< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Feb-08-18|| ||Dionysius1: Always depends on the currency, but that usually counts :-)|
|Feb-08-18|| ||JustAnotherMaster: Oil, he drained his hair and started an Petroleum empire.|
|Feb-09-18|| ||alexmagnus: Btw, now 2700chess rated the match. As mentioned above for that case, Hou lost her number 1 on women's rapid list to Anna Muzychuk. So now she is number 1 only in classical (in blitz she is unranked due to inactivity).|
|Feb-09-18|| ||Sokrates: Regardless of Hou's pour performance in Wijk an Zee, she is - in my mind - clearly the strongest female chess player at this day and age. None of the other women would stand a chance against her in classical chess, which - also in my mind - is and should be the only benchmark.|
|Feb-09-18|| ||morfishine: <Sokrates> But "classical chess", whatever that truly is, is clearly dying|
Chess960 or some form of random setup is clearly the future, if one wants to bring excitement back into chess, and get away from all these memorized openings that produce the same old stale positions
|Feb-10-18|| ||Sokrates: Good and valid points, <morphishine>. It's true that classical chess isn't what it was, say 25 years ago, but a format has to be found where there is a balance between "memorized openings that produce the same old stale positions" and the randomness of stupid errors caused by too little time to produce decent chess. |
I don't think you can disconnect the quality and deep strategy in chess from the time making those things possible. Agreed, the present format favours those who have a sticky brain memorizing openings. But the short formats favours those who think quick and have a great time management - which isn't equal to being the best chess-player. Caruana being a good example.
It IS a big dilemma, and I think "someone" has to find a compromize where you get the best from classical and short formats. Like 90 minutes games or the likes.
|Feb-10-18|| ||ughaibu: <Chess960 or some form of random setup is clearly the future, if one wants to bring excitement back into chess, and get away from all these memorized openings that produce the same old stale positions>|
People have been saying this for about a hundred years now. If you don't like chess, there are plenty of other games.
|Feb-10-18|| ||moronovich: Feb-09-18
<morfishine: <Sokrates> But "classical chess", whatever that truly is, is clearly dying
Chess960 or some form of random setup>
<Sokrates: Good and valid points, <<morphishine>. It's true that classical chess isn't what it was, say 25 years ago, but a format has to be found where there is a balance between "memorized openings that produce the same old stale positions" and the randomness of stupid errors caused by too little time to produce decent chess.>>
Perhaps random opening choices made by a computer.At least this would bring back the sicillian,the KID,a "simple"
Benko too and why not an ocassionally Kings Gambit !? And so forth.
My best bet and better than 960 IMHO.
|Feb-10-18|| ||alexmagnus: Those who say rapid chess is not chess ne er explain what exactly about classical time is optimal except tradition.|
In fact, the modern classical time control is the most nonsensical of existing time controls. Why should the first 40 moves get more attention than other moves? I know this is done to fit the game into seven hours, but a better solution would be something like three hours per player plus 30 seconds increment, without any distinction of moves in 40s or 20s - a distinction that came from the time when each such 40 had equal time.
|Feb-10-18|| ||alexmagnus: Or, even better, with a 30 second delay.|
|Feb-10-18|| ||morfishine: <Sokrates> Compromise is the key word. I remember when I "caught the chess bug" back in the late 70's, I was comfortable knowing the first 10 moves of 5 or 6 openings. When K-K heated up, in the 80's, the interviews with K/K & conversations in ChessLife or other chess magazines indicated 25 moves was the new norm for top level play. Wow, a GM had better be prepared out to 25 moves in the opening just to survive. Incredible|
<moronovich> Thats an excellent idea!
