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...?
Humans have to face uncertainty. If you see an extremely sharp and complicated line and you can't see through all the complications, you don't know if it will lead to a victory or lead to you going down in flames. Most of the time it will lead to you going down in flames. Meanwhile you see other moves which you know to be good, or at least you know it won't lead to an instant loss, so you pick those moves instead. Avoiding unnecessary risks and taking the opportunities which present themselves is how you get to be top level, so yes the reason there are somewhat more draws is because the level of play is so high and very few mistakes are made.
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).
And the awesome quote from wiki as well:
Misha was so ill-equipped for living... When he travelled to a tournament, he couldn't even pack his own suitcase... He didn't even know how to turn on the gas for cooking. If I had a headache, and there happened to be no one home but him, he would fall into a panic: "How do I make a hot-water bottle?" And when I got behind the wheel of a car, he would look at me as though I were a visitor from another planet. Of course, if he had made some effort, he could have learned all of this. But it was all boring to him. He just didn't need to. A lot of people have said that if Tal had looked after his health, if he hadn't led such a dissolute life... and so forth. But with people like Tal, the idea of "if only" is just absurd. He wouldn't have been Tal then -His first wife, Salli Landau
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...?
I think it's simpler than that. In tournaments there's a cost to playing long games. You're more tired for the next game and you have less time to prepare for your next opponent. Computers don't mind pushing around pieces for hours waiting for that one mistake. But for two equally skilled humans it makes much less sense.
On November 12 2013 22:40 LittLeD wrote: Man, skipping a class to view this live was definitely worth it. That was one exciting game!
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.
Well, Vishy is playing very, very safe, as he did against Gelfand. Now, maybe he missed some winning chances here and there, but if he managed to keep his crown so long, chances are that he knows what he is doing and how to evaluate his chances, probably much better than Martin :-)
But yes, as usual, disappointing to see he was so close from having a winning advantage. I think it's still a great start for him. Game two was a disappointment with this unexpected Caro Kahn, but he has done really well with black pieces. From what I remember, Carlsen is really better with white usually.
Journalist: It might be inconvenient to interrupt our profound discussion and change the subject slightly, but I would like to know whether extraneous, abstract thoughts ever enter your head while playing a game?
Tal: Yes. For example, I will never forget my game with GM Vasiukov on a USSR Championship. We reached a very complicated position where I was intending to sacrifice a knight. The sacrifice was not obvious; there was a large number of possible variations; but when I began to study hard and work through them, I found to my horror that nothing would come of it. Ideas piled up one after another. I would transport a subtle reply by my opponent, which worked in one case, to another situation where it would naturally prove to be quite useless. As a result my head became filled with a completely chaotic pile of all sorts of moves, and the infamous "tree of variations", from which the chess trainers recommend that you cut off the small branches, in this case spread with unbelievable rapidity. And then suddenly, for some reason, I remembered the classic couplet by Korney Ivanović Chukovsky: "Oh, what a difficult job it was. To drag out of the marsh the hippopotamus".
I do not know from what associations the hippopotamus got into the chess board, but although the spectators were convinced that I was continuing to study the position, I, despite my humanitarian education, was trying at this time to work out: just how WOULD you drag a hippopotamus out of the marsh? I remember how jacks figured in my thoughts, as well as levers, helicopters, and even a rope ladder. After a lengthy consideration I admitted defeat as an engineer, and thought spitefully to myself: "Well, just let it drown!" And suddenly the hippopotamus disappeared. Went right off the chessboard just as he had come on ... of his own accord! And straightaway the position did not appear to be so complicated. Now I somehow realized that it was not possible to calculate all the variations, and that the knight sacrifice was, by its very nature, purely intuitive. And since it promised an interesting game, I could not refrain from making it.
And the following day, it was with pleasure that I read in the paper how Mikhail Tal, after carefully thinking over the position for 40 minutes, made an accurately calculated piece sacrifice.
haha that's an amaing story! And so apt too. His subconscious mind actually told him that calculating all the variations was equivalent to trying to pull a hippopotamus out of a marsh. Quite fascinating
Journalist: It might be inconvenient to interrupt our profound discussion and change the subject slightly, but I would like to know whether extraneous, abstract thoughts ever enter your head while playing a game?
Tal: Yes. For example, I will never forget my game with GM Vasiukov on a USSR Championship. We reached a very complicated position where I was intending to sacrifice a knight. The sacrifice was not obvious; there was a large number of possible variations; but when I began to study hard and work through them, I found to my horror that nothing would come of it. Ideas piled up one after another. I would transport a subtle reply by my opponent, which worked in one case, to another situation where it would naturally prove to be quite useless. As a result my head became filled with a completely chaotic pile of all sorts of moves, and the infamous "tree of variations", from which the chess trainers recommend that you cut off the small branches, in this case spread with unbelievable rapidity. And then suddenly, for some reason, I remembered the classic couplet by Korney Ivanović Chukovsky: "Oh, what a difficult job it was. To drag out of the marsh the hippopotamus".
