichay was also charged with violation of Section 7 (a) of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Based on the Ombudsman investigation, Pichay, allegedly in conspiracy with Landingin, Feleo and Malicdem, approved in August 2010 the release of P1.5 million to the National Chess Federation of the Philippines (NCFP) as sponsorship grant for the 2nd Chairman Prospero Pichay Jr. Cup International Chess Championship.

The Ombudsman said the sponsorship grant was approved and facilitated by the LWUA Board despite its earlier memorandum suspending sponsorships to sports and cultural activities, in order for the agency to better finance its operation expenditures.

However, in an interview with reporters after his arraignment, Pichay insisted that they did not violate any law as they were only promoting sports.

"I believe we did not violate any law because even the Constitution promotes sports. National Chess Federation is a national sports association being supported by the government," Pichay said.

"In fact, we are encouraged not only in all government agencies but including government corporations to support sports," he added.

Pichay said he found the Ombudsman's filing "very peculiar," given that they were only supporting sports.

"In fact, because of my leadership in NCFP, a Filipino is now number two in the world in chess. We should be proud of that achievement," he said.

Moreover, Pichay insisted that he did not commit an ethical violation.

"It's not unethical. It can only be unethical if I had personal benefits. I did not have personal benefits at all because the money went to the tournament. And as I said, government agencies are being encouraged to support sports," he said.

Pichay is hoping that the trial will proceed following his arraignment so that the truth will come out.

"I don't really mind being arraigned today so that the proper hearing will now proceed and we will be able to ferret out the truth," he said.

Pichay had earlier sought the court's nod to dismiss his case but was denied in a resolution promulgated February 13.

The court set the preliminary conference of his case on March 9. —KG, GMA News
:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Litfiba


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:38 am 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 435
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
To Enigma , I guess I did not complete my statement. When I said beating Carlsen , I mean beating him in match for the world championship, not in a one on one game. And that certainly is not a 50/50 chance for any of those GMs which I predicted as having zero chances, including "your boy" , So. I based it on their strenght and track records on one on one matches where they play a series of games against each other at different time speeds.

The phrase “our boy” is the closest translation (albeit in a loose sense) I can think of for the idiomatic expression “ang manok natin”.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying, but I was only quoting the 50-50-90 rule in jest. The 50-50 chance I mentioned en passant does not refer to the odds in match play between Carlsen and any of those you suggested. It was meant to refer to your ‘act of guessing’. The point is that even though we have equal chances of getting our guesses right (only two possible outcomes – winning or not winning the world championship), there is greater likelihood that we get our conjectures wrong.

In mathematical parlance: Whereas ‘chances’ of an event taking place are merely opinions, ‘probability’ is the mathematical measurement of that chance -- telling us the fractional likelihood that something will happen.

Finally,
“For people who speak the language of mathematics, no explanation is necessary; for people who don’t speak the language of mathematics, no explanation is possible.”

That’s the truth, and it will set us all free... :lol:

_________________
Clouds come floating into my life, no longer to carry rain or usher storm, but to add color to my sunset sky. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:17 am 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:45 am
Posts: 3113
Location: sa Kamatisan
TheEnigma wrote:
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
To Enigma , I guess I did not complete my statement. When I said beating Carlsen , I mean beating him in match for the world championship, not in a one on one game. And that certainly is not a 50/50 chance for any of those GMs which I predicted as having zero chances, including "your boy" , So. I based it on their strenght and track records on one on one matches where they play a series of games against each other at different time speeds.

The phrase “our boy” is the closest translation (albeit in a loose sense) I can think of for the idiomatic expression “ang manok natin”.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying, but I was only quoting the 50-50-90 rule in jest. The 50-50 chance I mentioned en passant does not refer to the odds in match play between Carlsen and any of those you suggested. It was meant to refer to your ‘act of guessing’. The point is that even though we have equal chances of getting our guesses right (only two possible outcomes – winning or not winning the world championship), there is greater likelihood that we get our conjectures wrong.

In mathematical parlance: Whereas ‘chances’ of an event taking place are merely opinions, ‘probability’ is the mathematical measurement of that chance -- telling us the fractional likelihood that something will happen.

Finally,
“For people who speak the language of mathematics, no explanation is necessary; for people who don’t speak the language of mathematics, no explanation is possible.”

That’s the truth, and it will set us all free... :lol:


Someone just his a$$ spanked :lol:

_________________
____________
_________
______
____
Cowards hide behind anonymity
Live Responsibly!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 3120
Location: Piero Pelù
Kamatis wrote:
TheEnigma wrote:
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
To Enigma , I guess I did not complete my statement. When I said beating Carlsen , I mean beating him in match for the world championship, not in a one on one game. And that certainly is not a 50/50 chance for any of those GMs which I predicted as having zero chances, including "your boy" , So. I based it on their strenght and track records on one on one matches where they play a series of games against each other at different time speeds.

