randomGuy Posted April 5 Posted April 5 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: And before the delicate snowflakes start getting hissy fits over me calling Sindarov a Mongoloid mixed-breed -- I had the great privilege of meeting Bob Bowman, coach of the immortal Michael Phelps, in a corporate session. He kept saying how deep, burning hatred for the opponent is rocket fuel for killer instinct. That’s exactly what made Phelps the greatest Olympian who ever lived. So yeah, I’ll keep the hate, even as a fan. Better to be that and win than be a " good, cultured and pleasant " Indian who almost always comes 2nd and lacks killer instinct. Have you seen the wrestlers esp the Japanese, iranian - Play by the rule , respect and bow down to the opponent with folded hands, be champions at wrestling? This is how it should be imo, Instead of carrying hate in the heart. If you believe you are going to win, then the opponent, the crowd, the organizers, all are there to make it a spectacle for your win. So one should be thankful to all of them. I think it will positively effect your performance.
rangeelaraja Posted April 5 Posted April 5 26 minutes ago, randomGuy said: Have you seen the wrestlers esp the Japanese, iranian - Play by the rule , respect and bow down to the opponent with folded hands, be champions at wrestling? This is how it should be imo, Instead of carrying hate in the heart. If you believe you are going to win, then the opponent, the crowd, the organizers, all are there to make it a spectacle for your win. So one should be thankful to all of them. I think it will positively effect your performance. Good for you if you think that helps a sportsman’s killer instinct. We will always remain well behaved losers with the occasional wins with this mindset. This is why Anand lost badly to both Kasparov and Carlsen. The same Kasparov was beaten by Kramnik. Kasparov has said many times that the difference between him and Anand was not chess ability - it was mentality. Why chess - let’s look at cricket. Give me a Kohli any day of the week who made the Aussies whimper by giving back 2x they gave. We beat the Aussies in Australia back to back and they completely lost the mental edge. Compare that to the era of Sachin, Dravid etc. Bowman coached the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. I will take his approach any day of the week. I can’t explain the impact of his words on the mindset - hating your opponent and preparing like a mad gladiator is what separates - the best of the best from merely good competitors.
randomGuy Posted April 5 Posted April 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: Good for you if you think that helps a sportsman’s killer instinct. We will always remain well behaved losers with the occasional wins with this mindset. This is why Anand lost badly to both Kasparov and Carlsen. The same Kasparov was beaten by Kramnik. Kasparov has said many times that the difference between him and Anand was not chess ability - it was mentality. Why chess - let’s look at cricket. Give me a Kohli any day of the week who made the Aussies whimper by giving back 2x they gave. We beat the Aussies in Australia back to back and they completely lost the mental edge. Compare that to the era of Sachin, Dravid etc. Bowman coached the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. I will take his approach any day of the week. I can’t explain the impact of his words on the mindset - hating your opponent and preparing like a mad gladiator is what separates - the best of the best from merely good competitors. Except Kasparov, in chess , all champions have been decent...do you think carlsen beat anand (twice), fabi, nepo etc. through psychology? No. Topalov tried that against anand and lost. Karpov, anand, carlsen, ding, gukesh etc. do not believe in hating their opponents. I gave you example of wrestling of japan and Iran. Do you think usain bolt smashed all those records by hating his opponents.. that's lol worthy. I would imagine in wrestling your $hitty mind games and words are more likely to backfire as you will be having all the hate and negative emotions in your heart and your opponent with love and positive emotions and switch gears immediately and smash you to bits and you will be left huffing and puffing with all your hate. In cricket, mind games would work from time to time, is advisable for some, not for everyone. As also in chess. But mindgames is different from hating your opponent. Mindgames might simply be sowing an alternate thought in your opponent's minds. Edited April 5 by randomGuy
rangeelaraja Posted April 5 Posted April 5 (edited) 19 minutes ago, randomGuy said: Except Kasparov, in chess , all champions have been decent...do you think carlsen beat anand (twice), fabi, nepo etc. through psychology? No. Topalov tried that against anand and lost. Karpov, anand, carlsen, ding, gukesh etc. do not believe in hating their opponents. I gave you example of wrestling of japan and Iran. Do you think usain bolt smashed all those records by hating his opponents.. that's lol worthy. I would imagine in wrestling your $hitty mind games and words are more likely to backfire as you will be having all the hate and negative emotions in your heart and your opponent with love and positive emotions and switch gears immediately and smash you to bits and you will be left huffing and puffing with all your hate. In cricket, mind games