|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-12-05 | | acirce: Topalov luckier than Anand in San Luis? I don't see that, I just think he has simply played much better chess. |
|
| Oct-12-05 | | azaris: Somebody must have brough out the dice when the arbitrator wasn't looking - I thought chess wasn't a game of chance. |
|
| Oct-12-05 | | Ulhumbrus: It is possible that in accepting the pawns offered,Anand played courageously in the following way : He formed a judged but not certain opinion - based partly upon calculation or analysis over the board - that White would not get a winning attack as a result, acted on that opinion, and succeeded. |
|
| Oct-12-05 | | csmath: <<Somebody must have brough out the dice when the arbitrator wasn't looking - I thought chess wasn't a game of chance.>> There is a lot of luck in chess. But to sort out who is luckier and who is less lucky is not really an objective job. Ordinarily the players that play more active chess have more encounters with luck or misfortune but how to investigate that kind of thing with some sort of objective statistics is not yet known. But as far as San Luis goes, I think so far (and there are still two rounds left) Topalov has been playing better chess than Anand. I even would dare to say much better chess. And that has to do very little with the luck. |
|
| Oct-12-05 | | khense: There is of course some luck in chess.A given move may lead to a favorable option that the player of the move didn't foresee when he made the move. However I agree with csmath that proving who was lucky is a task where a convincing conclusion is unlikely. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | tpstardefender: <Ezzy> I'm not saying this as a scientist or anything, but there is incredible amount of luck involved in chess. To prove it, here's what I'm going to do: THERE IS LUCK IN CHESS! |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | Ezzy: There is no luck in chess.
Nobody has ever won a tournament or match and been lucky. You can not become a great chessplayer, and win tournaments by being lucky.The term 'lucky' is an insult to the touRnament or match winner, who has played fairly, and agreed to the rules of the competition. The word 'lucky' only seems to be used by chess writers and observers. The players competing would NEVER say that his opponent was a lucky winner of a tournament. If a player blundered against an opponent, it would be absolute crass to say of their opponent that he /she was lucky. They would be very careful saying things like that, because it assumes that you (the blunderer) was unlucky, which is totally ridiculous. <csmath and Khense> are correct in saying - proving who was lucky is a task where a convincing conclusion is unlikely. Why even attempt to go down this pointless path. So on a few rare occasions a player may have an occasional easy game(their opponent blunders), but in the great big picture, luck should NEVER EVER be uttered to a player who has achieved success through fair competition, in a long dedicated career. It would be crass and unjust, and basically completely wrong to say any of their achievements consisted of an element of luck. Because this occasional good fortune is so miniscule that it would be pathetic to even mention it. And that is why players NEVER call each other lucky when somebody wins a tournament or match. It seems quite acceptable to use the word lucky when humbly describing your own good fortune, but you would never use the word lucky to describe your opponents good fortune. For example - Topalov might humbly say that he was lucky that Leko missed a winning combination against him in his first round match. But Leko would NEVER in a million years say that Topalov was lucky to win the game. Because that is making excuses for your own bad play and would sound completely crass. Players don't care whether commentaters call them lucky or not, because in the greater scheme of things you CAN NOT achieve greatness in any sport through luck. It is pathetic to think that you can. Your occasional good fortune is so small it shouldn't even be uttered. Only a fool would attach the word 'lucky' to a great player, or any player for that matter, and that is why respected players would NEVER use the word 'lucky' against their opponents. I like that quote of Ben Hogan(the all time great golfer). When asked about luck, he said - "The more I practice, the luckier I get! THERE IS NO LUCK IN CHESS!!