The phrase “our boy” is the closest translation (albeit in a loose sense) I can think of for the idiomatic expression “ang manok natin”.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying, but I was only quoting the 50-50-90 rule in jest. The 50-50 chance I mentioned en passant does not refer to the odds in match play between Carlsen and any of those you suggested. It was meant to refer to your ‘act of guessing’. The point is that even though we have equal chances of getting our guesses right (only two possible outcomes – winning or not winning the world championship), there is greater likelihood that we get our conjectures wrong.

In mathematical parlance: Whereas ‘chances’ of an event taking place are merely opinions, ‘probability’ is the mathematical measurement of that chance -- telling us the fractional likelihood that something will happen.

Finally,
“For people who speak the language of mathematics, no explanation is necessary; for people who don’t speak the language of mathematics, no explanation is possible.”

That’s the truth, and it will set us all free... :lol:


Someone just his a$$ spanked :lol:

sa me utak ansakitsakit niyan, pero kung medyo mentally-challenged di yan tatalaban :lol:

I'm betting on the latter ak ak ak :biglaugh:

_________________
Litfiba


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1092
Location: In exile
I'm sure I've read all of these before in different sports. Starting with chess, during Kasparov's time, people would say that there was no chance of unseating him as world champion; but he was replaced by Anand, and now Carlsen. In tennis, people would say that Federer was unbeatable when he had strings of championships year after year, but no. In golf, people used to say that Tiger Woods was the real deal. But look where he is now. Even in boxing. People used to say Pacman had no chance against Hatton, Dela Hoya, and others, but we know what happened.

That's why I agree with the saying that the only thing that doesn't change in this world is change itself. To say that other players have no chance at all of beating the current champion shows ignorance of history and the state of things. We don't simply base our conclusions on the end result. As they say, each game is an entirely new and different ball game. There are so many variables to consider and even if the champion maintained those variables, chances are that other players could improve their variables and defeat him. But I'm sure that the champion may also have his day offs and may not always be 100% in good or winning condition most of the time, that's why he also loses even against supposedly 'weak' opponents. What more if he is up against supergrandmasters?

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:06 am 
Offline
Featherweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 71
Still not the time... Classical: nil ... Fast times:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/carlsen ... ts-so-1496

_________________
I'm inviting you to join the community of Employers and Virtual Workers only at: http://www.facebook.com/vebamarketing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:33 pm
Posts: 40443
Location: The more I see of man, the more I like dogs. ~Mme. de Staël
TheEnigma wrote:
DTruthshallmakeufree wrote:
Champion Magnus Is so good I don't see anybody beatiing him in the next 4-5 years. Here are the chances of some of the top GMs:
Aronian- small chance
Nakamura- miniscule chance
Liren- no chance
Caruana- no chance
So- no chance
Kramnik- no chance
Karjakin- no chance

You may be right in your conjectures, but according to the 50-50-90 rule:

Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there’s a 90 percent probability you’ll get it wrong. :lol:


Pagbigyan mo na si sourgrape Pechay. Di yan makamove on hanggang ngayon. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
~ Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 435
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
rizalincarnate wrote:
I'm sure I've read all of these before in different sports. Starting with chess, during Kasparov's time, people would say that there was no chance of unseating him as world champion; but he was replaced by Anand, and now Carlsen. In tennis, people would say that Federer was unbeatable when he had strings of championships year after year, but no. In golf, people used to say that Tiger Woods was the real deal. But look where he is now. Even in boxing. People used to say Pacman had no chance against Hatton, Dela Hoya, and others, but we know what happened.

That's why I agree with the saying that the only thing that doesn't change in this world is change itself. To say that other players have no chance at all of beating the current champion shows ignorance of history and the state of things. We don't simply base our conclusions on the end result. As they say, each game is an entirely new and different ball game. There are so many variables to consider and even if the champion maintained those variables, chances are that other players could improve their variables and defeat him. But I'm sure that the champion may also have his day offs and may not always be 100% in good or winning condition most of the time, that's why he also loses even against supposedly 'weak' opponents. What more if he is up against supergrandmasters?

Very good point, Bro Rizal, but one thing: it was actually Kramnik who dethroned Kasparov in 2000.

To recall, Kasparov broke away from the world chess federation (FIDE) with Nigel Short in 1993. They formed the ‘now-defunct’ PCA (Professional Chess Association). As a consequence, Garry was not recognized in 2000 as champion by FIDE, but the rest of the chess world continued to acknowledge him as the best player at the time. Therefore, some organization (with the help of commercial sponsorships) was created to organize a match for Kasparov vs. Kramnik (the highest rated opponent on the FIDE rankings).

