< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 7 ·
|Jan-17-06|| ||netlava: I predict a Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox defense.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||Hiarcs: in general i favour topalov to win this tournament, but if anand wins this one then topalov might start getting trouble, mainly because if topalov doesnt win this tournament, his powers are gona get somehow in question since he just won the world championship, on the other hand anand seems much determined to play well wich of course has worked pretty well for him so far. My point is that if anand wins this one, topalov might find it tough to caught him, and i dont like the fact that recent analysis of topalov games, shows that he has been winning because of significant blunders from the opponents part, wich indicates that he is rushing his style, and this can lead to disaster.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||radu stancu: <PinkPanther> Because Anand is in the lead and we're usually seeing the leader in action.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||thunderhrom: this is exactly why chess gets a bad reputation as a spectator sport...the board is set up...the audience is here...and nobody has moved a piece for hours...|
|Jan-17-06|| ||sheaf: <badmove> black can not have winning strategy for a simple logic ( which is of course not a rigorous proof) that in most of the openings white can lose a tempo and become black. So black has no winning strategy if at alll there is a winning strategy its with white, I think I read a paper in related to this, didnt understand much since its far away from my mathematical interests. I ll look for it and provide a reference for it.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||Sneaky: The game will go 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 and then Sokolov, I predict, will NOT play 3.Nf3 and therefore there shalln't be any Queens Indian.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||firebyrd: <<badmove> black can not have winning strategy for a simple logic>|
For some games this logic is valid. In particular, any games where it is an option to pass can obviously not be a 2nd player win. Also, in some games making a move can never be a liability, like in Tic tac toe, or gomoku - here the logic also applies.
Not so in chess, it is possible (though I agree, far from likely) that white is in zugzwang on the first move, and that any move loses the game.
|Jan-17-06|| ||ughaibu: As the results of all possible sequences of moves leading to a completed game are unknowable is it not possible that the game is a win for black or white but which remains undecidable?|
|Jan-17-06|| ||s4life: <norami: After the Capablanca-Lasker match in 1921, both players agreed that within 15 years any top grandmaster could draw any game. Shows how little even World Champions know about chess.>|
They obviously overlooked the fact that a player, being a human, can get sick with arthritis.
|Jan-17-06|| ||badmove: <sheaf: black can not have winning strategy for a simple logic ( which is of course not a rigorous proof)> If you could find the source you said, this could be interesting, and there are so many mathematicians who would like to know that, so you can put this in <chessgames.com> chessforum, a common forum everybody would like to visit.|
However, I am not sure about the existence of such an article, I guess the amount of cases and considerations for playing chess makes this questions still incalculable to us. I remember a trivial pasttime in a magazine magazine that say's: Explain why "two-chess" does not have winning strategy for black (where "two-chess" means every player in each turn makes two consecutive moves instead of just once), but the explanation of this problem is just one line, so if you say a "paper" should be something more serious, that I don't know what is it.
|Jan-17-06|| ||s4life: <sheaf: black can not have winning strategy for a simple logic ( which is of course not a rigorous proof)>
This is a ridiculous statement. Chess has not been solved.... maybe in few decades.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||firebyrd: <s4life> The statement was not ridiculous, it is even close to true, just not completely accurate.
Eg, The stated logic can prove that if you play go without the usual komi, there can be no given winning strategy for the 2nd player - with correct play the game is a draw or 1st player win. Still, go is even farther from being solved than chess is.|
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate... for more info
|Jan-17-06|| ||azaris: <in most of the openings white can lose a tempo and become black.>|
"Most openings" is not enough since the winning opening might not be among them.
Assume for example that Black's best strategy is to move his knight back and forth between g8 and f6 (unlikely, but what the hey). Then White can never revert into Black, since White can only ever move his own knights and they will never manage to lose a tempo. Therefore, Black can win with this strategy since White cannot copy him and must play the first (irreversible) pawn move.
Which explains why after 1.Nf3 the correct answer is 1...Nf6!
|Jan-17-06|| ||badmove: <s4life: This is a ridiculous statement. Chess has not been solved.... maybe in few decades.> I agree in your first sentence, but your second sentence is not an explanation for the first. One is the problem: "chess does not have a winning strategy for black"? and other is the question: "If there is no winning strategy for black, could you explain how white should play in every move to avoid losing? Both questions are still far to be solved (my opinion), but if could be a solution, the answer to the first one would rely in a nonconstructive math argument (reading the link). The other one would rely relies in a practical algorithm which is a problem of computation.|
Anyway ... as neither Anand and Sokolov know the answers, I hope we can see a good game.
|Jan-17-06|| ||Bobak Zahmat: This should be a win for Anand.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||badmove: Quoting Efim Bogoljubov (and related to the previous comments): |
"When I am white I win because I am white. When I am black I win because I am Bogoljubov"
This is what Anand should think today...;;;
|Jan-17-06|| ||firebyrd: Also, the lighter side of solving chess: http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Tr...|
|Jan-17-06|| ||badmove: <norami: After the Capablanca-Lasker match in 1921, both players agreed that within 15 years any top grandmaster could draw any game.> Ha, how unpredictable is the future, Capablanca once said that chess was dead and right know thousands of kibitzers waiting for a chessgame in this site!!|
Another quote predicting the future:
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
|Jan-17-06|| ||Father Karras: Sokolov shouldn't be underestimated. I remember how he crushed kasparov in the same tournament 1999 (in abt 30 moves) when kasparov was on a roll.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||like a GM: <Father Karras> Is your name from the exorcist?|
|Jan-17-06|| ||KingV93: Somebody wake Sokolov, the game will be starting soon ! ;)|
|Jan-17-06|| ||KingV93: or is he praying ? that would be understandable.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||Aseem: I hope Vishy wins this game|
|Jan-17-06|| ||offramp: Hopefully a good game; Anand is nore interesting as black. He is too Vishy-Vashy as white.|
|Jan-17-06|| ||lobbyeater: Good afternoon from leigh Lancs UK. d4,whats the betting|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 7 ·