Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chess World Championship: Stockfish live-analyzing game 7

analysis.sesse.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: Chess World Championship: Stockfish live-analyzing game 7

#121

Post by School-Cotton »

russellbeattie wrote: post #120
School-Cotton wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand what a drawn position is To make this more concrete, the following link is a drawn position (it is trivially easy for either side to avoid checkmate, indefinitely) http://www.jinchess.com/chessboard/?p=---k------------------... However, checkmate is still possible (White can checkmate Black if Black makes severe blunders that even beginners probably wouldn't make) Do you think the players should be for…

Yes! Or black should resign. And in addition, they have clocks for a reason - though time is added indefinitely at the end (if a player moves fast enough) - if a player takes an hour more than an opponent (like Carlsen did in the middle of game 8) they should start to feel the pressure of that more severely.

Why do you think Black should lose here? Why is Black's position worse than White's ? If your answer is "White has more material", keep in mind that chess is not about material; it is about checkmate.

But, nevertheless, here's an example with equal material where checkmate is possible for both sides, but not without blunders. Who should have to resign here?

http://www.jinchess.com/chessboard/?p=--------------------k-...

If you really insist on saying "well yes, they should have to keep moving the kings around aimlessly for hours until somebody's clock runs out", you're proposing a game that is so fundamentally unlike chess that it should probably be given a different name.

Re: Chess World Championship: Stockfish live-analyzing game 7

#122

Post by taneq »

Retra wrote: post #119
adrianN wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also women who are two meters tall, but that doesn't mean that women are naturally just as tall as men.

I suppose then that you're imagining they got that tall by unnatural means?

You're talking past each other because you're using different definitions. I'd propose one of these definitions:

- "Women on average are less good / equal to / better at chess than men on average"

- "The best women at chess are less good / equal to / better than the best men"

- "The best n% of women are less good / equal to / better than the best n% of men at chess"

Re: Chess World Championship: Stockfish live-analyzing game 7

#123

Post by fabriceleal »

ionforce wrote: post #16
deepnotderp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The computer age has unfortunately sort of crushed that style of play :( It's hard to play sacrificially when the engine refutes your attacks

If Leela and AlphaZero have anything to say, it's that there is such a thing as being overly materialistic.

Sacrificing material for positional compensation is hardly a new concept

Re: Chess World Championship: Stockfish live-analyzing game 7

#125

Post by DATACOMMANDER »

tspiteri wrote: post #45
anacleto wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True – yet extremely hard to find especially in a fortress situation end game when you can’t afford to wait cognitive brain to calculate new variations after each single move.

And also, Caruana would have had to trap his knight in a corner to get the win. To quote Kasparov: The computer shows Black wins with 68..Bh4 here. But had Caruana played the incredible 69.Bd5 Ne2 70.Bf3 Ng1!! they would request metal detectors immediately! No human can willingly trap his own knight like that. https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1063576827850096640

Personally, I’m not convinced that the win was beyond the ability of any human to find. Previous generations of players spent much more time studying the endgame (as opposed to endless openening preparation), and I can see Fischer or Capa, or maybe Botvinnik, finding it over the board.

Re: Chess World Championship: Stockfish live-analyzing game 7

#126

Post by DATACOMMANDER »

taneq wrote: post #69
dgut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess, besides its usual characteristics it's known for, is an attack and dominance game. Women will naturally be less interested/good at that. The championships aren't male only (although there are female only championships).

Women aren't naturally less interested in or good at chess. There must be some other explanation for the top 90 chess players all being male.

The simplest and most likely explanation for the disparity is that women are naturally less interested in and/or not as good at chess, on average.

Re: Chess World Championship: Stockfish live-analyzing game 7

#127

Post by DATACOMMANDER »

stale2002 wrote: post #107
taneq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women aren't naturally less interested in or good at chess. There must be some other explanation for the top 90 chess players all being male.

No. Instead it is culture that tends to make less women be interested in chess. This is still a problem, though.

It might be culture; it might be biology. It’s probably a combination of both. Either way, why, exactly, is it a problem?
Post reply on HN