< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 87 OF 87 ·
|Jun-03-07|| ||boz: I must say, though, about Carlsen's opening repertoire, that he really has got to hit the books. When he's Black he always seems to be in trouble by move 8; when he's White he keeps an edge but by move 8, it's mate or die.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||TheGladiator: <boz>
Magnus knows lots of main stream, main line opening theory - just study his blitz games at ICC for instance. The thing is, though, that he fears that opponents like Aronian know the hottest theory even better, so this far he's preferred and tried a lot of off beat lines instead at the higher level.
But it's true that he needs to switch to main lines sooner or later, and it's also true that currently the opening is his weakest point compared to the rest of the world top 20. But he's quite knowledgable of the stuff you can find in books, actually. What he really needs, is to have more time to work on finding opening novelties himself, or have/pay some strong players to do it for him, like we know Cheparinov does for Topalov, and probably the ukrainian and armenian players do for each other.
His cooperation with Heine is good, but I think he needs even more help in the years to come. While there is a strong chess milieu in the countries of most of his opponents, Magnus is too much on his own here in Scandinavia. But I'm sure intelligent ppl around him are aware of these issues, and if/when he turns pro, I'll think this will be addressed. After all, he's 16,5 years old... :)
|Jun-04-07|| ||maxfrank: This was a terrific match. S. Polgar on her blog asked a (political) question about how to fund professional chess. Here's an answer: "Subscription Match" between Carlsen and Aronian. I might shell out $20 or so for a 12-game match between these two. 50,00 people would add up to $1M. Throw in a wealthy patron and it's on. I would, however, insist on in-depth analysis by the participants or another super-GM, post-match.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||boz: <TheGladiator> Yes, that's putting it much better.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||Magnusch: <The End> Hmmm... First: When I wrote that your questions were childish I didn't mean that a "normal/ordinary" child could answer them correctly. I wrote childish because I felt it childish of you to ask me them (simply because totally irrelevant for proceeding about your "proved" hypothesis are really proved or not) AND childish asking me them because they belongs to the mathematics we (hopefully) learn in scool around 15 (?) years old.
You say <I cam mathematically prove it!>
I say wow! You are really good! No no no! Sorry! For me - and certainly for other mathematically skilled persons - you are only ~proving that your mathematically level are "not so high".
Of course everything are relative.
It seems to me you wanted to show you were mathematically skilled ... <"I cam mathematically prove it!> ...but that sentense points in another direction!! My english is not so good but I think you now what I mean. You see: Every person with sufficient skill/level in maths/statistics CAN answer your two questions! (And very easily I think).
You seems to be curious about my math-level and actually I didn't want talking about that (irrelevant!). But okey for a moment: I have around 3 years mathematics at University in Stockholm. I have taken (formally) around 85 "points" (~2 year fulltime) in maths + statistics. I have done things way beyond your square-problem. Example: I have proved that "it doesn't exist an "optimal dice" with 4 sides or more". I have invented pentominoes and similary objects (Ok others have done that to). And there are more. But all this is IRRELEVANT!
Now it's your turn answering my question: have you - ever - passed any course in statistics? Heard about Kolmogorovs axiom?
|Jun-04-07|| ||Magnusch: <The End> This started with you saying...
<of all the 8 games, except Pon-Sergei, the winner at the end of 2nd game is the fianl winner.If it is drawn after two games, it is drawn after 6 games too and went for tie breaks.This tells me final results will not chnage much just by increasing the number of games.Infact, this fact was proved repeatedly, yet people say 2 games are short we need 10 games, 12 games>|
I was specially looking at your last statement/assertion: <this fact was proved repeatedly>.
You claimed that: all eight matches together is enough for proveing "this fact".
I wrote: No! You haven't proved anything!
In this type of assertions (as you did) you really isn't proving anything no matter if it is 8, 100 or 1000 matches/data. You can only get something like: "hypothesis A is true with some level of significanse".
I said to you that your result wasn't significant. If you still think it is - can you please estimate some significans-level?
Maybe you can say something like this:
<Two games is enough to get the best player with a significans of 95 %>
or maybe like this:
<Playing 2 games instead of 6 only reducing the probability of getting the best player with x % (x6 % - x2 %)>
|Jun-04-07|| ||AlfieNoakes: I think its a shame that these two got put together so early as Carlsen could probably have beaten some of the other field. Although the games were great I think he deserved to do better than the first round. I fancied the winner of this to go on and win, so my money is on Aronian.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||YouRang: Aronian is easily one of the best players in the world, and the kid pushed him to the wall -- it could have gone either way.|
I expect Carlsen to be in the top 10 soon, and continue rising from there -- perhaps all the way to the top!
|Jun-04-07|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <boz: I don't agree that the Kasim-Gelfand match was better than Aronian-Carlsen just because there were fewer so-called errors. Cautious chess will always be more correct than than the high-risk kind. Preference depends on your personal measure of things. |
Aronian-Carlsen was more than entertaining. It was wondrous and inspired.>
Very well said. I heartily agree.
