81–88 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you're 5-0 down, so you just aim to draw repeatedly until it's declared a stalemate.
No, that's the point: The game continues until a player reaches 6 wins. If you're 5-0 down, you can either resign or play for 6 wins. Draws don't help you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A draw is half a point. So with first to 6.5, you win the match if you have one game win and 11 draws.
I'm talking about first to 6 wins. Like the 1984 Karpov vs. Kasparov: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=55015
I whipped up a little demo illustrating Carlsen's decisive rapid game 3. It transposes the move sequence to show white's 13-move opening (Karjakin) followed by Carlsen's 13-move response as black, and so on through the game - using the longest possible sequences consistent with legal positions from the original game. http://transpose.fantasychess.co.uk/
Hi zbik - just fyi, Avast gives me a message "This site could have harmed your computer" for your url.
https://www.avast.com/false-positive-file-form.php
Cheers!
This time around there was an unusual amount of match strategy involved. In fact, what's interesting is that they always played the Spanish or the Italian, but in the one game where Karjakin wanted to (had to) win, he played the Najdorf. Peter Svidler mentioned a very interesting suggestion that the players should play the tie-breaks before the match, which should produce more interesting games (in particular, it sho…
I'd like to see tiebreaks first in soccer. Yasser Seirawan had an interesting suggestion. Make championship matches 13 games, not 12, with the challenger getting white 7 times and the defending champion getting white 6 times, and with the championing retaining the title in the case of a 6.5 - 6.5 tie. One nice thing about Seirawan's suggestion is that it does not involve rapid or blitz. Many people don't like the ide…
Karjakin had a winning position in game 9, but did not find the key move Qc4. He analyzed this line, but did not see Bg8 and thought it's not winning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think in chess the purpose of the match is to determine who is stronger.
If all you want to know is who is the strongest player overall, then we don't need these special championship matches, we'd just look at the overall rankings. Being able to perform "on the day" is an integral part of every sport championship and the thing that makes them exciting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's the point: The game continues until a player reaches 6 wins. If you're 5-0 down, you can either resign or play for 6 wins. Draws don't help you.
But if you keep forcing draws, it doesn't let your opponent reach 6 wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imho, ICC is the gold standard. You can get at least a simul with a master almost everyday. The GM commentary is incredible for live tournaments, and things like ICC's Game of the Week from GM Joel Benjamin are unmatched.
ICC is also great. To each their own If you haven't yet taken a look at lichess give it a shot, it's wonderfully elegant and well-done project and there is a lot of great talent that plays there as well as wonderful features such as lichess tv, coaching, analysis and puzzles which are all free -- and there's no ads, the UX design is very click, too! Edit: I'm not a Master and don't need that level of competitiveness,…