would work from time to time, is advisable for some, not for everyone. As also in chess. But mindgames is different from hating your opponent. Mindgames might simply be sowing an alternate thought in your opponent's minds. You are clueless both about the history of the game of chess and cricket and about elite level competitive sportsmanship. Carlsen declined to play the Candidates in 2012 saying the system gave unfair advantage to Anand who should go through the candidates again despite being the winner and tried to pressure FIDE and apply psychological pressure on Anand. That’s how Boris Gelfand played Anand in 2012. When FIDE did not yield to Carlsen’s tantrums and forced him to go via the candidates - what did Carlsen do ? He swayed Anand’s long time trainer Peter Nielsen to train him against Anand. Imagine someone knowing all your preparation and strategy switching to the enemy’s camp in a matter of months. What do you think this must have done to Anand’s psychology facing Carlsen for the first time with his trainer having all his details and sharing with Carlsen. https://en.chessbase.com/post/nielsen-switches-from-anand-to-carlsen You must be living under a rock if you think Carlsen ( the great chess genius that he is ) is a clean gentlemanly player after all his antics over the last few years. South Africa in their 90s man for man were a stronger team than Aus - crushing all opponents but also lost to Aus who in crunch games because they were psyched out due to Aus aggression and sledging. Aus sledged and abused and psyched out SENA teams even when they were not were not fielding their best teams. Trash talking and psyching out opponents is super common in elite North American sports. So don’t give me your bull$hit about Japanese and Iranian athletes. I will take the mental approach of someone like Bowman. who has coached the greatest Olympic athlete ever to keep crushing barriers and opponents , over loser talk. Edited April 5 by rangeelaraja
randomGuy Posted April 5 Posted April 5 (edited) ^Requoting your quote Quote He kept saying how deep, burning hatred for the opponent is rocket fuel for killer instinct. 1. I have problem with hatred approach. Even if one of the best coaches advises so. Maybe you get out of worshipping everything coming out of white man bowman's mouth, with all the regards to his achievements. 2. Mindgames do work. But anand, also a 5 time world champ, said he performed better when not playing mindgames with his opponents. So, initiating mindgames is not for everyone...then there's also, Japanese, iranian wrestlers who win fair n square with best sportmen spirit and respect given to the opponent, there's usain bolt, neeraj chopra and countless others... 3. I do support giving it back to the opponent for the mindgames he might be playing. Edited April 5 by randomGuy
rangeelaraja Posted April 5 Posted April 5 (edited) 25 minutes ago, randomGuy said: ^Requoting your quote 1. I have problem with hatred approach. Even if one of the best coaches advises so. Maybe you get out of worshipping everything coming out of white man bowman's mouth, with all the regards to his achievements. 2. Mindgames do work. But anand, also a 5 time world champ, said he performed better when not playing mindgames with his opponents. So, initiating mindgames is not for everyone...then there's also, Japanese, iranian wrestlers who win fair n square with best sportmen spirit and respect given to the opponent, there's usain bolt, neeraj chopra and countless others... 3. I do support giving it back to the opponent for the mindgames he might be playing. Don’t be a clueless moron. Bowman does executive corporate training for Fortune 100 companies - he has been the architect of US dominance in Olympics swimming over rivals from Europe, Australia, Russia and China. Even Anand/ B Ramesh got Gukesh to have Paddy Upton a “White man “ as mental conditioning coach. Same “Whiteman “ mental coach was used by Neeraj Chopra. So they must be worshiping a whiteman’/ words too right ? The more you argue on this topic, without facts the bigger the fool you make yourself to be be. The words “ hating your opponent “ serves as rocket fuel for performance - are not mine. They are Bowman’s - he says that to Fortune 100 executives in week long training sessions and gets paid a lot. Competition in sports or business at the highest level is ruthless, and cutthroat and if hate and angst can fuel that extra drive to deliver the knockout punch - as sports psychology has proven -then one chooses either to use it for beating the competition or not. And since you choose to be clueless and ignorant of the meaning of intense hate and dislike, when stakes are high here is another example Anthropic and Open Ai CEOs declining to even hold hands in a public event. This is what hatred and contempt means - and it brings out the very best when stakes are highest. Edited April 5 by rangeelaraja
randomGuy Posted April 5 Posted April 5 ^^This is bad advice you are taking. Dil me hatred lekar jiyoge ya maroge then that will be miserable for you, and you will spread misery all around as well. Your coach's 99 advices could be best but this 1 advice is patently bad. That's why I said don't worship each and everything he says. And maybe because he is white, you can't even disregard this one advice. Should not bring hatred into competition.... countless examples of no-hate ATG greats exists and quoted above.