|Jun-04-07|| ||cotdt: there were so many mistakes in this match (every game had many mistakes), and the games were all so one-sided as if they agreed to take turns beating each other up. only in a couple games did either carlsen or aronian play a good defense. i wouldn't call it high quality games.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||acirce: <Peligroso Patzer> I seriously have to ask. Have you actually LOOKED at the games of the Gelfand-Kasim match? Earlier you were bashing them for drawing according to the stupid formula that say Draws = Bad and now you agree with a comment that absurdly implies that they played "cautious chess"!?! Considering the complexity of the games in that match (with the exception of the last game I guess, much like game 2 of Carlsen-Aronian) they did indeed play very, very good chess.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||boz: <acirce> Like all terms "cautious" is relative. I will argue that Aronian and Carlsen play a higher-risk style of chess than Gelfand and Kasim. That those two played very good chess is well established. You can relax...they have no need of your defence.|
My difference is with people who only see errors. They follow chess as though it were a mathematical exercise instead of a sport.
I wonder too how well those masters of precision, Gelfand and Kasim, would have withstood the imaginative attacking manoeuvres executed by Carlsen before becoming confused and falling into error.
|Jun-04-07|| ||acirce: <I wonder too how well those masters of precision, Gelfand and Kasim, would have withstood the imaginative attacking manoeuvres executed by Carlsen before becoming confused and falling into error.>|
Well, judging from these matches, they wouldn't have ended up in such bad positions right out of the opening in the first place. They also did come up with imaginative concepts in both attack and defense. I would argue that Carlsen and Aronian didn't take any higher risk than Gelfand and Kasim at all, simply for the reason that they didn't have do that to win to as the opponent put up much less resistance in those games. It's also very clear that Aronian and Carlsen played safer, more solid openings.
|Jun-04-07|| ||boz: There is more to chess than choice of opening. Kasim may well handle the opening better than Carlsen but I doubt there's a kibitzer in this room who would bet on him in a match with either Aronian or Carlsen.|
But we were talking about risk. And there is actually a better word than that.
In game 5 when Carlsen gave up his c-pawn in pursuit of an attack that I can only describe as visionary, people were wondering how he was going to stop Aronian's c-pawn from advancing. Nobody was accusing Aronian of poor defence at that moment. We all watched in wonder as the idea unfolded.
To play that way takes courage. I value this higher than any scale of accuracy that can be checked with Fritz for verification.
|Jun-04-07|| ||acirce: Well, I'm not saying Carlsen lacks courage and of course you have to take some kind of risk in any game to win. But as an example of great courage (rather than being a very impressive concept and one of the high points of the match in that regard) I don't know if that is a very good example - 1) he had it all calculated and even if he had missed something there was really no way he could lose, 2) he pretty much <had> to take chances to win to remain in the match, it being his last game with White. It's hardly less courageous to enter a super-sharp line leading to chaos on the board where you can easily slip and lose. But I'm not really interested in conducting a scientific, systematic comparison of the two matches, I'm just somewhat tired of hearing Carlsen-Aronian being hailed to the sky and contrasted to the "cautious" Kasim-Gelfand -- I really see no other reason for this than the latter match ending in all draws and perhaps that many people feel stronger emotionally about Carlsen and/or Aronian, neither reason being very rational. As a matter of fact Kasim and Gelfand played very high-quality AND courageous chess, so I don't really see how anyone can complain. And that's the last time I'll waste posting on this subject.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||cotdt: agreed, the Kasim-Gelfand games are absolute gems, I only wished Kasim would have pushed for the win in Game 6.|
|Jun-04-07|| ||slomarko: <As a matter of fact Kasim and Gelfand played very high-quality AND courageous chess, so I don't really see how anyone can complain.> for the first time ever i agree 100% with <acirce>|
|Jun-04-07|| ||micartouse: I think a lot of us paid most attention to the Aronian-Carlsen match because of the popularity and star power of both players. I admit I rarely looked at the Kasimdhanov-Gelfand games because of lack of interest in the 2 players; I'm shallow as a kiddie pool. :) I feel kind of guilty now.|
Fortunately, it was indeed a great match in its own way regardless of how it stacks up against the others.
|Jun-05-07|| ||TheGladiator: <acirce>
While I must admit to not having studied Gelfand's games very cautiously, I do object to comments like this:
<there were so many mistakes in this match (every game had many mistakes), and the games were all so one-sided as if they agreed to take turns beating each other up.>
Saying that Magnus-Aronian was "low quality" and Gelfand-Kasimdzhanov was "high quality" like the commentator I quoted does, makes me protest. Do _you_ agree to this quote? [I know you've said elsewhere that the match had hight quality <and> low quality "moments".]
As for the Gelfand-Kasim match: I think the picture might have been different if either of them had faced Magnus or Aronian. Here are some possible scenarios:
1) Out of respect (e.g. of Aronian) both might have played more solid openings (like Magnus/Aronian did, facing the other)
2) Magnus/Aronian might have unbalanced the games more (after the opening)
3) Aronian (and maybe also Magnus) might have "punished" the sharp play early on in the match, so as to convince Gelfand/Kasim to play more cautiously for the rest of the match. [As it was, there was no reason for either to change their openings much, but 2 of Kasim's 3 white games were rather short and tame draws, IMO.]
