< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 47 ·
|Nov-21-11|| ||HeMateMe: <alexmagnus: Funny you consider me a Nordic. > Ok, but why don't you have a name like, say, <Misha Schmidt>?|
|Nov-21-11|| ||jakaiden: The only sparks flying are the fireworks!!|
|Nov-21-11|| ||HeMateMe: Does anyone know if Nakamura hooked up, over the weekend?|
|Nov-21-11|| ||RichPeverley: HeMateMe
It was a pleasant experience......
|Nov-21-11|| ||scholes: For a chess website lot more subjective and pointless discussion happens on this web site. One would think chess loving people would be objective|
|Nov-21-11|| ||Petrosianic: <One would think chess loving people would be objective>|
It's Blitz Chess.
Seriously, I remember years back at a chess club discussion, somebody quoted Lasker's well-known maxim about how "on the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long." Somebody laughed and said "I guess he never played blitz chess." True. In blitz chess, less than best moves (i.e. lies and hypocrisy) not only survive, they win games. Take a situation where your opponent has 10 seconds, and you have 30. The best move may be to repeat moves and take a draw. But in that situation, the winning strategy might be to make a losing move, knowing that your opponent can't possibly win in the 10 seconds he has left.
A lot of arguments are basically like that. People make bad arguments, knowing that they're bad, trusting that the person they're talking to won't be able to spot the flaw. Or if he does, that they'll be able to divert, misdirect, change the subject, or otherwise avoid it. In short, very much like blitz chess.
It makes a lot of people look ridiculous without realizing why, because their argument style is geared towards a face-to-face argument, where bull and razzle-dazzle are more effective. That may not work in an internet discussion, where even if you succeed in making the other guy forget his point, he can just read up and get back on track again.
|Nov-21-11|| ||SteinitzLives: Only 2 out of the 6 victories so far have been with white. Statistically speaking these players are not playing well, sorry if that fact interrupts anyones' idol (and idle) worship ceremony.|
|Nov-21-11|| ||brankat: "It is remarkable to what lengths the human mind will go to justify doing what it wanted in the first place." |
– Peter Svidler
|Nov-21-11|| ||vsaluki: HeMateMe: "1. Most chess fans believe the world champion is the best player in the world."|
Want to show me the statistics on that. Because I certainly don't believe it.
"2. To become world champion, you have to beat the defending world champion in a match, or some length."
Unfortunately, only one person get's to try every couple of years. And since the method of selecting that person is virtually worthless in determining the best candidate, it means that the championship itself is meaningless.
"3. Until Magnus Carlsen has enough confidence to jump into the fray,"
What evidence do you have that confidence is the issue?
|Nov-21-11|| ||drnooo: the internet would make a fine place to hold a prelim sorting out at a fairly low level just to find a few diamonds in the rough later face to face games would then confirm they were trueblue or cheating but such a search would be interesting|
|Nov-21-11|| ||KKDEREK: Ivanchuck is been working hard on this tourney..Longs games, averaging 64 moves. Awesome..|
|Nov-21-11|| ||voyager39: Look up the games that have contributed to Chess Theory and you'll find that a disproportionately large number of them have come about in the WCC matches. Many of these are also classics that upcoming players study to improve their game. They also occupy prime space in the "best games" list of these greats.|
IMHO, it is the quality of chess that sets aside the World Championship matches. We see a lot of deep theoretical analysis and novelties unveiled. Its like those rare cosmic events that happen once in a few years and is a must watch for every astronomer or maybe its like the showdown after months of intense training like in those Rocky Balboa movies that I loved as a kid.
Let the Anand-Gelfand match also live upto (or fail) that criteria before we shoot our mouths off.
And maybe the idol worshippers can compile how much their respective Gods have contributed to our knowledge of Chess instead of beating their hollow chests needlessly.
What's Karpov's contribution to Ruy Lopez? How has Kasparov changed the way some openings are played? What's the contribution of Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Carlsen and Aronian to Chess Theory? Anyone with such stats? Anyone?
Till then we can keep ignoring the basic truths...and we can keep punishing discipline and keep applauding the gambler of the week. We are all part of a global culture that seeks instant gratification without the hard work. You slog for 30 years, you work hard, you're disciplined...yet your kids deserve to starve and you must suffer in old age! No wonder the world is poisoned and in such a horrid state today.
|Nov-21-11|| ||drnooo: there is something VERY antiquated about how players are selected for the world championship now that the Net is here|
|Nov-21-11|| ||Bobwhoosta: <SteinitzLives>
Ah but here's the rub, the black players must be playing EVEN BETTER...
