EPTThe Chess Thread - Page 63
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
Seriously guys... | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
wingpawn
Poland1342 Posts
On November 21 2014 03:39 Laertes wrote: He's likely given up at this point. He really should leave more time for himself to come back but his confidence is likely shot. Carlsen just outclasses him so much. Absolutely not true. First of all, super-GM level play in Berlin Defense is basically focused over Black defending for the whole game and obtatining a draw. Since Carlsen went for it as well, it was the only logical outcome for Vishy to agree on, as he wasn't fighting in this game for anything else anyway. Secondly, Carlsen is hardly "outclassing him". First game won by Magnus was just Vishy not offering the Queen trade while he had a chance (...Qf7 at some point); the second game could've been easily won by Anand but he missed the chance and Carlsen managed to improve his position in an unsound way that should've normally been punished. Also, the only draw in which Carlsen had serious edge all around happened in game 1 (game 6 was more of his irrational powerplay than a really noteworthy advantage). | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 21 2014 04:16 mahrgell wrote: So why do all the GM's consider today a huge success for Vishy? Seriously guys... It's not a huge success by any means. But his chances of winning the match improved slightly. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
How does the professional scene react to that? Is it seen as a problem or are people ok with it? To me (as someone who has no idea) it seems to be kinda bad, it makes the game kinda boring?! I would love if someone of you would take the time to educate me on that topic, ty guys  | ||
|
wingpawn
Poland1342 Posts
To clarify, for me, Carlsen is probably more overall skilled than Anand but that's just because of how complex and non-forced the nature of top-level chess is and how much this fact plays to his strengths. The only players whom I consider a match for him on that departments are Kramnik and Aronian, but they failed to produce enough consistency in the Candidates to even get there. Maybe on another occasion they (or Caruana) will get the challenge. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 21 2014 05:40 The_Red_Viper wrote: Ok as someone who only has a very basic idea of chess (well i know how the pieces move :D) i am kinda interested in the aspect that draw seems to be kinda the most probable outcome of a game. (when both have similar skill). How does the professional scene react to that? Is it seen as a problem or are people ok with it? To me (as someone who has no idea) it seems to be kinda bad, it makes the game kinda boring?! I would love if someone of you would take the time to educate me on that topic, ty guys Well generally it's not considered to be a problem, because a chess game can be very exciting and still end in a draw. Unlike most other sports a draw doesn't imply that both sides didn't try. The reason for that is that the gap between winning a game and drawing really big. Most endgames with one additional pawn are still drawn. Knight or bishop vs king endgames are drawn and so are minor piece versus rook endgames. You can even have two knights and the game is still a draw. Also stalemates and perpetual checks exist which also lead to a draw. | ||
|
Zdrastochye
Ivory Coast6262 Posts
On November 21 2014 06:14 Laertes wrote: That's a pretty good summery but its rather basic. To put in descriptive terms, none of the circular argument you presented is always true. Styles don't function on a circular level because a player is never positional, materialistic or tactical. The truth is that chess styles typically function of a spectrum. I don't know what that spectrum would look like, but I know that no style is truly as simplistic and single minded as you say. When I say Carlsen beats Anand because he steers him away from the positions Anand likes, I say this because Anand doesn't know how to attack against Carlsen. He may though, but he is reserving himself, and I'm not sure why. In any case, the main thing that differentiates GM from master is efficiency and endurance. The ability to play long fighting games without passing out is the main attribute that separates a 2.4k player from a 2.8k player. Some might argue that this is the most important trait, but I won't get into that right now. Calling bullshit on that one. If he knew a way to attack Carlsen that would result in him having a positional/material/tactical advantage after the line plays out he would most certainly go for it. You even admit that you don't understand the spectrum on which chess is played, yet you disregard wingpawn's logic as "basic". Yours seems more psuedo-intellectual at least in my eyes, but maybe you're just a MENSA candidate and I'm merely an ant. | ||
|
wingpawn
Poland1342 Posts
Already 100 years ago, players were concerned with the possibility of a "Draw Death". For instance, World Champ Capablanca proposed the variant of the game played on 10x8 board with two new pieces for each side. Later, Bobby Fischer advocated the variant where the starting position of back-row pieces is randomized for both players in a mirror way before every game - to force the players to think from the move one rather than just follow a shitton of theory (it's called Chess 960). People are okay with this problem. The things is: sometimes, the only route to a draw is some insane sequence that ends with perpetual check, stalemate or creating an endgame fortress that's impossible to fall. And apart from that, humans aren't robots - and as long as they slip up, the possibilities of decisive games will continue to exists. Some of the craziest draws @Laertes - Anand is just not ambitious enough. Especially with Black: he tried to play two sharp games with that colour and lost both of them. In reality, his losses had nothing to do with the sharp approach - he just played badly in both of these games - but the bad results obviously influenced his opening and strategy choices with Black for the rest of the match. Also, on the top level, tempos usually don't matter as much as material, pawn structures, piece activity and central control. That's because players are nearly perfect at shutting down tactical threats and the games take the slow course. @Zdrastochye - Nah, my logic was really basic, it's more twisted than that. But basically, if the position is tactically dry and you can grab a pawn, you'll usually