|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 161 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-01-12 | | maelith: <MORPHYEUS: I analyzed a few games of Carlsen at Amber and i found out there is no significant deterioration of his accuracy when playing rapids.> Selecting a few games is not a correct assessment that Classical is equal, such claim is ridiculous. It's like saying I have seen the hair of the girl, I think she is pretty. Before making a conclusion that the girl is pretty you need to see her whole face.
You need to include all the games of Carlsen and compare it, you even ignore the test of 23 gm games I posted, they compare rapid and classical, the test showed more blunders on rapid. Don't be stubborn, rapid and classical is different. |
 |
| Jun-01-12 | | peddagunnu: Gelfand was hungry. Very hungry. He knew that this was his big chance. He prepared extremely well. He assembled a great team. He got a lot of external help. He threw all he had and all that he could muster at Anand. He was very disciplined and executed his plan meticulously. He nearly pulled of what Kramnik did to Kasparov, on Anand. Anand said that this was the hardest title match he played. If you can't appreciate the effort that went in from both Anand and Gelfand, then there is something wrong with you and not the players. |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | WiseWizard: Who's next?
I'll take Anand against next year's challenger. Expect Gelfand to be in top 3, he might even win it, he almost won 2007. 2007 FIDE World Championship
1. Anand
2. Gelfand/Kramnik
2012 World Championship Match
1. Anand
2. Gelfand
Well what do you know, |
|
Jun-01-12
 | | badest: <peddagunnu: Gelfand was hungry. Very hungry. He knew that this was his big chance. He prepared extremely well. He assembled a great team. He got a lot of external help. He threw all he had and all that he could muster at Anand. He was very disciplined and executed his plan meticulously. He nearly pulled of what Kramnik did to Kasparov, on Anand. Anand said that this was the hardest title match he played. If you can't appreciate the effort that went in from both Anand and Gelfand, then there is something wrong with you and not the players.> Yes, I get it. Anand is best in the 40+ age-group. Completely agree. Very nice games for us older folks. One can nap for 30-40 min, and nothing much has happened (if they haven't drawn already!) |
|
Jun-01-12
 | | visayanbraindoctor: maelith: <rapid and classical is different.> Probably every one who plays chess can attest that this true. I for one make a lot more mistakes when playing 30 minutes, 15 minutes, and 5 minutes; and the shorter the time, the more the mistakes. However, there seems to be a rough correlation regarding players' comparative chess strengths in various time controls. If player A is stronger than player B in classical, he is usually also stronger in rapids and blitz. But this is not necessarily so. Gelfand and Topalov are two examples; they seem a lot stronger in classical than in rapid chess compared to other masters. Most chess players know this; and consequently they do not give as much importance to rapids, and less so to blitz. Peculiarly, the chess player who was most critical of faster time controls is most probably also the strongest player in quick games ever to have existed. Capablanca: <"Faster chess means poorer chess. I'm not in that business. Leave that to the duds."> On the other hand, I can imagine that a few chess fans would promote quicker time controls if they perceive that their favorite player is stronger in quick games than most of the world's masters. Regarding inherent chess 'talent', I tend to see chessplayers who see more variations more deeply more quickly as being more naturally talented than slower ones. However, how well one plays chess depends not only on the ability to see more variations more deeply and more quickly, but also on focus, fighting spirit, motivation, preparation. Going back to the current WC format, the classical World Championship of the world should not be decided by rapid tiebreakers. |
|
Jun-01-12
 | | BadKnight: given the fact that on avg. current grandmasters dont have to think for the first 20 moves or so, games with faster time controls are becoming more reasonable. nowadays many games feature one grandmaster falling into opponent's computer prepared lines in a game, falling behind in the clock trying to solve the problem and eventually craking under time pressure in the first time control. given extra time often the grandmasters would be able to solve many of the problems OTB. therefore time is an important factor. those who are in favor of absolute quality of the games should oppose even the current classical time control and vouch for longer time controls. classical chess used to be 2.5 hours for the first 40 moves, but that does not exist anymore, now 2 hours or in some cases 1.5 hours has become standard. advent of strong computers have made sure that adjournments are gone for ever. so its logical that the game will keep evolving to keep up with time. in earlier times players were actually thinking more because opening theories were far less advanced, but now its different. if two strong grandmasters were to play a fischer random where they have to start thinking from the very first move things would be very much different. |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | Petrosianic: <Capablanca: "Faster chess means poorer chess. I'm not in that business. Leave that to the duds."> Yeah, but Capablanca also said that chess was "played out". The results of this latest match lend some credence to the idea. So, make up your minds. If chess is played and, and has reached the point that top GM's can't beat each other at classical time controls, maybe the time has come to speed up those controls. Or give up chess entirely. |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | MORPHYEUS: Good point <Petrosianic>. |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | MORPHYEUS: <nimh>. I analyzed all of Carlsen's rapids game at Amber 2011 (11 games) vs Topalov-Anand (12 games). Carlsen's average error is less than Topalov's. |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | maelith: <MORPHYEUS: I analyzed all of Carlsen's rapids game at Amber 2011 (11 games) vs Topalov-Anand (12 games).
