< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·
|Oct-17-13|| ||alexmagnus: Spassky was hardly in his prime in 1974. After the loss to Fischer he was more or less on a steady decline.|
|Oct-17-13|| ||nimh: It's impossible to draw any trustworthy conclusions from the latest Guid's study. They used fixed depth 20 which could be good enough in middlegames and late openings, but it's useless in endgames, as the engine reaches a certain depth quicker.|
Even if they had used the correct time-per-move approach, they would have found nothing more than the <accuracy> of play, not the <quality> of play.
|Oct-17-13|| ||Absentee: <nimh: Even if they had used the correct time-per-move approach, they would have found nothing more than the <accuracy> of play, not the <quality> of play.>|
What's the difference?
|Oct-17-13|| ||nok: In 1973 Spassky brilliantly won one of the strongest Soviet championships. Pretty good for a has-been.
Game Collection: USSR Championship 1973|
|Oct-17-13|| ||boz: <...Karpov, looking as thin as a feather but bowling over everyone in his quest for the Title.>|
As Camille Coudari put it in "The Great Chess Movie":
"His thinness was the thinness of steel."
|Oct-17-13|| ||Gypsy: < nok: In 1973 Spassky brilliantly won one of the strongest Soviet championships. Pretty good for a has-been. Game Collection: USSR Championship 1973 >|
Pretty good for a has been. However, Spassky himself confirms in interviews <alexmagnus> claim.
<Spassky was hardly in his prime in 1974. After the loss to Fischer he was more or less on a steady decline.>
Essentially, Spassky says that he 'fried' his brain during the Fischer match (such was the tension of it and stress) and that he never recovered.
Even us, Mr general public, can see his subsequent decline. And I personally have no problem believing his own assessment of his play in 1974.
(Czech chess journals have the Spassky interviews that I loosely paraphrase.)
|Oct-17-13|| ||perfidious: <boz>: Coudari, of slender build, would know a thing or three on the topic of thinness. IIRC, it was a trait inherited from Coudari <pere>.|
|Oct-17-13|| ||perfidious: Fischer had that way about him-Larsen, too, was not quite the same after the affair at Denver 1971.|
|Oct-17-13|| ||Gypsy: In a way, it tells us how mentally tough was <Lasker>: He resigned(!) his match with Capablanca when, despite his best effort, he was facing a complete collapse and shellacking. (It is easy to forget that at the time of the score +4 =10 -0 for Capa, the match was possibly reaching only its half-way point.) Yet, Lasker stayed at his extraordinary strength till practically his dying days.|
Perhaps it is the fighters (Lasker, Korchnoi) who claw their way back strong, while the artists' spirit breaks.
|Oct-17-13|| ||Gypsy: Ok, the original contract for Lasker-Capa (Feb. 1920) was for 30 games; but it seems that number of games was reduced to 24 before the match started. (And, of course, only 14 games were actually played.)|
|Oct-17-13|| ||nok: Look here for an enlighted amateur's view of the 1974 match.
Game Collection: Anatoly Karpov vs Boris Spassky Candidates Semif|
|Oct-17-13|| ||nimh: <Absentee>
In its ideal form, the accuracy of play represents the distance from the perfect play. The quality of play is inherently linked to the ability of chess, skills
For example, if two games are of equal accuracy, then the one that was played under more difficult conditions can be considered being of higher quality. An attacking and tactical blitz game between Carlsen and Aronian will always have more quality than a positional struggle between Radjabov and Giri in normal time controls.
One cannot find the quality of play unless one takes into account conditions affecting the accuracy of play and tolerances of players to such conditions. Calculative players have higher tolerance for difficulty of positions, whereas intuitive ones for thinking time.