rangeelaraja Posted April 5 Posted April 5 (edited) ^^ there is nothing personal about it. That so called “hatred” dies when you are not competing and retire. Everyone is wired differently. Sports psychology is very real and often times angst or animosity ( real or manufactured) can bring out unreal high testosterone performances. Fischer HATED the Soviet Chess establishment - he constantly accused them of colluding in tournaments and it drove his stellar performances. He single handedly ended Soviet chess dominance. That’s what angst can do. This theory was not the discovery of Bowman - he is just a strong proponent of it to bring out the best of super elite sportsmen and big corporates who operate in a ruthlessly competitive landscape where poaching top engineers for unreal sums of salary is a norm. Edited April 5 by rangeelaraja
rangeelaraja Posted April 5 Posted April 5 Coming back to Chess and Gukesh - I really hope Sindarov’s contention for the world championship which seems to be all but a formality now - really winds up Gukesh. He really needs a wake up call.
rangeelaraja Posted April 6 Posted April 6 Vishy is just a genius. He has predicted Sindarov to be the winner.
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 (edited) On 4/5/2026 at 7:42 AM, rangeelaraja said: +4 has always been the winning score in the Candidates. Always. Yet here we are, not even halfway through this goddamn tournament, and this Mongoloid mixed-breed Sindarov is already sitting pretty at +5. Gukesh has been an absolute embarrassment since winning the title - nowhere near the level a World Champion is supposed to deliver. Same old story: media tamasha, endless distractions, and those brain-dead filmy functions sucking the life out of him. What a glorious kick in the balls it would be to lose to this Sindarov mutt instead of someone like Caruana. And before the delicate snowflakes start getting hissy fits over me calling Sindarov a Mongoloid mixed-breed -- I had the great privilege of meeting Bob Bowman, coach of the immortal Michael Phelps, in a corporate session. He kept saying how deep, burning hatred for the opponent is rocket fuel for killer instinct. That’s exactly what made Phelps the greatest Olympian who ever lived. So yeah, I’ll keep the hate, even as a fan. Better to be that and win than be a " good, cultured and pleasant " Indian who almost always comes 2nd and lacks killer instinct. Nothing to do with killer instinct here. Just that Sindarov is playing the tournament of his life. Like Caruana in 2014 Sinquefield, or going back in time, Topalov in 2005 San Luis. Once in a lifetime performance, and good for him that it came in candidates. Even Caruana is unable to deal with it, what can anyone do? His prep is monster level, getting a huge edge out of opening, and almost always an hour up on time in first 20 moves, he is rarely having to think OTB which is a rarity in modern chess. If guys like Caruana and Naka are facing such ridiculous time trouble just to counter his opening, just need to appreciate the Uzbek's prep. Btw even Nodirbek was doing something similar in second half of last year, like that tournament in London, blowing apart opponents out of the opening. Kramnik is coaching the Uzbek kids and they also have Rustam Kasimdzhanov, one of the GOAT coaches and opening experts around (former chief second of both 2008-12 Anand and peak Caruana). Killer duo, with no equal in rest of the world. Gukesh has his task cut out if this is the level of opening prep he has to come against, as such he is poor in time trouble. Hope Anand chooses his team very wisely this time. Bring in a big human cluster, Svidler for Grunfield, Pragg for Italian, Adams, Leko, Polgar, hire old timers (Tukmakov may be too old now but what about Sokolov who was coaching Alireza 5 years back !!!!). Heck, if I were Gukesh, I would fall at Vishy's feet and ask him to be head coach of my team for the title match and manage my professional life till things turn around, who knows Kramnik and Rustam better than him? Edited April 8 by Gollum