Carlsen's average error is less than Topalov's.> Why keep posting that,it's based only on a few games, does not prove a thing.. |
|
| Jun-01-12 | | Wilhelm Steinitz: <peddagunnu:> <Chess is not the same game it was in his heyday. I very much doubt that he can do any better than Gelfand.> Keep believing that. Perhaps if you keep repeating that nonsense over and over again you might eventually even start to believe it. I would like to inform you that Kasparov was 14-1 against a 23-36 year old Anand in classical chess. Kasparov's record against Gelfand was equally impressive; Kasparov was 9-0 against a 23-34 year old Gelfand in classical chess. Thus Kasparov's total score against the 2 aforementioned players was a staggering 23-1 (+22) when those 2 players were in their prime. When we consider the fact that both Anand & Gelfand are today well into their 40s and probably well past their prime, one can only try to imagine what Kasparov at his peak would do to these 2 older and slower guys in classical chess. It would not be pretty. |
|
Jun-01-12
 | | KKDEREK: Good posts <jfq> I think Kasparov summered this match right on..What "narcissism" have to to with his opinion? Or that fact people feels he's a "douchbag" and therefore his opinion is bad?
In fact his opinion come right with the majority of people here, rightly complaining about the quality and lack of fight presented on this match.. Oh, he's not politically correct? So what? Me neither. Who cares? Better than say "amen" to any crap FIDE throw on us.. And we have to remember, he have good relations with Anand and also helped him in his match against Topalov. Therefore hes not "jealous" of anything..He just thought the match sucked and gave his sincere opinion. Why this is so wrong? So everybody gotta "thanks for everything" like Aronian did? (nothing wrong with that either) Besides, if there's <one person> who CAN say that is him (unless you guys don't remembered his death matches against Karpov in the 80's). Hes a douchbag (yes), but hey, he <can> figth, right? As for the people complaining about his "malefic presence" at chess word, guess what? He made two very nice matches outside FIDE: Against Anand and Kramnik (even he didn't qualified, he showed he was the strongest opponent). Well, WAY BETTER IMNSHO than Dortmund 2002 (Leko) for example.. NO?? Finally, about this rapid vs. classic chess discussion, <of course> they are different animals..If not, why Topalov was so worried about to go to tiebreaks against Anand at their WCC match?? He <knew> he was <way> worse on fast controls (he said that later) and tried to avoid at any costs (and over-pressed in last game for that). Anand so far didn't showed any superiority at classical time controls...Coincidence? No. Therefore, is another type of chess, another type of talent. Period. An example? Take this game (and especially the endgame): Kramnik vs Carlsen, 2011
I want to see Carlsen or other super GM wining that in rapids..No way.. So, if some people don't have the patience to see a game for 2 hours or three, go change the channel, go play and see checkers and stop sell this lousy idea. |
|
Jun-01-12
| | drkodos: worst world championship ever |
|
Jun-01-12
