< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 89 ·
|Jan-26-12|| ||Everett: <jussu> yes, cherry-picking is exactly what Nunn did. Was Avro '48 a blunderfest? He went far enough back to make the comparison seem ridiculous, yet move forward just a few decades and it is not so clear. Post-WWII chess is well-known to be a huge leap forward for chess...|
The biggest difference moving forward from Lasker on is a much greater depth of excellent chess playing. The difference is not found so much in the very top players as it is found further down the rankings.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Everett: <Why can't we be arrogant about our own times> because it is this attitude that is burning this world to a cinder.|
|Jan-26-12|| ||Octavia: <<boz><Did civilisation move forward from, say, 500 AD to 1000 AD?>|
Certainly in the middle east it did, and Japan, and China, and likely some other places as well.> What nonsense! China & Japan were highly civilised long before Europe woke up! Unfortunately the leaders of these countries were immoral enough to exploit the poor & so they stagnated until Mao came along...
|Jan-26-12|| ||TheFocus: So they have to have ANOTHER rest day?
What a bunch of granny-asses!!
|Jan-26-12|| ||ajile: < boz: The reason the Ruy Lopez and the QGD are still played at the highest levels is that they are inexhaustible wells of possibilities.>|
No the reason they are played is because they give better chances to equalize as Black.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: <The difference is not found so much in the very top players as it is found further down the rankings.>|
Agree. I believe Capablanca and Morphy would have no problem succeeding at very high levels today. But the average player of 1850 or 1920 would struggle mightily against today's average player.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: It's not only the openings that have changed, but middlegame and endgame tactics have also improved.|
|Jan-26-12|| ||boz: Of course I should have said <western civilization> above but my point stands; civilization does not always move forward.|
<ajile: < boz: The reason the Ruy Lopez and the QGD are still played at the highest levels is that they are inexhaustible wells of possibilities.>
No the reason they are played is because they give better chances to equalize as Black.>
Ajile, I agree that that is one reason, but we both know it is not the only one. Most serious Grand Master will tell you that those two openings are rich in possibilities and can lead to a wide range of themes. I've even heard some say that all of chess is contained in the Ruy Lopez and the Queen's Gambit Declined.
You have to admit that games are still being won and lost in those structures.
|Jan-26-12|| ||boz: <Whitehat1963: It's not only the openings that have changed, but middlegame and endgame tactics have also improved.>|
Can you provide an example?
|Jan-26-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <So they have to have ANOTHER rest day? >|
Maybe they want to finish on the weekend so they draw a larger crowd.
<Agree. I believe Capablanca and Morphy would have no problem succeeding at very high levels today. But the average player of 1850 or 1920 would struggle mightily against today's average player.>
Yet they say the language and sentence structure of the state of the union message has gone from a first year college to 8th grade level in the last 50 years.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: <boz> It's very difficult, of course, one of those "I know it when I see it"-type of arguments. |
But take a look at this game, for example. It's nothing revered in the annals of chess, but look at how complicated it is both offensively and defensively, and how the players create subtle problems for each other in ways that I don't think the average "high GM-level player" of the 1800s could have managed:
Tal vs Gligoric, 1968
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: Look at the same here: L Dominguez vs Morozevich, 2009|
|Jan-26-12|| ||boz: Thanks for the game Whitehat. I'm at work now but will review it later.|
To be honest though, I wasn't really thinking of the 19th century when I asked the question. I know that, for example, techniques in defense developed to a much higher level in the 20th century. That is partly why the romantic swashbuckling style disappeared.
I thought you were refrring to todays players in comparison to pre- or post-war masters of the last century...or even the 70s compared to now. So perhaps I misunderstood.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: Then look at the complexity of something like these:|
V Zvjaginsev vs Z Pengxiang, 2006
Benko vs Suttles, 1964
Kupreichik vs G Danner, 1966
You'll have a hell of a time finding anything like that in the 18th century, of course. And none of those games are necessarily anything that will be exceedingly praised 30 years from today.
Now, since Capablanca-Alekhine in 1927, most of the changes we've seen have been in the openings. The emergence of the exchange sacrifice is about all I can point to. But I do think today's highest-level GMs are better endgame players than they were in Capablanca's day. Capa, Rubinstein, Alekhine, and Lasker may have been exceptions, but I think they pale in comparison to the likes of Kramnik, Carlsen, Jakovenko, and Ponomariov, for instance, in complicated endgames.
Just my opinions, of course.
|Jan-26-12|| ||beenthere240: I think the understanding of piece and positional valuation has dramatically improved. Player sacrifice the exchange with much better understanding now. We marvel at Aronian's sac against Giri the other day, but I'll bet he saw the opportunity in a heartbeat. I also bet today's players play a lot more chess and against better competition while they're developing than the old masters.|
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: Look at the patience and subtlety in this endgame, for instance:|
Kramnik vs Ponomariov, 2009
The calculation in this one:
D Jakovenko vs I Cheparinov, 2008
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: Look at the SEEMING disregard for safety in this game:|
Topalov vs Aronian, 2006
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: It's very difficult to put your finger on what specifically has changed about the game, but I don't think it can be denied.|
|Jan-26-12|| ||drkodos: ^ Specifics have surpassed generalities as a template for what moves are to be played|
|Jan-26-12|| ||boz: Hey, <Whitehat>, that's a lot of homework!|
I will try to appreciate these games tonight but I'll have to defer comparitive judgments to better qualified players than me.
