< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Jun-06-05|| ||Joshka: I'm all for seeing more individual match play between grandmasters, even if they are timed in rapid as opposed to "classical" but from what I have heard, games 7 and 8 were supposed to be the tie-break games to determine a winner. Didn't just the opposite happen?|
|Jun-06-05|| ||hintza: There was no form of tiebreaker in the match at all.|
|Jun-06-05|| ||mandar: If a match is organised like Vishy having rapid time control and Kamnik or Leko or Topalov having classical time controls? It seems that Anand is the best in the rapids whiloe the rest are better in classical time controls.
I s it fare?|
|Jun-06-05|| ||jamesmaskell: That was a pity. They'll be meeting in September in San Luis so we'll be able to see who is the best of them.|
|Jun-06-05|| ||Medusa: Im really dissapointed about this match, i wanted Leko to win, but a draw!!! organizers should have made 2 extra games to find a winner.|
|Jun-06-05|| ||Robin01: I do not consider a draw such a bad result in this case. After all, they did play six decisive games and only two draws!|
|Jun-06-05|| ||iron maiden: <Joshka>, no, it was slated from the start to be an eight-game match, with no tie-breaks.|
|Jun-07-05|| ||Granite: I disagree with one thing you said <Joshka> mainly that blitz between Grandmasters is worth watching. These games are of such low quality they're really very boring. If I am going to watch a grandmaster play I'd like to think they wouldn't be overlooking mate in one...|
|Jun-07-05|| ||Eric Schiller: <granite> I know that there are people who, like you, seem to equate interest with accuracy. Msot people view chess as a sporting event, and there is absolutely no link between quality and excitement in sport. Indeed, make any list of top ten most exciting sporting contests, and I think you'll find blunders in every one of them.
A chess game cannot be won without a serious error by the opponent. The quality of a chess game can be measured by conforming to "best" lines, if that's what turns you on. But for most of us, a game is exciting if it contains unclear positions and wild attacks. It is boring if it doesn't, unless there are some very artistic, long range plans. Even then, most spectators would lose interest.|
To me, a game that follows computer recommendations of "best" play is the most boring of all.
Fortunately, with millions of games availalbe, we can all find games that are interestng based on our own standards.
|Jun-09-05|| ||ongyj: Personally I feel that playing known book lines are boring, (and) since everyone enthusiastic and/or hardworking player memorises, playing through the opening book is not going to get either participants in the game anywhere, and probably a boring draw will result. Why bother to waste time going through something already known? I strongly believe that in chess today and in the future in order to win games (and to play lively chess) players need to contribute to novelty moves, which are the elements of excitement that spectators will enjoy. |
I've absolute respect to your contributions and standings in the chess arena Sir Eric Schiller and
I'll just like to highlight a point that you've pointed out. You mentioned that A chess game cannot be won without a serious error by the opponent, which I remember seeing similar quotes in a book titled "the art of defence" or something like that. However, I'll like to quote examples which may beg to differ. For instance, Kasparov VS Topalov, 1999 and Kasparov VS Karpov, Game 22, 1986, Return Match and Kasparov VS Anand, 1995 Famous Centre Counter Game. In my humble opinion there's hardly any mistakes from either player but the result of the game isn't a draw. This is the reason that keeps me interested in chess itself. Games can be won after all, even when both parties play 'perfectly'.
Of course that's purely how I feel and I welcome feedback, comments and/or criticisms. Just a point to note, I'm not a particular Kasparov fan at all, just that these games I cite happen to be in my mind at this moment of time:)
|Jun-09-05|| ||Montreal1666: <ongyj:> <Kasparov VS Anand, 1995 Famous Centre Counter Game.>|
I will have to reveiw the other games but this one the mistake IS chosing the
|Jun-09-05|| ||ongyj: <Montreal1666> Was that meant to be a joke? I mean if you did follow that game, Kasparov himself admitted that Anand has gotten an advantage, if any, from the opening play. I know that many players even the elite ones have little liking for this defence but personally I adopt this as my ideal system against 1.e4(though I follow up with 2...Nf6) Anyway my point is that there are no real reasons why the centre counter is inferior to any other openings, even the best computer moves have yet passed the death sentence, let alone human players? :)|
Of course, I'll be interested to hearing anything that'll prove me wrong...
