Nekem a Polgár lányokkal szemben gyerekkoromban olyan ellenszenvem alakult ki, hogy borzalom. Apám mindig őket istenítette, és hozzájuk képest én bezzeg, blabla... Aztán hallottam Judittal egy beszélgetèst, és olyan egy bájos, okos, szimpatikus nő. Gratulálok, Judit, mindenhez!

Hmm. Bárcsak többet ember rendelkezne ilyen értelemi szinttel, attitüddel.Élmény volt nézni és hallgatni. 😊💖

Nagyon tetszett az előadás! Judit nemcsak sakkozónak, előadónak is kiváló.

Szívből Gratulálok, kedves Judit! 🙂 További Sikereket kívánok! 🙂

Igazi példakép! Gratulálok a rengeteg sikerhez!

Ez nagyon nagy sztori! Köszönjük Judit.

Szívesen hallgatnám őt más témában is, annyira tetszett az előadása, nagyon pozitív és kedves személyiség, erős a kisugárzása. Érdekes, hogy a sakkstílusa egyébként elég támadó és rámenős amit így, aki ezt nem tudja elsőre talán nem is gondolná.

Oké, ez eszméletlenül király volt, gg Juditka

Úgy szeretem ezt a sztorit hallgatni ✌️

Fantasztikus, gratulálok Juditnak!

Intelligens,érthető és színvonalas előadás volt,érdeklődéssel hallgattam.Büszke vagyok Juditra!

A Queens Gambit annyira jó volt, végig erre a beszédre gondoltam.

Zseniális!!! Nagyszerű előadás volt!

Rendesen meg ható volt. 😌

Nagyon jo fej csaj, imadom.

love ya, Judit

Én nem tudom hova tenni pár hozzászóló negatív megnyilvánulását.. :D Apum személyesen ismerte, anno egyszer vagy többször egy számítógépes program ellen is játszott, amely informatikai hátterének az Öregem volt a felelőse; -ez elég régen volt, nem emlékszem azért konkrétan a dolgokra- .. egy dolog biztos, Judit nagyon szimpatikus, nagyon jó fej, értelmes, intelligens csajszi.. és le a kalappal előtte!

FANTASTIKA...

