Chess

[DarthFed]

Chess will almost always be tough to market to the average person who only knows how the pieces move. Hell, I get pretty bored watching it. If it was any other tournament I wouldn't be following live, would just play over the games after they finished. Also got bored when I'd play the long games at tournaments. Since there was decent cash on the line it'd make it a little easier to concentrate. I learned by playing blitz and still prefer playing blitz (3 or 5 minute games) or even bullet chess (1 minute games)

Maybe rapid play (45 minutes) would be more marketable. Blitz would simply be too hectic for people to follow.

 

[Federberg]

Chess is always going to be niche. I like the fact I can debate with friends about what the next move will be, whose position I prefer etc. But I also like that I can get on with other things and come back a bit later and not missed much. It's an extremely intimate feeling to figure out the plan of a super strong GM and see if he is able to follow it through. By the way that's why I find Carlsen so amazing, the fact that he constantly bamboozles his opponents with tactical tricks which hide a deeper positional truth that they can't visualise. How a chess lover finds him boring is quite beyond me


This is never going to be marketable to the masses, that doesn't mean that it's anywhere close to being monetised properly now. I like the fact that Norway Chess and Zurich Chess are trying to do this, but I find the likes of Sincqfield worrying. Chess has no future going down the path of the benevolent billionaire.

 

[Federberg]

I never saw all these Reverse Sicilians coming did you? And Vishy being mugged twice in it as well! If the English becomes the new fad and we can move away from Berlins I'll be a happy bunny!

 

[Federberg]

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/moscow-candidates-12-karjakin-up-anand-down

The Anand - Nakamura interview is interesting in this link, Vishy doesn't say a word! But I posted this so you can see why I find Giri so irritating. Nepomniatchi asks a perfectly valid question and Anish fires back with a typically snarky answer. Makes you just want to slap the guy!

Do something before you can justify the smart talk you little sh1t...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The problem with Giri and frequent draws is not that it affects mainstream ideas of chess, but it affects even how chess nuts view chess. I'm not talking about chess' world-wide popularity here. We'll never have another Fisher Boom so that's not the point. But there is something to be said for how uninteresting things can get. That said, it's hard to offer an alternative.

 

[DarthFed]

Most avid players do not mind seeing a bunch of draws as long as they are fighting draws. In Giri's defense he has been involved in some pretty active games that just happened to end in draws sometimes because he lost a clear advantage (games against Naka and Caruana). Also when you are playing as black against equal or even slightly worse competition a draw is not a bad result which is something the average person can't really relate to since the advantage of having the white pieces is lost on them. Yesterday was one of those, a pretty well played game as black vs. Svidler where he got a small edge but not enough to win. But with that said he will need to play with desperation the last couple rounds because there is still a chance even though it's extremely small. Let's see what he brings.

All in all, I think it's been a very good tournament. There have been plenty of mistakes, some of them shocking, but that makes it more interesting. A game where both players play great will be a draw and oftentimes a boring one. I checked out the standings and there haven't been any draws under 30 moves in this event with quite a few over 40 moves...but of course we have seen a lot of draws and at the top level with classical time controls there will always be a lot of draws. That's why something like rapid chess would be more appealing to the average viewer. It is still slow enough to follow with commentators providing analysis on occasion but it is fast enough that it is not a complete bore to watch. Also, there will be a much higher % of decisive games with quicker time controls.

 

[Federberg]

That's true. I don't have an issue with Giri's draws per se. But couple that with his arrogance it's a pretty noxious combination in my opinion

 

[DarthFed]

Almost all good players are arrogant, some just hide it better. It's a game for ultra-competitive egomaniacs. There are some notable exceptions but sometimes I think they'd be better served to be more on edge. If losing a chess game doesn't crush your soul you are playing the wrong game

 

[Federberg]

No argument there! But at least do something. What I found annoying about the Giri Svidler interview was his comment that Svidler made about 20 inaccuracies, well excuse me! If you're as good as you think you are that many inaccuracies should be an easy win. Produce...then talk!

 

[DarthFed]

Ah, I didn't hear the interview. Yeah maybe he was frustrated with himself that he couldn't win. Girl definitely had the edge most of the game.

From Svidler's point of view maybe you have that as bulletin board material, but he too may have been upset with his play. Drawing with white is never a great result for someone rated as high as he is.

 

[Federberg]

I didn't think Svidler said anything wrong. He was honest and self deprecating as usual. Just think Giri needs to check himself a bit. I appreciate these guys need to have a bit about them, but most of them contain it. The way Anish speaks you would almost think he's done something. He hasn't yet. Ratings are great but I have more respect for winning things. Like Caruana has, or Nakamura, not even going to mention the big guys

 

[Federberg]

And so it goes to the final round. Karjakin will have to keep an eye on Vishy and Caruana, but surely he'll have a slight edge. In all likelihood a draw will be good enough as Vishy hasn't been good with the black pieces, and Svidler is very dangerous to play when you have to go all out for a win. Magnus found that out!