|Jun-09-05|| ||Montreal1666: <ongyj:> the argument is that if at any given position both sides play the "best" move then the game will end in a draw. In other words for any game to be won by one side, the opponent has to make a move that is not the "best" move. Now if you take this back to the 1st black move in response to 1)e4 then
the "best" move is only one of:
1)...c5 1)...e5 1)...e6 1)...c6 1)...Nf6 1)..d6 1)...d5 and ...
The chances of 1)...d5 to be the "best"
is almost none. As we all know the most likely answer for the "best" move is either 1)...c5 or 1)...e5. But I don't
think the answer is known yet 100%.
|Jun-09-05|| ||ongyj: <Montreal1666>
Was the mention of the argument ever "if at any given position both sides play the "best" move then the game will end in a draw?" In my opinion this argument is fundamentally flawed, since best move doesn't exist, at least the goodness of a move is subjected to opinions based on different criteria of choice.
What I was more interested about is that whether games can have a decisive result without an outright blunder from either side. Master Eric Schiller has mentioned that in his opinion a chess game cannot be won without a serious blunder by an opponent, which I disagreed, offering 3 examples which I feel neither party has made any real blunders ending with a decisive result.
Anyway, in response to your best move against 1.e4, you concluded with
"The chances of 1)...d5 to be the "best"
is almost none. As we all know the most likely answer for the "best" move is either 1)...c5 or 1)...e5. But I don't think the answer is known yet 100%."
Do you have any means, in forms of opinion, opening guidelines/theory ectera to support your stand? I don't wish to repeat myself unnecessarily but your opinion seems to be so trendy/statistical. 1...c5 and/or1...e5 are the hot responses while the rest including 1...d5 are the less popular ones but surely that doesn't always mean lesser played openings are inferior right?
|Jun-09-05|| ||Montreal1666: <ongyj:> I agree that a blunder is very different from not playing the "best" move. And perhaps Mr. <Eric Schiller:>
can clarify for us wheter or not 1)...c5 & 1)...e5 are supperior to 1)...d5.|
|Jun-09-05|| ||ughaibu: A couple more to consider: Geller vs K Klaman, 1949 Geller vs Leonid Stein, 1964|
|Jun-13-05|| ||patzer2: <ongyj> <Was the mention of the argument ever "if at any given position both sides play the "best" move then the game will end in a draw?" In my opinion this argument is fundamentally flawed, since best move doesn't exist, at least the goodness of a move is subjected to opinions based on different criteria of choice.> The proposition under discussion as I understand it is that if from the start of a classical variant chess game, if both sides make all best moves, then the game will end in a draw. |
The idea that "best moves do not exist" because there are sometimes differences of opinion as to what constitutes a best move is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignoranum as explained at http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html.) Just because strong chess master analysts sometimes disagree as to what constitutes a "best move" in a particular position does not prove that best moves are nonexistant. At best, it only establishes that all best moves are not yet known. Yet in fairness to you <ongyj>, in generously interpreting your argument, I think that appears to be the point you were trying to make (How can both players make all best moves if all best moves are not yet known?).
My own thought is that the statement "all classic chess games in which both players make all 'best moves' will end in a draw" is a statement of opinion which remains to be proven. It could be that a perfectly played classical variant chess game will end in a forced win for White. Or perhaps, in the eyes of an omnisicient God, classical variant chess is nothing more than a grand version of tic tac toe, ending in a draw with perfect play by both sides. However, IMHO, human knowledge of the game and what constitutes "pefect play or best play" has not reached a point at which such a proposition can be proven.
|Jun-13-05|| ||RisingChamp: It is completely ridiculous to suggest that Eric Schiller(with all respect to him as a strong player with 2300 rating)could clarify whether 1...e5 and 1....c5 are better responese to 1 e4 than 1...d5,whatever he has to say on that topic would be merely his opinion,and on this specific topic I wouldnt take anyone's opinion too seriously.
