< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 140 OF 194 ·
|May-29-12|| ||vinidivici: <diceman its about choosing not to take risks and backing down from the fight.>|
Agreed thats why we need a younger blood in WCC. Anad and Gelfand lack of guts.
|May-29-12|| ||keypusher: <MORPHYEUS: <Mr. Bojangles: Wine n cheese, yes. ... but wine n chess???
Gawd the mooaaannn....
The summer of discontent on CG has just begun!>
LOL. They're having the whine and chess.
The rapid tie-breaks will be great. We can watch a decisive game live within an hour.>
If only they were playing bullet. The match would be over even sooner.
|May-29-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: This match produced 2 beautiful decisive games. Game 3 was also exciting. It's not a drag out 24, 36 or 48 games match.|
We'll have the champion tomorrow. Then we have the next cycle next year with Carlsen playing.
I don't like FIDE, but in fairness, it's not doing that bad.
|May-29-12|| ||Petrosianic: <MORPHYEUS>: <This match produced 2 beautiful decisive games.>|
In what way was either game "beautiful"? "In that they were decisive at all", I know. But as decisive games go, neither one of these was particularly good. TwoSheds played a little raggedy in Game 7 and went down, while Mitzvah completely self-destructed in Game 8. Neither game had the style and panache of... oh, let's be as recent as possible. Neither was as good as any of the decisive games of the 2010 match.
|May-29-12|| ||Monoceros: <acirce: I might have preferred the games to be a little longer on average, but why not appreciate all the interesting and rich games they gave us rather than just complaining that they didn't give us even more?>|
For the same reason I wouldn't feel satisfied if every performance of "Macbeth" ended with the actors' deciding there wasn't any point in going past the second act. No matter how accomplished the artistry of the fragment that was actually performed I'd still be let down when it ended prematurely. And I think I'd be within my rights to complain about it, if it happened.
Aren't endurance and persistence supposed to be qualities that a great chess master is expected to possess? The German term "sitzfleisch" comes to mind, literally the ability to sit on one's ass and stick the job out until the job's done. It's a virtue that seems to be disappearing from professional chess. (It is, by the way, not a virtue I exhibit in the slightest.)
It isn't just the encroachment of shorter time controls, the use of blitz games to decide matches, and the shortness of the matches themselves that are eroding this quality of endurance. It's the attitudes of the players themselves. I don't think it's right that two grandmasters should decide that, once Black has equalized, the game's basically over and they should just call it a day and go home. They have the privilege of doing so, of course, and I'm sceptical of artificial methods for prolonging games like the Sofia rule if only because they're not going to prevent players determined to quit early from quitting early. But there's something about these premature draw offers that, to me anyway, violates the spirit of chess.
Don't we admire lengthy contests in which the victor grinds his opponent down with superior persistence, keeping the pressure on until something breaks? Or those games in which a player fights on even at a disadvantage? We are deprived of such contests these days. To me it is insufficient to argue that resigning early is logical because the position is equal. It's not just about positions but about men and their ability to endure the contest. You say it's obviously a draw and there's no point in fighting on? Prove to me you can hold the draw.
I'm reminded of Friedrich Saemisch, who supposedly said that he'd be happy just to play the first twenty moves of a game and let someone else finish for him. He got his wish, in a way.
|May-29-12|| ||Petrosianic: <For the same reason I wouldn't feel satisfied if every performance of "Macbeth" ended with the actors' deciding there wasn't any point in going past the second act.>|
"Look, you people all know Macbeth ends up dead, so what's the point of going through the motions?
|May-29-12|| ||Indiachess: Disappointed with Anand's attitude rather than his play.|
|May-29-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: <acirce: I might have preferred the games to be a little longer on average, but why not appreciate all the interesting and rich games they gave us rather than just complaining that they didn't give us even more? That's the kind of attitude I don't understand.. But to each his own, and all that.>|
This is the first time, i'll agree with <acirce>. The short draws spared us some wasted time from the long draws. :)
|May-29-12|| ||Rodrigo Gutierrez: Irrespective of who ends up winning tomorrow, this match will most likely go down in history as the dullest world championship match ever. If the match that we have seen is a possible outcome of the way the world championship is organized, then, in my opinion, Fide needs to change the championship format to make sure this never happens again.|
|May-29-12|| ||Bobwhoosta: <MORPHYEUS>
You don't have to respond to me, I'm fine with that. I see no correlation between assuming that your comments were directed at least partially in my direction (seeing as you have a disparaging opinion of anyone who has any beef with this cycle in general), and the question of whether or not I was whining.
It's interesting that you consistently say "Complaining will do no good, yet all these people do is complain complain complain". Do you realize you're complaining? You add nothing to the general conversation except a general disdain and disrespect for anyone who has the opinion that this match wasn't satisfactory.
The interesting thing is I can see your point of view, or opinion. In other words I can see how someone could be satisfied with this match, despite the fact that I am most certainly not satisfied. What I find in you is a certain inflexibility in that you somehow think your opinion is important enough that anyone who doesn't share it is somehow beneath you.
Let me ask you, were you to be dissapointed in this cycle would you say so? Were you to think something needed to be changed would you express your opinion? If so, you are a hypocrite in attacking others who just happen to have that opinion when you do not.
