I'm a "perma patzer" there's no doubt about it.

So if *I* find posters like <Dr.MAL> annoying- and he's far from the only one in this rude and inane habit- then imagine how <Carlsen> and <Gelfand> and other actual top grandmasters feel about it.

The honest answer is: "NO THEY DIDN'T!".

Probably many chessplayers do not realize how much chess has lost in prestige, now that (by using an engine) ANY patzer can show in a few seconds moves that for many GM would take many minutes to find. Probably not so many chessplayers know that Biel tournament in Switzerland (where Carlsen and other top GM are playing now) is now being played by "just" 200 chessplayers (more or less), while in 1989 edition there where 1200 (yes! one thousandstwohundreds) players, nearly 6 times more!

My personal decision was not to use any engines in analysing a game, for me engines are good just as database, or as a tool to search openings, games, etc. more quickly, but NOT to analyse a game (please, look my comments here, sometimes there are mistakes, sometimes I find good moves, but NONE of my analysis was never performed by using a computer), i believe it is dangerous to analyse a game by using an engine, because then you start to rely more and more on yr computer than on yr brain.

Morover, please, don't forget the huge problem of CHEATING through computers and electronic devices.

The famous Dutch arbiter Gijssen once wrote that he knew several GM who dropped to play, because they knew that some weak players won games by cheating with computers.

So, if you want that chess become more and more like making a long sum by using a pocket calculator, rather then a creative and wonderful mind game, keep on by using computers!

But then don't cry if media (TV, magazines, etc.) pay less and less attention to chess, and people have no idea of the name of today's world champion, while everybody remembers Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Tal, etc.

The honest answer is: "NO THEY DIDN'T!".>

It's hard to tell exactly why, but there's little doubt that the demographic has drastically changed in the last 20 years. There are far more players registered with FIDE, including far more that can now achieve GM norms and titles.

Before 1990 there were only a handful of teenage GMs, while since that time there have been over 200. Engines, databases and the internet make chess infinitely more accessible than it was during the print only era , when only geniuses like Fischer, Spassky, Polgar, Mecking and Vaganian could acquire their titles as teenagers without IT assistance.

You'd think that the average age of GMs would have reduced as a result, but it's remained remarkably steady since 1950, as the same technology has also made chess infinitely more available to <everyone>, including <older> players that might not have otherwise made the grade.

<Probably many chessplayers do not realize how much chess has lost in prestige, now that (by using an engine) ANY patzer can show in a few seconds moves that for many GM would take many minutes to find.>

This is more apparent than real, as engines can provide patzers with answers they could never find, even in a few seconds, but top level GM play is far more complex than can be analysed and evaluated accurately in a few seconds or minutes.

I'd also venture to hazard a guess that chess's loss of prestige on the international stage has more to do with being run by a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats headed by a wannabe alien abductee/unsavoury dictator than anything to do with the use of engines. Competitive running didn't become obsolete when horses were domesticated or cars and trains invented, and nor will competitive chess become outmoded because of engines, for the simple reason that it still tests the limits of human mental capacity. Having the technology to ascertain more accurately how well humans perform is a given in all competitive endeavours.

Finally, I'd have to say that engines are an invaluable tool, and that the reaction against kibitzers using engines is a bit unfair, as some can do so intelligently and with grace in contrast to the offensive patzers to which this discussion has been referring.

Frankly, all the bashing of people and engines or people who use engines (BTW this would include every GM) is just plain counterproductive. Why not post about CHESS? Some ideas, some real thoughts to share? Any analysis without gaping holes in it? Why not question what would have happened? What if??? This is what chess kibitzing is all about, not getting up on some high horse all constipated and full of $#&*.

But there are more people playing chess than ever, because the game has become more accessible. It seems the game is going through a transition, hopefully one that will survive its current weird, corrupt leadership, but also one that will find a new equilibrium following the advent of powerful technology.

If prestige is to be restored, then maybe tightening the requirements for master norms and titles to adjust to the new reality introduced by engines, databases and the internet may be in order.

Unfortunately, the weird corrupt leadership started easing the barriers to norms even before the advent of engines and other technology to please national federations that wanted their own titled players. It remains a political issue that is tied in with the leadership's grip on power acquired through bribing suitcase federations that have the same value vote as the chess superpowers.

Karpov vs Seirawan, 1982

Basically, there is a strong chance that individuals who have a long list of ignores bring it upon themselves. To attract such ire from other kibitzers and completely ignore responsibility is typical. I think these individuals could benefit from looking at their own posts, how they sound, and how they might be bringing negativity toward them.

<No idea what <Focus> wrote, but I am sure it was very rude. Like a few others, he seems to pretend he some great player and judges others as inferior without a clue as to who they are. All part of some sad insecurity so he's been on IGNORE.>

ROFL-wonder whether he ever heard the one about the pot and the kettle......

<Poor, sad, miserable post from an opinionated prick. Didn't his bio once say he was a master too, after only a few tournaments? Hmmm.>

Awhile back, it stated he had been 2270 or some such, long ago.

<Everett> You horrible person; to make what appears to be a burgeoning list (same as your humble writer) takes supreme talent, don't you know, such as questioning pronouncements from On High.

But don't forget that now we have very big problems:

a) Many chessplayers prefer to play online, rather than playing in tournaments.

b) We have more tournaments than in the past, but most of them are weekend, rapid...5-7 rounds tournaments, while it is more and more difficult for organizers to find money to organize 9 rounds (or more) tournaments (like Biel for instance), and to find money for good prizes.

c) Media pay almost no attention to chess, and without media you don't have sponsors + investors.

I don't believe it is just for corruption inside FIDE. Football, car racing, athletics, boxe, basket, biking, etc., have 100 times more problems of corruption + doping, but people watch them, and sponsors invest money.

And why not choose who to see and not to see? For whatever reason I have chosen to ignore very few, and not one in years, but I can't blame you both for your discretion and preferences.

They have consistently avoided keeping such records as it would only encourage duplicate accounts trying to set the anti-hero record. I suspect they have some internal sense of who gets ignored the most and the least but they wouldn't share such information.

The correct way to use the ignore function is to put that person on ignore and then don't talk about it. Telling someone you will or might ignore their posts is the emptiest of threats.

Carlsen vs F Caruana, 2011.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF CARLSEN.
Your score: 52 (par = 40)