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 On 4/5/2026 at 8:54 AM, randomGuy said: Have you seen the wrestlers esp the Japanese, iranian - Play by the rule , respect and bow down to the opponent with folded hands, be champions at wrestling? This is how it should be imo, Instead of carrying hate in the heart. If you believe you are going to win, then the opponent, the crowd, the organizers, all are there to make it a spectacle for your win. So one should be thankful to all of them. I think it will positively effect your performance. Agree, hate doesn't come naturally for everyone. And if you are forced to act out of character, how long can you sustain it? You will just exhaust yourself emotionally. One can always have drive in him/her without hating the opponent. randomGuy 1
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 (edited) On 4/5/2026 at 9:30 AM, rangeelaraja said: Good for you if you think that helps a sportsman’s killer instinct. We will always remain well behaved losers with the occasional wins with this mindset. This is why Anand lost badly to both Kasparov and Carlsen. The same Kasparov was beaten by Kramnik. Kasparov has said many times that the difference between him and Anand was not chess ability - it was mentality. Anand lost to Kasparov because he had to figure out everything himself. Kasaprov came from Botvinnik's school, groomed from a young age to take the crown. Anand was India's first GM (his peers were 2200s in late 80s) who had to figure out everything himself, didn't have sponsors or trainers (never mind someone like Botvinnik/Tal/Spassky as mentor) in his formative years. He didn't have proper opening till mid 2000s (Kramnik in an interview in 2000 in Sportstar said how the Russians used to laugh at Anand's opening prep in the 90s), wasn't trained in endgames like the Soviets, psychological part comes later. He lost to Carlsen because he was inferior at that stage and also huge age gap, he is practically Carlsen's dad's age, twice as old in the 2013 and 14 matches (mid 40s vs early 20s). Same Carlsen in the Joe Rogan show talked about what Anand did to him in 2008 Bonn training camp when he was his sparring partner. Also, one must remember the chess crisis he was in from late 2011 till 2014 candidates. I remember that phase very well because all 3 of my heroes, Anand, Federer, and Sachin, were going through rough periods, and I followed their careers very closely. Like you, earlier I also used to feel that Anand was mentally weak. But now my opinion has shifted completely. It is a miracle what he achieved with all odds stacked against him: lack of chess culture in India before him (unlike Ficher's case, USA was a chess superpower right from the days of Morphy till first half of 20th century, the place where he grew up had a dozen GMs), chess knowledge monopolized by Soviets (no engine era then, chess wasn't democraticized), attempts by FIDE and Russians to keep him down, lack of sponsors or support. Being the first GM of your country and also achieve all the things he did, man I still can't believe the extent of his feats. So I will be very careful in finding flaws in such a great man. Kramnik was also a product of Botvinnik's school, was in fact coached by Kasparov himself as a kid. Then handpicked by GK in the Manilla Olympiad as a 14 yo, was also his second in the 1995 match against Anand. In fact being his second gave him access to Kaspy's files, training methods, and he was able to beat him in the opening battle in 2000 with the Berlin, the most important theoretical breakthrough in modern chess. Also he had no psychological issue against Garry precisely because of how they worked together right from his young age. Anyway, he too dodged Kasparov after 2000, went 4 years without a title match, and in some of those years, he was performing worse than today's Gukesh. Anyway, Kasparov beat Kramnik's Berlin in 2001 Astana, so he started avoiding him more, ably aided by FIDE and Kremlin who by then saw GK as a politcal threat as well. On 4/5/2026 at 9:30 AM, rangeelaraja said: Why chess - let’s look at cricket. Give me a Kohli any day of the week who made the Aussies whimper by giving back 2x they gave. We beat the Aussies in Australia back to back and they completely lost the mental edge. Compare that to the era of Sachin, Dravid