|
|
| Oct-13-05 | | Ezzy: <tpstardefender: <Ezzy> I'm not saying this as a scientist or anything, but there is incredible amount of luck involved in chess. To prove it, here's what I'm going to do:
THERE IS LUCK IN CHESS!> That is a sad contribution to the discussion. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | tpstardefender: <Ezzy> Ok, so you don't believe there's luck in chess. Before we go any further in discussion, give me your definition of luck. Then I'll try to see if I have anything to counter your argument. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | khense: <ezzy> Either you had a lot to drink or you need one. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | Ezzy: <khense: <ezzy> Either you had a lot to drink or you need one.> I need one! |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | FHBradley: Perhaps it was Tarrasch who introduced 'luck' as an acceptable explanation in chess; since he understood next to nothing about Lasker's chess, he decided that Lasker must have been lucky. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: Well after this win, Anand is back in the race for the title...although i must say that this good form from him has come a little too late! |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | FHBradley: <tpstardefender:> et al. "Luck is a pervasive feature of human life [...] and appears to arise in four main ways [...]. First, the outcomes of our actions are affected by luck (resultant luck). Some years ago it may have seemed prudent to take a degree in computer science; someone who did so and completed a course just before the IT bubble burst unforeseeably may rightly see his ensuing unemployment as bad resultant luck. Second, the circumstances in which one acts introduce luck (circumstantial luck). A person who is offered proper incentives and plenty of time to deliberate may make a wiser decision than he would under less favorable conditions; it may be by accident that he finds himself in the favorable conditions and hence makes the wiser decision. Third, luck affects the kind of person you are (constitutive luck). Genetically, some people are at greater risk of cancer through smoking than others, and because of this it makes sense to say that some smokers are lucky to avoid cancer. Finally, there is luck in the way one's actions are determined by antecedent circumstances (antecedent causal luck). Children who grow up in a stimulating environment perhaps become more motivated than they would in a duller setting; yet children rarely determine the time and place in which they are raised. When we add up resultant, circumstantial, constitutive, and antecedent causal luck, the area of life that is free of luck seems to shrink 'to an extensionless point'" [...] From 'Justice and Bad Luck' by Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy); references omitted. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | Koster: A win is lucky if it is achieved through the opponent's blunder without superior strategy or calculation on the winner's part. Everyone here has won games like that, guaranteed. The old saying that it's better to be lucky than good may be true in the short run, but in the long run luck, meaning random events, evens out, and as Keres said each player ultimately ends up where he deserves to be. I think Keres said this in response to being called unlucky after so often finishing a close 2nd in the candidates tournaments. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | ughaibu: I thought the "good" in "it's better to be lucky than good" was a virtuous type good rather than a skillfull type. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | Ulhumbrus: According to Fine you get to be lucky when you get to be good.Lasker was one of the strongest players the world had ever seen - according to both Steinitz and Capablanca- and said to be one of the luckiest. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | khense: <Ulhumbrus, et al> Good comments about Lasker. Often Lasker was the only one who knew what was going on in his games - his opponents didn't know what hit 'em. Lasker might have been a great Texas Holdem player - his abilities AND a little luck - WOW! |
|
| Nov-21-05 | | patzer2: Leko appears to have missed a good defensive opportunity in 20. Rxe8+! GM Shipov at http://www.chesspro.ru/events/sanlu... writes: <After 20.Rxe8+ I hoped to give a short, plausible line. However I bogged down and now you can see the result: 20...Rxe8 21.Qb3 (21.Kxh1? Re1+ 22.Qxe1 Bxe1 23.Rxe1 f5) 21...Bxf3 22.Bxf3 Qf5 23.Qxb7! (23.Bxc6 Qxf4 24.Bxe8 Qg3+ 25.Kh1 Qxh3+ 26.Kg1 Qg3+ 27.Kh1=) 23...Nxd4! 24.Bxc7 Qc5! 25.Kh1 Qxc3 26.Rd1 Be1! 27.Bd5! Qxh3+ 28.Bh2 Qf5 29.Nf3 (29.Be4!?) 29...Nxf3 30.Qc6 Rf8 31.Bxf3 Bf2...I reached some sort of comprehensive position only here. White has some (probably sizable) advantage. Consequently, the exchange on e8 (after somewhat artificial retreat of the white rook) deserves a closer look and maybe even the practical test.> A quick look with Fritz 8 gives the possibility 20. Rxe8+
Rxe8 21. Qb3 Ne7 22. Be5 Qxb3 23. Nxb3 f6 24. Bxc7 Nd5 25. Bd6 f5 26. Bxf5 Bxf3 27. Rf1  with a small White advantage. |
|
| Nov-21-05 | | aszxcv: patzer2
what features in fritz makes you analyze the position/advantage like the one you list. newbie to fritz |
|
| Nov-21-05 | | patzer2: Anand's strategy in exploiting Leko's slightly weaker pawn structure after 29...Ng6! and 30...Qc6! is impressive. Leko might have put up more resistance with 30. Qc4!? as 30. Rb5 and 31. Rxf5?! give Anand a strong and clear advantage. However, after Fritz 8's analysis of 30. Qc4!? Qd6!
