Chess

[DarthFed]

Good call on Karjakin, I did not see him winning this event at all. I figured Caruana, Naka, Anand and Aronian with the first 2 being the most likely. Aronian hasn't been impressive for awhile now (unlike with Kramnik I'm pretty sure I'm not totally wrong on this one).

 

[Federberg]

you're spot on

 

[Federberg]

Well... Levon started to turn around the bad from at Sinqfield last year I think.

 

[DarthFed]

Kramnik, MVL, So, Ding Liren, the list goes on of guys that could've been there ahead of Topalov.

 

[DarthFed]

Well... Levon started to turn around the bad from at Sinqfield last year I think.

Yeah Aronian hasn't been bad. Just clearly not near peak form.

 

[Federberg]

Yup. Anyone of those guys. I actually think Ding is a very strong player. He impresses me a lot more than So for instance. MVL's games can be very entertaining, but a few times in post match analysis I've found him very unimpressive. You hear a lot of, "the computer suggests this"... and "I didn't look at it because the computer rated it as the 3rd best move"... I end up shaking my head in disgust!

By the way, I loved the novelty that Caruana pulled out against Vishy. Apparently it only rates as the 3rd best move by the computer which is why he went for it. He figured that other people would dismiss it! So cunning

 

[Federberg]

Interesting read...
http://en.chessbase.com/post/speelman-how-will-karjakin-fare-against-carlsen?

 

[Federberg]

Thought this was interesting... This is what Simon Agdestein thought before the Candidates. Amazingly accurate!

Translated from Norwegian..

Vishy Anand:
- It would have been amazing if he were to come to a World Cup match again. Miracles can happen. It might keep winning two to three parties, he can clear. He's a professional and has good helpers around him, but does not play creatively. He plays on preparations and is strong on it.


Fabiano Caruana:
- He mentioned that the crown prince. and he could probably win several parties. He can win the tournament as well, if he's in shape. But he makes many mistakes. It is special to do so many mistakes that he makes. That means that I can not take him quite seriously. It can go both ways.


Hikaru Nakamura:
- He is a giant screw. He has his unique playing style. A sort of light version of Caruana. I can not imagine that he will win and be a worthy challenger Magnus Carlsen. He does a lot of things.


Veselin Topalov:
- He's too old. I can not imagine that he will win.


Anish Giri:
- He is a super smart guy, plays swell solid. He could win two to three parties, and thus the entire tournament. But I feel it is too early for him.


Levon Aronian:
- He is often mentioned, but he has seen the top and on the way down I feel.


Sergey Karjakin:
- He may be the most dangerous. He has broad support in Russia and many helpers. He is strong in the openings, and play solid. It may be the most difficult for Magnus to meet. He is not so exciting, but very solid. He is my favorite to win the tournament, along with Caruana.


Peter Svidler:
- It is impressive that he is there. It's a miracle man who has won the Russian championship many times. I think it will be too easy for Magnus if he were to win the tournament. He is not strong enough, he has his weaknesses.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Yeah that is impressive how spot on he was.

 

[Federberg]

Still trying to figure out what he meant about Nakamura being a "giant screw". Wonders of google translate!

 

[DarthFed]

^ That and I find it amusing that the translation of games is "parties". Playing those long games sure as hell isn't my definition of a party.

 

[Federberg]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-promotion-that-fame-demands/article29465540/

 

[Federberg]

This is awesome!

 

[DarthFed]

^ Awesome stuff. Really fascinating with Capablanca, Lasker, and Alekhine so close in relative strength at one point. I think that is really the only time you've had 3 absolute titans of the game playing close to peak strength at a point in time. Lasker was quite a bit older than the other two but he remained quite strong for awhile. And not surprising to see that Fischer was so incredibly far above everyone else at the point he retired.

 

[Federberg]

Yes I thought so. Did you notice that Morphy was way above the rest as well. Interesting how the two great US champions reached such heights but both flamed out relatively quickly

 

[DarthFed]

If we just look at chess from the 19th century on, which I think is reasonable, I don't think there is any question that Morphy was the most dominant player there's been. Meaning the drop between him and the rest during his time was greater than anything we've seen including Kasparov, Fischer, and anyone else you want to throw out there. Of course Morphy didn't play against the strongest competition given that it was the middle of the 19th century, and there was no official world championship title before Steinitz. With that said, IMO, Morphy would have taken down everyone until Lasker, he was so far ahead of his time and it wasn't just about the insane tactics with him. He was quietly very good at all facets of the game but obviously a brilliant tactician. Fischer didn't really have the sustained dominance because he quit after winning the title in 1972. One could argue he was the best player in the world for a handful of years but at the very least he was by far the best player in the world from 1970-1972. The main reason we wouldn't say Kasparov reached absolute dominance the way Fischer did is that there was Karpov to deal with. If you take Karpov out of the picture then Kasparov was as far above the rest as Fischer was, only he sustained that for over a decade. With all due respect to the great Soviet players that Fischer beat...they were not Karpov.

 

[Federberg]

I agree totally. In my opinion the depth is so much greater now, that Carlsen's dominance now is in many ways as impressive as either Fischer's or Kasparov's. The ease with which even a 2600 player can use computer preparation now is something those others never had to face. Don't get me wrong, Kasparov is at the top of my list for greatest player ever, but he would have a much tougher time establishing that kind of dominance because his main edge was his superior preparation. I would love to see how he copes with modern chess. I can't remember which top player said it, but someone actually hinted that one of the reasons Kasparov retired was because he could see the writing on the wall. I don't know if there was any jealousy behind the comment, or whether as on it's face it was just brilliantly insightful

 

[DarthFed]

^ It may have been Nakamura who said that. After they stopped working together a couple years back Nakamura had some idiotic things to say about Kasparov. Basically that he was nothing outside of his openings. Pretty laughable stuff.

I don't think the computer prep forced Kasparov out of the game at all. I truly believe he was just more focused on politics and other things and the other factor is that it seemed unlikely he would ever get a rematch with Kramnik. And perhaps he was conscious of the fact that he was slipping a bit, as is natural at 40+ years old even in chess. Maybe he could've stayed #1 for another couple years but eventually he'd have fallen off more and more and it'd have been tough for him to accept that. Kasparov turns 53 soon, if he had never retired I bet he'd still be top 10. Possibly even #2 if he had aged really well. Even with the computer prep he'd still be better in openings than most if not all and he's still plenty aggressive and sharp tactically.

I do agree that it's now harder for anyone to dominate but I think that's true throughout the history of the game. It was tougher for Fischer to be more dominant than Morphy and it was tougher for Kasparov to be more dominant than Fischer. The game keeps evolving; openings more refined, more players, preparation, etc.

 

[Federberg]

It could have been Naka. I don't recall, although for some reason I thought it was a Russian, which probably means that it was a spiteful observation with little merit. I agree, there's no question in my mind that he would still be right up there. I haven't seen any current player with same tactical creativity apart from possibly Wei Yi. It's certainly true that history shows that it keeps getting tougher, but I just don't think we've seen the sort of quantum leap in depth that the computer age has brought before. This is a new thing. Please note I'm not saying that the players are necessarily stronger now, I'm saying that it is now so much harder than even 15 years ago to get an edge out of the opening, and the depth of theory now is just absurd. For goodness sakes some lines go past move 40 now. That's just insane. I can well understand someone like Carlsen, doing everything he can to get out of book and just play chess, it's the only way

 

[DarthFed]

Totally agree. There is no question the advancement of computers has added a different element altogether which you alluded too. It's possible in our lifetime we will see Fischer Random chess gain more popularity because of that.