131–140 of 167 posts
I'm not a chess expert, so feel like I must be missing something. In the last move Black's king isn't in check? Was the loss due to time?
The pawn wil advance twice and promote to a queen, after which the win is trivial (both squares the pawn moves to are protected, by the rook and the Knight). In reply black can only try to give endless checks with his queen, but the white king can hide behind the Knight and they will end.
Genuinely enjoyable and timely game. Out of prep early, machine evaluations useless throughout, plenty to play for and Magnus's quality and stamina showed. I'm of the opinion that there's nothing to gain from fans having engines open during a game, despite working in sports analytics and ostensibly being on the side of the machines. Obviously engines have a lot to say about the modern game, and the match so far had c…
Isn't this game a great argument for engines. Using a threshold of 2 to be well above your 1.5 this game had a total of 4 moments where one of the players had a very good chance for a win, and one of those moments was for Nepo:
Having the engine show you that is a great complement to hearing the commentary from top super GMs. Why would you throw away that part of the coverage?
>But in this game, even when we hit the tablebase results, where the result is a foregone conclusion for the machines, they still don't reflect the outcome of a human game, especially when the time controls start to get more stressful.
While true I think the solution is to double down and extract metrics from the engine search that reflect that. Not only the evaluation of the position but also how narrow the path is for white and black, to better understand how even if it's a draw from the machine's point of view, how hard of a draw it will be for the human to hold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The player with the black pieces, Ian Nepomniachtchi, resigned because he saw his position was lost
Ah! Thanks a bunch for clearing that up.
In fast games (bullet, blitz), anything goes and it's much more common to see games end in a checkmate - or very close to one - as players will often play to the bitter end to maximize the chance of their opponent making a mistake under time pressure, or running out of time completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 5 year thing is misleading though. It would have been 4 years if not for COVID. And what it basically means is that there were decisive games 4 years ago, and then 2 years later (the World Chess Championship is played every 2 years), in the 2018 match between Caruana and Magnus there were no decisive games. So essentially there was 1 match with all draws during the standard chess part of the tournament. And that…
But there were only two decisive games in the match against Karjakin. So 22 of the last 24 classical world championship games were draws (27 out of 30 if we count the current match). Even Magnus himself has said that he thinks it is a little dull.
I feel like the 30 second increment is a bit cheesy given the time constraints of classical chess. Magnus was down to less than a minute but can just make some quick moves to add several minutes back to his clock. If you have an increment it should only be 1-2 seconds regardless of time format.
This is the game mode that has been decided and agreed upon by all parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a bit of an exaggeration to say "almost all" games at the highest level end in draws. I wouldn't have said that from my personal experience following top-level chess, and the data indeed indicates it's under 75% [0]—which is a large proportion, but not "almost all". [0]: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-draw-rule-is-classica...
Bit of a spoiler :( I prefer to watch analysis of games from YouTubers like Agadmator or Jerry from Chessnetwork and discover who the winner was by watching the game. I wonder if these long games are not particularly helpful. Most chess final games end in draws as players are reluctant to create an imbalance and instead play it safe. There tends to be more exciting games played in games with a shorter time limit. I'm…
+1 for Agadmator Great Youtube reviews and explanation of strategy & gameplay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And unfortunate choice of news outlet. As a developer, I can't help mentioning how baffling it is part of the chess community keeps using a proprietary website filled to the brim on dark patterns while a better and free as in freedom alternative is available.
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…
With rating systems, the absolute scale doesn't matter, all that matters is the predictive power of the system. Every time I have benchmarked, glicko does a better job in predicting win/loss/draw probabilities than ELO ratings used by FIDE.
If you want to know your rating relative to other players on the site, you can check the distributions here [2]. If you want to compare them to FIDE ELO, or chess.com, you can use this site although I am not sure about exactly what methodology they use [3].
I wouldn't agree that lichess ratings are inflated or unrealistic relative to FIDE Elo, or any other rating system any more than kilometers are unrealistic and inflated relative to miles. They are simply different measurement systems.
[1] http://glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf