< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 107 OF 194 ·
|May-24-12|| ||aipragma: The quiz question for game 10 brought to mind a game that pushed the limits of chess rules in a comical manner:|
Rybka vs Nakamura, 2008
Which definitely shows in my mind, the warped but extremely funny sense of humor that Nakamura has...
And subsequently brings to mind, in the spirit of Max Euwe, whether a warped but funny sense of humor is Turing-computable. ;)
|May-24-12|| ||Petrosianic: In too many matches, both players play like a draw is enough as it is. Better that at least one of them should know for sure that it isn't.|
|May-24-12|| ||vsaluki: This is a good way to kill off chess.|
|May-24-12|| ||Judah: <Petrosianic>, I think you were taking my last post too seriously. Of course both players are biased—which is more or less what Anand said—I wasn't quoting them to refute you or anything. I just found the quotation slightly amusing.|
The part about "<argument ad annis> fallacy" was overanalyzing Gelfand's words, IMO. "Outdated" means "outdated", not "outdated <because they don't do it anymore>". For the record, I didn't quote everything he said on the subject (and I wasn't paying enough attention to quote it now).
Personally, I don't think that draw odds for the champion are the way to go. He's already given a huge inertial advantage by getting to defend his title without a qualification match; I don't think the playing field ought to be tilted any further in his favor (which incidentally is one reason you might call the draw odds outdated).
|May-24-12|| ||Petrosianic: Oh, it is amusing all right. But Anand is a Pythonophile, so you have to expect him to get a good quip in now and then. It was Gelfand who took it too seriously, and looked silly.|
If the problem with draw odds is that they're unfair, then say "unfair". "Outdated" doesn't really mean anything at all. <Fashions> become outdated, which means that they're arbitrarily "not in fashion"... until somebody says they are again, which is why it's meaningless.
|May-24-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: In boxing, in case of a draw, the champion retains his title.|
|May-24-12|| ||Judah: I like Anand's answers in the press conferences generally: he's to the point and not afraid to be sharp.|
<If the problem with draw odds is that they're unfair, then say "unfair". "Outdated" doesn't really mean anything at all.>
I do see your point, which is why in my last paragraph I gave an example of a reason that you might call draw odds unfair nowadays, while conceding that they were all right for their time (hence "outdated").
|May-24-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Won't be her for the game Saturady ... driving over Friday night to Lafayette, LA. (For a 5-round weekend swiss.)|
|May-24-12|| ||Atking: The advantage of the draw odds is the challenger has to challenge for real if he wants to be the champion....
(Hoping the next 2 games will not again draws around move 30...).|
|May-24-12|| ||Judah: <MORPHYEUS>, if you're going to use that analogy, make it precise. I'd say that a win in the classical round of the chess match corresponds to a knockout in the boxing match. If neither fighter manages to knock each other out, boxing's tie-breaker is a judges' decision—which is an inferior way of deciding the winner than knockout, but still better than declaring a draw. This corresponds to the tie-breaking rounds of the chess match.|
IF even the tie-breaking rounds are drawn, THEN you could question what to do. However, Wikipedia notes <Draws are relatively rare in boxing: certain scoring systems make it impossible for a judge to award equal points for a match.> These scoring systems correspond to the Armageddon system of the chess match.
Overall, I think these analogies are of limited use in any case. The problem of draws in chess is real, but most proposals to overcome them come with their own drawbacks (NPI). I think that the solution of playing games at faster and faster time controls is a pretty decent one—it's still chess, only in a format more likely to yield a decisive result, but perhaps the best way to address this would be to somehow revise the rules of chess to preclude or reduce the chances of a draw. Not that I think <that's> going to happen any time soon, but it's interesting to ponder in theory.
