< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·
|Apr-26-12|| ||Everett: <kingscrusher> I'm surprised there are still adjournments anywhere, given that computer help is even insinuating their influence while the game is being played. Ex. Sebastien Feller , and of course Kramnik-Topalov '06, etc.|
And I do think an adjournment allows insight from others or benefits certain types of players to such an outsized degree that it skews the purpose of one-on-one competition - that is the ability to "play" the game of chess under time constraints, not "study" the game for a night. Look at how Spassky "innocently" helped Kasparov here. Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1983 This is a fairly minor moment, but see how crucial it can be!
So in my eyes there is nothing to qualify. My view of competitive chess and how it should be conducted is adulterated by being able to study a position, alone or with assistance, without the immediate pressure of a clock.
I thought if anything would be called out on my profile, it's my general ambivalence toward stalemate, and it is one of the reasons I remain a weak endgame player. Competitively, I think stalemates are lame. Of course, aesthetically they can be amazing.
And thank you for your great video annotations. Really a pleasure. You have added something really special to the chess world, and most of us can't say that.
|Apr-26-12|| ||talisman: thanks <kingscrusher>.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||qqdos: <Everett> Ditto thanks to <kingcrusher>. Do you consider "playing" chess must of necessity be "under time constraints"? Aren't external time constraints foreign to the game of chess, as such? Does it matter that 11...Nxc3 was played in 1 second, 1 minute or 1 hour or that Black had 5 or 50 minutes left on his clock. Indeed do not such external constraints (tend to) distort the game, by leading sometimes to inferior (hasty) moves being played and allowing a quick opponent to gain an undeserved victory. Shortage of time may well explain why a particular move was played, but what has efficient management of time got to do with "pure" chess. Should not the rules be aimed at producing objectively the best and most creative chess not the supremacy of the fast thinkers (tournament time scramblers), who may not be the deepest or most original thinkers. The time element I recognise is the internal "tempo" of the game - i.e. will White's kingside attack prevail before Black's counter-offensive on the queenside strikes home. How to achieve this? Heaven knows! Perhaps an experimental tournament might be arranged with much longer time limits incorporating some clever mechanism to eliminate time pressure.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||Everett: <qqdos> I really enjoy sitting back and studying puzzles, going over interesting games, etc, at a leisurely pace. It's great fun. But of course nearly all competition implies time constraints.|
Many top GMs can find the best moves if given infinite time. The point of competitive chess is the ability to perform under time and circumstantial stress.
Of course I agree with the beauty of chess, and how time pressure can mar it. This is why Bronstein came up with a clock so one could not lose on time unless they willfully step over the time limit... And beautiful chess can be played under all sorts of conditions... Like the Melody Amber (RIP)
|Apr-26-12|| ||Raginmund: Beautiful...
Clap your hands for aronian's disposal to face the beast head to head...
It was a very brave play by him.
well, I keep saying: Kramnik for ever!
Kramnik, the best ever!!!
|Apr-27-12|| ||kingscrusher: <Everett:> Sometimes though someone can do tonnes of preparation for an Adjournment, and the opponent can still beat them even without checking it much.|
There was a classic a couple of years ago when a Barnet player just went on holiday, and never prepared. He did some exchange sac, which the opponent never prepared for in his analysis - becuase the computer probably didn't rate it at all.
The unprepared player ended up beating the prepared one because of the one unexpected move at the start of resumption!.
I would prefer the leagues to be without adjournments. It affects my play as I get to move 35 sometimes - as if have to finish the opponent off quickly - and sometimes I blunder as a result.
|Apr-27-12|| ||qqdos: <Everett> Yes. But tournament schedules (I accept now pretty much time-hallowed, excuse the pun) are arranged for the convenience of the organisers and give some advantage to quick thinkers like Anand, GK, Tal, Fischer etc. and to time-scramblers like Reshevsky, Korchnoi etc as well as players with amazing memories. A fabulous memory does not mean that the player is a creative genius. I would like a level playing field for the likes of Bronstein, Hubner, Nezhmedtinov etc. I must look up Bronstein's clock. Thnx!|
|Apr-27-12|| ||Everett: <I would prefer the leagues to be without adjournments. It affects my play as I get to move 35 sometimes - as if have to finish the opponent off quickly - and sometimes I blunder as a result.>|
<Kingscrusher> seems you agree with me then, despite the interesting story. And I imagine that people who played Karpov during his top years faced not only a great player, but someone who had top GMs on his team helping with adjournments. Just one example of many, of course...
|Apr-28-12|| ||kingscrusher: <Everett:> Yes that is really unfair - especially for example Botvinnik vs Fischer - that was adjourned.|
An adjournment the next day in the pre-computer era means that those with the stronger teams might have the better opportunites for finding key resources.