I do not know from what associations the hippopotamus got into the chess board, but although the spectators were convinced that I was continuing to study the position, I, despite my humanitarian education, was trying at this time to work out: just how WOULD you drag a hippopotamus out of the marsh? I remember how jacks figured in my thoughts, as well as levers, helicopters, and even a rope ladder. After a lengthy consideration I admitted defeat as an engineer, and thought spitefully to myself: "Well, just let it drown!" And suddenly the hippopotamus disappeared. Went right off the chessboard just as he had come on ... of his own accord! And straightaway the position did not appear to be so complicated. Now I somehow realized that it was not possible to calculate all the variations, and that the knight sacrifice was, by its very nature, purely intuitive. And since it promised an interesting game, I could not refrain from making it.
And the following day, it was with pleasure that I read in the paper how Mikhail Tal, after carefully thinking over the position for 40 minutes, made an accurately calculated piece sacrifice.
As a side note, this was simply a hypothetical conversation presented by Tal to his readers in his autobiography. It definitely is quite descriptive of Tal as a player and a person, though!
urboss, are these comments happening live or are you just updating them a bit at a time? :o
On November 13 2013 03:40 Grumbels wrote: Speaking of Tal, this is an amusing story:
Journalist: It might be inconvenient to interrupt our profound discussion and change the subject slightly, but I would like to know whether extraneous, abstract thoughts ever enter your head while playing a game?
Tal: Yes. For example, I will never forget my game with GM Vasiukov on a USSR Championship. We reached a very complicated position where I was intending to sacrifice a knight. The sacrifice was not obvious; there was a large number of possible variations; but when I began to study hard and work through them, I found to my horror that nothing would come of it. Ideas piled up one after another. I would transport a subtle reply by my opponent, which worked in one case, to another situation where it would naturally prove to be quite useless. As a result my head became filled with a completely chaotic pile of all sorts of moves, and the infamous "tree of variations", from which the chess trainers recommend that you cut off the small branches, in this case spread with unbelievable rapidity. And then suddenly, for some reason, I remembered the classic couplet by Korney Ivanović Chukovsky: "Oh, what a difficult job it was. To drag out of the marsh the hippopotamus".
I do not know from what associations the hippopotamus got into the chess board, but although the spectators were convinced that I was continuing to study the position, I, despite my humanitarian education, was trying at this time to work out: just how WOULD you drag a hippopotamus out of the marsh? I remember how jacks figured in my thoughts, as well as levers, helicopters, and even a rope ladder. After a lengthy consideration I admitted defeat as an engineer, and thought spitefully to myself: "Well, just let it drown!" And suddenly the hippopotamus disappeared. Went right off the chessboard just as he had come on ... of his own accord! And straightaway the position did not appear to be so complicated. Now I somehow realized that it was not possible to calculate all the variations, and that the knight sacrifice was, by its very nature, purely intuitive. And since it promised an interesting game, I could not refrain from making it.
And the following day, it was with pleasure that I read in the paper how Mikhail Tal, after carefully thinking over the position for 40 minutes, made an accurately calculated piece sacrifice.
As a side note, this was simply a hypothetical conversation presented by Tal to his readers in his autobiography.
The interview may be factitious, but the anecdote itself is presumably true. The game in question was this one.
Once, Emanuel Lasker and Siegbert Tarrasch were invited to some wealthy man's mansion. When they came in, the surprise was waiting: a beautiful chess set, made of glass pieces filled with different kinds of alcohol; some with brandy, some with whisky and the Queen with a solid dose of particularily strong Cognac. The loaded guy, after having brief conversation with his guests, offered them to play a friendly game, under the rules that each player has to drink the potion hidden inside the piece he captures. The players agreed to that and the game started, with Dr Lasker playing White:
1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Qxf7!! and White went on to win after a long struggle!
While we wait for the next game, I think this little video is interesting for newcomers like me (Or any Kasparov fans). Compared to Anand who up till now has been very eager to take easy draws even with a slight lead, you can see Kasparov playing a huge endgame move on instinct. Granted, they are different players and this was a different situation. This video is him analyzing the several variations.
On November 13 2013 11:50 nFo wrote: While we wait for the next game, I think this little video is interesting for newcomers like me (Or any Kasparov fans). Compared to Anand who up till now has been very eager to take easy draws even with a slight lead, you can see Kasparov playing a huge endgame move on instinct. Granted, they are different players and this was a different situation. This video is him analyzing the several variations.
thank you for that! Seeing Kasparov in his "prime" (debatable im sure) discussing a beautiful attack is very wonderful. You can see the nerd inside him being satisfied, "ah yes, and then im winning if he does that. or that. or that. :D:D:D" lovely
On November 13 2013 11:50 nFo wrote: While we wait for the next game, I think this little video is interesting for newcomers like me (Or any Kasparov fans). Compared to Anand who up till now has been very eager to take easy draws even with a slight lead, you can see Kasparov playing a huge endgame move on instinct. Granted, they are different players and this was a different situation. This video is him analyzing the several variations.
The video clip is from a video series chronicling his playing career (though it was recorded in the middle of his career) called 'My Story'. The entire thing is worth watching imo.
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Mikhail_Tal_1982.jpg/280px-Mikhail_Tal_1982.jpg)