etc. Boss. Kohli had nothing to do with the 20-21 BGT, He ran home after Adelaide 36 all out and the calm, cool Rahane led us in next 3 tests. Also the guys who did all the heavy lifting were Pujara, Pant, Ashwin, Bumrah, Jadeja, Vihari, Washi, Thakur, Gill etc. 2018-19 Aus was very weak after the ball tampering bans, and they had no chance against our pace attack (prime Bumrah, Shami, Ishant) which reminded me of 80s West Indies....in batting, it was Pujara who did most of the lifting . Kohli's record against Aus is very overrated, did useless statpadding and whenever we needed him to stand tall, he faltered. Even 2017 BGT which was such a classic hard-fought series, Kohli scored 30 runs in 1st 3 tests and missed Dharamsala decider, once again it was Rahane who led us to victory there. I say this as a big fan of Kohli, his so called heroics against Aus are just Star Sports PR. I respect what he did in RSA 10x more than his BGT runs. Sachin, Dravid era team was the only side that time that looked GOAT Aus in the eye and played on equal terms. Sachin in 98-99, Dravid in 2001 and 2003-04. And who can forget Laxman? Compared to VVS, what has Kohli done against Aussies? Even after the daylight robbery in Sydney the way we came back to win 2008 Perth (WACA), shows so much character. They also had that steely determination, only that they kept it within, not resorting to theatrics like Kohli. Edited April 8 by Gollum
rangeelaraja Posted April 8 Posted April 8 27 minutes ago, Gollum said: Nothing to do with killer instinct here. Just that Sindarov is playing the tournament of his life. Like Caruana in 2014 Sinquefield, or going back in time, Topalov in 2005 San Luis. Once in a lifetime performance, and good for him that it came in candidates. Even Caruana is unable to deal with it, what can anyone do? His prep is monster level, getting a huge edge out of opening, and almost always an hour up on time in first 20 moves, he is rarely having to think OTB which is a rarity in modern chess. If guys like Caruana and Naka are facing such ridiculous time trouble just to counter his opening, just need to appreciate the Uzbek's prep. Btw even Nodirbek was doing something similar in second half of last year, like that tournament in London, blowing apart opponents out of the opening. Kramnik is coaching the Uzbek kids and they also have Rustam Kasimdzhanov, one of the GOAT coaches and opening experts around (former chief second of both 2008-12 Anand and peak Caruana). Killer duo, with no equal in rest of the world. Gukesh has his task cut out if this is the level of opening prep he has to come against, as such he is poor in time trouble. Hope Anand chooses his team very wisely this time. Bring in a big human cluster, Svidler for Grunfield, Pragg for Italian, Adams, Leko, Polgar, hire old timers (Tukmakov may be too old now but what about Sokolov who was coaching Alireza 5 years back !!!!). Heck, if I were Gukesh, I would fall at Vishy's feet and ask him to be head coach of my team for the title match and manage my professional life till things turn around, who knows Kramnik and Rustam better than him? Vishy has a wide range of interests and commitments to be a full time coach - even for the title match. It would mean a full time commitment for 6 months. I wonder if it would also constitute a conflict of interest since he has an official role at FIDE ( or am I misunderstanding ? ) From what i have seen and understood - in a. world chess championship preparation - the seconds works wayy harder than the players- they work on fresh ideas, little explored lines and variations that can work against the opponents preparation. It is alot of hard work. The player has to memorize the prepared lines /variations by the seconds and have the middle game and end game skills to either close out the game or defend against counterplay. And younger seconds with fresh ideas and ability to put in long hours are usually more helpful. RIchard Rapport did a phenmeonal job for Ding Liren against Gukesh. Anand can use his network and influence to assemble a formidable team of seconds for Gukesh and provide mental conditioning and sharp insights here and there. Thats as far as he would go IMO.