<ughaibu> I do like chess, thats why I play Chess960
|Feb-10-18|| ||nok: <a better solution would be something like three hours per player plus 30 seconds increment, without any distinction of moves in 40s or 20s>|
That would a nightmare for spectators. Imagine one Grischuk Ė Wei yi. You go watch a movie, come back and they're still in the opening. I think 20-25 moves per hour is fine.
|Feb-11-18|| ||Everett: Game in an hour, give or take. Each player gets 25 minutes + 10 secs for each move after they use up that time. No one can lose on time (unless they didnít move in 10 secs) and only epic games would go much longer than an hour...|
|Feb-11-18|| ||Everett: <
memberFeb-07-18 Sokrates: Well phrased <todicav23>. I haven't seen it quite that way, but you have made very convincing arguments and it seems likely that you are right: Karpov seemed to get weaker by the end of their matches. >
Karpov was consistent, just that the two other players who were pressing him were even more so. In all other circumstances, besides unnaturally long matches, Karpov was a model of consistency. In fact, in individual games he was known to win endgames after being worse and under pressure for much of it.
And being one of the two best players in the world from 1974-1996 is quite consistent.
Letís not take one specific situation and make a painting out of it. It does not reflect the truth.
|Feb-12-18|| ||devere: <alexmagnus: Or, even better, with a 30 second delay.>|
Can anyone explain to me in what way a delay is superior to an increment? It seems to me that delay was invented by people who enjoy watching time-pressure scrambles, and needed to think of some way to stop universal acceptance of an increment.
|Feb-12-18|| ||alexmagnus: To me delay is better because I see it as counter-intuitive to have more time on the clock at some point of the game than at the game's start|
|Feb-12-18|| ||Sokrates: <Everett: ... In all other circumstances, besides unnaturally long matches, Karpov was a model of consistency. ... Letís not take one specific situation and make a painting out of it. It does not reflect the truth.> |
Agreed, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The issue was how Karpov coped in long tiring matches, be they "unnatural" or not. I don't think one can completely ignore their presence, at least not in the relations Karpov had with Korchnoi and Kasparov. The sufferings, Karpov had by the end of those matches, however, were not caused by his chess skills & talent but his physical and mental constitution.
From the discussion we've had here I only read assessments on Karpov's stamina in the special conditions those matches were played in. Not his general strength and talent, which unquestionably has to be placed at the very top. In my personal ranking list of all time best players from the past, Karpov has a fixed position among them (along with Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer and Kasparov). On pure talent I regard him on par with Capa and perhaps Carlsen. But that's another story. I conclude (again) that Karpov was one of the greatest in chess history.
|Feb-12-18|| ||Everett: <Sokrates>
Iím not barking, and I see no trees. You see what I wrote.
Donít care, otherwise.
|Feb-12-18|| ||Sokrates: <Everett> Noted!|
|Feb-12-18|| ||devere: <alexmagnus: To me delay is better because I see it as counter-intuitive to have more time on the clock at some point of the game than at the game's start>|
It should be an easy matter to program a chess clock to put a limit on maximum time remaining, if there was general agreement on your objection. I would certainly have no objection to such a refinement. A former employer of mine had a policy that once an employee accrued 4 weeks of vacation time they would stop accruing vacation until they took some time off.
The advantage of the increment over delay is with the increment time accumulated making easy moves quickly can be expended later thinking about a difficult move. This can lead to higher quality of play in the late middle game and endgame.
|Feb-16-18|| ||jphamlore: Judit Polgar with relatively little preparation could probably destroy Hou Yifan in either a rapid or blitz match. It would take much more intense preparation, but I believe Judit Polgar would also prevail in a classic time control match.|
|Feb-16-18|| ||Everett: Judit Polgar is not the same person after becoming a mother. Whether it affects playing ability is unclear, yet it most certainly affects dedication and focus to any sport.|
|Feb-17-18|| ||Octavia: Becoming a mother did not affect Judith at all. Doing it twice was the biggest mistake ever. 1ly both arakhamia and cramling had one child and kept playing as before.|
2ly if we all had one child only the world would soon be a better place.
|Feb-17-18|| ||MissScarlett: If Judit's mum had stopped at one sprog, that would've been the unkindest cut of all.|
|Feb-17-18|| ||Everett: <
memberFeb-17-18 Octavia: Becoming a mother did not affect Judith at all. Doing it twice was the biggest mistake ever. 1ly both arakhamia and cramling had one child and kept playing as before.
2ly if we all had one child only the world would soon be a better place.>
Youíre suggesting her chess level did not change. Maybe yes, maybe no, but she certainly unequivocally changed hormonally, structurally, etc., even after nursing.
Did you just moralize how many children people should have?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·