91–100 of 167 posts
Tough luck for Ian though. It’ll be hard not to tilt after this but he’s a champion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that chess.com pays some people to use their website on streams, etc. Although Lichess isn't perfect and it's kinda annoying. One of the bad things about Lichess is how unrealistically inflated their ratings are; 2100 on Lichess is equivalent to about 1800 on Chess.com. Chess.com is much more similar to the FIDE rating and other real-world systems. Lichess is just super inflated for some reason and it makes i…
You cannot compare ratings between these websites and FIDE for two reasons: - they use different rating systems (Elo for FIDE, Glicko-2 for LiChess and afair, Glicko/Glicko-2 for chess.com) - ELO / Glicko rating is calculated for a _player pool_. Which means it will never correspond between FIDE-registered players and chess websites because they don't have the same player base. It has nothing to do with being “inflat…
Of course these things are correlated, but e.g. there have been times in the world championship when one of the players thought about a position for 20+ minutes before making a move. That's hard to do, and requires very strong visualization skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Carlsen previously defended his title agains Fabiano Caruana, all the classical (slow) games were draws. The championship was decided by rapid games, where Carlsen demolished Caruana. I love both playing and watching rapid chess, but I think it's better for the world championship to be decided using classical time limits. That way, we get more interesting games, rather than the indignity of top players blunderin…
Thank you for the explanation. I think I agree with you. Chess is only a thing because people have played chess for a long time. Different time limits are a different kind of game -- neither better nor worse, but different from the things that made tournament-style chess popular. Perhaps with computers it's time to retire the existing notion of chess tournaments. But people still seem interested, much as we still wat…
You clearly don't follow chess, given your question. So I have to ask: why are you so quick to take a stance on something you don't follow or understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot compare ratings between these websites and FIDE for two reasons: - they use different rating systems (Elo for FIDE, Glicko-2 for LiChess and afair, Glicko/Glicko-2 for chess.com) - ELO / Glicko rating is calculated for a _player pool_. Which means it will never correspond between FIDE-registered players and chess websites because they don't have the same player base. It has nothing to do with being “inflat…
The bottom line is still that a chess.com rating will be more indicative of what a theoretical FIDE/USCF rating would be, and there's value in that, even if it's not rigorously tethered.
150 Elo on levels below 2700 FIDE is almost night and day difference.
Chess.com ratings show nothing about theoretical FIDE ratings. Comparison tables have been built with data mining and lucky guesses, there's no quality difference between Chess.com FIDE and LiChess FIDE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot compare ratings between these websites and FIDE for two reasons: - they use different rating systems (Elo for FIDE, Glicko-2 for LiChess and afair, Glicko/Glicko-2 for chess.com) - ELO / Glicko rating is calculated for a _player pool_. Which means it will never correspond between FIDE-registered players and chess websites because they don't have the same player base. It has nothing to do with being “inflat…
I think there's a third, bigger reason: FIDE rating is based on classical time controls. Nobody uses classical time controls online for various reasons. Even rapid is a somewhat different skill set than classical. Of course these things are correlated, but e.g. there have been times in the world championship when one of the players thought about a position for 20+ minutes before making a move. That's hard to do, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the explanation. I think I agree with you. Chess is only a thing because people have played chess for a long time. Different time limits are a different kind of game -- neither better nor worse, but different from the things that made tournament-style chess popular. Perhaps with computers it's time to retire the existing notion of chess tournaments. But people still seem interested, much as we still wat…
> Perhaps with computers it's time to retire the existing notion of chess tournaments. You clearly don't follow chess, given your question. So I have to ask: why are you so quick to take a stance on something you don't follow or understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a third, bigger reason: FIDE rating is based on classical time controls. Nobody uses classical time controls online for various reasons. Even rapid is a somewhat different skill set than classical. Of course these things are correlated, but e.g. there have been times in the world championship when one of the players thought about a position for 20+ minutes before making a move. That's hard to do, and…
There are FIDE ratings for other time controls too. Here are the top blitz players for example: https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men_blitz
Imagine lasting 136 moves against Carlsen... This is the guy who gives people eight free moves and still destroys them two minutes later.
What does "first decisive game in the classical rounds of a world championship in over five years" mean?
It means the first non-draw. Almost all classical chess games at the highest levels end in draws which has completely trashed the game as a spectator sport.
[0]: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-draw-rule-is-classica...
Vishy Sir during the end game commentary said that the engines say it’ll be a draw. Where/which move did Ian make the mistake? Anyways, hats off to everyone involved. Magnus, Ian, commenters, and the chess twitterati. What a game! ~8hrs!!!
I wouldn't say that Ian made a mistake. That position was winning for white after pawn on h4 was traded. It's not Leela vs Stockfish, it's two humans playing. Defending with solo queen against RNPP w/ connected pawns is extremely hard unless perpetual check is unstoppable.