At a certain point, though the comparison becomes problematic. For instance, Capablanca seems, to have been ahead of most of his contemporaries in endgame technique making it very easy for him to steer the game towards positions he simply knew were winning. So in a sense one could argue that he wasn't really tested, at least not until Alekhine came along.
<beenthere> makes a good point about the exchange sacrifice. We do seem to see a lot of that these days. Aronian-Giri is an excellent example because I still don't see Black's compensation even if the result tells me it's sound.
But I think players like Petrosian, Fischer, Tal and Alekhine understood these sacrifices just as well. Maybe this knowledge is better diseminated now and so more commonly practiced among a wider range of masters.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Whitehat1963: Here's a game I think they LOOKS like it COULD have played in the 1840s and beyond, but I don't think they WOULD have found the moves:|
V Zvjaginsev vs Topalov, 1995
Both offenses and defenses are so complex and dynamic.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Everett: <Octavia: <<boz><Did civilisation move forward from, say, 500 AD to 1000 AD?>
Certainly in the middle east it did, and Japan, and China, and likely some other places as well.> What nonsense! China & Japan were highly civilised long before Europe woke up! Unfortunately the leaders of these countries were immoral enough to exploit the poor & so they stagnated until Mao came along...>|
Octavia, I think you misread my post. Indeed, the areas I mentioned did "move forward" while Europe stagnated.
|Jan-26-12|| ||frogbert: <I'm pretty sure they'd be able to survive the opening phase, and from there on they'd be as good as any given player today.>|
sokrates, i think that's a huge simplification. gradually, over the past 50-100 years, there have been major changes in what kinds of middle games are actually being played, with relevant impact on strategy (although the changes have mostly been hand in hand, for strategies and position types played).
john watson has made extensive research in this field, and he points out numerous structures that are much more frequently present in modern middle game positions compared to older games, and how such positions and structures are differently understood and treated. a lot of groundbreaking developments took place after the second world war, for instance, mostly lead by russian (and other ex-soviet) players.
presenting lasker and schlechter with numerous modern middle game positions would most likely <not> have given the same low error rate as provided in bridgeburner's infamous study; it's not simply about opening theory, but about new strategical concepts and knowledge. it's about <experience> they didn't have. such experience can't simply be force-fed into their heads.
it's similar to how anand's accumulated opening knowledge can't simply be force-fed into carlsen's head <if> the latter would've wanted it - anand's experience in playing varying "popular openings" over more than two decades isn't something the youngsters simply can "fix" by loading the appropriate dvd "into their brains". it must be taken in, absorbed, practiced and only then it'll be fully understood and operable. the old master "crash course in everything modern" is simply a myth and a meaningless, hypothetical construct.
another example: consider how giri was taken by surprise by an older side line in the sicilian dragon against nakamura. of course 9... Nxd4 was available in giri's database (with several hundred games) - but at 17 he can't be acquainted with each and every line in a complex and concrete opening like the sicilian. and he's a kid of the computer age, who's grown up with the reality that even lesser players can be super-prepared in some topical line. it's everything but certain that every old master would've had the required <set> of talents needed to be competitive today; while carlsen is said to get out of the well-throdden path more often than not, people typically forget that he needs a lot of knowledge of opening theory simply to <know that he will be out of people's book>. even playing untheoretically requires a lot of theoretical knowledge.
a final example of what it means to navigate in new and unknown surroundings: giving me the necessary crash-course for how to drive a car in england wouldn't take very long. but i've driven on the right side of the road for more than 20 years here in norway, and every instinct and habit i have is based on that. putting me in a car with the steering wheel on the right side and letting me lose in the english traffic would immediately yield a driver with worse skills than in my parallel right-hand side world in norway. and it wouldn't be because i lacked theoretical information.
<In the endgame they may even be better.>
maybe, and mostly because they had the luxury of playing more end games without shortened time controls compared to the current pratice - and because they had their games adjourned just as the games typically were to enter (or come close to) end games. hence, there was an onus to work on the end game.
the differnce here is mostly just a side effect of "external" changes to the game: shortened time controls and the discontinuation of adjournments. old masters would certainly make more mistakes in end games than they did, if they had to play these endings with current time controls (and without adjournments to study specific endings). it's easy to see when current day players blunders - it's generally when they run low on time.
|Jan-26-12|| ||Diademas: http://www.tatasteelchess.com/tourn...|
<Armenian GM Levon Aronian seemed well on his way to win the 10.000-euro first prize in Grandmaster Group A of the 74th annual Tata Steel Tournament at Wijk-aan-Zee on Wednesday.>
Is that all? 10.000-euros seems like a ridiculous low number. Can anyone confirm?
|Jan-26-12|| ||frogbert: diademas, the organizers in waz typically spend more money on appearance fees than on prizes. my guess is that there are several players in group a that got well above 10.000 euros just to promise to be there. :o)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 89 ·