201–210 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I preferred chess.com's Twitch stream[0]. They do the same but have various GMs and other's come on to discuss. 0: https://www.twitch.tv/chess
I watched them regularly during the championship, they had Yifan[0] on several times and she was fantastic. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hou_Yifan
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expected it to be the same in America, unfortunately this was not the case. I don't know what it is but nobody in my social circles seemed to even know that this was going on.
Wow, that's shocking. How could you expect it to be that way in America? Have you looked around at actual Americans and what they watch??
I’d like to offer a few thoughts on this match as a former internationally competitive player/US Cadet U16 champion, current ~2400 bullet chess addict, and someone who has played bughouse with Fabiano as my partner at the Sinquefield Cup in 2017. First, hats off to both players for a hard fought match. To Magnus for successfully defending his title, and to Fabiano for pushing Magnus right to the brink. This was an ex…
I disagree so strongly. At some point in my life, I had distorted my thought process heavily by fast chess. I in particular played it like Tal would. The element of surprise plays a major factor. I was never as good as you in chess. My best game ever with normal time constraints was a tie against a 2400, and my regular games are around 2000. But it was only a hobby. What is troubling about chess in general is that it…
With that out of the way, I suspect that the difference between bullet and classical people is probably like the difference between a sprinter and a marathon runner.
In my other spare time, I like to ride bicycles. Everyone who doesn't do it thinks it's a dangerous thing - but the way I ride isn't the way that most people think I ride. I prefer the slow, cautious, zen and analytical approach compared to the "intuitive" fast, mad rush that most people will be familiar with when they think "cyclist". I can go fast when required as I have developed and applied my own theory for it, but most of the time I prefer to just take it easy. So I see some parallels there - horses for courses.
I don't really buy the idea that there's such a thing as intuition. Intuition to me merely means that someone who apparently demonstrates it cannot understand how to explain their intuition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intuition). Many seem to be equating it to a higher form of intelligence but I don't buy that that is the case.
I daresay that Fabiano Caruana is probably pretty good at classical now and can perhaps afford to practise shorter controls a lot more. He's actually not bad at it, but has had inconsistent results in the past. But who knows - in 2020 we might be seeing a lot less Rossolimo and Petrov.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you! With that nuance added, I believe it now. Kasparov generally isn't the kind of person to make sweeping statements that I know are false.
Well, at least not about chess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other way of looking at this is that twice in a row Carlsen has been unable to defend the title in classical controls and has relied on rapid time controls to win. In both cases, it's unclear if Carlsen could have retained the title had more classical games been played.
Does that say more about Carlsen or the modern classical game? Classical these days is heavily reliant on technology for preparation. The world championship match gives both players a huge amount of time to research strong lines using an engine. When players finally do get out of prep, they have plenty of time on the clock to make a draw if they're not in a winning position. In shorter time controls it becomes a lot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your view on the overstatement. It wasn't a win, but a slight advantage. Chess championships sometimes draw the same criticism as boxing, players strategise to win on technicalities and small margins, instead of taking risks and landing hard blows. As fans, that is boring, but I agree; Carlsen made the correct choice in drawing.
One of the lines popular in "4D space chess" (ie Starcraft), is: "when you're ahead, get more ahead". That is to say, don't just press your advantage to end the game (high risk, error prone), press your advantage to make your advantage overwhelming... From the analysis Carlsen used his advantage well: to secure continued advantage.
Firstly Starcraft has economics in the form of the resource gathering mechanics. This means if you pursue attack as your only priority the enemy may get ahead economically and, if they survive long enough, just out-build you. No mechanic like that exists in Chess, you can't have more pawns if you invest in a pawn-making machine for one turn rather than moving.
Secondly, Starcraft is a game of deliberately hidden knowledge. You don't know whether those two wounded Marines ran up that ramp hoping your forces won't follow, or if they're just bait to draw your attacking force into range of two waiting Siege Tanks who will do enormous damage. In Chess the game state is entirely open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. In chess, you have to make mistakes to lose. Top players don't make very many mistakes, so often nobody loses.
> In chess, you have to make mistakes to lose. That's a conjecture. Nothing more. Nobody knows whether it is true! It is possible that a perfect player playing White may make you lose every time. It's even possible (though highly doubtful) that this holds for Black instead.
In the end, Carlsen is the man who knows the best how to win in chess. Regardless of all critics. He played the 12th game safe knowing he's a huge favourite in rapid and blitz. Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves. Under these conditions it's more than sensible to move into the terrain where you have an…
> So he exchanged a potential loss of €200k at a favourable odds for a sure loss of €50k with potential loss of €150k at a much better odds. Now here's where we could question his decision speculating what the actual odds were, but who knows if he cares about the money. You’re ignoring the fact that winning also guarantees him a spot in next year’s final, so that would heavily tip this analysis towards playing it saf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that say more about Carlsen or the modern classical game? Classical these days is heavily reliant on technology for preparation. The world championship match gives both players a huge amount of time to research strong lines using an engine. When players finally do get out of prep, they have plenty of time on the clock to make a draw if they're not in a winning position. In shorter time controls it becomes a lot…
Could you explain what this prep entails? I understand that athletes or gamers will watch opponents’ past plays to see how they should adapt, but I’m having trouble translating this to chess.
Often old sidelines will come back into fashion in order to avoid prep, or to lead someone into unfamiliar territory.
If you watch on a video feed, announcers will sometimes say "this position was played in city (x) in year (n) between player(1) and player(2)" this is to show that there are few games left in the database, we are entering deep prep.
Hope I helped.
In the end, Carlsen is the man who knows the best how to win in chess. Regardless of all critics. He played the 12th game safe knowing he's a huge favourite in rapid and blitz. Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves. Under these conditions it's more than sensible to move into the terrain where you have an…
I can't argue with your first premise. Your following points, however, are less convincing. "Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves." Even if Kasparov and Grischuk said this today (citation please?), it doesn't make it true. There are many players who get better playing rapid and blitz. Look at the traject…
I'm sure if Magnus had the benefit of the computer valuation he would have made more striking moves, but his reasons for taking safer approach (a4, e4) makes sense especially considering how evenly Caruana fought back in previous winning positions, and his objective going in.
At the point he offered the draw, even the computer suggested it was fairly even. The shocking part for me was that he also had a huge advantage in time, but I suppose he did not have the right mindset to switch gears.
I think if you want the championship to be more about "heart/courage" (and less about cold calculation) they just need shorter time controls. That was my one takeaway. Maybe something in-between rapid and classical. If you want to see robots push marginal advantages in drawish positions, just set up an AI tournament. Leave the humans to demonstrate heart, courage, and intuition!