 | | sofouuk: <visayanbraindoctor><Regarding inherent chess 'talent', I tend to see chessplayers who see more variations more deeply more quickly as being more naturally talented than slower ones. However, how well one plays chess depends not only on the ability to see more variations more deeply and more quickly, but also on focus, fighting spirit, motivation, preparation.>a pedantic note, but positional sense is second only to calculating ability imo, there's no point calculating a variation if you can't accurately evaluate who is better at the end of it. i remember some common or garden variety english (i think) gm commenting after the post-mortem of a game he lost against michael adams that he was 'shocked' by 'how little' adams had seen (ie calculated) during the game - but obviously adams didn't need to calculate unnecessary variations in order to win the game. they say tal didn't calculate that much over the board either (compared to, say, kasparov) because his intuition/'feeling' for complex positions was so strong. n arguably he was the most talented player of all time well im not disagreeing with your general point. of course calculating ability is closely related to chess talent, it's just that e.g. capablanca's positional sense was an even more impressive aspect of his talent than his calculating ability. which was also phenomenal, of course |
|
Jun-01-12
| | visayanbraindoctor: <Petrosianic: So, make up your minds.> If you are asking me my opinion, then I do not think chess is played out. If you remember, I have had a previous post trying to explain this opinion. Why did Capa issue apparently conflicting opinions?
<Faster chess means poorer chess. I'm not in that business. Leave that to the duds> I believe it was because he was a perfectionist. Unlike Lasker who regarded chess as a sporting struggle between two human beings, Capablanca wanted to play the best possible moves all the time. This would mean he could not have taken error-filled quick games very seriously, even though no one could beat him in it during his entire career. <chess was "played out"> It's well known that Capablanca predicted the draw death, and began exploring chess variants. Now I believe that he and Lasker were probably quite prone to this kind of thinking considering the circumstances of their times. During the previous Steinitzian era, chess masters played with a lot of errors even in World Championship matches which was supposed to represent chess at its best. However, beginning in Lasker's reign, chess masters at the highest competitive level began playing with very few errors, as exemplified in the Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) and Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) matches. They themselves were such strong players that they probably believed they could draw any chess game at will if they decided so beforehand. (Many strong chess masters even today seem to think like this.) The draw rate in the above WC matches was pretty high (in spite of the observation that most of the games of these matches were real fights and grind outs in comparison to this just recently concluded WC match). That's because they committed so few errors. On the other hand the draw rate of the WC matches in the previous era was pretty low. Given the above circumstances, Capablanca naturally though a draw death was forthcoming. |
|
Jun-01-12
| | visayanbraindoctor: If he was right we would now be experiencing much higher draw rates in WC matches. But Capablanca was wrong. Capa's own draw rate in his matches with Lasker, Alekhine (and Euwe even if it was not a WC match) is similar to the draw rates of the WC matches of the Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand eras. Below are the draw rates for some of the most competitive matches of that era. Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)
<Draw rate 2/10 games = 80%> Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)
<Draw rate 4/14 games = 71%> Capablanca-Alekhine World Championship Match (1927)
<Draw rate 25/34 games = 74%> Capablanca-Euwe (1931) [Note: not a WC match but still a medium-length match between two world champions] <Draw rate 8/10 games = 80%> Here are the draw rates for more recent WC matches.