I have to point out that the concept of best move is just rubbish.Heres why. Depending on different situations different moves may be better even in the same position.Chess is a game and not a science,attempts to ignore the realities such as time controls,opponent,situation are silly.
However even if you decide to be purely "objective" there may be several moves which lead to the same result and then which is the "best move"? If you still want to stick to a "best move" theory,you will have to reintroduce subjective factors-which move wins quickest or draws easiest(easiest in terms of how easy the position is to defend or how many before the rules of chess demand the game be stopped???).After all objectively there is no reason to prefer mate in 1 to mate in 76 since the result is the same anyway.
For all we know chess may turn out to be zugzwang. <Montreal1666>s implicit belief that the "best moves" are nothing but the moves favoured in current GM practice really deserves no comment.|
|Jun-17-05|| ||ongyj: Gosh, am I flattered to know that there are users who actually read my posts so seriously, even probably to the extent of overdoing it!?|
Firstly I don't understand what's the fuss over the debate of 'best move' here all about. Initally all I said was that I believe a decisive result(1-0 or 0-1) can occur even when neither player made a serious blunder, period.
Okay, so I may be slightly enlightened, but even now I'll rather choose to remain on my stand and still say the same thing: "best move doesn't exist, at least the goodness of a move is subjected to opinions based on different criteria of choice."
<patzer2> If it was ignorant for me to believe that the best move doesn't exist then I'll issue you a direct challenge. On what logical/reasonable grounds do you have to believe that best move(s) exist in the very first place?
What I do know is that the best move doesn't exist, simply because everyone's criteria for a good move is different. By the way the 'best move' that's been in the discuession here applies more to openings. If you are talking from an uneven position such as puzzles with a winning move for White/Black I think some threads have been wasted...
Yes, this reply from mine seems rather offensive, even in my personal opinion and I do not wish to hide my feelings about it. I'm rather confident that it'd yet reached the degree of personal attacks yet though, so I should be able to get away scot-free:) I wish to speak no more here, since it's rather unnecessary(people who understands what I said understood and people who misinterprets always do. Perhaps I should go for some language tuitions... ha:)
|Jun-17-05|| ||patzer2: <ongyj> <If it was ignorant for me to believe that the best move doesn't exist then I'll issue you a direct challenge. On what logical/reasonable grounds do you have to believe that best move(s) exist in the very first place?> |
My apologies if you thought I was challenging your intellect or was making a personal attack. Far from it! I enjoyed your thoughtful post.
And you make a good point that my faith in the existence of a "best move" in positions that are unclear or in dispute among the GM analysts may also meet the criteria of an argument from ignorance. Just as dispute among the GMs does not prove best moves do not exist in those positions, such disagreement does not prove they do exist.
However, I do think it fair to state that in the majority of positions, best moves do exist based
on a consensus of expert opinion (i.e. GM analysts etc.). I also think it fair to state that there are many unclear positions in Chess, where it is not clear what is the best move. However, as a matter of personal faith in an omniscient God, I believe best moves such positions are known and exist, and simply await human discovery.
|Jun-17-05|| ||ongyj: <patzer2> I apologise for being rude. Please pardon a hot tempered teen who'se entering adulthood:(|
|Jul-01-05|| ||peanut: These guys are really at it! Leko and Adams i mean...|
|Jul-07-05|| ||patzer2: Since Leko and Adams played to a draw in their recent match, and Leko drew with Kramnik in a recent world championship match, I suspect Leko and Kramnik would not fare any better than Leko did in his match with the Chess computer Hydra (losing five and drawing only one of six games).|
|Jul-08-05|| ||aw1988: <patzer2> Evidently you are under the incorrect idea that x beats y, y beats z, therefore z must lose to x. Or something.|
|Jul-08-05|| ||delterp: Actually it is a scientific law related to what you mean, aw1988.
It is called the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics (no joke).
If A implies B and B implies C, then no information is gathered about A versus C.
Boy 1 likes Girl 1
Girl 1 likes Boy 2
Then what about Boy 1 and Boy 2????? Nothing.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·