Of course that by no means indicates that I will worship anyone or anything but God, however I wanted to point out that little inconsistency.
|Nov-21-11|| ||Everett: To avoid such a schism between tourney results and WC matches, the "tennis" style rankings can be adopted. At the end of every year, the tournament results can be tallied and the top two can contest a match of 12 games or so.|
Each year this happens: no encumbents, no players sitting on their prep. Make it two years is you want.
An historical example is the '88-'89 World Cup. The only thing that would have to be added is a match between the top two, Kasparov and Karpov, at the end of it, instead of a whole separate candidates cycle of matches later.
In this sense, FIDE's last cycle was pretty close. I think they simply had too many slots at the end (9 total; 8 candidates and the WC) Limit it to 2 (or maybe 4) with no incumbent.
In short, the very existence of the WC creates the situation we have now with Anand and Gelfand.
|Nov-21-11|| ||HeMateMe: <vsaluki> Well, FIDE must see it as I do, they have reinstated an elimination cycle, to determine a challanger for Anand. Maybe you don't care how a chess champion is determined, but you are in the minority.|
The days of Kasparov deciding who the champion will defend against are over.
History remembers who was world champion, not who was playing better in this or that year, or who had the higher ELO.
If FIDE repesents the majority, and this is the system in place, then the majority of chessplayers who actively follow the game agree with me.
|Nov-21-11|| ||SteinitzLives: <Bobwhoosta: <SteinitzLives> |
Ah but here's the rub, the black players must be playing EVEN BETTER...>
If any player had more than one win with black in this tourney so far, I might agree, but that's not the case.
|Nov-21-11|| ||Meatwad: <voyager39> You raise an interesting question, although not necessarily relevant to the strength or championship worthiness of the players. Karpov's contributions to the Zaitsev Ruy Lopez are well known (although if you're really picky you could call them Zaitsev's contributions, but really....), as they are to his handling of the Queen's Indian, Caro-Kann, etc etc. Kasparov's opening innovations are so widespread it would be pointless to name them. However, Fischer was by no means a true leader in developing opening theory, yet those wrapped in the red white and blue are occasionally tempted to call him the greatest player of all time.
Of the modern generation, Kramnik can be credited with revolutionizing the Catalan and the dreaded Berlin Wall in modern practice. Anand has made significant contributions to the Meran, amongst others. Carlsen is too young to be judged by this standard, I reckon. Perhaps he will be like Fischer, known for his style and his results rather than the openings he used to achieve them.|
|Nov-21-11|| ||bronkenstein: <Petrosianic: ... It's Blitz Chess.... > reality is , as always , more complex than a simple parallel , anyway nice story =)|
|Nov-21-11|| ||BadKnight: <shach matov: <He did not even <need> to win classical games to qualify.>|
That doesn't make any sense since that's the only possible way to win a qualifier; even if each match was 10 games long, it still wouldn't change the overall structure>
NO - 10 games match as opposed to 4 games match - it would change the overall structure completely, and that's the whole point. The format will more likely choose a stronger candidate. stronger player will have better chances to win. and the format will be little better than just a lottery that gelfand won.
|Nov-21-11|| ||shach matov: <BadKnight>
Gelfand beat both Grishuk and Mamedyarov in the classical games, so what the hell are you even talking about?
<NO - 10 games match as opposed to 4 games match - it would change the overall structure completely, and that's the whole point.>
That's complete BS! Even if it was 10 games, many draws and the drawn outcome is very likely, in which case it will still have to be decided by blitz. So more classical games would be a bit better but like I said it still would NOT change the overall format. In most of the matches blitz and rapid will still decided the winner.
|Nov-21-11|| ||BadKnight: you are wrong|
|Nov-21-11|| ||shach matov: Yes that's very convincing... you have no facts, just silly opinions.|
|Nov-21-11|| ||BadKnight: There is no room for opinion, its just a simple mathematical fact that 10 game format is more likely to favor a stronger player as opposed to 4 game match, which would produce more random winner. and thats why you say things like <Even if it was 10 games, many draws and the drawn outcome is very likely> which is completely wrong. I dont want to start a lecture on probablility here coz its not the right place. peace, and enjoy the royal game!|
|Nov-21-11|| ||shach matov: <10 game format is more likely to favor a stronger player as opposed to 4 game match, which would produce more random winner.>|
That's completely wrong once again! The fact is that all of the participants in the candidates were very close in strength and ratings. Therefore, even if the matches were 10 games long, the most probable outcome is still a draw. Thus they would still have to play blitz to decide the winner. In other words, the format would not really be effected that much.
This being said, I myself would have preferred 10 games to 4 but apparently it's not very easy to implement this; otherwise FIDE would do it.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 47 ·