And that's the reason why many studies fall short - they tend to naively assume that accuracy of play = chess skills. In my opinion this is a horrible fundamental mistake to make.
|Oct-17-13|| ||Absentee: <nok: Look here for an enlighted amateur's view of the 1974 match. Game Collection: Anatoly Karpov vs Boris Spassky Candidates Semif>|
It sounds to me like Kasparov was making a case for himself, as always. "Karpov crushed Spassky, who played much, much better than against Fischer... and I beat Karpov! That's how awesome I am!".
|Oct-17-13|| ||Everett: <It's impossible to draw any trustworthy conclusions from the latest> purely mathmatical, software-driven <study> that doesn't take into account real-life circumstances and conditions.|
|Oct-17-13|| ||Everett: <One cannot find the quality of play unless one takes into account conditions affecting the accuracy of play and tolerances of players to such conditions. Calculative players have higher tolerance for difficulty of positions, whereas intuitive ones for thinking time.> |
<nimh> Interesting ideas and insights. This would support the idea that both Anand and Karpov, being tremendously quick players in their youth, were intuitive players. Also, those players who were able to play very strong in terrible time control problems would also qualify.
|Oct-18-13|| ||Sokrates: Interesting reasonings, <Gypsy:>, about the Lasker-Capablanca match and the durability of chess strength.|
Factors, not directly related to chess, played an important role IMO. The hot and humid climate was indisputably a disadvantage for the elderly Lasker. Coming from Berlin, living and playing in a very different climate, it must have been a pain for him. Then you have the difference in age and chess-life.
Lasker, battle-hardened by many tournaments and WC matches, with many other interests than chess. Had to fight most of his life against poverty, probably a bit tired of chess. IIRC he even offered to resign before the match. Capablanca, the nature talent with the eagerness of the candidate, and a privileged life on the sunny side.
All this didn't CAUSE Lasker's defeat. Undoubtedly, Capa was stronger than Lasker in 1921. But the mentioned conditions certainly worked for Capa.
It's also interesting that Lasker, after having lost the crown, passed Capablanca in most of the successive tournaments, with New York 1924 as the most prominent. Does this reveal that I admire the player and person Lasker deeply? Sure, I do. I think he was a great man in every sense.
|Oct-18-13|| ||nimh: <<It's impossible to draw any trustworthy conclusions from the latest> purely mathmatical, software-driven <study> that doesn't take into account real-life circumstances and conditions.>|
<This would support the idea that both Anand and Karpov, being tremendously quick players in their youth, were intuitive players. Also, those players who were able to play very strong in terrible time control problems would also qualify.>
But it is not so apparent in real life. The problem is that in shorter time controls they tend to play more pragmatically and positions in their games are more difficult which favours tactical players.
|Oct-18-13|| ||Absentee: <Everett: Here is an idea that you may have missed: I am requesting (albeit crassly) a more nuanced view of everything, really.>|
If you had bothered reading what I wrote, you'd realize my point wasn't far off yours. The problem isn't numbers or mathematical models, it's people who don't know what to do with them and keep misreading them. But you can't fault mathematicians for that. Models are an approximation, they make no claim to represent an ultimate "truth" (a notion that's been shaken up quite a bit in modern thought) or to take into account every variable, which is just impossible.
As for the rest, I don't think "numbers" make us any less human. They're a human conception through and through, as human as anything else we've created.
|Oct-18-13|| ||nok: <Models are an approximation> It's just that sometimes, the approximation error approaches infinity.|
|Oct-18-13|| ||Everett: <If you had bothered reading what I wrote, you'd realize my point wasn't far off yours.>|
<Absentee> I can agree with this. I hope my further posts elucidated my view of it all. Certainly between you and <Overgod>, you are the more reasonable.
Understand, however, you took my post personally, when my joke was not of that nature, and came after me, even reading my bio superficially for fodder. My responses to you afterward should be seen in this light.
Humans have created a lot of things, both good and bad. Wisdom trumps all, though, and tools should remain tools. I find people forget this, and feel the need to call it out. It is a hang-up of mine. And I don't think you disagree much with that either.
Yet, in fact, any <over> use of a "technology" or "system" has great potential to dehumanize us, make us less compassionate, make us more like machines or computers. So, I don't agree with you on general terms.
