|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 42 OF 43 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-18-14
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Chessinfinite,
Not a cheap trick.
Carlsen's two wins have come via two untypical Anand blunders. Carlsen is not going to squeeze another blunder out of him if he stops playing in positions he has won in the past. There may have been a spot of gamesmanship going on.
"If I can keep Anand here then he is not in the hotel resting and booking up on what his team have prepared for me tomorrow." That's not a cheap trick it's playing match chess. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Jambow: I think Carlsen was hoping for something as is so often the case he gets it so why not? Maybe Vishy has studied Carlsen's endgame magic and feels he upped his endgame so who knows on that front. Certainly Carlsen will wish to tire Anand out and playing long tedious endgames is exhausting, and youth versus age is in play. Dunno good match thus far, no matter who wins hope Anand can pull another win off. On the whole high quality chess with one exception so far as I see it |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Edeltalent: <Pulo y Gata: <Edeltalent: <Penguincw: Just wondering: is it possible to force <stalemate> with a king and knight vs. king? What about king and bishop vs. king? I know it's not possible to checkmate, even with cooperation, but what about stalemate?> Very interesting question, I just spent considerably more time investigating it than I thought I would...> Very interesting but impractical and a waste of time.> Just wait until Nigel Short becomes FIDE president and stalemate is changed to a win ;-)
By the way, it has some (albeit very small I admit) practical relevance, as K+N+N vs K+P must require similar technique to win. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Pulo y Gata: <Edeltalent> Well, one has the right to waste one's time as one sees fit. :) Chess has no dearth of very interesting positions to study and it's just my personal view that spending time on a position where you can claim an outright draw is like storing water on sand. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Pulo y Gata: <Just wait until Nigel Short becomes FIDE president and stalemate is changed to a win ;-) > Bdw, in the Philippines, sometimes they implement the Torre-Pichay scoring system that gives the player who administers the stalemate a higher score than the one on the receiving end (also applies on tiebreaks). |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | chaturangavallabha: Anand scored another psychological point with this game and should silence the Carlsen fanboys further. Anand clearly stated his strategy of not fearing such long grinding games and taking on the crocodile in its pond. So far he has talked the walk. One thing is clear, which is that it is NOT clear who is the best player in the world now. Grischuk? Caruana? Carlsen? Anand? icing on cake for Anand is that age 44, 26 years after he became a GM, he is still among the best in the world and giving the champ the run for his money. And thus that one golden question rears its beautiful head again, what would the Anand of 2008 have done to Carlsen or to the Anand of 2014? He would have crushed them pretty badly. Wait, I speak like a Carlsen fanboy with their very verbiage. Lord, no! |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Absentee: <Sally Simpson: HI Chessinfinite: Define cheap tricks.>
"Cheap tricks" is when the guy you don't like pushes for a win. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | talwnbe4: and I thought 23. b3 traps the B followed by Nc3 but I must have missed something. Then again black gets a fistful of q-side pawns after that and one doesn't need to calculate much after that. Anand is playing better now but Carlsen is playing dry boring openings and what could one expect from this game after move 15 ? |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Pulo y Gata: <talwnbe4: and I thought 23. b3 traps the B followed by Nc3 but I must have missed something.> 23...Bb1 probably. |
|
Nov-18-14
 | | Richard Taylor: I think the matches are absurdly short and they need enforcement of draws when they are clearly a draw. This playing on for hours is ridiculous. GM Christiansen, a great attacking player, talked online on audio about 6 years back about how draws were a good thing. Even short draws (especially in a match). This was not so much too many moves as it was clearly too long in total duration. Carlsen has the advantage. Better for both players to take the draw and then rest, and prepare for the next game. No point comparing what Fischer did, he was a mad man. Most player including Fischer when he was heading to the World Champs do this: they draw with weaker players (in a tournament) and fight for a win against strong (the higher rated or de facto strongest) players. Because players who are amateurs often only play over the "best" games, they have a false picture of chess players (I mean IMs and GMs). In the game I quoted above it went on for 177 moves through two 50 move limits. FIDE need to work out some clear enforcements of this kind of 'gamesmanship'. But I think Carlsen was wasting his time as Anand just breezed through in this case and made him look relatively harmless. I played through all the games of Fischer leading into and including the World Championship and there were only isolated games where he looked 'titanic' which in fact was the same when I played over the Capablanca-Alekhine match. In fact Capablanca made some fine wins in that game, whereas most of Fischer's opponents played ucharacteristically weakly and timidly or, as with Larsen, absurdly not going for draws that were easily achievable. A few games, yes, such as his B ending against Taimanov. (In the rest T was clearly well out of form). He didn't play as many WC matches as Kasparov who wasn't into this kind of long play nonsense in general. It is actually a form of gamesmanship. I think an opponent should be able to protest and claim at least a draw, or they need to put an overall time limit on the game. Or bring back adjournments. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | SimonWebbsTiger: Re. Carlsen playing R+N v. R.
Why knock him when an idea has been floated a few times by the commentators at the US Chp and the London Classic that it would be nice if players didn't resign but played on so it was obvious to less experienced players why the game was lost!! |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | AlexandraThess: Silly Carslson. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | AlexandraThess: Stupid boy. Cant win with skill |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Chessinfinite: <"Cheap tricks" is when the guy you don't like pushes for a win> No wrong. It has nothing to do with the player. If the player who is liked did that, it would apply the same to him as well. btw, tell me how do you 'push' for a win in that ending? |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Absentee: <Chessinfinite: btw, tell me how do you 'push' for a win in that ending?> From which move? Up to a point, there were concrete winning possibilities over the board. After the pawns were gone, there clearly was no play left and Carlsen was just putting Anand through the wringer.
But like it or not, endurance, keeping your wits for a sustained period of time and over many games, is a part of chess as much as home preparation. Except that (almost) nobody complains about home preparation, while there's a horde of hooligans who go ballistic every time Carlsen capitalizes on one of his strengths, namely great resilience. |
|
Nov-18-14
 | | MissScarlett: < Fabiano Caruana @FabianoCaruana · 21h 21 hours ago I once had to defend rook+knight vs rook against Karjakin for 100+ moves,and it wasn't much fun. It's normal to play this out.> Karjakin vs Caruana, 2013 |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Petrosianic: <I think the matches are absurdly short and they need enforcement of draws when they are clearly a draw. This playing on for hours is ridiculous.> Why? Because it tires out the older players? You said that Anand breezed through it, so I fail to see the problem here. I'm sorry, but this odd determination among some to have a referee step in and stop the fight before somebody gets hurt is very important to some people, but none of them have offered any good reasons. This isn't a boxing match, nobody is going to get hurt. On the other hand, Football games DO go the whole 60 minutes, even if it's 35-0 at the half, and people CAN get hurt if you continue. Are our priorities misplaced? |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Petrosianic: <Richard Taylor> I played through all the games of Fischer leading into and including the World Championship... most of Fischer's opponents played ucharacteristically weakly and timidly or, as with Larsen, absurdly not going for draws that were easily achievable. A few games, yes, such as his B ending against Taimanov. (In the rest T was clearly well out of form).> All right, let's start with this. If you were the TD in all Fischer games from 1970-1972, in how many of them would you have stepped in and forced a draw? And in how many of those games did Fischer later go on to win? |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Howard: Regarding Larsen's "absurdly not going for draws", most people at the time felt that once the score was 0-3 or 0-4, Larsen apparently decided just to go for broke. In other words, with the match virtually lost, he just wanted to attempt to get 1-2 wins under his belt before going down. That's why he disdained draws in Games 5 and 6. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | kevin86: The game droned on and on...R+N vs R= dead draw. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Petrosianic: Larsen never did understand that a draw was better than a loss. Of course, breaking up the shutout was much more important than scoring a meaningless win, but he couldn't see that. The difference between 6-0 and 5½-½ is huge. The difference between 6-0 and 6-1, not so much. Taimanov, the much weaker opponent, actually played much stronger than Larsen, whose Intrinsic Performance Rating for that match was 2197. Not even Master Level. But again, the question is how many of those games would you or Richard Taylor have jumped in and stopped? I would maintain Zero. None of them had reached the point where the position was a hopeless draw, and Fischer was just grinding it out. The only Candidates game that might come close to qualifying would be Fischer-Taimanov, Game 4? Would you have stopped that one, and if so, at what point? |
|
Nov-18-14
 | | FSR: I csn't believe that we're still arguing about whether Carlsen committed some sort of breach of etiquette by continuing to play on in R+N v. R, and even whether the arbiter should have intervened to stop the game. World-class players like Ivanchuk and Judit Polgar have lost this ending. If they could lose it, so could Anand. Carlsen had already beaten 2600+ GM L'Ami in this ending. It was perfectly reasonable for him to see if he could also beat Anand. |
|
Nov-18-14
| | Sally Simpson: Hi FSR.
Are this lot still moaning. Geezy peeps.
It would have come as no surprise to Anand that Carlsen played on and on for the win. He knew he would getting involved in the Carlsen torture the moment he sacrificed his Bishop for those two pawns. Infact nobody would have more surprised than Anand if Carlsen had stopped playing. Anand knew what was coming and so did most of us. There was no insult and nobody got annoyed except of course a few fragile souls on here claiming it was an easy draw. (sit opposite one sometime with a clock ticking and a very clever player opponent testing you.) |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | chesssalamander: Honestly, I do find this debate about what is and what is not good etiquette or good sportsmanship in chess quite interesting. BUT, I have two rather simple questions for anyone who might know offhand: (1) Is this the longest (highest number of moves) game in World Championship history? (2) What was the total time taken (in hours and minutes) for this game? I apologize if my questions were already answered on earlier posts on the board, but I missed them. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | chesssalamander: Sorry, one more question: if I understand correctly, chess has been solved for all positions involving 6 or more pieces on the board. So, if I understand this correctly, after Carlsen's 92.Nxa2, we can KNOW that the position is objectively won/lost/drawn by consulting a tablebase (although the players might not realize it). Do I understand correctly? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 42 OF 43 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
