Yuku free message boards

I think Michelle Kitt demonstrates how to take a relatively weak skill set (relative only to the supercerebrums in the tournament, such as Leszek, Legler, Brad, Ken) and leverage it through patient, focused, confident play. As the presumptive underdog against Olmstead, she never wavered, never rushed or hurried, even when she was 30 seconds down in the final round. She maintained perfect posture and perfect play, and broke Olmstead. Kitt showed how it's possible to win a game using skills other than just knowing a lot. She might not take down an elite opponent who does not make any mistakes, but so far we've seen mistakes from everyone, and nobody has done a better job of capitalizing on them than Kitt.

Leszek's my hero, and he looked pretty unbeatable after his first game, but now I think that his ridiculously effective performance in his first match (where he got an almost unbelievable 27 out of 30 questions correct) might have actually been his undoing. It seemed to raise his expectations about "doing well" to an unsustainable level. Then against Legler, when his performance dropped from godly to mere superstar (in the math round), he overreacted and panicked. Objectively, he still seemed to be very much in the game, but he seemed to think that he was falling apart--and of course, once you start thinking that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think perhaps if he had not have done so well in his first match, he might have been able to maintain his poise in the face of a few wrong answers. If there's another Grand Slam, though, you'll still find me betting on him to win the whole thing -- if this is his only weakness, it's a weakness he can fix.