| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 72 ·
|May-01-14|| ||Chessinfinite: <I would argue Anand stayed the same it's everyone else in Candidates 2014 who went crazy and played openings they did not understand.>|
Depends on which way you look at it. Glass is half empty or half full. Works the same is it not ?
<The difference was in Candidates 2014 he could win going away whereas that score was not sufficient to win in 2010-2011 several events.>
+3 was enough even in events where Anand was not a participant. In my view, had things been different in this candidates such as someone else did not go 'crazy' in the openings and actually managed to challenge Anand in the Candidates run, he may have scored even +4, with at least trying to score against Andreikein for e.g., where he had a winning position. Anand was never in any danger in all his 14 games - that speaks for itself, doing so against 7 other top class GMs is more than a tournament win sometimes. I think it is better than getting outplayed in a couple of games and winning more against tail enders to reach the same winning score as some in the past did.
<I would argue Anand post-Kramnik match wasn't wearing a heavy crown: What he was doing was using an opening repertoire of 1. d4 that was somewhat alien to him. The difference between Anand playing those openings and the debacles of his competitors at Candidates 2014 is that Anand had the resources and the sense to hire the very best trainers in the world to help him in opening preparation, Nielsen and Rustam Kasimdzhanov.>
Anand was using 1.d4 almost exclusively after 2008. So to say that it was 'alien' to him to misjudged. Btw, it was this 'alien' opening to him that brought him 3 world titles against world class experts whose staple diet was playing against 1.d4. So, i do not think any opening remains alien for a long time. A good player can play some opening very well, a great play can play almost anything - such is the skill shown by players such as Ivanchuk, Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik to name a few.
<Anand had the resources and the sense to hire the very best trainers in the world to help him in opening preparation, Nielsen and Rustam Kasimdzhanov.>
That i agree to. Working with Nielsen and Kasimdzhanov and others was a masterstroke, again something that ALL top players hope to put together - a killer team ! Too bad they are no longer together, but who knows? maybe Anand will find someone to rekindle the team spirit , with new folks, this time in Nov.
|May-02-14|| ||jphamlore: <Chessinfinite> Thank you for your well-argued reply. I can hardly disagree with any of it.|
<Chessinfinite: Anand was using 1.d4 almost exclusively after 2008. So to say that it was 'alien' to him to misjudged. Btw, it was this 'alien' opening to him that brought him 3 world titles against world class experts whose staple diet was playing against 1.d4. So, i do not think any opening remains alien for a long time.>
Post-Nielsen and Kasimdzhanov, I think Anand has reverted to opening 1. d4 at most once in any event.
I think if any match took something out of Anand, it was the Topalov match due to the incredible amount of computer opening preparation each side was using and Anand listening not just to his team but to the advice of both Kasparov and Kramnik.
Anand is a consummate professional so when he knew he was being given the very best advice possible he took it, but the amount of effort just to memorize the lines was stupendous, and versus Topalov at the end he had to switch openings for each game. And then there was the difficulty of not being given a delay to rest after the arduous journey just to get to the match's site.
<Chessinfinite: maybe Anand will find someone to rekindle the team spirit , with new folks, this time in Nov.>
Immediately after the end of Candidates 2014 there were wild rumors that Anand's friend Kramnik (but then again isn't almost everyone Anand's friend, very rare in the chess world) would possibly be willing to help Anand prepare. But even if Kramnik were willing, I don't know if Anand would wish to undergo trying to ingest the Catalan again from a Kramnik who is sure Kramnik can play that opening better than anyone else in the world or perhaps even human history.
|May-02-14|| ||Sokrates: My thanks to <jphamlore> and <Chessinfinite> for their very interesting posts. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to reply properly, so this is just a provisional "receipt". Thanks.|
|May-02-14|| ||Kanatahodets: Finally I see thanks and nice discussions at CG. Maybe new era will commence when the bad reputation of CG on other chess forums will fade away. Some "old" and "respected" members should understand that using words "dumb", "idiotic", "stupid" etc doesn't help anyone.|
|May-02-14|| ||Pulo y Gata: Well, dumb, idiotic, stupid etc helped you with your post there. Maybe dumb, idiotic, stupid etc have their uses, too. So let us not discriminate against them dumb, idiotic, stupid etc.|
|May-02-14|| ||Eyal: <Kinghunt: I haven't collected the data for Karpov yet, but I have Kasparov's total at 40. (I likely missed a couple in my count, though.) Carlsen is averaging about four tournament victories a year, so he's probably about five years or so from catching Kasparov.>|
Btw, perhaps the most amazing thing about Kasparov's tournament record is not even the sheer number of his victories [Kinghunt chessforum ], but the percentage – if you start counting from Frunze 1981 (the USSR Championship) it's 40/50 (or 41/51, including the Russian Championship of 2004), namely <80%>. For comparison, if you look at Carlsen's record since Pearl Spring 2009, when he really started to dominate, it's "only" about 70% wins at the moment (18/26).