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 On 4/5/2026 at 11:46 AM, rangeelaraja said: You are clueless both about the history of the game of chess and cricket and about elite level competitive sportsmanship. Carlsen declined to play the Candidates in 2012 saying the system gave unfair advantage to Anand who should go through the candidates again despite being the winner and tried to pressure FIDE and apply psychological pressure on Anand. That’s how Boris Gelfand played Anand in 2012. When FIDE did not yield to Carlsen’s tantrums and forced him to go via the candidates - what did Carlsen do ? He swayed Anand’s long time trainer Peter Nielsen to train him against Anand. Imagine someone knowing all your preparation and strategy switching to the enemy’s camp in a matter of months. What do you think this must have done to Anand’s psychology facing Carlsen for the first time with his trainer having all his details and sharing with Carlsen. https://en.chessbase.com/post/nielsen-switches-from-anand-to-carlsen You must be living under a rock if you think Carlsen ( the great chess genius that he is ) is a clean gentlemanly player after all his antics over the last few years. In addition, what made Carlsen's rise so meteoric was him being coached by Kasparov in 2009-10. Both have said how that partnership worked wonders for him because of their polar opposite playing styles/approaches (Carlsen being more Karpovian). GK even contrasted that to his coaching of Nakamura and why that didn't work as well because of their similar styles. Biggest edge for Carlsen from that association was gaining GK's insights about the psychology of top players then (especially the old guard of Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Topalov against whom GK duelled 100s of times) and access to GK's opening database, the most impressive opening repertoire back then. In those 1-2 years, Carslen closed the gap in opening theory compared to Anand, Kramnik, and isn't talked about enough. What normally would have taken him a decade, he achieved in a year or two because of Kasparov's coaching. GK obviously had his own selfish ambitions there, his dislike of Anand/Kramnik and FIDE presidential bid against Kirsan (Anand, Kramnik didn't endorse Karpov or him in back to back elections, remember?). In fact both GK and MC used each other very well. I am not getting into all details back then, but after helping Anand in 2010, Kasparov offered to help Gelfand in 2012 which was shot down by the shocked Israeli. Lot of politics behind the scenes. On 4/5/2026 at 11:46 AM, rangeelaraja said: South Africa in their 90s man for man were a stronger team than Aus - crushing all opponents but also lost to Aus who in crunch games because they were psyched out due to Aus aggression and sledging. Aus sledged and abused and psyched out SENA teams even when they were not were not fielding their best teams. I don't agree here. They were 80-90% as good as Aussies, but with two exceptions who swung the edge in favor of Aussies drastically. Warne and Gilchrist, they often would be the difference between the 2 sides. Warne vs Boje/Adams/Symcox, Gilchrist vs Richardson/Boucher. Huge difference in ability/mindset there, and if you notice their rivalry back then, these two Aussies were often the difference. Gilchrist in a series in RSA in 99 or 00, the way he used to kill them coming at 5 down. Warne throughout his career, Saffers had no answer. India fared much better because of the way we used to handle Warne. In ODIs, there is also the choking factor, which continues to this day. Maybe things would have been different if Cronje had remained honest, who knows?
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 (edited) On 4/5/2026 at 12:54 PM, rangeelaraja said: Fischer HATED the Soviet Chess establishment - he constantly accused them of colluding in tournaments and it drove his stellar performances. He single handedly ended Soviet chess dominance. That’s what angst can do. I have a lot of respect for Fischer. But the competition in 60s and till 75 wasn't serious. USSR's weakest era. Mostly oldies (Botvinnik, Keres), has-beens (Smyslov, Petrosian) and even Spassky lost interest in chess by 1969, he barely prepared for the 72 match much to the annoyance of the Soviet authorities and even Karpov who was his second, he would recount him preparing deep variations after adjournement and Spassky wouldn't even look at them, telling him he would find them OTB. Korchnoi, Larsen, Taimanov, Geller weren't of WCC calibre. Tal also had a myriad of health problems, and addiction to smoking, alcohol, women, not a serious professional like Botvinnik. From Botvinnik years to emergence of Karpov, USSR didn't have dominant players, just a few excellent players who couldn't establish any era on their own despite all the favors pulled for them. Fischer didn't