If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
With respect to a possible tie-break, it seems to me that the challenger should have to beat the champion and that a tied match should go to Anand. This puts the onus on the challenger to play for the win. But, if a series of faster and faster tie-break games is to be used, then I think it may have been Jean Hebert who stated that they should play the tie-break before the regular games, and not after. I agree with this completely, because it would force someone to play to win the match.
I think for this one we should look at tennis for a new idea:
-If the match is tied after 12 games, play a series of games at rapid time control (with reasonable increment) until one of the players emerges victorious (i.e. winning 1.5-0.5 or 2-0 over two games). There's no limitation on the number of games it can take to have a winner.
It's very similar to the tie-breaks in tennis. And at least, it will look like chess. And you could easily play 8 or 10 rapid games a day, so the odds of this dragging on are extremely small.
I hate these armaggedon games because you're basically changing the rules -i.e. a draw becomes a win, players don't have the same time. And, more important, a guy can win a match by drawing all his games and then drawing the aramaggedon.
A writer in Slate advocates taking chess along the same road that tennis has blazed:
Tennis doesn’t have a world champion, and rightly so. That sport measures greatness by elevating four tournaments (the grand slams) above all others and assessing a player’s results there. Peaks and valleys are measured by a ratings algorithm that’s updated from week to week.
Chess has the ratings algorithm, and it has the big tournaments. Now it just needs to kill the world championships. And to do that, it needs someone with the standing to do the job. Enter Magnus Carlsen.
Here’s what Carlsen should do: Beat Anand for the title, and then work with FIDE to institutionalize four big tournaments as chess’s Grand Slams, simultaneously eliminating the title of world champion. Corporate funding for even major chess tournaments can come and go with frustrating regularity, meaning FIDE itself has to get involved. Perhaps the grand slam tournaments could be located in three cities permanently—Moscow, Amsterdam, and a Spanish locale such as Linares would be natural picks—with a fourth that would rotate from year to year. This would give chess the same clear and predictable yardstick for greatness that golf and tennis have instead of the extremely crude world champion benchmark.
Anand's last title defence was at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow last year when he narrowly beat off a challenge from Boris Gelfand. While the vastly experienced, highly competent and famously hard-working Israeli is justly esteemed by his peers, in truth he was about as soft an opponent as Anand could possibly hope for in a World Championship Final. Brutally put, he probably lacked the extra spark that is necessary to scale the ultimate summit.
Furthermore, at 43 years of age, he was even older than the champion. Despite such a favourable pairing, Anand barely stumbled over the line, winning just one of the 12 classical chess games before prevailing in the rapid chess. With such unconvincing form, he would probably have lost to Aronian, Kramnik or even Grischuk — never mind Carlsen.
So what has gone wrong? Firstly, the most obvious point is that, at nearly 44, Anand is no longer a spring chicken. In chess terms, he could be considered a veritable dinosaur (incidentally, your 48 year-old writer is the oldest player in the top 100). Concentration wavers in middle-age in a manner it does not when you are in your physical prime. One lapse and you are on your way back to the pavilion. Secondly, motivation sags over time. When you have already achieved everything you could wish for professionally and you have as much money as you need for a good life, other things become more important — particularly when you have a young child. Success in all sport requires sacrifice and pain: most people tire of it eventually.
++++++++
One really feels one’s age after reading an article like this.
I have sort of mixed feelings about this. I certainly don't think the world championship should be decided by a series of RR tournaments featuring only say the top 10-14 players. Even if you are the 30th ranked golfer or tennis player in the world you are going to get into majors and at least theoretically have a shot of becoming world number one. Also "minor" tournaments on the pro tours in tennis and golf give you some points, not only the big four tournaments.
Maybe the majors should be massive Swisses with only players say 2600+ eligible to compete, or players who have accumulated enough points from "minor" tournaments. Sort of how the Grand Slam events in say tennis consist of 128(?) players in each.
The best thing about the way chess chooses its champions now is that there is a very clean line from Steinitz onward. Chess has more interest in its history, I think, than tennis or golf has in theirs.
A writer in Slate advocates taking chess along the same road that tennis has blazed:
Tennis doesn’t have a world champion, and rightly so. That sport measures greatness by elevating four tournaments (the grand slams) above all others and assessing a player’s results there. Peaks and valleys are measured by a ratings algorithm that’s updated from week to week.