Even now, we kibitz, we communicate, but with symbols and text; no facial expressions, no sharing of space. This is not true relationship. The computer is an incredible simulator, but it is not quite life. Ephemeral, disconnected, as the servers whirr away in the desert, saving it all for some unknown, future use.
|Oct-18-13|| ||HeMateMe: The Nepster had a great tournament. I don't think many people picked him to finish tied for first place.|
|Oct-19-13|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Here are game scores from ChessBase (http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId...) for the two rapids tie-break games:|
<Svidler, P. (2740) vs. Nepomniachtchi (2702)>, E60
66th Russian Championship (Superfinals), Playoff, 14.10.2013 (Game #1) <1-0>
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.e3 0-0 5.Be2 c5 6.d5 e6 7.Nc3 exd5 8.cxd5 d6 9.Nd2 Re8 10.0-0 a6 11.a4 Nbd7 12.h3 Rb8 13.e4 Nf8 14.a5 h6 15.f4 b5 16.axb6 Rxb6 17.e5 dxe5 18.Nc4 exf4 19.Nxb6 Qxb6 20.Rxf4 g5 21.Rf1 Ng6 22.Kh1 Nh4 23.Qd3 c4 24.Qxc4 Nf5 25.Qd3 Ne4 26.Nxe4 Rxe4 27.Ra3 Nd6 28.Rb3 Qc7 29.Be3 Re8 30.Bb6 Qe7 31.Bh5 Bd7 32.Bc5 Rf8 33.Qe3 Be5 34.Re1 f6 35.Rb6 1–0
<Nepomniachtchi (2702) vs. Svidler, P. (2740)>, D02
66th Russian Championship (Superfinals), Playoff, 14.10.2013 (Game #2) <1/2-1/2>
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 c5 3.c4 cxd4 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Nxd4 Nxd5 6.e4 Nf6 7.Nc3 e5 8.Ndb5 a6 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Na3 Be6 11.f3 Bc5 12.Nc2 Nc6 13.Bg5 Ke7 14.Ne3 Nb4 15.Rc1 h6 16.Ncd5+ Nbxd5 17.Rxc5 hxg5 18.exd5 Kd6 19.dxe6 Kxc5 20.exf7 b5 21.Nf5 Raf8 22.Nxg7 Rxf7 23.Ne6+ Kd6 24.Nxg5 Rg7 25.Ne4+ Nxe4 26.fxe4 Rh4 27.Kf2 ½–½
|Oct-20-13|| ||Everett: <perfidious: Fischer had that way about him-Larsen, too, was not quite the same after the affair at Denver 1971.>|
In truth, Larsen, Spassky and Fischer were all not the same after the early 70's, though Larsen and Spassky's descent were certainly much more gradual.
A more accurate assessment is that Larsen didn't really change much at all, outside of getting older. And Spassky, continued his slow decline after 1970. He lost lots of motivation once he became WC, and wasn't really the same after he won it.
|Nov-21-13|| ||perfidious: <jphamlore: There is no denying Kasparov's greatness, but it seems to me he was somewhat fortunate that neither Short nor Anand had any ability to open 1. d4 against him at that time....>|
No ability? Of course not-both opted to play 1.e4, their chief opening move at the time. Had they essayed 1.d4 and bought the farm, we should certainly have had armchair quarterbacks claiming that Anand and Short should have been stubborn in their preferences, thereby going down to defeat like good little gentlemen.
<....Even Fischer was somewhat fortunate he was matched vs Taimanov. I believe someone like Geller or Korchnoi would have given him a far stiffer challenge in a Candidates match.>
Taimanov was 'fortunate' to even be in the Candidates, inasmuch as he bribed his way into them.
Fischer himself stated long afterwards that on the play, he should have beaten Taimanov by no more than 3.5-2.5 in the six games played. Are you so presumptuous as to claim that your knowledge of chess is greater than was Fischer's?
We can also apply your logic and conclude that it was 'fortunate' that Capablanca played Lasker in the tropic heat of Cuba, rather than the fleshpots of Europe.
Which other champions will you now explain to us were 'fortunate'? All of them?
|Feb-21-14|| ||offramp: Andrei Sokolov was really a promising player in the mid-1980s. But after
Game Collection: 1987 Karpov - Sokolov Final he was a bit of a shadow of his old self.|
There must be a thought running through players that have been beaten badly's heads:
"I have lost this match by a very wide margin. If I subsequently go on to win the World Championship, how will history view me?"
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·