|May-02-14|| ||Kanatahodets: Regarding number of wins in tournaments. A serious study should take into account two things: 1. Many old, strong tournaments disappeared or dying slowly. It is harder now to organize steady living strong tournament. On the other hand there are some new tournaments. 2. Level of competition then and now. When I followed chess in 80s, I could see only Portish and sometimes Hubner as real threat for Soviet school of chess. And if you were best in USSR then you go for all "strong" tournaments and win them. A serious study actually can easily address these concerns. In a nutshell, pure numbers give nothing meaningful. When did we have a group of 6 young GMs (Gashimov memorial only) at the highest level? There are more.|
|May-02-14|| ||plang: <Kanatahodets: Regarding number of wins in tournaments. A serious study should take into account two things: 1. Many old, strong tournaments disappeared or dying slowly. It is harder now to organize steady living strong tournament.> |
<When I followed chess in 80s, I could see only Portish and sometimes Hubner as real threat for Soviet school of chess.>
The Soviet school of chess was a lot stronger then than now
|May-02-14|| ||Sokrates: Thanks <Kanatahodets> for making this point and post. I have only been here for 3-4 years and I have often wondered why there are so many hostile and vicious posts here. I am on other sites (on horology for instance) where you don't see that at all. Sometimes, I think, that the game of chess not only attracts people who love the game (as I do), but are rather interested in the competition part of the game. I route for X or Y - why is that so interesting? I route for exiting, interesting games with dynamic players who prefer +3 -3 rather than =6. |
Each to his own, but why the intolerance? I know it sounds naive and gullible, but I wonder why some people just post to annoy and insult others instead of contributing positively to our mutual passion. I don't mind sharp discussions arguing to the point, but why get personal? One should think there'd be better places to let steam out than a chess site, where I for one expect a certain level of calibre and good manners. Oh yes, I'd rather stay naive if that's naive.
|May-02-14|| ||Check It Out: <Sokrates> You "root" for your favorite players, rather than "route" which is a path to get somewhere.|
|May-02-14|| ||Kanatahodets: <plang: The Soviet school of chess was a lot stronger then than now> There's another possible explanation: the Western school is lot stronger now:) Thanks to computer chess it is much more diversified now. Anyway, I don't claim anything; it is a subject of a serious study. Maybe one has to run regression where he controls different factors. I think there's enough data. Otherwise it is hard to accept any of claims.|
|May-02-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Kanatahodets: <plang: The Soviet school of chess was a lot stronger then than now>>|
Is there still a "soviet school of chess"?
|May-02-14|| ||Kanatahodets: In my years, there was only one elite player from Asia - Eugenio Torre. Now we have plenty including former WC, China, Philippines, India. This is fact. There are strong players in France - never was before in 50s-90s, small chess countries like Bulgaria, Norway, Italy etc. Still Kaspy was unique. But do we have similar two KK players domination as before? I don't think so.|
|May-02-14|| ||Kanatahodets: <john barleycorn: <Kanatahodets: <plang: The Soviet school of chess was a lot stronger then than now>>
Is there still a "soviet school of chess"?> Although the question is not for me - for plang - he coined this phrase, I think there's still Soviet school of chess. Remainings. Say in a small city in Siberia you can easily find free chess lessons for young players, free clubs and chess players can coach there for salary paid by city administration.|
|May-02-14|| ||Kanatahodets: My favorite players: MC, Naka, So, Le, Wei, Fabiano, Shakh, MVL, Svidler, Chucky, Ding, Vishy and Vlad.|
|May-02-14|| ||Chessinfinite: <jphamlore> < any match took something out of Anand, it was the Topalov match due to the incredible amount of computer opening preparation each side was using and Anand listening not just to his team but to the advice of both Kasparov and Kramnik.>|
Yeah, that match was a very hard fought one and is probably the closest fought match at the top level in the last decade or two. Computer preparation, free advice, paid advice - all was ok and needed to beat the other guy :)
<Anand is a consummate professional so when he knew he was being given the very best advice possible he took it>
<Immediately after the end of Candidates 2014 there were wild rumors that Anand's friend Kramnik (but then again isn't almost everyone Anand's friend, very rare in the chess world) would possibly be willing to help Anand prepare>
Oh, i am not sure you know about how it is to work and play with the Russian players around. Imo, working with each other is common with the Soviet era players, even working with your future rivals is very normal, it seems. Anand gets free 'advice' from Kasparov, paid advice from Kramnik, who probably had his own hidden motives in that match. Topalov getting secret advice from 'hidden' GMs and computing beasts. I miss those days :)
You can never know who Kasparov and Kramnik might be working with, they sometimes even work together- in that match against Anand for eg.