Chess has the ratings algorithm, and it has the big tournaments. Now it just needs to kill the world championships. And to do that, it needs someone with the standing to do the job. Enter Magnus Carlsen.
Here’s what Carlsen should do: Beat Anand for the title, and then work with FIDE to institutionalize four big tournaments as chess’s Grand Slams, simultaneously eliminating the title of world champion. Corporate funding for even major chess tournaments can come and go with frustrating regularity, meaning FIDE itself has to get involved. Perhaps the grand slam tournaments could be located in three cities permanently—Moscow, Amsterdam, and a Spanish locale such as Linares would be natural picks—with a fourth that would rotate from year to year. This would give chess the same clear and predictable yardstick for greatness that golf and tennis have instead of the extremely crude world champion benchmark.
Short showed an appalling lack of respect, mean-spirited remarks, created a negative atmosphere, ridiculed a player by drawing attention to drinking and overweight issues, etc., etc., in his coverage at the World Cup of Chess this year. It was UGGG-LEEEE.
I'm just glad that Susan Polgar and Lawrence Trent have been chosen to cover the match by the official organizers. Susan was particularly creative (in the World Cup) and did the chess coverage in a new way that I had never seen before; she clearly made a conscious effort to address different demographics (much less skilled players, for example) in her commentary, while showing her ability to go through variations extemporaneously (without a chess engine helping her!) as well.
Short and his colleague, OTOH, were like Don Cherry and Ron MacLean. ugh.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Wednesday, 6th November, 2013, 02:28 PM.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Short and his colleague, OTOH, were like Don Cherry and Ron MacLean. ugh.
I doubt Short was as good as Grapes and Ron. There is a reason Grapes and MacLean are back year after year even though Grapes is WELL past retirement age!! And, N.B., they work on a far left TV Station!
At the end of the interview, Trent makes some remarks about why he loves chess that sounds very much like the famous remarks that Lasker made in one of his "Manuals of Chess" . The interview gives you some idea of what to expect from Susan Polgar and Lawrence Trent in the upcoming WC Match.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
I doubt Short was as good as Grapes and Ron. There is a reason Grapes and MacLean are back year after year even though Grapes is WELL past retirement age!! And, N.B., they work on a far left TV Station!
My comparison to Don Cherry was not meant as a compliment. Both Short and Cherry have managed to demean and/or offend all sorts of people with their public remarks ... though I must admit that Cherry is more practiced at it and has undoubtedly become richer by playing at his Canadian version of Archie Bunker.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
My comparison to Don Cherry was not meant as a compliment. Both Short and Cherry have managed to demean and/or offend all sorts of people with their public remarks ... though I must admit that Cherry is more practiced at it and has undoubtedly become richer by playing at his Canadian version of Archie Bunker.
I am well aware that it was not a compliment.
Note that mine was.
Many people dislike Cherry because he speaks his mind and the truth. No BS from Cherry!
He also knows his hockey very well.
He is a pleasure to watch every Saturday evening. I will watch him even when I don't want to watch the hockey game.
I have sort of mixed feelings about this. I certainly don't think the world championship should be decided by a series of RR tournaments featuring only say the top 10-14 players. Even if you are the 30th ranked golfer or tennis player in the world you are going to get into majors and at least theoretically have a shot of becoming world number one. Also "minor" tournaments on the pro tours in tennis and golf give you some points, not only the big four tournaments.
Maybe the majors should be massive Swisses with only players say 2600+ eligible to compete, or players who have accumulated enough points from "minor" tournaments. Sort of how the Grand Slam events in say tennis consist of 128(?) players in each.
The best thing about the way chess chooses its champions now is that there is a very clean line from Steinitz onward. Chess has more interest in its history, I think, than tennis or golf has in theirs.
Tennis and golf are also played on different surfaces / courses - each favouring a different set of players.
Nigel Short knows first hand what it means to "lack the extra spark to scale the ultimate summit". I could say Kasparov "got as soft an opponent as could possible hoped for" when he faced Nigel in a title defence that was probably the most one-sided match since...Merano?
What Short fails to tell (I doubt that he would not understand it) is that a match is prepared based on the opponent the Champion faces. Anand would have simply played differently against Aronian for example. Gelfand was extremely difficult to play against in a match because his overall play level (just how easy he beat Aronian and Radjabov in London this year!) and because he benefited from a very strong support team. There was simply no room for mistakes.
Tweet
Comment