I guess that last question was rhetorical...
|May-29-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: Thank Gad, it's only 12 games. :)|
|May-29-12|| ||Kinghunt: The problem is that both players have been quite content to draw their classical games to force tiebreaks. A solution needs to be to give the players a real incentive to play for wins. Not Sofia rules style, not with cash bonuses for decisive games, but with the world title itself. Make the world champion the player who's the first to three wins. Nice and simple. The matches should still end up being roughly the same length, far more interesting, and have no need for tiebreaks. There could even be some provision to defend against a repeat of Karpov-Kasparov 1984, such as the match being capped at 30 games or so.|
If this system had been in place and the players hadn't played any differently, this is how long several recent title matches would have lasted:
Anand-Topalov 2012: 12 games
Anand-Kramnik 2008: 6 games
Kramnik-Topalov 2006: 10 games
Kramnik-Leko 2004: 20 games (projected)
Kasparov-Kramnik: 20 games (projected)
Kasparov-Anand 1995: 13 games
Kasparov-Short 1993: 4 games
On the whole, we see that the matches would be around the same length, and this seems like it would solve most of the problems we've seen in this match.
|May-29-12|| ||Bobwhoosta: <acirce>
I'm delighted that the combatants chose multiple openings and played early novelties. I am saddened that as soon as those novelties produced anything looking remotely like a drawn position they suddenly became non-combatants. Especially the last game. Yes, it is a draw, theoretically at least. But there was no harm in playing on in the better position, and mistakes have been made in far more drawish positions. How do you bring out those mistakes in your opponents? You shake hands. Oh wait, no, you play on. My dissapointment extends not only to the overall attitude of the players when faced with any type of drawish position (and btw that isn't just my opinion but is shared by the majority of the GM commentators in a number of the games), but to the match rules that encourage this type of insipid play.
So yes, I love the openings. Too bad chess has three phases, and the third one isn't "Time to shake hands" phase.
|May-29-12|| ||MichaelJHuman: Didn't someone suggest more than 1 point for a win to incentivize wins?|
|May-29-12|| ||kamalakanta: Who is Gad?|
|May-29-12|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Kinghunt>
You know, I would tend to agree with that, except I might make one small change:
Cap the games at 24 and take the score at that time, that way you can assure the organizers that the match will not exceed the "accepted standard" of match play in the past. Also, I for one don't mind champion's draw odds, it's like King of the Hill, as long as the King hasn't been knocked down he's still the King, regardless of if someone managed to climb up and force him to a stalemate.
All in all though, an astute solution imo.
|May-29-12|| ||acirce: <For the same reason I wouldn't feel satisfied if every performance of "Macbeth" ended with the actors' deciding there wasn't any point in going past the second act.>|
Sure, if you think this is by any stretch a reasonable analogy.. Any chess game is a full chess game if it's not interrupted. You could prefer them to play more moves, but it's not the same thing as halting a theater performance before it's finished. Anyway, these discussions are far more boring than any GM draw.. I was just stating my opinion, and will let that be enough.
|May-29-12|| ||Ezzy: <kamalakanta: Who is Gad?>|
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD):
What many on this site seem to be suffering :-)
|May-29-12|| ||Petrosianic: A draw offer IS an interruption. It's not a natural finale to a chess game, it involves both players agreeing not to reach that finale.|
<I was just stating my opinion,>
Your opinion was that they gave us so much, how can we ask for more. Our response is that they didn't really give us very much, which, agree or not, is certainly a pertinent reply to what you said.
|May-29-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: < kamalakanta: Who is Gad?>|
Gad Rechlis, Israeli GM. Anand became world junior champion coz of him. "Thanks Gad", Anand said.
|May-29-12|| ||cormier: anan is the best opening player of all time gelfan's tactics sens are very acute ... they'll play the guy|
|May-29-12|| ||Petrosianic: Completely different Gad. The Gad Morphyeus is talking about is a Junior player I used to know. Last name Zooks. He used to get really histrionic whenever losing a game, as I recall.|
|May-29-12|| ||Kinghunt: <MichaelJHuman> It would make absolutely no difference. If wins were worth 10 points, the score would be 15-15 right now, but that's still no different from 6-6 in match play. It still ends up coming down to nothing more than who's scored the most wins.|
<Bobwhoosta> Yes, that's certainly another variation on it. My one concern with simply capping it and offering the champion draw odds is that he could actually be down in score and be declared the winner.
|May-29-12|| ||Ezzy: <cormier: ....anan.... gelfan's>|
You got problems with your D on the keyboard :-)
|May-29-12|| ||Domdaniel: <Monoceros> -- < literally the ability to sit on one's ass and stick the job out until the job's done>|
Well, um, no, Sitzfleisch is not *literally* sticking a job out of one's ass, though I can see where confusion might have arisen. Too much going through other people's motions, perhaps?
However, as nicknames go, Petrosianic's <Two Sheds> (a reference to a Mr Python, m'lud) and <Mr Mitzvah> are both rather good. My only quibble with the latter is that the vast majority of comicbook superheroes are Jewish - starting with Superman, muscles rippling as he recaptures the Ubermensch concept from the bad guys.
Read 'The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay', if you don't believe me. Or almost anything else by Michael Chabon, but this works best in context.
A very strange word, 'boring' -- it rarely has much to do with tedium or ennui. It's more like a non-ideological way of condemning somebody or something -- without having to take the traditional route of saying that their deities are demons, their grandmothers were temple prostitutes, and their uncles did unhealthy things with sheep. And none of them flossed afterwards.
Boring like a dental drill.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 140 OF 194 ·