|
Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career.
I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE?
|
United States3824 Posts
Wait Fantasy isn't his nemesis?
Not trying to compare their skill level or anything Fantasy just seems to give him the most trouble.
also I wish I could play Chess
|
On October 04 2009 13:34 jfazz wrote:Show nested quote +Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career. I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE?
Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years!
Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL).
Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
Did you just _DARE_ to compare Kasparov to Jaedong...?
|
How dare you associate Kasparov with FBH?!
|
great fun article!
also, you might want to add to Jaedong's achievements his 1 MSL title in 2008 over Kal, which people tend to forget about.
|
Wow, im getting told off by some random on an internet forum...im a 2057 rated player buddy. I know all about Kasparov, ive even chatted with him during internet chess club showmatches. Who do you think you are anyway - the best you can offer is to repeat some information from the OP. The point is, he wasnt this all unchallengable player, as I mentioned, other players were matching him at different points in his career...or have you forgotten Kramnik (ranked #3) beat Kasparov (ranked #1) to take his world title without losing a single game?
|
On October 04 2009 13:44 ssj114 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 13:34 jfazz wrote:Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career. I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE? Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years! Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL). Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good. LOL Chess in its current incarnation has not been played for that long. LOL. But that's a technicality. Obviously it is a game with much more history, and a greater capacity for longevity. However, LOL, Kasparov's reign should be held with those standards in mind. That is, we must consider that it is easier to reign that long in chess than it is in Starcraft. The entire scene of starcraft LOL moves at a quicker pace due to an incredibly high rate of games being played between top players and a larger gap between the current game and perfect play.
|
Kasparov was evidently at the end of his time when he lost to Kramnik though, similar how to Savior's reign ended when Bisu 3-0'd him. Before then, it's a different matter though.
|
United States47024 Posts
On October 04 2009 07:07 Slow Motion wrote: Why do you say Bisu's PvZ has yet to be tested? Because his wins are rapes? He's faced a bunch of great Zergs, including Jaedong, over and over again in his career. Bisu's Career Bo5s vs. Zergs:
2009 GOM Showmatch v Jaedong, Loss 2007 GOM MSL 3 v Kwanro, Win 2007 GOM MSL 2 v GoRush, Win 2007 GOM MSL 1 v Savior, Win
Not having played a Bo5 that mattered against a Zerg in the last 2 years probably counts as being untested.
|
Those are his career Bo5s? That's pretty well tested, but a noticeable dearth in 2008 and 09.
|
konadora
Singapore66060 Posts
I can't decide whose hairstyle is better - Jaedong's or Bisu's
|
|
Not really buying the comparison. I really love JD, but Kasparovs greatness cant be compared with his.
|
total badasses. these guys rock
|
Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo.
|
On October 04 2009 14:51 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 13:44 ssj114 wrote:On October 04 2009 13:34 jfazz wrote:Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career. I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE? Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years! Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL). Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good. LOL Chess in its current incarnation has not been played for that long. LOL. But that's a technicality. Obviously it is a game with much more history, and a greater capacity for longevity. However, LOL, Kasparov's reign should be held with those standards in mind. That is, we must consider that it is easier to reign that long in chess than it is in Starcraft. The entire scene of starcraft LOL moves at a quicker pace due to an incredibly high rate of games being played between top players and a larger gap between the current game and perfect play.
Easier to dominate in chess? Honestly? You can win in starcraft by just moving faster, you don't have to out-think your opponent. Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive. And really, do you have ANY idea how much effort it takes to become a grandmaster?A whole - fucking - lot. A top one? I'd rather not think about it.
|
Nice write-up but they don't have anything in common.
|
Russian Federation1208 Posts
On October 04 2009 04:05 Godimus wrote: like comparing apples and oranges
|
On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily.
+ Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me
|
|
|
|