< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 323 OF 331 ·
|Dec-08-11|| ||blue wave: Good game all. Maybe something more dynamic and off the beaten track soon? Maybe?|
|Dec-08-11|| ||Penguincw: Less than 5 hours to go before the likely draw offer.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||dinobrya: Draw offer??? How is this a question? He has to step into perpetual check or be mated. Let him worry about the draw.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||gonzalez8491: The mOve 32...Rd7 is a very bad mOve due to 33. RxNe5 and then a guy like Akobian will win easy.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||Stonehenge: 32...Nxf3+ with draw offer. 2 x 32 = 64, nice chess number :)|
|Dec-08-11|| ||DPLeo: <AylerKupp: ... we won't take any GMs by surprise from here on out. Notice how conservatively GMVA played ...>|
I'm sure we will each have our own opinions and perspectives on this. From my perspective, as indicated in my forum header, I don't think we need to be overly concerned with winning. Of course we should continue to search and analyze hard to find the best moves possible and winning will either result from that effort or not.
We have defeated GM's and CC World Champions and have never lost. I think that puts the burden on any future opponent to distinguish him or herself by becoming the first one to defeat us.
I don't see draws as a problem for us in view of our current record. If our opponents don't come here to win and just play conservatively that will just allow us to continue our undefeated record.
|Dec-08-11|| ||techie4mIndia: well friends, draw is offered with 69% votes by now,it was a nice game but it would have been more pleasing to have recieved draw offer rather than offering.Hoping next challenge will come soon.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||isemeria: In the games we have drawn we have never been in any danger of losing (right?). So we have shown that we can draw easily against strong opponents. |
IMO, it's time to raise the bar. To keep this interesting if nothing else. And I'm ready to admit that OTB preconceptions may not be enough (e.g. regarding the openings).
I believe it's not possible to win a chess game by force. Some mistakes, even small ones, are required from the opponent. Therefore we can't use win / not win as measure for our success. For me it would be enough to get a position with a clear advantage, and where the opponent has to defend very accurately to survive.
|Dec-08-11|| ||AylerKupp: <DPLeo> I'm not sure how to best describe my feelings towards winning. Sure, I would want to win but that's not really of paramount importance of me. More important to me is the enjoyment that I get from participating in the game and the interactions with the people involved. On the other hand, I'm stubborn and pig-headed so I will press and press for a win as much as I can, even if it means taking calculated chances and possibly losing.|
But I don't think I agree with you that finding the best moves possible and that winning will either result from that effort or not. Sometimes the "best move" depends on what you're goal is; you may play one move if you're content with a draw and play a different move (which may not be objectively the best) if you're trying for a win at (nearly) all costs. And the amount of risk that you're willing to take depends on how adverse you are to losing. It's a hard question to answer.
And, of course, it usually takes two to tango. It will be very hard to beat a computer-assisted grandmaster playing White who is satisfied with a draw regardless of what we do. And I'm not advocating that we play recklessly in an attempt to win at all costs; that sure seems like a good way to guarantee a loss. I'm just somewhat concerned that if the drawing pattern continues for many more games that both the present and future team members as well as potential opponents may lose interest in this type of game format if the outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
Then again, there are draws and there are DRAWS. I think that this game shows that interest (as measured by the number of players that vote) increases if the draw is an exciting or even an interesting one (for which I think that this game qualifies). So, contrary to what I said earlier, maybe that's the secret to retaining popularity in these contests; play an interesting game regardless of the outcome.
Benoni anyone? ;-)
|Dec-08-11|| ||Chessgames Challenge: |
FINAL VOTE TALLY:
total # of votes: 263
draw requests: 181 (68.8%)
click for larger view
|Dec-08-11|| ||WinKing: Voting Statistics - GM Varuzhan Akobian vs. Chessgames World Team|
Move / Members at time of vote / # that voted / % voted
(***Draw vote - %***)
32...Nxf3+ / 1507 / 263 / 17.5% (***181/263 - 68%*** DRAW OFFERED)
|Dec-08-11|| ||ossipossi: <AyperKupp>: Me for sure, but we'll have White next time. Needs to find some special opening trick. Not to go on main roads doesn't mean loss.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||hms123: Thanks to everyone.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||AylerKupp: <ossipossi> My earlier suggestion was to try to find and play some lesser known and less analyzed opening, a gambit perhaps, that might provide us an opportunity, given our substantial combined computing power, to find a theoretical novelty.|
And just think how entertaining the pre-game discussion would be in debating the merits of the various opening possibilities, and trying to decide which opening to play! That alone might make it worthwhile to participate in the game.