😍

I was 5 when I started playing chess, but my parents had already decided when I was born that I was to become a chess grandmaster, which is kind of funny if you think of it. I was 9 when I won my first international tournament, and the New York Times featured an article on the front page about my victories against persons over 18 who possess XY chromosomes(males). That’s also where I won my first 1000$. So I became a part of this man-world, where I heard many stories and many things happened with me (referring to sexism). I heard about a GM who told his friend while playing with a woman: „This can’t be true; I’m playing with a woman. What’s next, playing with dogs?” I was 11 when I first won against a GM, of course I was very happy, but my opponent reacted rather weirdly; some acquaintances of mine saw him banging his head against the elevator wall. So for me, entering in this man-world seemed very adventurous. Bobby Fischer, who won against Spassky in ’72, also said something interesting (sarcastic): “There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knights-odds to and still beat”. You can imagine, how good it felt, after winning the Hungarian Men’s Championship, to become a GM when I was 15 years old, beating Fischer’s record as the youngest Grandmaster (a record that hadn’t been broken for 33 years!). This was a huge milestone in my life, I knew I had achieved something big and I knew chess was going to be my profession. But it was also when I wondered to myself how I would fare against the best? Garry Kasparov, who became World Champion at the age of 22, was always a huge example; he was like a god to us. We were in awe of his games, his style of playing; I also liked to play in his style: playing actively, going right away for mate (don’t think Scholar’s mate here ). Our first personal encounter was in 1988, in Thessaloniki, Greece, where the Chess Olympiad was taking place. We won this event (the women’s) with my sisters and Ildikó Mádl (before the Soviet team, who had won 10 of 11 previous events). But the gold medal and having the best score (12,5 out of 13, which was the best amongst the men too) isn’t the only fantastic memory from that tournament. I was told later the Kasparov walked up behind me and was watching my game; this made me very happy, and thought I can’t be that bad if even he noticed me. Later he was asked about me in an interview. (Interview, where amongst other things Kasparov says it’s “almost impossible that they will ever play against each other”) Well, we have to be careful with the word “almost” (jokingly), similarly to chess where if we “almost” win- we don’t win. Now I would like to talk about our battle, both on the chessboard and elsewhere. We first played in Linares, in ’94 which is (was) the biggest chess tournament. Everybody was very curious to see what would happen. By now I was playing in events where I was the only woman and here there were 13 men, the world’s best players, and me, a 17-year old girl. I have to admit I was rather afraid while I was sitting opposite Kasparov. The ambiance in the room was very tense; there were many people watching, not only the other players, but many spectators and the media. It didn’t exactly go as expected, unfortunately he was winning, but then a small incident happened (sarcastic), when he made a move with his knight, and then he quickly put it back on its original square. All this is fine, except that in chess there is rule, that if you let go of a piece, you can’t take the move back. But Kasparov, after letting go for a fracture of a second, quickly took his move back and starting thinking about what he should do. We both felt that something isn’t right, I was sure that he let go of the piece, which is all the more important, because the move would have been a losing one and this would have changed the game. There was only one other square where he could move the knight, but he sat there trying to convince himself that he didn’t let go of the piece. So he made the better move and then won the game. But the story didn’t end here, because the games were filmed and on the recording one can see that he did let go of the piece. The story got big media attention and got published in many places, so our relationship was rather cold for a few years. We played a lot against each other, so I got to know him well (his style), and I also got to know his weaknesses, of which there weren’t many, his strengths and most importantly things that would make him uncomfortable during a game. It is important to know the many chess players lose against Kasparov before even having played the first move, because of his presence and personality which make people afraid of him. The turning point in our games was in 2001 in Linares. This time the tournament was different, there were less people invited and everybody played against everybody with both colors. First I played against Kasparov with the dark pieces, and I planned on using his own weapon against him, which isn’t as easy as just taking someone’s weapon physically and using it against them (joke). I played a line against him the he had practically invented, and had analyzed carefully. I learned the variation carefully (a Najdorf Sicilian, for the full game: 1233410) and of course, having worked out some of my own ideas. I knew it was dangerous, but I decided to fight against him with a weapon he knew best. It was an interesting game and after 26 moves I offered a draw which he seemed happy to except, so my strategy had worked. A few days later we played again, but this time I had the white pieces. For this game I decided to attack his king constantly and try to play in a similar style that he does. Having that in mind I sacrificed a pawn in the opening (also a Najdorf Sicilian, for the full game: 1211239), to get the initiative. This worked for a while, but I didn’t play very precisely and Kasparov got a better position, when I noticed that there is a surprising move that sacrifices a knight, to get an even stronger attack on his king. He accepted the sacrifice, but a few moves later I saw that there is another sacrifice which will put his king under even more pressure. By now, time was starting to run short and Kasparov became nervous. He took his suit coat and watch off and starting grimacing; if someone knows Kasparov you’ll know what I’m talking about. I saw that he was starting to feel uncomfortable; probably the thought of losing also crossed his mind. So he started really thinking and found a perpetual check. It was these two games that helped me to gain respect with him and made him accept me as a world-class player. A year later we met again at a different event and he invited me to his place for a training session, which of course I happily accepted. It was fantastic to see how a great chess player like him prepares, how he processes information, what he finds interesting, what he doesn’t and what kind of psychological choices are behind all this. It was also interesting to see how he used the newest technology and analysis software. Since we were together the whole day, for a few days, I also observed many small things that one notices in such situations. It was a great experience, and of course I had the occasion to play rapid/blitz games with him. As all big sportsmen he also was always keen to win, not only in chess, but also when we were competing to see who would fall of the Banana Boat first (picture with boat). Our next encounter was a few months later when I got invited to play in the Russia vs Rest of the World event (2002, Moscow). Of course the Russians thought they should win. This time when I played against Kasparov I was ready psychologically, I wasn’t thinking about losing, but about playing a decisive game. This worked out well, because I beat Kasparov, (1254283) which contributed to the victory of the “Rest of the World” team. There are many things in my life that made me what I am today, and that helped me achieve what I achieved. I would like to share one thought with you: I think that the future belongs to the today’s children, so education is very important and we are responsible for that. There are people who have lots of resources, there are some who have less, but there is one thing that we can always give to our children, our friends, our family, and to everyone: a nice remark, appreciation, respect and encouragement. I think these things help everyone in life. Thank you for your attention!

Please, we need English or Spanish subtitles :). Thank you.

