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.
It looks like we need a definition for 'real' chess, and that would likely be for us limited humans back to FIDE time controls. But it's not about some absolute quality, it's instead a compromise between quality and time.
Paul, how about 7,500,000 years plus 10 second increment! :)
It looks like we need a definition for 'real' chess, and that would likely be for us limited humans back to FIDE time controls. But it's not about some absolute quality, it's instead a compromise between quality and time.
Exactly. There's a whole body of work, books, lectures on youtube and all. More than a century of history about OTB chess. All of that with the idea that a good game of chess can be played in 5-6 hours.
That's what I meant by real chess. You don't need to get too excited about definitions. Everybody understood.
**Mathieu's definition of blunder needs revisiting: "For me, a real blunder has to clearly change the evaluation of the position." He argues that if Anand had replied to Carlsen's blunder with the correct ...Nxe5+ Carlsen may still have held the game to a draw. What this indicates is that before playing 26.Kd2, Carlsen still had winning chances, but after that move, the BEST Carlsen could have hoped for with no blunder from Anand was a draw. And that should be the definition of blunder: a move that with best play robs you of any winning or drawing chances you had before the move.
26.Kd2 was a mistake, no doubts about it. But for me, a blunder leads to a more drastic change. Like going from a clearly drawn to a clearly lost position.
Going from a small advantage to a drawable position is a mistake, sure. But a blunder?
We've seen much worse in terms of blundering in world championship matches. How about Spassky's 27th move in that game:
Sometimes, I have a feeling I'm arguing with guys suffering from severe memory problems whereas anything that happened 5 years ago is completely forgotten. Of course, in that context, every small mistake becomes the greatest blunder in chess history.
Exactly. There's a whole body of work, books, lectures on youtube and all. More than a century of history about OTB chess. All of that with the idea that a good game of chess can be played in 5-6 hours.
That's what I meant by real chess. You don't need to get too excited about definitions. Everybody understood.
Well, you're already wrong because based on his reply to you, Francis Rodriguez took it the same way I did. I'll bet a lot of others did as well. When you use a term like 'real chess', it gets taken by most people as an means of denigrating every other form of chess.
And now you're talking about a 'good game' of chess. What is a 'good game' of chess? Blitz games are now recorded and Wayne Komer has been posting entire games of blitz. Should he stop that because they aren't 'good games' of chess? People can play through those games not to see perfectly played chess, but to see who made errors when and to see if one player fell for another player's bluff, or even just to see crazy wild chess where many pieces are attacking each other at once. If that is entertaining to someone, then to that person it is a 'good game' of chess.
So it appears you are going from "blitz chess is not real chess" to "blitz games are not good games". Again, let's rehash: your reasoning leads to the determination that 5-6 hour games are not 'good' games compared to correspondence chess. Therefore, if Gary Ruben came on here and told you OTB chess is not 'good' chess or even 'real' chess compared to correspondence chess, you could not argue against that.
Rather than others not getting excited about definitions, I think you need to UNDERSTAND definitions. You could start by learning the accepted definition of 'everybody'.
26.Kd2 was a mistake, no doubts about it. But for me, a blunder leads to a more drastic change. Like going from a clearly drawn to a clearly lost position.
Going from a small advantage to a drawable position is a mistake, sure. But a blunder?
We've seen much worse in terms of blundering in world championship matches. How about Spassky's 27th move in that game:
Sometimes, I have a feeling I'm arguing with guys suffering from severe memory problems whereas anything that happened 5 years ago is completely forgotten. Of course, in that context, every small mistake becomes the greatest blunder in chess history.
Carlsen's 26.Kd2 was imo a blunder, because against someone of Anand's skill and ability, it should have caused Carlsen to immediately lose ANY chance of winning the game. If Carlsen was already behind in objective evaluation by say 1.0 or more, I would agree it was merely a mistake. If you want to get into semantics and call it a mistake when Carlsen was ahead in objective evaluation, that is your perogative. There is no clear-cut line between 'mistake' and 'blunder', therefore we are each entitled to our definitions.
In your last paragraph, you are forgetting that my issue with WC game 6 was not that Carlsen blundered, and I never called that blunder anything else besides a blunder. I didn't call it anything like the greatest blunder in chess history. My issue was that it was immediately followed by an equally bad blunder, and that it was very possible Carlsen would defend his title in that particular manner with game 6 being the match-decisive game. It almost turned out that way. That would have been bad for WC chess, imo.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Carlsen's 26.Kd2 was imo a blunder, because against someone of Anand's skill and ability, it should have caused Carlsen to immediately lose ANY chance of winning the game.
And yet, this 'blunder' happened exactly against a guy of Anand's skill and ability... and Carlsen still won the game.
So what's the problem there? Your definition of 'blunder', or you definition of 'Anand'?
If Carlsen was already behind in objective evaluation by say 1.0 or more, I would agree it was merely a mistake. If you want to get into semantics and call it a mistake when Carlsen was ahead in objective evaluation, that is your perogative. There is no clear-cut line between 'mistake' and 'blunder', therefore we are each entitled to our definitions.
For what it's worth. According to my old version of Houdini (1.5). Before 26.Kd2, it was around +0.3 or +0.4 for Carlsen. After 26.Kd2, you can get some relatively complex variations into -0.7 or -0.8 territory (advantage to Anand, of course).
But listening to some kibitzers, it's like the evaluation swung from +2 to -2.
Yes the evaluation did swing, and significantly. But it was always objectively within range of a draw with precise play. The worse there was not the 'blunder', but the fact that Anand just wasn't able to cope with the fact that he missed a chance.
