< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 30 ·
|May-24-11|| ||Aspat: Draw!!!!!|
|May-24-11|| ||kurtrichards: As Shipov said, "Tomorrow is another draw." C')|
|May-24-11|| ||Gypsy: Next game is Gelfand's prime opportunity to win these Candidates: While the present Match is tied, Gelfand will play the White side of the board in the last classical game. At the same time, historical data indicate that the young gambler, Grischuk, will gain edge with shorter time-controls; the shorter the better edge for Gris the Lightning Hand. |
Tension, pressure, ....
|May-24-11|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Gypsy>
So strange that Lightning Gris has trouble with time in classical!!!
|May-24-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: It's not trouble if nobody can beat him :)|
|May-24-11|| ||nisarg1: "When considering which rook to move, look at all the positional factors, check for tactics, and decide which is the better one to move. Then move the other one."
this is beyond me!|
|May-24-11|| ||karban: <Next game is Gelfand's prime opportunity to win these Candidates: While the present Match is tied, Gelfand will play the White side of the board in the last classical game.>|
All in all I hope it'll be tiebreak. It'd be even a bit rude to win now, after such a drawfest and chess is as I know gentlemens sport:).Both players know well that any of them (all eight) deserved win equally in this format so it should be decided in rapid and blitz - all about this tournament was.
|May-24-11|| ||turbo231: <Jim Bartle: I remember some GM once said something along the lines of, "When considering which rook to move, look at all the positional factors, check for tactics, and decide which is the better one to move. Then move the other one.">|
I remember reading that, but like you I've slept several times since then. Can't remember who said it, but I'll never forget it, unless I get a mental disease. My mother and grandfather had Alzheimers.
|May-24-11|| ||Funicular: Panno, I think|
|May-24-11|| ||kkdogg: Hi Frogbert,
Allow me to admit that I was wrong. I did not like the double RR. I felt Carlsen liked that format so he could win the title without having to beat Aronian, Carlsen, or Anand in a match. As great as the phenom is, he has not shown that he is better than these three in head-to-head match ups, having a negative score against each (small sample sizes, I know). I felt he wanted to gain the title by having better plus scores against the bottom four in the tournament and avoid having to beat the best.
Well, what has this tournament proved? Grischuk seems able to win without having to beat Kramnik, Aronian, Gelfand, or anyone else. Simply draw all your games and take them in blitz. Grischuk might win without having to beat the best too. What's a worse way to decide a champion? See who can have a better plus score against the bottom of the table? Or see who's better in blitz? I'm still not sold on the DRR, but it couldn't be any worse than this format, and at least it would lead to more exciting results.
In short, let me say that you were right on this one.
|May-24-11|| ||parmetd: "I felt Carlsen liked that format so he could win the title without having to beat Aronian, Carlsen, or Anand in a match. As great as the phenom is, he has not shown that he is better than these three in head-to-head match ups, having a negative score against each (small sample sizes, I know). "|
@kkdogg how does Carlsen beat himself in a match or show he's better than himself?
|May-24-11|| ||offramp: Now it's just bare hands.|
|May-24-11|| ||drik: <If an unlimited match format is unfeasible in the 21st century, at least consider the format of the Alekhine-Euwe matches; it combined the best elements of both the unlimited and limited formats. They were a best of 30 (i.e. 15.5 points) but with a minimum number of wins (6).>|
I like this idea, though perhaps the numbers should be scaled back a little for affordability. But the main problem seems to be the Candidates matches, rather than the Championship itself.
|May-24-11|| ||shakkiseepra: What's going on in the game?|
|May-24-11|| ||bronkenstein: <Chess fans here are savvy enough to differentiate between a fighting draw and a short draw> |
If they have that ability , then the great majority of them is very skillful @ hiding it from us.
Because <14 moves in Game 3 and 18 moves in Game 4> is typical method of determining the quality of the game here , and mysterious and , OFC , unproovable <to draw with so much play on the board> fails to offer an alternative arguement to simply counting the moves.
|May-24-11|| ||TheMacMan: with these HORRENDOUS short draws Gelfand and Grischuk are singlehandedly ruining the game of chess!!!!|
|May-24-11|| ||bronkenstein: <FIDE Master X> , GJ in trying to enlighten the trolls here, just few tips.|
Walls of thext are not troll friendly , no matter how much energy and passion you put into it.
And , all the things you said, including moves and comments , are posted multiple times in different variations on some of the forums here recently , some of them several times , including links and whatnot ...with little to no effect , i am afraid.
But anyway, keep doing the good work, and ... welcome to the forums :)
|May-24-11|| ||NGambit: Sorry, but the GM short draws like the ones in this event do not help in making chess popular. Already an elite sport, chess can't grow if it were to further shrink into only a GM or IM territory. Different people (A GM (handful of these) vs an amateur (majority)) may take away (or look for) different things in a particular game. Therefore, although Agreeing to a draw after a brief theoretical opening discussion might be enough for a GM it certainly offers little to an average chess fan (looking for a exciting duel) who is quite likely to turn away if this keeps happening on a regular basis.|
I understand why the players concerned here chose to draw and I would not be criticizing them. But, I do strongly support some changes in the rules to avoid this from happening. The Sofia rules? Why not? Nobody complained during the Anand-Topalov match as they are doing now.
|May-24-11|| ||Everett: Sofia rules should be seriously considered. Imagine every single game in this tournament played until there is no more play on the board. It would be not only a delight, but also the matches themselves would miraculously move toward being long enough.|
Anyways, I also prefer the DRR tourney, but only as a first event, then take the top 4 from that and have another DRR (6 rounds), and then have the top 1 go against the champion, or if the champ must compete in the mix, the top two have a match.