Only 16 games were to be played in the match, with Kasparov retaining his title in case of a tie. From what we have gathered about the event, Kramnik took an early lead by winning game 2, this was followed by 7 draws until Kramnik scored again in game 10. In the remaining games, Kasparov could not break through Kramnik's super-solid defenses, notably the ‘Berlin Wall’ of the Ruy Lopez. The rest was history.

In 2006 the world chess championship was reunified, and it was only in 2008 that Anand won the unified title in match play versus Kramnik.

_________________
Clouds come floating into my life, no longer to carry rain or usher storm, but to add color to my sunset sky. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 435
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
barudo wrote:
Still not the time... Classical: nil ... Fast times:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/carlsen ... ts-so-1496

Admittedly, Carlsen is some couple of steps ahead of our boy in the realm of faster time controls. However, that latest encounter of theirs was online speed chess where several factors would come into play affecting one’s performance; for example, manual dexterity in handling the mouse, ability to stay focused under prolonged exposure to the glare of the computer screen, and so on.

This is not to invent excuses, but I guess the final result could have been a little different had they played over the actual board. For sure, Wesley has still a lot to learn and improve upon in this category of ‘lightning’ chess.

_________________
Clouds come floating into my life, no longer to carry rain or usher storm, but to add color to my sunset sky. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:15 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:22 am
Posts: 125303
Location: Bacoor, Cavite or M.M. PACMAN Believer #160 (PB-0160)
Image
Aronian, Mamedyarov, Caruana, So, Kramnik, Ding Liren, Grischuk, Karjakin

Mamedyarov & Grischuk complete the 8-cast in the Candidates Tournament

_________________
Micah 6:8 (NIRV)

The Lord has shown you what is good.
He has told you what he requires of you.
You must act with justice.
You must love to show mercy.
And you must be humble as you live in the sight of your God.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:23 pm
Posts: 4270
rizalincarnate wrote:
I'm sure I've read all of these before in different sports. Starting with chess, during Kasparov's time, people would say that there was no chance of unseating him as world champion; but he was replaced by Anand, and now Carlsen. In tennis, people would say that Federer was unbeatable when he had strings of championships year after year, but no. In golf, people used to say that Tiger Woods was the real deal. But look where he is now. Even in boxing. People used to say Pacman had no chance against Hatton, Dela Hoya, and others, but we know what happened.

That's why I agree with the saying that the only thing that doesn't change in this world is change itself. To say that other players have no chance at all of beating the current champion shows ignorance of history and the state of things. We don't simply base our conclusions on the end result. As they say, each game is an entirely new and different ball game. There are so many variables to consider and even if the champion maintained those variables, chances are that other players could improve their variables and defeat him. But I'm sure that the champion may also have his day offs and may not always be 100% in good or winning condition most of the time, that's why he also loses even against supposedly 'weak' opponents. What more if he is up against supergrandmasters?


Kinumpara ba naman ang boxing sa chess. Andaming pagkakaiba, you might as well read this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=216713&start=15

Anand didn’t dethrone kasparov, Kramnik did when Kasparov was already losing interest in the sport and getting more involved with politics, and participating less in elite tournaments.

Remember the time when Shirov was the challenger for Kasparov? Their head-to-head record was so one-sided, no sponsor was interested and it eventually fell apart in the negotiation stage. Upsets in chess, i’m speaking of a long match, is so slim. Only one legend i remember pulling off the improbable was Alekhine against Capablanca. Alekhine had to change his style and his lifestyle. However, partly to blame was Capablanca’s overconfindence, partying endlessly disregarding preparation because he thought he had Alekhine’s numbers.

So is a promising star. Young and so talented. But chess isn’t all about skills. Character and mental toughness are huge factors to consider when facing a champion who is at his peak and holds a wide winning score against him. One thing i’m not sure about So is his mindset, his grit in dealing with Carlsen. Even he, himself, admitted that he was intimidated by Carlsen. God, it showed in most of their games, like So is suddenly a different player everytime. This time, So will not be facing a disinterested and party animal like Kasparov and capablanca, carlsen is consistently efficient and remorseless in high stake tournaments. In the future, maybe So can make some drastic changes for his own good. Right now, it’ll be a repeat of Kasparov vs Short title showdown if ever...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1092
Location: In exile
Junorz wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:
I'm sure I've read all of these before in different sports. Starting with chess, during Kasparov's time, people would say that there was no chance of unseating him as world champion; but he was replaced by Anand, and now Carlsen. In tennis, people would say that Federer was unbeatable when he had strings of championships year after year, but no. In golf, people used to say that Tiger Woods was the real deal. But look where he is now. Even in boxing. People used to say Pacman had no chance against Hatton, Dela Hoya, and others, but we know what happened.

