|
Chess discussion continues here |
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 cant castle if the king is currently in check.
|
There will always be draws in high level chess.
The format of the match doesn't change that.
Back in 1984 between Kasparov and Karpov there were 17 (!) consecutive draws.
Likewise, in 1995 between Kasparov and Anand the first 8 games were drawn.
Last year between Anand and Gelfand the first 6 games were drawn.
I wonder how they did explain that to the press back then.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On November 11 2013 03:41 urboss wrote:
There will always be draws in high level chess.
The format of the match doesn't change that.
Back in 1984 between Kasparov and Karpov there were 17 (!) consecutive draws.
Likewise, in 1995 between Kasparov and Anand the first 8 games were drawn.
Last year between Anand and Gelfand the first 6 games were drawn.
I wonder how they did explain that to the press back then.
Just to elaborate, not onlyw ere there 17 consecutive draws in the 84 series, a whopping 40 out of the 48 games played were draws xD
|
On November 11 2013 04:01 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 03:41 urboss wrote:
There will always be draws in high level chess.
The format of the match doesn't change that.
Back in 1984 between Kasparov and Karpov there were 17 (!) consecutive draws.
Likewise, in 1995 between Kasparov and Anand the first 8 games were drawn.
Last year between Anand and Gelfand the first 6 games were drawn.
I wonder how they did explain that to the press back then. Just to elaborate, not onlyw ere there 17 consecutive draws in the 84 series, a whopping 40 out of the 48 games played were draws xD
I'm sure there will be games with decisive result in this series judging by these two players' play style.
Only just 2 games, be patient.
|
You'll always get those in match play with the stakes and the players' preparation. The difference though is that here, 1/6th of the match has basically been wasted already. Imagine if we get a few more of these draws. It just doesn't feel like a proper world championship match to me.
Anyway, the format's not changing so I'll stop talking about it.
|
It's a bit odd to think that the series for the world champion can be decided by who wins the game that doesn't draw.
|
On November 11 2013 04:13 Sprouter wrote:
It's a bit odd to think that the series for the world champion can be decided by who wins the game that doesn't draw.
Is it though? Seems rather fitting for a game that has been around as long and thought about as much as chess.
|
On November 11 2013 03:12 Orome wrote:
Vishy definitely has to be seen as the instigator of these quick draws. Not that I blame him for it, but in both games he had options to play on had he wanted to. In game 1, both b5 or (especially) Na5 followed by b6 would have allowed him to play on in unclear positions in which he definitely wouldn't have been worse and might've been better.
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?
He should force draws. Longer he drags the match out the better his experience kicks in.
I do agree with 12 games being to short though. Should be first to 12 imo. However, I don't think chess has that kind of draw right now that would have sponsors backing a full event that might go on for almost a month.
|
I don't particularly mind there being a lot of weight on one game (assuming there were many draws) since Chess has no randomness to it. All of the information is right there in front of them, so they should always react accordingly (unlike SC2!)! Plus, it would take forever for these things to end!
|
On November 11 2013 03:12 Orome wrote:
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?
I don't think 12 games is that bad. First to X wins is impossible to organize nowdays: you can't reserve the venue if you don't know how long the match is going to last. Something like 16 or 24 games would be better but then you could argue that candidate tournaments (or matches) should be longer too. In the end every competition has a small element of luck.
FWIW, losing a game isn't disastrous. Leko lost game 1 against Kramnik in 2004 with white and came back to lead 2-1 before losing the final game. Players aren't 'timid' because losing is disastrous. They are cautious because getting stuck in a sharp position that your opponent analyzed and you didn't is a big disadvantage. Almost regardless of the objective evaluation of the
position.
It's just an unfortunate consequence of computer based opening preparation. In the end this isn't too bad either. It just happened that in game 1 and 2 white found himself out of preparation before black. Of course it's easy for white to steer for a safe draw and avoid any risk. Black however either has to accept the sharp position (maybe gambling that his opponent isn't that well prepared after all) or make some serious concessions by playing a suboptimal move.
So really we need white to be more lucky in the opening choice. Perhaps this is more likely too as players are forced to reveal their best studied responses with black.
|
On November 11 2013 04:09 Orome wrote:
You'll always get those in match play with the stakes and the players' preparation. The difference though is that here, 1/6th of the match has basically been wasted already. Imagine if we get a few more of these draws. It just doesn't feel like a proper world championship match to me.
Anyway, the format's not changing so I'll stop talking about it.
Funnily enough, to me it wouldn't feel like a proper world championship to me if not at least 60% of the games are draws. Just like it was basically every time before (probably more like 70%-80%). Ofc I would still prefer more decisive games, but then you could ask if/why they are blundering too much.
I'm expecting at most 1 win until halftime of the regular games; then we are more likely to some action, as one of them will probably try to avoid the rapid chess games; and also they can then try some variations based on what they've seen from the opponent so far.
|
|
|
Oh god........that last question......there can be no other answer. We always knew Cartman was a savant.
|
I get not knowing Vishy or Magnus, but the Fischer question is moderately cringe worthy.
|
I don't want to make any assumptions based on race or ethnicity
but MARCUS Carlsen
I love it!
|
Seems like good black preparation by both sides has taken the fight to the white pieces, putting them out of their preparation resulting in safe play and quick draws. Both teams will need to step up their preparation in order to try to get a win with the white pieces, but the pressure definitely on Carlsen a little more because Anand can keep the title with all draws.
edit: also standing by my earlier thoughts that 12 matches is at least half as many as one would want. 
|
On November 11 2013 23:14 LaughingTulkas wrote:Seems like good black preparation by both sides has taken the fight to the white pieces, putting them out of their preparation resulting in safe play and quick draws. Both teams will need to step up their preparation in order to try to get a win with the white pieces, but the pressure definitely on Carlsen a little more because Anand can keep the title with all draws.
For the next game Carlsen probably won't repeat the shitty opening from the first game.
That means, Anand will likely be caught out of preparation again and there will be another draw.
By the way, in case there are draws in every single game, Anand can only then keep the title if he has the black pieces in the final Armageddon match. This depends on a coin flip; check the first page of this thread for more details.
|
I think most peoples disappointment stems not from the fact that they draw, but how they draw. It's a huge difference if a game is drawn by perpetuals on move 15 or after a hundred move bloodbath. In the first game it's understandable as the draw was Carlsens best chance after the slightly misplayed opening, but in the second game i would have loved seeing Vishy go for the Qg4 variation instead of just exchanging queens.
|
|
|
Chess politics is so stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