31. Rxb7 Qxa3 32. Rb1 Qe7 33. d5 Ne5 34. Qd4 Qg7 35. Rg1 Qxg1+ 36. Qxg1 Rxg1+ 37. Kxg1 a5 38. Kf2 f4 39. Ke2 a4 40. c4 a3 41. c5 Kg7 42. c6 Nc4 43. Nb3 Kf6  (-1.84 @ 17 depth), it would appear Black may have a decisive advantage anyway. |
|
| Nov-21-05 | | patzer2: <aszxcv> I click on View Text in ChessGames.com, press CTL + C and then go to Fritz 8 and Edit/Paste/Paste game to bring up the game there. Then, I click on Engine/Fritz 8 Infinite Analysis. My decision to look at a position more in depth depends on my own feel for a position, a sudden change in Fritz 8's analysis as I click throught the game in Fritz 8, or on analysis by others (as with GM Shipov's analysis of the game at the site given above). |
|
| Nov-21-05 | | aszxcv: thanks for the info |
|
| Nov-22-05 | | patzer2: <aszxcv> Forgot to mention I click on view text and then <highlight the complete text of the game before pressing CTL+C> before going to Fritz 8 to Edit/Paste/Paste game and review the game with Engine/Infinite Analysis (Fritz 8). |
|
| May-31-12 | | Hesam7: <patzer2: Leko appears to have missed a good defensive opportunity in 20. Rxe8+!
GM Shipov at http://www.chesspro.ru/events/sanlu... writes: <After 20.Rxe8+ I hoped to give a short, plausible line. However I bogged down and now you can see the result: 20...Rxe8 21.Qb3 (21.Kxh1? Re1+ 22.Qxe1 Bxe1 23.Rxe1 f5) 21...Bxf3 22.Bxf3 Qf5 23.Qxb7! (23.Bxc6 Qxf4 24.Bxe8 Qg3+ 25.Kh1 Qxh3+ 26.Kg1 Qg3+ 27.Kh1=) 23...Nxd4! 24.Bxc7 Qc5! 25.Kh1 Qxc3 26.Rd1 Be1! 27.Bd5! Qxh3+ 28.Bh2 Qf5 29.Nf3 (29.Be4!?) 29...Nxf3 30.Qc6 Rf8 31.Bxf3 Bf2...I reached some sort of comprehensive position only here. White has some (probably sizable) advantage. Consequently, the exchange on e8 (after somewhat artificial retreat of the white rook) deserves a closer look and maybe even the practical test.> A quick look with Fritz 8 gives the possibility 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Qb3 Ne7 22. Be5 Qxb3 23. Nxb3 f6 24. Bxc7 Nd5 25. Bd6 f5 26. Bxf5 Bxf3 27. Rf1 with a small White advantage.> Black has another move which Shipov and Fritz both missed: 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Qb3 Qxb3! 22. Nxb3 f5 23. Bh5 (23. Kxh1?! fxg4 is worse because White can not take back with the h-pawn: 24. hxg4? Rf8  ) 23. ... g6 24. Kxh1 gxh5 25. d5 (25. Bxc7? Re3 and White is in trouble, for example: 26. d5 Rxc3 26. dxc6 Rxb3 27. cxb7 Rxb7) 25. ... Ne5 26. Nd4 Kf7 27. Nxf5 Bf6 
click for larger viewAnd Black should have a slight advantage here. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