Related, a complete pet peeve of mine is, by keeping the champion with special privileges, it makes almost every champs tourney results lackluster. The championship becomes the only thing of importance and it warps performance in tourneys. I really dislike this.
|May-24-11|| ||Everett: Of course Kasparov and Karpov went full tilt in tourneys while they were champions, yet Botvinnik, Petrosian, Kramnik and now Anand seemed to not regard winning tournaments as vital. It's quite practical, yet it is not in the spirit of the chess culture I would like to promote.|
This holds especially true in regards to tourneys near the WC match. The champ adjusts his chess in preparation, or doesnt attend at all. This is an adulteration of chess in my eyes.
|May-24-11|| ||csmath: This is without doubt the weakest and the most boring candidate match final in the last 70 years.
With the weakest candidates to boot. It is sort of entertaining to actually think that these guys have ambition to become world champion?!|
|May-24-11|| ||David2009: If Gelfand ends up losing this match in rapid play, he may regret agreeing a draw in this game. This is the final position
click for larger view
with Black (Gelfland) to play. Black plays 39...Kxc6! and has a nagging edge - what snooker players call "a shot to nothing". Play might continue 40.Rb1 b6 41.cxb6 Bxb6 42.Ke2 Bc7 43.Rxb8 Bxb8 44.f4 g6 45.Ke3 Kb5 46.Nf3 Kc4 47.Ng1 Ba7 48.Nf3 Kc3 49.g4 Bb6
click for larger view
(White has drifted into an awkward repetive zugzwang and now does well to escape with a draw after losing a Pawn)
50.h3 Ba7 51.h4 Bb6 52.g5 fxg5 53.hxg5 Ba7 54.f5 gxf5 55.Nh4 Bxd4+ 56.Kf4 Bb6 57.Nxf5 Bc7+ 58.Kf3 Bd8 59.Ne3 d4 60.Nd5+ Kd2 61.Ke4 Bxg5 62.Kxd4 Ke2 63.Ke4 h6 64.Kf5 Kf3 65.Kg6 Kg4 66.Nf6+ Kh4 67.Ne4 Bf4 ½-½
The above moves are Fritz 6 (White) playing 15 mins + 10 s/move against Crafty End Game Trainer (link http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-t...). Perhaps White can play better earlier: the point is, White is on the defensive with no winning chances and Black has a nagging advantage.
|May-24-11|| ||Bobwhoosta: I will concede that on average the short draw problem is reprehensible, and turns the gut of the average chessplayer. However, as far as losing sponsorship or fanbase, well, we're still here, aren't we? And this Candidates Cycle is here, isn't it?? I think it's a little extreme to claim that this will erode sponsorship of chess or that the sport will not grow because of a problem it has had for some time.|
Chess will never be an immensely popular sport because it is very time intensive. You can't properly enjoy a game between two GM's until you've spent more time in the game than most people want to spend to get that enjoyment. If you look at it in terms of opportunity cost, I can watch a tennis match for the first time and have more fun than most people could after spending weeks learning the game of chess. It's just easier.
So, to rephrase, chess has always and will always be a game for the minority, nerds like us who for some reason or another are fascinated by pieces- whether material or immaterial- hovering about the board in a frantic attempt to look dull to the rest of the world.
|May-24-11|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Everett>
I like your point about warping the Candidates and making the Championship the only thing to worry about. I feel it is a little overstretched however. I see people doggedly following the tournaments and claiming their pet player should be champion when they do better than the current champion.
However, there are many Head-to-Head sports that end in a one one one match for the crown. Boxing is one of them, WWF wrestling (which is almost exactly the same as chess!!) is another, UFC. Anyway, the interesting tie-in to all of these is that they are a combat sport, just like chess... So it's not unusual to have a champion retain their title until knocked off by a challenger.
|May-24-11|| ||bronkenstein: Paradoxically , if the games were of lower quality , blunder(s) would produce a decisive game and the people would whine less IMO , and that ˝user friendly˝ type of chess is what we must fight against , here or anywhere .|
It is much harder to educate than to amuse , and the essence , the logic of chess is not to be compared with that of boxing, tennis , football, or any other mass popular sport ( which is naturally much more accessible ie understandable to the average fans ) , especially having in mind different parallels of such kind that were used here as an argument.
If you never contemplated a single move OTB for more than an hour, then you probably donĀ“t know what I am talking about. I have a simple suggestion that might help understanding my point. Lets take , for example , that infamous 14 move draw . (http://www.chessintranslation.com/2...).
Now , that game was , actually, a 4 move draw ( Gelfand played moves 10.-13. OTB, while probably having atleast first 2 of them in his preparation , after he introduced stunning 9. ... b5! = ...so maybe we can call it even a 2move draw (!) from his POW :)...2 moves draw!!! I already can see all the trolls here going berserk ) , so here goes my suggestion.
Turn off your Rybkas, Houdinis,Fritzes, whatever u got. Dust off your old chessboard , try to separate 2 to 2 and a half hours (that is how much the players spent totally on so short distance of 4, ie 2 moves !)...or atleast 20 minutes, half an hour , whatever , and try to go through moves 10.-13. of this game with all the tactics , complicated lines and subvariations offered in the link . Try to imagine, additionally , that you are playing the game of your life , with all the additional tension and responsibility each move bares , highest possible stakes , with even slight blunder in some distant variations being sudden death potentially . Another suggestion is not to move peaces during that , which would make an excellent training in visualisation.
I believe that it will help you to , at least , have much better understanding of what happened in that game , which was BTW obviously not a typical short GM draw.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 30 ·