| Forum Index > General Forum |
Chess discussion continues here | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On November 10 2013 20:37 Nebuchad wrote: Having this thread in TL is a great thing. Maybe more people will understand why I was always so damn annoyed when Artosis went all like 'TvT is just like chess!' could you explain that? | ||
|
Luisa_2
Germany200 Posts
Really nice guy commentating and analysing! | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 10 2013 20:37 Nebuchad wrote: Having this thread in TL is a great thing. Maybe more people will understand why I was always so damn annoyed when Artosis went all like 'TvT is just like chess!' FWIW, BW TvT is clearly like go. You try to take territory but if you spread yourself too thin it can be invaded. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On November 10 2013 19:51 Kishin2 wrote: Aren't draws in the first few games normal for a match like this? To feel the other player out? Yes, which is one of the very good reasons 12 games is too short for a match like this. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
Artosis' big point was always that both involve positional play and capacity to lockdown parts of the map; my counter is that the way TvT works with their positional play is completely different and has different focus (how you can comeback from 'material deficit', when it's way harder in chess, how it's best to have your units at different places and multitask, while you want your pieces to harmonize and follow the same generic goal most of the time...) All comparisons are weak, that's a given, but I find both other mirrors to be closer to chess than TvT is. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 10 2013 15:21 O-ops wrote: But then people called him out on it and immediately nuthuggers jumped on it. My most favorite defense I've seen on here is "It's easy to complain about opening prep after the game is over". No shit sherlock, what other time can you complain about it? The point isn't that there would be another time to complain about it, but that it's easy to do so while forgetting that Anand may have played something very out of his style. Carlsen probably looked at various unlikely (for Anand) variations, including the one that was played, and considered them not to be too threatening for white in the long run. Meanwhile, the more likely variations, which he studied extensively, seemed good for him. Should he have worked on the unlikely variations more thoroughly? Absolutely, and he can be criticized for that. Was his idea of opening like this the trainwreck some are making it out to be? No. | ||
|
Shock710
Australia6097 Posts
On November 10 2013 20:54 Nebuchad wrote: Artosis' big point was always that both involve positional play and capacity to lockdown parts of the map; my counter is that the way TvT works with their positional play is completely different and has different focus (how you can comeback from 'material deficit', when it's way harder in chess, how it's best to have your units at different places and multitask, while you want your pieces to harmonize and follow the same generic goal most of the time...) All comparisons are weak, that's a given, but I find both other mirrors to be closer to chess than TvT is. I dont think the material deficit is that different, once u go down in supply, not counting like 10-20 small macro differences its very hard to come back, infact only trying risky (probably not gonna work if they play correctly) will work, solid play will assure victory, which is like chess (tho also in almost any other game too  ) Also material deifcit in chess isnt bad if its part of ur plan, perharps sacing a bad pawn to open attack, also u may be down pieces overall, but u might be in a position where u have 6 attackers vs 5 defenders (in that case their extra piece means nothing because its not in place to defend) I would definitely say TvT is closer to chess than the other mirrors (how would zvz ling bane micro, or pvp build order win match up in chess...a build order win cant be equated to a bad move in chess where u lose because thats completely different (build order loses means no matter what u could have done u would have lost, while in chess a game losing move just means u did the wrong move, u cant open up in high level chess and be like "well bad luck i have mate in 6") | ||
|
GolemMadness
Canada11044 Posts
| ||
|
75
Germany4057 Posts
On November 10 2013 20:50 marvellosity wrote: Yes, which is one of the very good reasons 12 games is too short for a match like this. (i have never followed chess. first time now) at the press conference someone asked a question about the format they are playing and i somehow got the impression that the players dont like that format. am i wrong? and if not why are they disliking this format. are 12 games really too short? :D or do they want more blitz matches? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 10 2013 21:44 75 wrote: (i have never followed chess. first time now) at the press conference someone asked a question about the format they are playing and i somehow got the impression that the players dont like that format. am i wrong? and if not why are they disliking this format. are 12 games really too short? :D or do they want more blitz matches? I can't say anything about their specific comments today, but in general i don't think GM's dislike the 12 game format. The only thing i'm pretty sure about most GM's despise is the "two game knockout-format" they had this year in Tromso. | ||
|
Thojorin
Germany162 Posts
On November 10 2013 21:44 75 wrote: (i have never followed chess. first time now) at the press conference someone asked a question about the format they are playing and i somehow got the impression that the players dont like that format. am i wrong? and if not why are they disliking this format. are 12 games really too short? :D or do they want more blitz matches? I was surprised that they were so reluctant to talk about this. However i think one cannot necessarilly conlcude that they do not like this format, although the chance is quite high. Players have often times critized that 12 games is too short to determine the "real" best player, since in view of the high draw percentage decisive games are quite rare, and as a consequence players even more tend to avoid risks. (I would exepect some result like 2-1 with 9 draws). I think the last two games even showed this: avoiding risks is more imporatant than seizing opportunties. So one could argue that the "olden" methods of matches are more fitting to find the better player (like the very old "play up to 6 wins of one party"), but this of course would lead to longer matches, longer matches are more expensive, and it is not easy to find money for classical chess nowadays... | ||
|
justiceknight
Singapore5741 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On November 10 2013 22:16 Nyxisto wrote: I can't say anything about their specific comments today, but in general i don't think GM's dislike the 12 game format. The only thing i'm pretty sure about most GM's despise is the "two game knockout-format" they had this year in Tromso. Both seem to have some amount of reservations about the tournament format based on the press conference, though they (smartly imo) opted to reserve comments on it until after a champion is crowned. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
One thing. I though you couldn't castle if the king had been put in check? | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On November 11 2013 02:41 Orcasgt24 wrote: One thing. I though you couldn't castle if the king had been put in check? From the rules: The right to castle has been lost: [a] if the king has already moved, or [b] with a rook that has already moved. Castling is prevented temporarily: [a] if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or [b] if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9FsQwmg.png) | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CyV46cE.jpg) | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On November 11 2013 02:41 Orcasgt24 wrote: Much better game 2. A draw there acctually makes sense since most of the none pawn pieces (queens included amazingly) where captured within the 25 moves and a king was even put in check. One thing. I though you couldn't castle if the king had been put in check? You can. And those aren't really proper criteria for a 'good' draw. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
In game 2 he made a series of decisions all aimed at forcing the draw because he wasn't comfortable with the positions and felt Carlsen was better prepared. Ne2 (or Qf3 followed by Ne2 and then g4) instead of Ne4 would've turned the game extremely sharp and interesting. Even Qg5 instead of the feeble queen trade might have been possible (although that doesn't quite seem to work, need to check with a computer). It's one of the biggest reasons I dislike this 12 game format. Falling behind early and especially losing with white spells absolute disaster. It goes the other way too of course, if you win a game early you're in great shape, but because of the way we tend to judge risks, the players will play even more carefully and timidly than they usually would. Anything to avoid a loss. You can argue that a short match is more exciting and keeps interest higher all you want, when the games are of this quality, you're not keeping viewership interest high. Anyway, I hope Carlsen rethinks his opening choice as white for the next game and comes out guns blazing. I'm curious what Anand would play in response to 1.e4. He's capable of and has played a lot of different systems, but would he be willing to go into the main lines of a Ruy with black? | ||
| ||
|
|
RongYI Cup
SHIN vs Creator
Classic vs Percival
OSC
BSL 21
RongYI Cup
Maru vs Cyan
Solar vs Krystianer
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
