Originally posted by SMesqpeople are blaming computer preparation,
Once upon a time, in a hotel room far far away:
"Two draws Mags, another two & the plebs will have our eyeballs for earings!"
*sigh* "The WC isn't what it was Vishy"
"No. And I'll tell you another thing; it never WAS what it was."
[H/T- I, Claudius]
http://www.chessbase.com/post/world-championship-g4-reflections-it-s-the-computers-
"The changes in chess concern the perfection of computers and the breakthrough of high technology. Under this influence the game is losing its charm and reducing more and more the number of creative players. I am a great advocate of Fischer's idea of completely changing the rules of chess, of creating a practically new game. It is the only way out, because then there would be no previous experience on which a machine could be programmed, at least until this new chess itself becomes exhausted. Fischer is a genius and I believe that his project would save the game." Ljubomir Ljubojevic
I've found it interesting to listen to the opinion of children -who know no theory to begin with- and how during their 'chess juvenalia' they find Fischer-Random good fun because it's so mind boggling. As they start to develop some theory in classical chess, their enthusiasm for Random wanes. There's comfort in known positions, and who doesn't like to play a nice Ruy Lopez?
I hate the term 'tipping point' but perhaps we're reaching one?
I would not blame computers, The short match of 12 games is to blame.
In 1995 the first 8 games of the Kasparov v Anand match were drawn.
There were slow handclaps and booing.
Then it all kicked off when Kasparov finally cracked and Anand won.
(Anand has been here before, he knows what he is doing. )
After that some great games were played with Gary winning 3 games on the trot.
That was a longer match (21 games - 24 game cannot remember.)
I do recall Kasparov's home prep win with that Knight sac in the Lopez first
played in the Karpov- Korchnoi match. He took 10 minutes to make 26 moves.
Anand by then was already tickling time trouble.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Well yes I agree 12 games seems like a nonsense to decide a classical chess WC......and the chances of it descending into a series of blitz games I find unappetising......they could flip a coin, but then I doubt anyone would get out of Madras alive.
I would not blame computers, The short match of 12 games is to blame.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I think this is right on the money.
I would not blame computers, The short match of 12 games is to blame.
In 1995 the first 8 games of the Kasparov v Anand match were drawn.
There were slow handclaps and booing.
Then it all kicked off when Kasparov finally cracked and Anand won.
(Anand has been here before, he knows what he is doing. )
After that some great games were played with ...[text shortened]... oi match. He took 10 minutes to make 26 moves.
Anand by then was already tickling time trouble.
Both players have a variety of openings they can draw upon (pun not intended, but I am leaving it!), and in a 24 game match there is some feint and parry as the players match them up against each other, looking for an opportunity.
With a 12 game match, there is less time, and each game counts more, so the risk factor is much higher. It's almost like golfers playing a 9 hole course where they will never use half their clubs, and if you botch a hole, it's harder to catch up.
"Some observers (mostly non-chessplayers) have decried the first two games as not worthy of a World Championship. I would argue that when Lebron James plays in the World Championship, he does not attempt shots from 30 feet away, but shoots the highest-percentage shots, and that is what the fans expect. In the Anand-Carlsen match so far, only one move (Carlsen's Nc3 in game one) has been dubious. We should also remember that the level of chess understanding today is much higher than, say, 30 years ago. For example, while the position after Qg4 in game 2 would have then been considered "unclear", now it is obvious that it is equal. Carlsen plays equal positions better by far than anyone in the history of chess. In fact, here you have two players, who, on an absolute level, are the two best players in the history of chess, and they are obligated to take the highest-percentage shots. While we will have some "exciting" games, I also would not be surprised to see some more draws like this."-GM Alex Fishbein taken with permission from his facebook page
Originally posted by ChessPraxisMeh, I don't buy it. People always say that chess knowledge is too advanced for exciting play, but then along comes someone like Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, etc."Some observers (mostly non-chessplayers) have decried the first two games as not worthy of a World Championship. I would argue that when Lebron James plays in the World Championship, he does not attempt shots from 30 feet away, but shoots the highest-percentage shots, and that is what the fans expect. In the Anand-Carlsen match so far, only one m ...[text shortened]... me more draws like this."-GM Alex Fishbein taken with permission from his facebook page
Hi C.P.
Good post.
Most of us anticipate a few such games in a World Championship.
And everyone is entitled to having a wee joke about the goings on. (or the lack off).
I think the organisers should have taken their rest day (today) off them.
What are they having a rest from. Shaking each other's hand?
Due to the number of games (12 games 🙁 ) this will be a one blunder match.
Both are willing to dish it out but both will be scared to take the risk.
They know recovering a lost point will be very difficult.
It is very possible that both camps have a hum-dinger of a TN and are
waiting for the last two games (their last White's ) to uncork it.
"Carlsen plays equal positions better by far than anyone in the history of chess."
Cannot agree with that.
Karpov comes to mind right away. At his peak there was none better at
finding the mystery moves that squeeze out a delicate win from an equal position.
It was done with skill, not youthful stamina and grinding.
And what about Petrosian? A very difficult player to beat even when he
was on the wrong side of an unequal position.
Can Carlsen really play a better even position than he could.
Forget the grading list it has been inflated with incestious invite only tournaments.
Olympiads are a good judge. Here you face players and styles from all over the world.
In 129 Olmpiad games Petrosian lost one! (Hubner 1972) from ten appearances.
Last time I looked Carlsen had lost three from one appearance.
(Petrosian's loss v Hubner was on time. Petrosian claimed the clock, mechanical,
was faulty and the flag fell before the minute hand had reached 12 o'clock.
He spent the next few days showing anyone who would listen how faulty
the clock was. The result stood.)
Not to sure how far 'by far' is meant to be but I'd put it a lot closer to these two.
(If Carlsen is so good at playing equal positions, "...better by far than anyone in the history of chess."
How come he not 2-0 up?)
If there is no breakthrough we might see Carlsen play on (and on and on)
like he did to qualify for the final.
(Remember Carlson's stamina sapping 89 mover against Radjabov in the candidates?)
We have to remember he is there because of results that he had no control over went his way.
We were just a blunder away and a tie break system from a Kramnik-Anand final.
Calrsen won the 2nd tie break because he had won one more game than Kramnik.
In the first tie break the score was 1-1 between Carlsen and Kramnik.
Both Carlsen and Kramnik lost their very last games in the candidates.
Funnily enough Carlsen who "....plays equal positions better by far than
anyone in the history of chess." lost his game from an equal position.
Who is Lebron James?