That's why I agree with the saying that the only thing that doesn't change in this world is change itself. To say that other players have no chance at all of beating the current champion shows ignorance of history and the state of things. We don't simply base our conclusions on the end result. As they say, each game is an entirely new and different ball game. There are so many variables to consider and even if the champion maintained those variables, chances are that other players could improve their variables and defeat him. But I'm sure that the champion may also have his day offs and may not always be 100% in good or winning condition most of the time, that's why he also loses even against supposedly 'weak' opponents. What more if he is up against supergrandmasters?


Kinumpara ba naman ang boxing sa chess. Andaming pagkakaiba, you might as well read this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=216713&start=15

Anand didn’t dethrone kasparov, Kramnik did when Kasparov was already losing interest in the sport and getting more involved with politics, and participating less in elite tournaments.

Remember the time when Shirov was the challenger for Kasparov? Their head-to-head record was so one-sided, no sponsor was interested and it eventually fell apart in the negotiation stage. Upsets in chess, i’m speaking of a long match, is so slim. Only one legend i remember pulling off the improbable was Alekhine against Capablanca. Alekhine had to change his style and his lifestyle. However, partly to blame was Capablanca’s overconfindence, partying endlessly disregarding preparation because he thought he had Alekhine’s numbers.

So is a promising star. Young and so talented. But chess isn’t all about skills. Character and mental toughness are huge factors to consider when facing a champion who is at his peak and holds a wide winning score against him. One thing i’m not sure about So is his mindset, his grit in dealing with Carlsen. Even he, himself, admitted that he was intimidated by Carlsen. God, it showed in most of their games, like So is suddenly a different player everytime. This time, So will not be facing a disinterested and party animal like Kasparov and capablanca, carlsen is consistently efficient and remorseless in high stake tournaments. In the future, maybe So can make some drastic changes for his own good. Right now, it’ll be a repeat of Kasparov vs Short title showdown if ever...



I'm not comparing chess and boxing. You failed in reading comprehension if you interpreted it that way. Bro. Enigma has already explained above that Kramnik, not Anand, dethroned Kasparov. By the way, I was not pointing out who dethroned whom but the history of champions in any sports. That there will come a time that someone will surely beat them and replace them as champion. If you say that Carlsen is unbeatable now because he is in his prime, then you did not learn from history.

As I have already explained above, there are several variables or factors to be considered, and you mentioned one of them: loss of interest. This is but normal if you have been winning most of the time and are no longer mentally challenged. You also mentioned mental toughness for So. But it also applies to Carlsen and anybody else. That's why to win consistently, aside from the skill, you have to have complete control of these variables. Now, if Carlsen suddenly lost interest, or shall we say, threatened by someone that could affect his concentration, then there would be a high probability that he'd lose. As Christ said, we don't know what will happen tomorrow, let alone next month or next year.

I also noticed that Wes moves slowly in blitz and spends too much time analyzing. I have explained before that even a non-master player like me have beaten higher-ranked players in blitz (3 to 5 min) and I have proven it on chess.com where I have beaten players as high as 1900 to 2000. I only have to be consistent with my attack to gain time advantage and win. If I can do it, Wes can do better because of his status. He can try new lines when his opponent is under time pressure and not analyze too much that would make his opponent to equalize on time.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:25 pm 
Offline
Flyweight

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:39 am
Posts: 21
To Enigma: so when you were caught with your pants down on your 50-50-90 rule suddenly you were just saying it in "jest", LOL. You also said it applies to my "act of guessing". Well, I was not guessing as I based it on the games and track records of these 5 GMs ( Liren, Caruana, So, Kramnik Karjakin) against " my boy", Carlsen which I had been closely following. So your guess that I was guessing has a zero probability. Again, unless something bad happened to him, like his health deteriorating , getting invoved in a bad accident or something, I don't see any of these 5 GMs beating Carlsen for the championship for the next 4 or maybe even 5 years. After that anything can happen and I am not saying that he will be champion forever.
BTW my boy beat Liren at the recent Showdown of Champion match at a lopsided score of 67-25 and spanked So at the Speed Chess match about a week ago also at a lopsided score of 27.5 - 9.5.
Finally , dont be using cliche statement about the need or non-need for math explanation. This statement had been used many times and was originally made about believers /non believers of God in the movie, " Song of Bernadette." At least come out with something original. Otherwise you sound ( or look) boring.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24850 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group