win because if the other guy can't win it back and only gets some temporary advantage for it, you can play on to neutralize that and leave him simply pawn down for nothing. And, on the other hand, if your opponents plays agressively but at cost of making positional weaknesses, then as long as you defend accurately, his brutal plans will gain him nothing and in the long run, his weak points will become more and more exposed (endgames in particular are the stages when every doubled, isolated or too far advanced pawn is likely to fall). | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 21 2014 05:40 The_Red_Viper wrote: Ok as someone who only has a very basic idea of chess (well i know how the pieces move :D) i am kinda interested in the aspect that draw seems to be kinda the most probable outcome of a game. (when both have similar skill). How does the professional scene react to that? Is it seen as a problem or are people ok with it? To me (as someone who has no idea) it seems to be kinda bad, it makes the game kinda boring?! I would love if someone of you would take the time to educate me on that topic, ty guys No one cares except people who follow the game very superficially. It is a bit sad when you get a draw with "no chess content". That is a very simple game or game that follows a previous one to the end. But a hard fought draw is as interesting as a spectacular win. Actually games that are decided by a horrible mistake are kinda lame. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
I can see that a drawn game doesn't have to be boring (i kinda worded that badly), but it just feels weird that it is the most probable outcome of a game. (if you only look at it from a "game design" viewpoint). I am interested in learning either chess or GO in the next few months (not on a super high lvl obviously, but decent i guess) and also follow its scene in the process. Chess with its different pieces and more "mainstream" state in the west world was my first choice, but the draw aspect really is a big negative point for me. But i guess that is just me :D Either way, interesting to follow this championship (even though i obviously have no deep understanding), but with the commentary on twitch it is fun atm. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 21 2014 09:41 FiWiFaKi wrote: Keep in mind that draws are only really common at the highest level of play. If you play <2000 level, realistically I'd say 5-10% of your games will be draws. Myself, I'm currently at 1700, and only 2-3% of my games have been ending in draws. Yeah i am aware of that, it's just that i would like to watch competetive chess more often then as well (i kinda do this with all the games i play) and a lot of draws might be unsatisfying. Well maybe i just try to learn both games, but that will be pretty time consuming hehe | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On November 21 2014 09:04 Laertes wrote: Yep. There's nothing wrong with this kind of thinking, but it is simplistic in that it only draws from extreme, whereby chess is very rarely extreme at the top level. The best players either attack to create a weakness in the opponent's position(Fischer), or they attack only on a previously formed weakness and put pressure on it till their opponent cracks.(Tal)From there they can conclude their attacks easily because the enemy position is so screwed up. you just called his view simplistic before going on to present an incredibly simplistic view yourself | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
1) A game where I opened with fianchetto of both bishops by move 8, and it's awful, don't ever try and play this kind of opening because you have no space, and you're getting attacked the entire time. By move 20 I was -2.5 even though no exchanges happened according to Stockfish. Anyway, my position looking quite dire, I lose a pawn in the attack, and all of the sudden it's me with 6 pawns and him with 7 pawns, no minor pieces gone yet. I see a nice line with a rook sacrifice to open up the position, and my rook sacrifice ends up in an exchange of me losing a bishop, rook, and 2 pawns, while taking the same, minus one pawn. So position is opened up, I'm down two pawns, but my pieces might be a little bit more active, and a sliver of hope might exist with some tactics as many pieces are in play. We dance around for a while, as he slightly is betting his position with his two pawn advantage, and it's close to even. I find this really cool line of a pawn sacrifice to force a queen trade, upon further inspection, it turns out to be a cool 6 move tactic to trade off all the pieces unless he chooses to not trade one piece and end on an even exchange. So I go for this trade, and everything is traded but my dark squared bishop, another trade where I am down one pawn. Guess what ending it was? Bishop vs Bishop + 3 pawns, I make a textbook perfect fortress and get a draw being 3 pawns down in material. 2) I open up Sicilian against e4 (obviously), I run some really dangerous lines that I am not good enough to play, and boom, pawn down, I trade a pawn to make my position easier to defend, and two pawns down all of the sudden. 7 pawn vs 5 pawn endgame, two rooks and a bishop on each side. Opponent launches a normal looking attack on the queen side, with his one potential fault not really being active with his king. I find a nice line where we can trade both rooks, but leaving my bishop in a position able to directly attack two pawns of his that are blocked which he wont have any way to defend (8-9 moves into the tactic)... So we go for the forced trade, I get the two pawns at the end of the game, and it's a tied game material wise, but I have a king on my d3 square as white, as well as two pawns on g4 and h3, while he has two isolated pawns. (Both having opposite colored bishops). He tries running his b pawn down to promote, but in the process manages to trap his bishop behind it, and thus is in a position where if he moves his bishop I get his pawn with my king, and if he moves his pawn, I take his pawn also. I think the end game was a draw if he played perfectly following it, I was able to make a passed pawn by harassing the king and win the game. 3) Played 3 games against my 1800 rated friend today who is really good, and I suppose it wasn't his day, but each game I played some Queen Gambit variation as white, and Sicilian as black, developed my queen side really well, and carefully executed attack that mated each game in 30-42 moves. Good day overall for me, sadly not for Anand  | ||
| ||
