EPTOn November 29 2018 01:08 LennX wrote:
Magnus just won right?
Magnus just won right?
Yup.
The Chess Thread - Page 101
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Grettin
42417 Posts
Yup. | ||
|
uthgard
2098 Posts
| ||
|
Warfie
Norway2849 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18772 Posts
On November 29 2018 01:09 uthgard wrote: aaaand this is why Magnus wanted the tiebreak nothings decided yet | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10024 Posts
| ||
|
uthgard
2098 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On November 28 2018 20:31 Sr18 wrote: Such a scoring system has been used in the recent past. If I remember correctly it didn't change much. I wonder how tournaments would run if the point difference between a win and a draw were much larger (5 to 1 or even 10 to 1). Might still not change much, as a draw is also about preventing your opponent from getting a win. 1vs1 matches are easier to fix: make draws not count. Play a best of 5 or 7 where only decisive results count. The match might take longer, but the match strategy will at least change from "don't lose" to "must win". There is also quite a bit resistance to the 3-1-0 system, because in tourney systems like double round robin or similar, where you meet twice, this system encourages win trading. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On November 28 2018 17:52 Longshank wrote: I think that's the most common critique I've read/heard. That players are just playing computer lines for 20-25 moves yeah that's what i mean by chess solved for the first 15 moves or so. that's actually insane if they're following computer lines for up to 20 moves - didn't even realize it was that bad. its lame and at that point its a competition of who has better memory. for ordinary humans, yes obviously its irrelevant, since we'd never be able to memorize all that crap, so the games are still exciting and dynamic and filled with blunders. and even if you could memorize all the best moves, if opponent deviates you'd still need to know how to take advantage of inaccuracy. but super GMs can do all of that. so at the top tier god GM level its stale and solved. there needs to be a nerf to computer prep - chess960 is the best way to shakeup the meta regarding end game tablebases, you might not know off the bat the best move to make, but just memorizing the fact that your position is winning will give you more confidence and then a super GM can then use their super calculation abilities to figure out the win from there | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
Warfie
Norway2849 Posts
| ||
|
uthgard
2098 Posts
| ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10984 Posts
On November 29 2018 01:45 fishjie wrote: yeah that's what i mean by chess solved for the first 15 moves or so. that's actually insane if they're following computer lines for up to 20 moves - didn't even realize it was that bad. its lame and at that point its a competition of who has better memory. for ordinary humans, yes obviously its irrelevant, since we'd never be able to memorize all that crap, so the games are still exciting and dynamic and filled with blunders. and even if you could memorize all the best moves, if opponent deviates you'd still need to know how to take advantage of inaccuracy. but super GMs can do all of that. so at the top tier god GM level its stale and solved. there needs to be a nerf to computer prep - chess960 is the best way to shakeup the meta regarding end game tablebases, you might not know off the bat the best move to make, but just memorizing the fact that your position is winning will give you more confidence and then a super GM can then use their super calculation abilities to figure out the win from there You could easily argue that chess was and is allways about that? It just has gotten much more obvious recently. I barely ever play myself and i'm trash but i like the follow the wm. If people would just shut up about the CPU moves, stuff would still be just as exciting as before. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18772 Posts
| ||
|
Warfie
Norway2849 Posts
On November 29 2018 02:39 sharkie wrote: wow fabi disappointing big in rapid did you expect better though? | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18772 Posts
well considering how Fabi played timidly the whole classical part of the championship yes I expected better This way I just wonder what Fabi and his team's game plan is. As many of us have noted Carlsen is far from his best form and still comfortably won the whole thing. | ||
|
Grettin
42417 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
uthgard
2098 Posts
| ||
|
Warfie
Norway2849 Posts
On November 29 2018 03:02 sharkie wrote: well considering how Fabi played timidly the whole classical part of the championship yes I expected better This way I just wonder what Fabi and his team's game plan is. As many of us have noted Carlsen is far from his best form and still comfortably won the whole thing. almost feels like he drastically lowered his appetite for risk in the WC, at least going into rapid never seemed like a good idea - carlsen underperforming in normal evidently doesn't transfer to rapid | ||
| ||
