Chess
-
-
@damo said in World Chess Championship 2018:
10 games; 10 draws. Only one or two of which have been interesting games.
Has chess at the top level become too well analyzed?
Bobby Fischer thought so. In the 1990's he said it was all played out with chess computers doing all the work and players just having to memorise what the computer found, rather than players themselves thinking out improvements or new moves in openings during a game or in preparation.
Fischer's solution to this, after his return match against Spassky in 1992, was for each player to shuffle his backrow pieces in any order they like before the game, so that it would have to truly be thinking by player's over the board rather than coming to games prepared for any opening from previous computer analysis. He called the new setup Fischerandom.
-
Fischer Random (aka Chess960) is an answer, and it's quite popular in pockets in Europe, but top level chess has always resulted a lot of draws, particularly world championship matches where the competitors are close in strength. I don't think computers are specifically to blame - the first Karpov-Kasparov match in 1984 was abandoned with the score at 5-3 after 48 games including two runs of 17 and 14 draws in a row (at that time, the winner was the first to win 6 games so draws weren't counted) and replaced with a 24 game match in 1985 which Kasparov won 13-11 including draws. Overall, Kasparov and Karpov played 5 world championship matches between 1984 and 1990 for a score in Kasparov's favour of 21 wins, 19 losses, and 104 draws in 144 games. Computers were part of Kasparov's preparation as soon as chess database software was available, but that wasn't until 1987 (and the playing strength of chessplaying software was still well below the top humans).
One of the issues current world championship matches face is that as a 12 game match, a loss can easily be fatal no matter how early it happens because the opponent will be very hard to beat to get it back to even, and a relatively long run of draws is quite possible. Also, because there are now rapid and lightning playoffs (in Kasparov's day and before, a drawn match meant the champion retained), there is less incentive to play to win the match in the standard time control as drawing the main match means a better split of the prize fund.
-
@godder said in World Chess Championship 2018:
Fischer Random (aka Chess960) is an answer, and it's quite popular in pockets in Europe, but top level chess has always resulted a lot of draws, particularly world championship matches where the competitors are close in strength. I don't think computers are specifically to blame - the first Karpov-Kasparov match in 1984 was abandoned with the score at 5-3 after 48 games including two runs of 17 and 14 draws in a row (at that time, the winner was the first to win 6 games so draws weren't counted) and replaced with a 24 game match in 1985 which Kasparov won 13-11 including draws. Overall, Kasparov and Karpov played 5 world championship matches between 1984 and 1990 for a score in Kasparov's favour of 21 wins, 19 losses, and 104 draws in 144 games. Computers were part of Kasparov's preparation as soon as chess database software was available, but that wasn't until 1987 (and the playing strength of chessplaying software was still well below the top humans).
One of the issues current world championship matches face is that as a 12 game match, a loss can easily be fatal no matter how early it happens because the opponent will be very hard to beat to get it back to even, and a relatively long run of draws is quite possible. Also, because there are now rapid and lightning playoffs (in Kasparov's day and before, a drawn match meant the champion retained), there is less incentive to play to win the match in the standard time control as drawing the main match means a better split of the prize fund.
Yeah, agree with this Godder.
12 games is just too short. You can see why Fischer only wanted wins to count in 1975, the only drawback being unlimited games, which is the opposite end to a 12-game match.
The wins only counting was okay in 1978 and 1981 but when Karpov and Kasparov met in 1984 it went to the extreme. Kasparov was 4-0 down after 9 games and 5-0 down after 27, before it was eventually called off at 5-3 after 48 games.
It wasn't so much that there was 40 draws it was the fact that 23 of them were under 30 moves each, and the average was just 29 moves per player in the 40 draws.
-
Carlsen 2-0 in the playoffs. Deadlock has been broken. Carlsen only needs a Draw as White in Game 3 to retain the title:
Carlsen defeats Caruana to retain World Chess Championship in tie-breakers – as it happened
Magnus Carlsen has retained the world chess championship with a series of decisive victories in Wednesday’s tie-breakers against Fabiano Caruana
-
All hope for Carunua is gone. Carlsen wins. 3-0 today. Magnus Carlsen remains Chess Champion of the World!
What drama! What a player!
Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) Tweeted:
Carlsen’s consistent level of play in rapid chess is phenomenal. We all play worse as we play faster and faster, but his ratio may be the smallest ever, perhaps only a 15% drop off. Huge advantage in this format. -
Wow, in rapid move once Carlsen got the advantage it was all over pretty quickly
-
@frank That's excellent analysis. I particularly enjoyed every time he explained what Carlsen or Caruana could do and I'd be nodding my head in agreement, "that's what I'd do, fuck I'm clever" only for him to point out how that would result in a losing position. "Ahh, fuck. No wonder I lose".
-
-
@Stockcar86 said in World Chess Championship 2018:
I got back into chess recently and my skills ( on the phone chess app ) have stagnated at the level between easy and medium.
Fuck Chess.
-
-
@nzzp said in World Chess Championship:
@MN5 said in World Chess Championship:
Fuck Chess.
it's brutal and uncompromising. Also, great fun of course
But yeah, way to feel dumbI can beat my boys pretty regularly, but ( as they found out on holiday ) I can get distracted easily and lose the odd game. We had a few games when it pissed with rain and someone would offer me a beer, snack, ask me a question or whatever and I was fucked by the next move purely cos I lost focus for a few seconds.
How those grandmasters play multiple games at once is absolutely beyond my pea brain.
-
@MN5 said in World Chess Championship:
How those grandmasters play multiple games at once is absolutely beyond my pea brain.
They just look at patterns and 'know' the next move. Same way your tragic rugby brain sizes up a paddock and knows whether the carrier should kick to space, pass or take contact. It's instinct.
That, and they are very very good at it.
Also, we are in a golden age with chess information and tutorials online, and chess computers of any lebel you like to upskill with.
-
@nzzp said in World Chess Championship:
@MN5 said in World Chess Championship:
How those grandmasters play multiple games at once is absolutely beyond my pea brain.
They just look at patterns and 'know' the next move. Same way your tragic rugby brain sizes up a paddock and knows whether the carrier should kick to space, pass or take contact. It's instinct.
That, and they are very very good at it.
Also, we are in a golden age with chess information and tutorials online, and chess computers of any lebel you like to upskill with.
Not sure that's an entirely accurate analogy. Plenty of dumbarses play Rugby, not sure I'd describe a top chess player like that. On the spectrum definitely, but not dumb.
-
@MN5 said in World Chess Championship:
@nzzp said in World Chess Championship:
@MN5 said in World Chess Championship:
How those grandmasters play multiple games at once is absolutely beyond my pea brain.
They just look at patterns and 'know' the next move. Same way your tragic rugby brain sizes up a paddock and knows whether the carrier should kick to space, pass or take contact. It's instinct.
That, and they are very very good at it.
Also, we are in a golden age with chess information and tutorials online, and chess computers of any lebel you like to upskill with.
Not sure that's an entirely accurate analogy. Plenty of dumbarses play Rugby, not sure I'd describe a top chess player like that. On the spectrum definitely, but not dumb.
eh, I was reaching with the analogy, but the point is that most of the games the masters are playing are on instinct and patter. They'll only be thinking about a few of them in any detail.
The blindfold simultaneous chess blows my mind though. That is absolutely nuts
-
@nzzp said in World Chess Championship:
@MN5 said in World Chess Championship:
@nzzp said in World Chess Championship:
@MN5 said in World Chess Championship:
How those grandmasters play multiple games at once is absolutely beyond my pea brain.
They just look at patterns and 'know' the next move. Same way your tragic rugby brain sizes up a paddock and knows whether the carrier should kick to space, pass or take contact. It's instinct.
That, and they are very very good at it.
Also, we are in a golden age with chess information and tutorials online, and chess computers of any lebel you like to upskill with.
Not sure that's an entirely accurate analogy. Plenty of dumbarses play Rugby, not sure I'd describe a top chess player like that. On the spectrum definitely, but not dumb.
eh, I was reaching with the analogy, but the point is that most of the games the masters are playing are on instinct and patter. They'll only be thinking about a few of them in any detail.
The blindfold simultaneous chess blows my mind though. That is absolutely nuts
As I mentioned earlier I have a good chess app on the phone. Easy is too easy, but medium is too hard. The level between is one where I usually win.....but overall I’m just not getting better. I probably need to take more time with my moves