I video annotated this game here
|Apr-28-12|| ||qqdos: <Everett> <kingcrusher> the adjournment issue is another example of an external influence on the purity/quality of the actual game being contested. Fischer suffered from this (self-inflicted) apparently because he couldn't bring himself to trust his seconds and became exhausted double-checking every conceivable wrinkle. Blunders induced by the remorseless tick of the clock spoil the objective quality of games for the neutral observer.|
|Apr-28-12|| ||Everett: <qqdos> Chess games are objectively beautiful partially <because> great and/or interesting moves and concepts are played under time pressure. And OTB, and even rapid better than classical, matches the pace of life a bit better.|
|Apr-28-12|| ||qqdos: <Everett> It is a marvel that some great moves have been played under time pressure but does that make the move (objectively) better than if it was all home-brew? We should certainly be grateful to some of the losers of the immortal games who may have lost their way against the clock and allowed a brilliant concept to be brought to glorious fruition. When I play over a game, should I care that the external pace of life has contributed to the standard (even if it is sub-standard?) of play? Is not a chess game an artificial construct with its own pace and that the internal time/initiative is what matters?|
|Apr-28-12|| ||Everett: <It is a marvel that some great moves have been played under time pressure but does that make the move (objectively) better than if it was all home-brew?> |
Why, yes! And this is why OTB is held in much higher regard than CC chess. It is also the reason why some fans begrudgingly accept the necessary evil of opening theory extending so far into the middlegame and endgame.
As for the rest of your post, I agree we should be absolutely grateful to all the greats, whether they win or lose. And of course you can go over a game any way you wish. Learning and studying chess has its own logic. And chess can be appreciated in any way you find best.
|Apr-30-12|| ||rdt: Does anybody have a line for black against 21. Rxe6? The queen is not in danger because of the checkmate threat, and if fxe6 then Qxc4 with advantage for white.|
|Apr-30-12|| ||beatgiant: <rdt>
Welcome to the forum!
On 21. Rxe6 fxe6 22. Qxc4, Black has <22... Be3+> 23. Kb1 Rd1#
|Apr-30-12|| ||qqdos: <Everett> Are we slowly moving towards a consensus? One of the reasons why OTB is considered (and produces) the best chess is because the world's greatest chess practitioners play it for the most lucrative and prestigious of prizes and these practitioners by and large, apart from innate skill, have the quickest sight of the board, think quicker, manage their time more efficiently and are blessed with phenomenal memories. Might one (partial?) solution (for transferring or equalizing the negative effect of time-pressure) be to have quite a tight time control after say 20 moves (during which all or most of home-brew can be unloaded), leaving far longer for the crunch part of the game to unfold. Just an idea!|
|May-03-12|| ||zakkzheng: Why would Aronian give white a queen?|
|Jun-02-12|| ||sevenseaman: Kramnik puts Aronian on a grindstone and keeps rolling the pin nonchalantly.|
|Jun-02-12|| ||HeMateMe: Terrific game. Gorgeous tactics from move 30 onwards. VK here reminds one of how the computers play, holding the three black pieces in stasis and slowly building up a winning position.|
|Jun-02-12|| ||pers0n: 18...Bb6, why not take the bishop on a8 instead? and why did white not play 19. Qe4 to protect the bishop?|
|Jun-02-12|| ||kevin86: This looks like a game of flying hatchets-with pieces chopped in all directions. This leads to an unusual ending Q vs R+N+B-but decided by the two connectors.|
|Jun-02-12|| ||drpoundsign: black was a shmuck for sacking his Queen in the first place. you only do that for a good reason|
|Jun-03-12|| ||Blunderdome: Easy to criticize the trade in hindsight. Aronian, one of the best players in the world, thought he was better for most of the game.|
I was watching without an engine and had no idea who was better.
|Jun-03-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Kramnik should play 1. e4 more often; but not all the time. It's a good idea to introduce a little variety to one's opening, mainly for the psychological surprise value. I haven't seen him play e4 in a long time.|
|Jan-21-13|| ||KingV93: This is a great game! While I'm not a fan of either player to see them engage in such a tactical shootout if fantastic, very fun to see chess like this.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·