fwiw, i think Anand is too smart for all that 'friendly' image to get to his head- he is a 'shrewd operator' if i can say so, and i think is also playing a subtle psychological game against his former and present rivals. So, i don't think much of his 'friendliness' with his rivals- sure friendly on a personal level, not so much on the board and the results :)
|May-02-14|| ||two to the power six: I completely agree. the level of competition is very different today, hence while kasparov was most dominant, he did not face the very large number of young motivated computer-savvy players of the highest calibre that Carlsen faces today....that is also a reason I salute the tenacity of Anand and Kramnik...the question naturally arises - was Kasparov clever enough to run away when he started losing to the likes of Topalov?|
|May-02-14|| ||jphamlore: By the late 1930s at least the Soviet Union had the then equivalent of the Internet and computer analysis for chess, only it was of course done by people. Soviet rising young players benefited from having translated into Russian some of the all-time classics of chess literature written relatively recently as of the 1930s by giants such as Capablanca, Lasker, Nimzowitsch, and Tarrasch. To see the advantage Soviet players would have had, observe Tarrasch's Die Moderne Schachpartie has still to my knowledge this day not been translated into English. Furthermore the Soviet players had enough support to establish an equivalent of research journals on chess analyzing every single high-level game. And once the Soviet Union absorbed all of the world's knowledge and started writing about new knowledge in Russian, it created a barrier for the rest of the world to catch up. It is no coincidence the player who finally broke through the Soviet wall, Bobby Fischer, learned Russian to be able to read Russian chess publications.|
|May-02-14|| ||Chessinfinite: <hence while kasparov was most dominant, he did not face the very large number of young motivated computer-savvy players of the highest calibre that Carlsen faces today>|
I think, you got it upside down. Kasparov faced the generation of the 90s when they were young and motivated + he faced the generation of the 80s when they were matured and super strong ( read Karpov and others). What Kasparov, Karpov, Anand and Kramnik faced was probably one of the toughest opposition faced by anyone *on average*, imo. I can expect some response stating Fischer's opposition to be the greatest around early 1970s, but i think there are good reasons to claim that the 90s gen of players was one of the best ever. So Carlsen's results against modern opposition, though very impressive may fall a bit short in its present form to Kasparov's results during the pre-computer age, i think. It will be an interesting discussion for sure.
What better proof than to see that one of the 90s generation player is going to Challenge Carlsen for the world title this Nov ?, while being in his forties..
|May-02-14|| ||plang: <he did not face the very large number of young motivated computer-savvy players>|
I am not even sure what that means. I guess computers have affected the way players prepare openings and has led to players avoiding certain theoretical lines. But that doesn't mean the players are better and, of course, they are on their own resources over the Board. I just think the impact of computers on the quality of classical chess is over-rated.
|May-03-14|| ||haydn20: <LucB> Here is my favorite math blunder. Sadly, it wasn't one of my students, but one of my graduate advisor's. This young lady had to use the 2nd derivative of sin x in a problem, but in time-trouble she wrote first (d/dx)sinx = sin, and then of course (d/dx)sin = 0. It don't get no better than that.|
|May-03-14|| ||Mating Net: I miss getting up early to watch this tournament. My sleep cycle is all out of synch now, oh well, small price to pay for an exciting 10 rounds.|
|May-03-14|| ||Sokrates: <Check It Out: <Sokrates> You "root" for your favorite players, rather than "route" which is a path to get somewhere.> Thanks. Lesson learnt. Try to improve my foreign languages every day. :-)|
|May-03-14|| ||1971: <Sokrates> So crazy, you must be a soccer fan.|
|May-03-14|| ||1971: <Mating Net> Fair shake.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 72 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
- No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
- NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
- Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
- All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
- Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC