I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...
The times of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov won't never return.
In the era of the computers, there are a huge number of Gm that are Gm only for the opening preparation and some general chess knowledge.
I would be curious to see them playing at chess960 to see how good they would be without their opening home preparation.
Every GM is very strong in tactics and end-games, I don't know what you are talking about "only openings". I bet a chess960 champion would be a strong GM like in standard chess, and not some unknown player.
I don't think it is a problem of formula.
I think it is a problem of players.
I think only Carlsen and Kramnik can be someway compared with the generation of Petrosjan, Spassky, Geller, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Stein, Tal and...Bobby Fischer.
I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...
The times of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov won't never return.
In the era of the computers, there are a huge number of Gm that are Gm only for the opening preparation and some general chess knowledge.
I would be curious to see them playing at chess960 to see how good they would be without their opening home preparation.
Every GM is very strong in tactics and end-games, I don't know what you are talking about "only openings". I bet a chess960 champion would be a strong GM like in standard chess, and not some unknown player.
I don't think it is a problem of formula.
I think it is a problem of players.
I think only Carlsen and Kramnik can be someway compared with the generation of Petrosjan, Spassky, Geller, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Stein, Tal and...Bobby Fischer.
Best Regards
Bobby Fischer was the youngest Gm at his time at 15 years old.
Now there are kids that become Gm at 12,13 or 14 years old.
Are they stronger than Fischer? They become GM because they study and memorize opening lines thanks to the computers and make training with the computers.
You refer to my previous post but if you look well i say a pretty obvious thing.
Anyway you said that every GM is very strong in tactics and endgames.
I don't agree. There are some Gms that are not strong in tactics because they are positional players and probably there is a huge number of IM or FM that tactically could beat them. For example, Smyslov wasn't a great tactician but he was a great positional player and a superb endgame player.
As regards ''only opening'' i simply meant that many Gms are GMs and not simply IM or FM thanks to the huge opening preparation, it is a question of study.
I didn't say that without the opening preparation they would be relatively weak.
As regards chess960, i agree with you but i said another thing: i said that in my opinion many gms would have a lot of troubles to play at chess960 because their opening knowledge would be useless and many more talented and/or tactical players could beat them.
MM wrote:
Bobby Fischer was the youngest Gm at his time at 15 years old.
Now there are kids that become Gm at 12,13 or 14 years old.
Are they stronger than Fischer? They become GM because they study and memorize opening lines thanks to the computers and make training with the computers.
They are still strong in tactics and other aspects than openings.
You refer to my previous post but if you look well i say a pretty obvious thing.
Anyway you said that every GM is very strong in tactics and endgames.
I don't agree. There are some Gms that are not strong in tactics because they are positional players and probably there is a huge number of IM or FM that tactically could beat them. For example, Smyslov wasn't a great tactician but he was a great positional player and a superb endgame player.
I think you are wrong to call some GMs as weak in tactics. Probably there are very few (if at all) FMs tactically stronger than a GM.
As regards ''only opening'' i simply meant that many Gms are GMs and not simply IM or FM thanks to the huge opening preparation, it is a question of study.
I didn't say that without the opening preparation they would be relatively weak.
As regards chess960, i agree with you but i said another thing: i said that in my opinion many gms would have a lot of troubles to play at chess960 because their opening knowledge would be useless and many more talented and/or tactical players could beat them.
I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...
Exactly.
My suggestion to FIDE is to increase the stakes for the players to give more incentives to produce entertaining chess.
1. More games. The winner should win at least 6 games.
2. The winner gets a Bobby Fischer "I'm a Genius; a REAL Genius" WC memorial medal
3. The looser of the match gets tarred and feathered, driven out of town, bound naked to a donkey
4. After the match, the winner will find 72 virgins in his hotel room, unless he is gay, in which case he will sent to a monastery.
Please post other "improvements", which we then can present to FIDE.
1. The FIDE World Champion is #1 in the World regardless of rating. Champions are always listed as #1 in all other sports like boxing, MMA.. Champion is a Champion. Everyone else fights to be number 2 or the "Number 1 contender"
2. Have a candidates double round robin tournament every January where 2-9 play for the right to play for the World Title in September. Winner of that tournament automatically plays for the World title.
3. Every game _must_ go to move 40 before being declared a draw, and in the event of a draw, blitz games are played immediately afterwards until 1 player has a score of 1.5. A "game day" WILL result in a 1-0 score for someone. Physical and mental toughness is part of all sports. More on that below.
4. 20 games minimum, or until 1 player has more points up on his opponent than games remaining. Using the match play in golf as an example, player is up 3 and 2. Up 3 points, 2 holes to play.
5. Champion must win by a +2 score to remain Champion. A draw match or a single point win would not be enough. This is done in other sports as well where tying simply isn't enough to keep a title.
6. As with most sports like golf, physical and mental toughness are part of the game. No rest days.
I could go on with more, but I will leave those little tid bits here for discussion.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
MM wrote:
I don't agree. There are some Gms that are not strong in tactics because they are positional players and probably there is a huge number of IM or FM that tactically could beat them. For example, Smyslov wasn't a great tactician but he was a great positional player and a superb endgame player.
I find the idea that there are a large number of IMs or FMs that are tactically superior to Smyslov in his prime very very odd. I suspect there are none, but I guess there might be a few, and all those are probably GM strength. He was definitely stronger than most GMs at tactics in my opinion, and there is no doubt that on average GMs are quite a bit better tactically than IMs and FMs.
In my opinion most GMs that excel at endgame (such as Kramnik) are also excellent at tactics since endgame requires very accurate calculation. Vice-versa is also true at least for endgames that do not require memorization of specific techniques the particular player in question has not studied. For example Tal played some amazing endgames, winning some astounding opposite bishop endgames that just left a generation of GMs shaking their heads in wonder. GMs known for their endgame skill may not enjoy attacking or taking risk as much as collecting positional advantages and grinding out endgames, but that doesn't mean they are not excellent tacticians.
I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...
Your opinion really don't count as much as the Number #2 and #3 players of the World
This is what the Number #2 GM Aronian has to say about the FIDE World Championship Match:
"It’s a really interesting match. A lot of unexpected things have happened, like the openings for one. I never thought that Gelfand would play the kind of variations that he’s been playing here. And I’ve had the opportunity to see the match live, as I’m passing through Moscow at the moment." And in reply to the question " Do you agree with Kasparov that for the first time in the modern history of the game the world championship will not be decided by the strongest two players in the world?" he says: "I don’t think that’s true. The player that made it through a very tough Candidates’ Tournament and the player that has held the title for so long are, by rights, the strongest players in the world.
And this is what the Number #3 GM Kramnik has to say about the FIDE Championship Match
Kramnik was asked by journalists to comment on the opinion that his recent match in Zurich against Aronian was full of excitement, while the one in Moscow has been rather boring. His reply: "How can you compare an exhibition match – no matter how seriously it was taken – to a match for the World Championship?! It’s the same as comparing an international friendly in football with the final of the European Championships! It’s two completely different things. Of course it’s easier to play interesting, attractive and “sexy” chess when you don’t have the consequences of the result constantly hanging over your head. If you want to compare this match to something, compare it with previous world championship matches, and not with my match against Levon.
Last edited by pichy on Thu May 31, 2012 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I find some of the comments very perplexing. I do not think the contest was boring.
How many games with new concepts!
Anand deserves his World Champion tag.
I think that use of computers to analyse the games has ruined the world of chess spectatorship, with even a 1400 over the board player stating that ...the game is nearly equal, as the evaluation that their favourite engine displays is nearly equal.
About the time limit is today's chess, remember that back when Kasparov played Karpov in and around 1985, they had 2 hrs 40 minutes for 40 moves, and the game could get adjourned after that, so that they could analyse overnight with their seconds and then execute the plan over the board the next day! But then, you could count on complicating the play so that it was difficult to see the moves over the board, as the combined minds could not anticipate all the moves because of lack of time.
Today, if a GM wants to test a line, all he has to do is to get access to a Octa-Core computer (maybe even more powerful) and run a MP version of his favourite Chess engine to test it out, or even better, one of his seconds can do it for him. Each line and response can be evaluated much more quickly. And it works both ways. The opponent has also done his homework
Many of Morphy's famous games would fall flat against today’s 14 yr olds, because they all know about how to exploit the opponent’s inaccuracies if they try to play like Morphy.
The ubiquitousness of strong computer chess engines has ruined that creativity, because today, nearly everyone who is serious about chess has access to a chess encyclopaedia and chess engine with knowledge about the various lines in a variation.
While the level of chess is much higher today, the beauty and creativity element has diminished, because the super GM are wary that the opponent may exploit the slightest inaccuracies- because the opponent’s team also have access to the best computers, and may have already studied the lines.
So, what did Anand and Gelfend do? They resorted to surprising the opponents, forcing them to think over the board.
I am not sure even if Magnus faced V Anand in a championship title, he would have prevailed. I would still say that Anand would have won, but we may never know. Anand is getting old, and has other distractions now ( hint: he became a father in not too distant past.)
Gelfend did exceptionally well to reach the finals by coming first in the Candidate Matches and then to prepare for the championship, and Anand deserves the long time at the top as a world champion.
Best Regards,
Varun
-What most people need to learn in life is how to love people and use things instead of using people and loving things.
I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...
Your opinion really don't count as much as the Number #2 and #3 players of the World
Agree with you completely Pichy!
Too many people with access to super engines think that since the two players did not play according to what the engines suggested, the games were boring.
Far from it!
Best Regards,
Varun
-What most people need to learn in life is how to love people and use things instead of using people and loving things.
Perhaps, loss of prize money for draw, more money for lost games, but much much more for won games.
In this way, players would try very very hard not to draw, even at the risk of losing, and still, losing could cause loss of whole match, so the pressure is extremely great to not draw but certainly not lose.
In this way too, players WOULD choose a draw over losing, but be much more reluctant to draw, than now.