 

[Federberg]

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about practical chess players versus theoreticians do you favour one over the other? I have to say, being able to get it done on the board without relying on home prep seems like stronger chess to me. Thoughts?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about practical chess players versus theoreticians do you favour one over the other? I have to say, being able to get it done on the board without relying on home prep seems like stronger chess to me. Thoughts?

I don't think it's ever that simple as at the highest level, it's almost impossible to be good at one without the other. Kasparov can calculate better than most players in history and is probably the greatest on the spot problem solver to ever grace a chess board, but he was also known as one of the best prepared chess players in history (he was perhaps the first to really show how important it was to get a team of people to help you prepare for different lines and come up with innovations).

 

[Federberg]

i would argue that players like Carlsen and Karpov are more able to understand positions deeply than Kasparov could. There's no question Garry was a phenomenal calculator though. It's a tough question really, I love some of the phenomenal examples of home preparation we've seen, like a Reshevsky like game Anand played against Aronian a couple of years ago. But I'm also struck by how helpless Vishy seems to be sometimes when he's out prepared. Obviously it can happen to anyone but the way he's been manhandled a few times recently playing the black pieces has been a bit shocking. It just made me wonder how strong some of these guys are without their memorisation. Don't get me wrong Anand is a legend, but it did make me wonder

 

[DarthFed]

Didn't follow live today but quickly played over the games. WOW! The 2 big time games were 100 move draws. Anand-Giri was a solid game too, interesting sacrifice from Giri, didn't look through too many variations but I'm thinking there was no win there. And the meaningless Topa-Naka game was the only decisive one sadly. More gifts from Topalov

 

[DarthFed]

You need to know a lot of theory to be near the top, especially today when computers reign. Players who can excel without theory are probably just more talented than the average player. Capablanca was known to be lazy regarding his study of openings but for the most part it didn't matter as he may have been the most talented player in history (definitely up there). But it was the main reason he lost in a big upset to Alekhine.

Kasparov was probably the most prepared and of course one of the most talented as well. Probably the best calculator in history and just brutal, tactical play. Add it all together and that's why he's considered the greatest ever by most. People will generally see his play, and the play of guys like Tal, Morphy, and Alekhine as being more creative than guys like Karpov, Carlsen, and Capablanca. Creativity in chess is another word for tactics/attacking. But I wouldn't argue the first group is more talented than the 2nd one or vice versa.

 

[DarthFed]

I forgot they have the retarded tiebreak where most wins decides it after head to head. Caruana must win with black and Karjakin just needs to draw...unless Vishy wins. Then Karjakin needs to win. Due to circumstances I really feel like Anand has a good shot at winning with black vs Svidler. Anand is playing for everything while Svidler has been eliminated. Anand also is something like 7-0 in classical vs. Svidler. This may be a situation where I put Anand's chances as close to 50% with black vs. Svidler. Caruana has to be grateful for Anand here because he'd be pretty screwed if Karjakin just needed a draw with white. All 3 should be playing hard for a win.

And that brings me to that retarded tiebreak system. Most players would take 2-0-12 over 5-3-6. In general the guy who hasn't lost has played the better, more sound chess. I know that's not always the case but It'd be tough to argue that Anand has looked better than Caruana in this event. I thought the same a few years ago when Carlsen won the tiebreak vs. Kramnik. Vlad played the better chess. The general public enjoys decisive games and that's why they are rewarding the players in this manner but it's the wrong game for it.

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not sure I agree with that actually. First of all we need to encourage decisive games and this is the way to do it. Secondly the guy who's trying to win in this sort of company is likely to take risks and therefore the chance of losses is higher. We must encourage that. Otherwise we're saying that the guy who goes for it and ends up on 0 should be placed behind a Giri who just draws, that makes no sense to me. Besides if you look at some of Capuana's draws he has blundered winning positions. Sure we can saying blundering a win and ending up with a draw is better than blundering a drawing position and ending up with a win, but the reality is that it amounts to the same thing, weak chess at decisive moments (obviously I'm talking in a relative sense)

As for Vishy today, he's been terrible with the black pieces all tournament. He finds himself facing the same dilemma Carlsen faced and he went for it against Svidler and crashed and burned. Say what you want about Svidler but the guy is solid. If Vishy blunders he'll get into serious trouble today.

 

[Federberg]

You need to know a lot of theory to be near the top, especially today when computers reign. Players who can excel without theory are probably just more talented than the average player. Capablanca was known to be lazy regarding his study of openings but for the most part it didn't matter as he may have been the most talented player in history (definitely up there). But it was the main reason he lost in a big upset to Alekhine.

Kasparov was probably the most prepared and of course one of the most talented as well. Probably the best calculator in history and just brutal, tactical play. Add it all together and that's why he's considered the greatest ever by most. People will generally see his play, and the play of guys like Tal, Morphy, and Alekhine as being more creative than guys like Karpov, Carlsen, and Capablanca. Creativity in chess is another word for tactics/attacking. But I wouldn't argue the first group is more talented than the 2nd one or vice versa.

I'm not sure I made an argument for one being more talented than the other. If I implied that I was merely asking about your preferences