Judit nem csak az egyik legnagyobb sakkozó hanem az egyik legnagyobb magyar

what's the language? to learn it and understand her. she's worth it

here's a transcription of her speach with a few comments (some for chess people)

Do you have English subtitles or chinese subtitles ? Thanks.

még standup-nak is remek lenne!

Is there any English translation for the talk??

Linares...véletlenek nincsenek😉

Recomanda a mi ¿Porque?

Orgován Sanyi bácsinál nincs jobb😎😉

Azért Kasparov, Fisher és a többiek védelmében el kell mondani, hogy Judit a maga nemében volt különlegesség, a kivétel, nem pedig a szabály. Azóta sincs hozzá fogható női játékos, egy sem. Addig viszont senki nem látott ilyen női játékos, soha, Visszahozva a kutyás példát, talán most mindenki nevetségesnek gondolja, hogy kutyák játszanak egyszer emberekkel Linaresben... aztán egy nap ha megtörténik, onnantól fogva az már csak történelem, hogy a kutyák sakk-képessége le van nézve. Amúgy nagyon szerettem Judit játszmáit. Sokkal jobbak, mint Lékó Petijéi. Agresszívabb, kockázatvállalóbb volt Judit, Péter meg mindig biztosra ment, meg a hatalmas ismereteire, ami a megnyitásokat, végjátékokat illeti... csak ez a kockázatkerülés unalmas. Mondjuk volt Kramnyik ellen egy szenzációs húzása, ami bekerül a törtélelembe.

ez a mónika?

Vajon ki az az egy marha, akinek ez nem tetszik?

Hun sakk jó! uI:mIHÁLY lAJOS kISKUNFÉLEGYHÁZA !

Nekem sok minden kamu szagú itt. És nem a teljesítmény, mert az zseniális, hanem a kiszínezése dolgoknak. Még a vesztes meccsek is úgy vannak előadva, mintha nyertes parti lett volna. Csak a pozitívum, csak a szép, holott gondolom ilyet minden profi elmondhatna a másik profival vívott - egyébként kiélezett - meccs után. Az egész az egyetlen győzelemig van elvezetve, valami sok kudarcon keresztül. Azt elengedhetjük, hogy az első száz legjobb sakkozó között dimenzióbeli különbségek legyenek, tehát Juditnak elég jónak kell lennie ahhoz, hogy ennyi meccs után végre legyőzze Kaszparovot, akinek még rossz napja is lehetett. Nők között abszolút az Isten a sakkban, de maradjunk a földön egy picit. És valóban már az is lenyűgöző, hogy akkor egyszer valahogy sikerült. A másik dolog, egy másik interjúból, ahol meg úgy van előadva, hogy ő van megilletődve egy nagymester láttán, holott neki nincs is vesztenivalója, viszont rohadt nagy a teher egy élő legendán egy ilyen helyzetben, mert konkrétan ciki lesz, rohadt égő, ha valamit elnéz, és kicsi eséllyel ugyan, de kikap a végén. Ez a teher pedig pont szülhet ilyen hibát.

Hol vannak az angol feliratok?

Alma

ez miért nem a nagy ted-re ment.

A közönség miért ennyire béna? Legyőzte a példaképét egy zsenit a mesterét hát nem megtapsolandó?

Mi volt olyan marha fontos a monitoron, hogy kb. 10 másodpercenként ki kellett rá nézni?

I wish I spoke more than English

A Portis Lajos jobb mint a Kaspersky

A gyakorlott gyakorlottabb mint a kevésbé gyakorlott! Nincs ügyes ember! Senki se lehet magára büszke és senkit se lehet kigúnyolni. Ha valakit segítenek gyakorlott lehet. Ha kiemelünk szemszögeket tetszőlegesen, és figyelmen kívül hagyjuk a személyiség formázó tényezőket és a többit, akkor elhitethetjük magunkkal bármi szemszöget ami a féligazságokon alapul.

A sakk egy szórakozás. Hogy lehet erre feltenni egy egész életet mikor egy mobiltelefon is megveri bármelyik legnagyobb sakkozót? Inkább sajnálom ôket. Tudom persze az emberek nagy része még ennél is feleslegesebb dolgokkal tölti el az életét, de attól még nem lesz a példaképem. Mondom ezt úgy hogy szinte minden nap sakkozok, szeretem, mert jó játék de CSAK JÁTÉK!

Nekem ez túl genderes. Mégiscsak az apja tanította, nem az anyja. :)