end USSR dominance, just benefitted in being born in the right era. Same guy avoided Botvinnik till early 60s, and later shied away from the 1975 match with Karpov. Also avoided Tal, Geller whenever he could. Whenever there was a risk of him losing, he would find some excuse to pull out, he had a big fear of losing and being seen as a beatable guy, wanted to shield his aura. For me, you can't be in GOAT conversation if you refuse to play the biggest threats of your era. And mind you, Fischer was 29 when he walked away. He would have been 32 during his match against Karpov and late 30s, early 40s by the time of emergence of Kasparov. Doubt his hatred would have helped him against the Ks. Even leaving aside the chess part, Spassky was a gentleman who accepted all his crazy demands and was always super nice to him, Karpov wouldn't have accepted any of his conditions !!!!! Bahut American hype hai uske peeche, because of the Cold war win. His peak ELO is also inflated by beating a weak field....even Arjun can do similar stuff if he only has to face 2600s whole year. Edited April 8 by Gollum
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 (edited) 42 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: Vishy has a wide range of interests and commitments to be a full time coach - even for the title match. It would mean a full time commitment for 6 months. I wonder if it would also constitute a conflict of interest since he has an official role at FIDE ( or am I misunderstanding ? ) From what i have seen and understood - in a. world chess championship preparation - the seconds works wayy harder than the players- they work on fresh ideas, little explored lines and variations that can work against the opponents preparation. It is alot of hard work. The player has to memorize the prepared lines /variations by the seconds and have the middle game and end game skills to either close out the game or defend against counterplay. And younger seconds with fresh ideas and ability to put in long hours are usually more helpful. RIchard Rapport did a phenmeonal job for Ding Liren against Gukesh. Anand can use his network and influence to assemble a formidable team of seconds for Gukesh and provide mental conditioning and sharp insights here and there. Thats as far as he would go IMO. Yeah, don't see Anand doing all that, for all the reasons you pointed out. He is FIDE VP as well, so will also not be so open in siding with Gukesh, can work behind the scenes and help Gukesh build a team, work on his mindset/psychology etc. Be a mentor figure etc. As I said, Sindarov's team will be super strong (Kramnik, Rustam, Nodirbek 100% I can confirm now itself). Uzbek govt also invests a lot in their chess players, expect more big names. Tagda challenge hoga. In fact, even this year's Olympiad will be in their turf (Samarkand), and Uzbeks will be our biggest threat once again. Edited April 8 by Gollum
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 Firouzja is such a clown for not prioritizing WCC/classical. Faltu ka online bakwas, blitz, bullet, fashion school, trying to be in good books of Magnus. For his talent, he should have been doing what Sindarov is doing right now. What a waste of a generational talent !!!!
Gollum Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 (edited) Sindarov with his prep is reminding me of mid-2000s Topalov. He also used to blitz opening moves and get winning positions plus huge time advantage, just like this. I remember a game in the 2010 Sofia match where he used some 3 minutes for 30+ moves and Anand used up almost all his time (120 minutes for 1st 40), and still getting a dominant position. Topalov was poor in rapid/blitz and under time pressure, but he always used to build a nice time cushion with his powerful openings. One of the best prepared players I have ever seen. This version of Sindarov will pound current Gukesh to pulp. At least there is some time before the match, Gukesh better wake up fast. Edited April 8 by Gollum
rangeelaraja Posted April 8 Posted April 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gollum said: Anand lost to Kasparov because he had to figure out everything himself. Kasaprov came from Botvinnik's school, groomed from a young age to take the crown. Anand was India's first GM (his peers were 2200s in late 80s) who had to figure out everything himself, didn't have sponsors or trainers (never mind someone like Botvinnik/Tal/Spassky as mentor) in his formative years. He didn't have proper opening till mid 2000s (Kramnik in an interview in 2000 in Sportstar said how the Russians used to laugh at Anand's opening prep in the 90s), wasn't trained in endgames like the Soviets, psychological part comes later. He lost to Carlsen because he was inferior at that stage and also huge age gap, he is practically Carlsen's dad's age, twice as old in the 2013 and 