|Dec-08-11|| ||AylerKupp: <isemeria> Whether it's possible to win a chess game by force without some mistakes (or "inaccuracies" as I prefer to call them if they're "small") from your opponent depends on whether you believe that with perfect play on both sides the outcome will be a draw or whether you believe that the advantage of the first move, again with perfect play on both sides, guarantees White a win. A likely impossible question to answer definitively in the near future, or at least until sufficiently powerful computers and chess playing engines are developed. Which may never happen.|
I personally agree with you that it's not possible to win a chess game by force. But I would think that win / draw / loss is still a reasonably valid measure of success since it does measure (somewhat) the extent to which we can create conditions where the probability that our opponent makes a mistake or inaccuracy increases, regardless of whether they are assisted by computers or not. Which is exactly what you're saying, we need to achieve situations where we have a clear advantage and our opponent has to defend very accurately to survive. But how would we have managed to get to the situation where we have a clear advantage? Maybe by incrementally accumulating small advantages, but I think that's what we've tried to do in the past and it hasn't been entirely successful.
So, as usual, I don't have a clear cut answer.
|Dec-08-11|| ||ossipossi: <AylerKupp> I (& Houdini) completely agree.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||kb2ct: |
Not that I object, but WT games do seem to have a greater than average percentage of violent draws by perpetual check.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Waitaka: To all the world team, congratulations for the game, not only keeping the team unbeatable, but also for providing a true team environment, with respect, high-level discussion, and pleasant.|
And to mr. Akobian, thank you very much for playing hard and fair. It was an honor to be able to hold a draw against you.
|Dec-08-11|| ||kwgurge: "Unbeaten" not "unbeatable," as soon as we think we are unbeatable, we will be beaten!|
|Dec-08-11|| ||cro777: <kb2ct> Draw rate is high at higher level in CC. The idea you mentioned earlier is worthy of further exploration. I left a message for you in your forum.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||Waitaka: <kwgurge> You are quite right, I guess.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||DPLeo: <AylerKupp: ... Maybe by incrementally accumulating small advantages, but I think that's what we've tried to do in the past and it hasn't been entirely successful. ...>|
I have to respectfully and completely disagree with this assessment. I think our record can only be classified as extremely successful. I'm not aware of any other chess playing entity or individual with an undefeated record, which includes wins against GM's and CC World Champions. It's pretty difficult to imagine a higher measure of success than our current record.
|Dec-08-11|| ||chrisowen: 32Nf3+ re ti now in effect it is see at filled angle head for |
mouth n2 it verity on d8 in cheek knight I think too life
elucidate queen sacced h3 draw have acceeded point got little
left in butter yet has been a good fight going down mainline
In try it erudite in enacting flavour whoosh air draw in
gamble might we edict the barber shear frenchi net e6 alimony
green pasture yes gung-ho it spade black up against.
|Dec-08-11|| ||AylerKupp: <DPLeo> Oh, a misunderstanding. I meant "successful" from the perspective of getting consistent wins or consistently achieving the types of positions that <isemeria> was talking about, those with a clear advantage where the opponent has to defend very accurately to survive. There is no doubt in my mind that the World Team has been very successful given the record of 2 wins, 5 draws, 0 losses (I think that's what it is), particularly given the records of other "world" teams against GMs. As I said in a recent post, a draw against a GM, particularly with the Black pieces, is nothing to be embarrassed about.|
If someone had asked me for my opinion before the very first game against Arno Nickel about the World Team's chances I would have said "Not much", given the difficulties in organizing and herding this particular group of cats. And I think that was also chessgames.com's opinion, given the wording of the chessgames.com challenge: "Can a group of chess amateurs team up to beat a grandmaster?". If that challenge was being written today it might properly say "Can a grandmaster beat a group of chess amateurs playing as a team?"
So I don't think that we disagree at all. On the contrary, as the saying goes, we're in violent agreement.
|Dec-08-11|| ||OhioChessFan: <AK: My earlier suggestion was to try to find and play some lesser known and less analyzed opening, a gambit perhaps, that might provide us an opportunity, given our substantial combined computing power, to find a theoretical novelty.>|
There is simply <no way> we are going to convince a majority of players to do that. The first 5 moves of every game we're treated to people who think chess begins and ends with "How to Beat Your Dad At Chess". There are hundreds of them. After they take us down some same old, same old, opening, they leave.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 323 OF 331 ·