| Forum Index > General Forum |
Chess discussion continues here | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On November 12 2013 22:58 NapkinBox wrote: Are press conferences always this awkward for Chess? Mostly, yeah. Except when Svidler's there, he's awesome. The only problem you have with his press conferences is that he never stops talking. edit: I don't think it's the players' fault btw, although Carlsen seemed quite out of it today. It's more that chess journalist is a very uhm, loose term. They tend to be horrible at asking questions. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
| ||
|
DwD
Sweden8621 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6394 Posts
On November 12 2013 22:58 NapkinBox wrote: Are press conferences always this awkward for Chess? My experience when people say things are awkward means there's awkwardness happening in their own brain rather than a statement of reality. For instance, I doubt that fucking top 8 professional chess players experience awkwardness at a simple press conference. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On November 12 2013 23:06 oBlade wrote: Of course there are questions about Kasparov, he's famous and anyway there wouldn't be as much attention given to his being at the match if FIDE weren't screwing around about him. My experience when people say things are awkward means there's awkwardness happening in their own brain rather than a statement of reality. For instance, I doubt that fucking top 8 professional chess players experience awkwardness at a simple press conference. Did Kasparov's presence electrify your play? Did he appear before you in a dream? Did you pray to him and did you accept him as your lord and savior? That's not just awkward in my brain. :o | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3814 Posts
On November 12 2013 23:06 DwD wrote: Are they playing with some special rules? Just found out about this and I see the results... How does that happen 3 times in a row lol Pretty standard | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On November 12 2013 22:45 -Kaiser- wrote: To be fair, 1984 would be the start of "the last few decades". Okay, how about 1921? Capablanca plays Lasker for the title, 10 draws out of 14 games before Lasker conceded. Old enough for ya? :D :D :D | ||
|
Bluejava
Sweden135 Posts
Did Kasparov's presence electrify your play? Did he appear before you in a dream? Did you pray to him and did you accept him as your lord and savior? LOL so akward... tho I still want to know his answers... | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On November 12 2013 22:34 hewo wrote: I think the percentage og draws is increasing over time. People are talking about chess as a broken game, becuase soon the computers will be able to calculate a perfect move for every situation, a way to play that ensures you never lose. And the professionals are getting really close to that limit aswell. Humans aren't even close to that point yet, even at the highest level of play. I bet no one on the planet would beat Houdini on draw odds in a 7 game match with rotating colours. Especially no one below 2700. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 13 2013 00:01 Figgy wrote: Humans aren't even close to that point yet, even at the highest level of play. I bet no one on the planet would beat Houdini on draw odds in a 7 game match with rotating colours. Especially no one above 2700. I think even above that people make game losing mistakes all the time. It was just this year that Carlsen beat Karjakin, a top 10 player, from an endgame where he had no advantage at all. He just tried a few different ideas, Karjakin started slipping, got into an uncomfortable position, and eventually blundered. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1705181 It's hard to say how far computers are from playing perfect chess, but computers are showing us that the top humans are extremely far. I think before the computer era some top players were overly confident in their ability to play some positions perfectly. Playing out an equal position with nothing going on was almost considered an insult. Carlsen would have none of that. He plays out simple positions all the time and scores more wins from them than what was ever thought possible. Of course Anand is strong enough not to fall for that and trying to create something out of nothing can backfire. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 13 2013 00:46 shadymmj wrote: I acknowledge the importance of physical/mental fitness and playing to win but honestly, when the endgame positions are such that it comes down to "who is first to make an obvious blunder", then imo it is better off drawn. Which was pretty much the case once both rooks were gone today. No one was playing to win after Rxd8. They just wanted to play down to minimum material, I think. It's hard to even blunder in these types of positions. | ||
|
TLisNot4politics
4 Posts
Also lol at all the people who don't follow chess complaining about draws. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
On November 13 2013 02:00 TLisNot4politics wrote: I have faith in you Carlsen. I want to believe. Also lol at all the people who don't follow chess complaining about draws. Those same people would complain even if Tal was still playing (who, by the way, still had about a 50% draw rate). | ||
|
mihajovics
179 Posts
in human top tournament play, about 1/2 of the games are drawn in computer chess, between top programs only around 1/3 of the games are drawn since computers are much much much stronger than humans, the reason for so many draws between humans is definitely not because of the level a play being so high... probably psychological, e.g. fear of losing is stronger than the joy of winning...? | ||
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
| ||
|
ch33psh33p
7650 Posts
On November 13 2013 02:38 mihajovics wrote: fun fact: in human top tournament play, about 1/2 of the games are drawn in computer chess, between top programs only around 1/3 of the games are drawn since computers are much much much stronger than humans, the reason for so many draws between humans is definitely not because of the level a play being so high... probably psychological, e.g. fear of losing is stronger than the joy of winning...? A computer can calculate the EV for every play and take the risks that humans otherwise would not. A computer knows that even if a move may lose him the game, it will pay off more often than not, from a mathematical stand point. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On November 12 2013 22:45 LaughingTulkas wrote: I agree! I think Vishy had the advantage and could have won, but let it slip away from him. I agree with the ICC guys who said that it seems that he is somewhat afraid of getting into time pressure against Magnus and if he had taken a bit more time (he was banking a good 15 min over Magnus there) he might have found the better lines at the end. Oh well, instead he plays safe and draws again. Still a great game, and I think analysis may show that black had a winning game, perhaps with 29. ... Bxb2 or 34. ... Rf8. This will be much more fun to go over in the days to come, that's for sure! Looks like what I thought during the game (based on the GM commentary) is pretty well confirmed by Andrew Martin, both of those plays look to give black a very strong chance at winning the game. I think Vishy played to safe or too rushed, even when he had more time on the clock than Carlsen. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Hm
Bisu vs Shuttle
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Shinee
Action vs Shine
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