14 matches (mid 40s vs early 20s). Same Carlsen in the Joe Rogan show talked about what Anand did to him in 2008 Bonn training camp when he was his sparring partner. Also, one must remember the chess crisis he was in from late 2011 till 2014 candidates. I remember that phase very well because all 3 of my heroes, Anand, Federer, and Sachin, were going through rough periods, and I followed their careers very closely. Like you, earlier I also used to feel that Anand was mentally weak. But now my opinion has shifted completely. It is a miracle what he achieved with all odds stacked against him: lack of chess culture in India before him (unlike Ficher's case, USA was a chess superpower right from the days of Morphy till first half of 20th century, the place where he grew up had a dozen GMs), chess knowledge monopolized by Soviets (no engine era then, chess wasn't democraticized), attempts by FIDE and Russians to keep him down, lack of sponsors or support. Being the first GM of your country and also achieve all the things he did, man I still can't believe the extent of his feats. So I will be very careful in finding flaws in such a great man. Kramnik was also a product of Botvinnik's school, was in fact coached by Kasparov himself as a kid. Then handpicked by GK in the Manilla Olympiad as a 14 yo, was also his second in the 1995 match against Anand. In fact being his second gave him access to Kaspy's files, training methods, and he was able to beat him in the opening battle in 2000 with the Berlin, the most important theoretical breakthrough in modern chess. Also he had no psychological issue against Garry precisely because of how they worked together right from his young age. Anyway, he too dodged Kasparov after 2000, went 4 years without a title match, and in some of those years, he was performing worse than today's Gukesh. Anyway, Kasparov beat Kramnik's Berlin in 2001 Astana, so he started avoiding him more, ably aided by FIDE and Kremlin who by then saw GK as a politcal threat as well. Boss. Kohli had nothing to do with the 20-21 BGT, He ran home after Adelaide 36 all out and the calm, cool Rahane led us in next 3 tests. Also the guys who did all the heavy lifting were Pujara, Pant, Ashwin, Bumrah, Jadeja, Vihari, Washi, Thakur, Gill etc. 2018-19 Aus was very weak after the ball tampering bans, and they had no chance against our pace attack (prime Bumrah, Shami, Ishant) which reminded me of 80s West Indies....in batting, it was Pujara who did most of the lifting . Kohli's record against Aus is very overrated, did useless statpadding and whenever we needed him to stand tall, he faltered. Even 2017 BGT which was such a classic hard-fought series, Kohli scored 30 runs in 1st 3 tests and missed Dharamsala decider, once again it was Rahane who led us to victory there. I say this as a big fan of Kohli, his so called heroics against Aus are just Star Sports PR. I respect what he did in RSA 10x more than his BGT runs. Sachin, Dravid era team was the only side that time that looked GOAT Aus in the eye and played on equal terms. Sachin in 98-99, Dravid in 2001 and 2003-04. And who can forget Laxman? Compared to VVS, what has Kohli done against Aussies? Even after the daylight robbery in Sydney the way we came back to win 2008 Perth (WACA), shows so much character. They also had that steely determination, only that they kept it within, not resorting to theatrics like Kohli. I disagree based on hard facts. Anand's score against Kasparaov is very one sided even outside of world championships - which points to a clear mental edge that Kasparov had over him. Infact lesser mortals than Anand had better scores vs. Kasparov compared to Anand. Kasparov himself said that he felt Anand had psychological issues against him. I will take his word for it- for all the things one may not like about Kasparov- he was a grinder and always super honest and blunt. https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/chess/garry-kasparov-vishy-anand-ghosts-of-past-visited-clutch-chess-10300578/ If it was purely and solely due to advantages of being brought up on the Soviet/Botvinnik school of chess- Anand would have suffered against Kramnik too - but he did not - he beat him in crunch moments. Infact Kramnik has an overall equal or slightly positive score against Kasparov in classical chess. It is deeply psychological. Also disagree that age was the primary reason why Anand lost to Carlsen. Winning candidates is sometimes tougher than the championship itself. You have to prepare for 7 opponents. Anand won the candidates in 2014 after losing to Carlsen in 2013, only to lose to him again in a one-sided match in 2014. He had won the candidates in 2014 with a +1 in a very strong pool that included - Kramnik, Topalov ( both siginificantly younger than him ) and also Levon Aronian. Edited April 8 by rangeelaraja
Recommended Posts