On November 05 2013 01:27 bartus88 wrote:
Even though I don't play chess myself, I've been reading up on it recently and plan on following this. Can anyone tell me why they start the event 2 days before the first game is played?

On Thursday there are parades, fireworks and lots of pomp.
On Friday everybody needs to take a rest.
The first game will start on Saturday.

wingpawn

Poland1342 Posts

November 04 2013 18:44 GMT

#28

Shameless self-promotion: we also have The Chess Thread for this...

Regarding epic games from both players:

Aronian - Anand 0-1, Wijk aan Zee 2013
This game blows my mind and 15...Bc5 is simply out of this world.

Anand - Bareev 1-0, Dortmund 1992
Anand's wonderful positional win with good Knight vs bad Bishop.

I'm not putting anything from Magnus, because I don't like him

Go Vishy!

nosliw

United States2716 Posts

November 04 2013 18:52 GMT

#29

thanks, I'll definitely need commentary with the games to understand what's happening... haha

erkicman

United States206 Posts

November 04 2013 19:04 GMT

#30

I'm fairly unfamiliar with chess... do the players alternate between black and white between matches and flip a coin for who gets white first, since the black vs. white matchup is imbalanced in favor of white?

wingpawn

Poland1342 Posts

November 04 2013 19:08 GMT

#31

Carlsen - Grischuk 1-0, Linares 2009
A brutal, sacrificial victory in Sicilian, basing on pawn promotion threats.

Naiditsch - Carlsen 0-1, Turin 2006
Carlsen plays at least 6-7 move-deep piece sacrifice that leads to won endgame.

@erkicman - If it's a match, they start out by flip of a coin and alternate later. If it's tournament, the colours are usually fixed, though the rules are usually arranged in a way that gives all players closest to equal amount of Black and White games.

Also, White isn't imbalanced at all.

Aelfric

Turkey1496 Posts

November 04 2013 19:43 GMT

#32

On November 05 2013 04:08 wingpawn wrote:
Carlsen - Grischuk 1-0, Linares 2009
A brutal, sacrificial victory in Sicilian, basing on pawn promotion threats.

Naiditsch - Carlsen 0-1, Turin 2006
Carlsen plays at least 6-7 move-deep piece sacrifice that leads to won endgame.

@erkicman - If it's a match, they start out by flip of a coin and alternate later. If it's tournament, the colours are usually fixed, though the rules are usually arranged in a way that gives all players closest to equal amount of Black and White games.

Also, White isn't imbalanced at all.

What is the argument of white being imbalanced based on?

slowbacontron

United States7722 Posts

November 04 2013 19:46 GMT

#33

White gets the first move, and has a slightly higher winrate than black. Wikipedia talks about it too

I don't want to disagree with wingpawn, so I'll wait for his statement

O-ops

United States4236 Posts

November 04 2013 19:50 GMT

#34

On November 05 2013 01:42 justiceknight wrote:

Show nested quote +

wtf i have to sit on the chair for 3 hrs 1 game?

Time goes by really quick, and by that i mean really fucking quick when you're sitting in that chair.

Still remember my first 2 hour game. Was a blitz junkie before that too and time just flew by.

Warfie

Norway2848 Posts

November 04 2013 19:55 GMT

#35

Go Carlsen! Such a bullshit move to hold the match in India though, there's been some mention of it in Norwegian media.

goldrush

Canada709 Posts

November 04 2013 19:55 GMT

#36

As you mentioned, most (all?) matches alternate the colors for each person and all have had an even number of max games so that everyone has the same number if it goes the distance. A ton of history here:

http://www.chessgames.com/wcc.html

Most games favor white on average, but what's true on average isn't necessarily true in any one game. For example, Anand basically won his world championship match against Kramnik due to his deep preparation on the black side of the Meran Semi-Slav.

goldrush

Canada709 Posts

November 04 2013 19:56 GMT

#37

Quote is not edit.

calgar

United States1277 Posts

November 04 2013 19:57 GMT

#38

On November 05 2013 04:43 Aelfric wrote:

Show nested quote +

What is the argument of white being imbalanced based on?

Moving first gives you an advantage.

wingpawn

Poland1342 Posts

November 04 2013 20:01 GMT

#39

The speculative claim of an advantage to White is mostly based upon the fact that after checkmating your opponent, there's no chance for Black to "counter-checkmate" his opponent, because the game ends immediately.

But, on the other hand, Steinitz, Capablanca and even Bobby Fischer believed that the game is theoretically drawn, which would mean that every dangerous White move can be parried providing Black finds a proper response.

IMHO, the statistical imbalance towards the White side purely reflects the strength of the initiative that normally belongs to White. Not all players are able to handle the pressure with Black well enough to even draw, not to mention winning with it.

Currently, there's no technical way of "solving" chess with computers, meaning that definite answer whether it's a dead draw is unknown. But the draw percentage in strongest GM events is about 60-70 percent and that means something.

urboss

Austria1223 Posts

November 04 2013 20:09 GMT

#40

On November 05 2013 04:08 wingpawn wrote:
Also, White isn't imbalanced at all.

If both white and black show perfect play the game should end in a draw.
This tendency is seen in current computer chess.
However, since chess is played by humans things are not so straightforward.
White doesn't have an advantage but it has the initiative.
That means, if white plays perfect moves black always needs to react and find the best defence for those moves.
For humans, this can be far more difficult than taking the initiative because white can choose from a variety of moves while black needs to react with the one best counter move.
That said, this doesn't matter for most chess players, it only applies to maybe the top 100 of the world.