So, the first game(s) of a match might influence the total verdict. Magnus trailed most of the time, while Aronian was ahead most of the time. Maybe being ahead like Aronian was, made him "relax" a bit (too much), or maybe it even made him nervous...
Hard to tell what kind of psychological effects were going on to make Aronian appear (to some) as less solid than usual - but Magnus' wins were indeed excellent and intriguing end games...
|Jun-05-07|| ||Open Defence: for purely chess reasons I found the Kasim - Gelfand match more interesting... especially that first game... there were mistakes in that match (as there are in all matches) .... but what a save!|
|Jun-05-07|| ||sheaf: <gelfand kasim> vs <aronian carlsen>. well aronian carlsen was indeed a good match for the kind of nerves both players showed. all the classical games were in a way strange with one side completely outplaying others in complex middle games. on the other hand i believe gelfand kasim were both very well prepared and played some sharp games. gelfand is a solid its usually not his style to play outrageous openings.|
|Jun-05-07|| ||podjevsky: <TheGladiator> Why object to the low quality remark? This can only be because of your nationality and praise for a fellow countryman. Looking objectively at the two matches I don't think there is much to argue.|
The Kasim - Gelfand match had high quality <from both sides> in all the games. There was a lot of tension and exciting moments.
I must fully agree with those who say that Aronian - Carlsen match was one-sided. Perhaps it is a bit harsh to call it low-quality because both players showed good technique in utilising the rather bad play from their opponent.
The tension in the Carlsen-Aronian match was more between the individual games, not in the games themselves.
As I see it, every game (with some exception) in the Gelfand-Kasim match was as exciting as the entire Aronian-Carlsen match
|Jun-05-07|| ||TheGladiator: <podjevsky>
I objected to naming one "low quality" and the other "high quality". Consider my points above, and you'll see that the verdict might have been different if Gelfand or Kasim had faced either of Aronian or Magnus. We just don't know, and as usual I think many ppl are too categorical in their remarks.
<As I see it, every game (with some exception) in the Gelfand-Kasim match was as exciting as the entire Aronian-Carlsen match>
They played 6 games, and when you use a phrase like "every game" and seem to completely forget the dull and non-game round 6 (17 moves), and white's decision to offer draw after 23 moves in the same opening in round 2 (?), where Bxh6 instead of Qxd4 would have been a try for the whole point (which someone like Magnus is very likely to have tried) - it might not win, but you got to at least try!
IMO Kasim is either low on ambition, too confident in his rapid skills, or too cautious when he doesn't want to play out that position. And of course it becomes "higher quality" (= fewer mistakes), when you just stop playing a playable and anything but lifeless position after only 23 moves... [If indeed "some exception" was meant to cover both game 2 and 6, then "every game" is a very strange and misleading phrase about 66% of the games - so I kind of expect you included the 23 move abortion in "every game".]
So, I have a really hard time believing that you find a 23 move "I don't want (dare) to play anymore" as exciting as the "entire" Aronian-Carlsen match. What is your motif or what is your background to (say you) feel that way? Fan of Kasim or Gelfand or both? :)
PS! Note that I neither deny several weak moves/mistakes in Aronian-Carlsen, or fewer similar mistakes in Gelfand-Kasim, but one non-game and one aborted when things were becoming exciting, just isn't what I prefer as a chess spectator.
And btw - in the rapids we saw the "high quality" attack when Kasim really felt he had to win a game - top level chess often is about being able to unbalance the position so as to create winning chances, without getting (much) worse in the process. And I suppose it's not like there weren't better moves available than what Gelfand and Kasim played during the match - or is also that part of the claims? Just wondering :)
|Jun-05-07|| ||acirce: <Saying that Magnus-Aronian was "low quality" and Gelfand-Kasimdzhanov was "high quality" like the commentator I quoted does, makes me protest. Do _you_ agree to this quote?>|
No, I wouldn't say Carlsen-Aronian was low quality. It was just uneven with its spectacular highs as well as lows. Overall, I would probably say Kasim-Gelfand was better, but I'm not sure and I don't think it's too important.
|Jun-06-07|| ||Tacticstudent: <boz: I don't agree that the Kasim-Gelfand match was better than Aronian-Carlsen just because there were fewer so-called errors. Cautious chess will always be more correct than than the high-risk kind. Preference depends on your personal measure of things.
Aronian-Carlsen was more than entertaining. It was wondrous and inspired.>|
I agree with you; we can compare this to the studies of Karpov's and Kasparov's games. You learn more if you study Karpov's games, he does not error often and he plays in a instrutive cautious way. If you study Kasparov's games, you learn pretty less then if you were studying Karpov's ones, but Kasparov's games are clearly more exciting and fun.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 87 OF 87 ·