|May-24-12|| ||anandrulez: Vishy has gone to one of his worst performance since starting his career . His play vs Gelf is sheer experience more than OTB play . Anyways , let the better player win .|
|May-24-12|| ||Petrosianic: If the better player always won, it would be a duller game. Who was it that said that it's not enough to just be a better player, one must also play well. (I'm thinking Tartakover, since he seems to have uttered most of the clever chess quotes, but it may have been someone else).|
|May-24-12|| ||dx9293: <Petrosianic> I believe the quote is from Tarrasch.|
|May-24-12|| ||Eggman: <<Anand is no more what he used to be. Lets accept the fact that he is not much strong now ... even if he survives, he will continue to show mediocre results in upcoming tournaments. >>|
This may well be true, but let's not forget that Karpov in his early forties looked all but finished (surviving a narrow scrape in the candidates against the inexperienced Anand and then suffering a huge upset at the hands of Short), but then turned things around dramatically and obtained some of his best-ever results over the next four years.
|May-24-12|| ||Eggman: Here's a question that might put the status of this match in perspective: does anyone give the eventual loser of this match a chance to win next year's candidates tournament?|
|May-24-12|| ||benjinathan: < Here's a question that might put the status of this match in perspective: does anyone give the eventual loser of this match a chance to win next year's candidates tournament?>|
I also don't give the winner much of a chance to defend.
|May-24-12|| ||Lambda: <does anyone give the eventual loser of this match a chance to win next year's candidates tournament?>|
|May-24-12|| ||mkrk17: Dont write off Anand so easily. I think his strategy will be to win in the last game(s) so that Gelfand doesnt have a chance to come back. Worse case if he doesnt win and it is draw, it anyways goes to rapids where Anand is ages ahead of his opponent.|
But all said and done, Gelfand has done a very good job of preparing against Anand.
|May-24-12|| ||Petrosianic: Anand is better enough than Gelfand that he shouldn't need to reduce it to one game, or to Rapids. The brevity of the match discourages taking chances.|
|May-24-12|| ||dx9293: <benjinathan> I disagree.|
<mkrk17> Also, one shouldn't write off Gelfand so easily!
|May-24-12|| ||eric the Baptist: they really need to play these games out a bit further. both players just seem terrified of losing, and so jump at the chance to end the game. You'd never know they were playing for something major.|
|May-24-12|| ||Check It Out: You know, for all Topalov's foibles, his non-contractual insistence on Sofia rules during his 2010 match with Anand, particularly with regards to draws, gave every game a fighting quality.|
For instance, we would have seen today's endgame played out. It would have been more exciting and we could have seen what a real draw looks like (unless someone made a mistake!).
Playing games out to their conclusion takes more energy and would change the nature of this this fight in a good way, I think.
I'd rather have two old exhausted guys slugging it out than two intellectual beings agreeing to theoretically drawn positions. That's the point. You make mistakes when you are tired.
|May-24-12|| ||AVRO38: <You know, for all Topalov's foibles, his non-contractual insistence on Sofia rules during his 2010 match with Anand, particularly with regards to draws, gave every game a fighting quality.>|
I agree 100%. Game 8 from 2010 is the perfect example. Topalov forced Anand to play out a dead draw until Anand eventually blundered and lost. The Sofia rules made 2010 one of the most exciting title matches ever.
|May-24-12|| ||sevenseaman: If Anand is not ahead by now, it certainly isn't attributable to any strategy. He is cutting it too fine if he is leaving it to the last game or two by design.|
IMO its because he hasn't found the wherewithal to beat Gelfand. He is now quite used to let things drift rather than make them happen. The verve of old is missing.
Its not for nothing that he has earned himself the pejorative 'drawanand'. He has not shown any significant spark since his defense of the title against Topalov.
For far too long now he has been giving a clear impression that he fights back only when he is pushed to the wall. A champion is expected to be a go-getter.
When he was dragging along in tournaments everyone thought he was saving his preparation for CWC. We have not seen him break the mould. What else will it take for him to shake off the malaise if not the ultimate prize of the game?
His ardent fans have perforce turned into vicarious apologists. If he retains his title they will heave an almighty collective sigh of relief. I am one of them.
|May-24-12|| ||parmetd: You actually think 2010 match was the most interesting match ever?! I think it the most boring match ever. Guess its all in your pov.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 107 OF 194 ·