Karpov-Korchnoi (1974) [Note: not a WC match, but the Candidates final, but it did determine the world champion.] <Draw rate 19/24 games = 79%> Karpov-Korchnoi World Championship Match (1978)
<Draw rate 21/32 games = 66%> Karpov-Korchnoi World Championship Rematch (1981)
<Draw rate 10/18 games = 56%> Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Match (1984)
<Draw rate 40/48 games = 83%> Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Match (1985)
<Draw rate 16/24 games = 67%> Karpov-Kasparov World Championship Rematch (1986)
<Draw rate 15/24 games = 63%> Kasparov-Karpov World Championship Match (1987)
<Draw rate 16/24 games = 67%> Kasparov-Karpov World Championship Match (1990)
<Draw rate 17/24 games = 71%> Kasparov-Short World Championship Match (1993)
<Draw rate 13/20 games = 65%> Kasparov-Anand World Championship Match (1995)
<Draw rate 13/18 games = 72%> Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship Match (2000)
<Draw rate 13/15 games = 87%> Kramnik-Leko World Championship Match (2004)
<Draw rate 10/14 games = 71%> Kramnik-Topalov World Championship Match (2006)
<Draw rate 6/11 games = 55%> Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008)
<Draw rate 7/11 games = 64%> Anand-Topalov World Chess Championship (2010)
<Draw rate 7/12 games = 58%> Anand-Gelfand World Chess Championship (2012)
<Draw rate 10/12 games = 83%> In addition, computers who play with much less errors than humans and are alleged to be the prime trigger for the future draw death of chess still get to beat up each other quite often. In fact they have even lower draw rates. World Computer Chess Championship (2011)
<Draw rate 28/72 games = 39%> If Capablanca's draw death is coming, IMO it is still far off in the future. |
|
Jun-01-12
| | sofouuk: <KKDEREK>i think the phrase you're looking for is 'ad hominem attack'. if kasparov says someone's play was not great and a few cg kibitzers say it was great, i know who im likely to take more seriously. but the real problem with this match wasn't the quality of play, or lack of it, it was that neither player really showed what they were capable of over the board, because so many games went straight from the opening to the ending, which neither player had any interest in playing out |
|
Jun-02-12
| | KKDEREK: You are right <sofouuk>. Exactly my feelings, and I'm sure that's why he was pissed about it as well (and people here). That's not about the quality of play, or the draws by itself, but the way they played, gutless. |
|
| Jun-02-12 | | peddagunnu: < Wilhelm Steinitz > Kasparov in his heyday beat Anand and Gelfand with his preperation and by intimidating them. During match play he had access to formidable teams of seconds and a huge data bank. None of that matters much now. His preparation is stale and out of date. His mental games won't fluster Anand who has as much match experience as him albeit with current theory, extensive computer preperation and a great team of seconds. What seconds did Anand have in 95? He was kid who was not part of the system. Today he will have people queueing up to help if Kasparov throws hit hat in the ring. Most of all there will not be any lack of "motivation" as Kasparov puts it. Kasparov will get his head handed to him not in the championship match but in the candidates itself. No wonder he barks from the outside. |
|
| Jun-02-12 | | MORPHYEUS: Nice scenario. Can't revise history though. |
|
Jun-02-12
| | selfmate: <visayanbraindoctor> Draw rates would not necessarily have to rise to be consistent with the idea that chess being played out as a result of computers. Even if winning percentages stay the same, if those wins are just the result of the human players parroting computer analysis, then the game is devoid of human life and creativity and becomes just a mechanical affair without real interest. Not that I think we are there quite yet. |
|
Jun-02-12
| | selfmate: Maybe being "played out" is the wrong terminology though. "Killed" might be a better. |
|
| Jun-02-12 | | drik: <Caissanist: I wouldn't call it terrible, but it was probably the weakest successful title defense by a WC in over a hundred years> Weaker than Botvinnik v Bronstein? Botvinnik failing to win a whole ROOK up & Bronstein losing a drawn ending by needlessly allowing a knight check? Petrosian v Spassky wasn't particularly inspiring either. |
|
| Jun-02-12 | | drik: <Wilhelm Steinitz: I would like to inform you that Kasparov was 14-1 against a 23-36 year old Anand in classical chess.> Perhaps you would like to inform us about why you want to filter the data?
The unfiltered data - <Classical games: Garry Kasparov beat Viswanathan Anand 16 to 6, with 32 draws>. |
|
| Jun-02-12 | | MORPHYEUS: I read one report that both players move accuracy was very good. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 161 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