My own understanding is that Carlsen had a comfortable position. Not objectively winning, but well worth to play on. That's chess. After the mistake on the 26th move, Anand could have gotten an advantage, but certainly not an easily won position. A lot of variations peter out to a rook endgame with a pawn less for Carlsen and no real winning chances for Anand. If Anand tries to hold on to the extra material too much, Carlsen has the two bishops and almost inevitably wins back the h6 pawn. And in all of these variations, Anand never gets a passed pawn or some interesting positional features other than having a little material.
At no point was that game a clear win for Anand.
For me, a blunder (??) has to involve a clear change in the evaluation of the position. A change between lost, drawn or won. And it has to be somehow obvious. Long and complicated variations shouldn't be involved. There's some good examples of GM blunders on wiki:
Carlsen's 26.Kd2 was imo a blunder, because against someone of Anand's skill and ability, it should have caused Carlsen to immediately lose ANY chance of winning the game.
And yet, this 'blunder' happened exactly against a guy of Anand's skill and ability... and Carlsen still won the game.
So what's the problem there? Your definition of 'blunder', or you definition of 'Anand'?
No, the definition of "should". I wrote it SHOULD have caused Carlsen to immediately lose any chance of winning the game. He won because Anand counter-blundered.
I'll go with my definition and you go with yours, and I note that most other reports on the game indicated Carlsen's 26.Kd2 was a blunder:
Sergey Karyakin @SergeyKaryakin
When Magnus blundered with Kd2, I was in the playing hall, and wanted to scream NE5!!! It could have changed chess history I guess;-).
3:26 PM - 15 Nov 2014
<Svidler: How do you recover after such a blunder?
<Kramnik: In my experience, you don't! >>
from Daniel King's game 6 analysis on chessbase.com:
"Caruana's tweet at this point: "Shocking blunders... Vishy won't be able to sleep tonight.' "
For what it's worth... For me, a blunder (??) has to involve a clear change in the evaluation of the position. A change between lost, drawn or won. And it has to be somehow obvious. Long and complicated variations shouldn't be involved. There's some good examples of GM blunders on wiki:
No, the definition of "should". I wrote it SHOULD have caused Carlsen to immediately lose any chance of winning the game. He won because Anand counter-blundered.
That's convenient. Whatever intellectually inept argument you bring can be nullified a posteriori because you said 'should'. Fantastic! What's the point of arguing with you again?
Sergey Karyakin @SergeyKaryakin
When Magnus blundered with Kd2, I was in the playing hall, and wanted to scream NE5!!! It could have changed chess history I guess;-).
3:26 PM - 15 Nov 2014
<Svidler: How do you recover after such a blunder?
<Kramnik: In my experience, you don't! >>
from Daniel King's game 6 analysis on chessbase.com:
"Caruana's tweet at this point: "Shocking blunders... Vishy won't be able to sleep tonight.' "
Well, of course, people commenting almost live on the match will say blunder here and there. I would too, probably. But upon closer examination, I just wouldn't put that in the blunder category.
I also think it has to do with the popularity of automated engine analysis. A red move pops up and everybody yells 'blunder!'
For what it's worth, I think Anand's 32nd move in that game was the blunder. Had he been fully concentrated, I'm sure he'd see that 32...Ka7 is the only chance. After 32...Bc6, he just loses a bunch of pawns in simple fashion.
That's convenient. Whatever intellectually inept argument you bring can be nullified a posteriori because you said 'should'. Fantastic! What's the point of arguing with you again?
Well, of course, people commenting almost live on the match will say blunder here and there. I would too, probably. But upon closer examination, I just wouldn't put that in the blunder category.
I also think it has to do with the popularity of automated engine analysis. A red move pops up and everybody yells 'blunder!'
For what it's worth, I think Anand's 32nd move in that game was the blunder. Had he been fully concentrated, I'm sure he'd see that 32...Ka7 is the only chance. After 32...Bc6, he just loses a bunch of pawns in simple fashion.
What's additionally hilarious here is your earlier comment ("For me, a blunder (??) has to involve a clear change in the evaluation of the position. A change between lost, drawn or won. And it has to be somehow obvious. Long and complicated variations shouldn't be involved.") followed up by you stating that based on Houdini analysis (!) it wasn't really a blunder.
I showed you quotes where Karjakin, Svidler, Kramnik and Caruana all called it a blunder, and you respond that "oh, yeah, on the spur of the moment, i.e. without long analysis, of course they are going to call it a blunder."
Uhhhh.... can you define "inconsistency"?
Jackie Gleason said it best on Honeymooners: "You're a riot, Alice!"
And I see that you have conveniently bypassed your losing position on 'real' chess.
Come on, tell us, WHAT IS 'REAL' CHESS? WHAT IS A 'GOOD' CHESS GAME?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I also believe the term blunder should only refer to huge game changing mistake. However, words definitions are meant to evolve. As you clearly stated, the expression blunder is now being use very freely by an overwhelming majority of people on internet chess forum. It is thus the definition of blunder on these platforms.
There is not much point in continuing to argue that your definition is the right one and that everybody else definition is wrong except from maybe making a Pierre Dénommée of yourself.
I actually enjoy arguing with the likes of Paul Bonham, but his act grow old quickly. I do that once every few months and then completely stop. It's just some good sport.
I'm certainly surprised the British are letting Adams go off at 9/2 odds today, with the White pieces yet, given his plus 5, minus 2, equal 2 record against Caruana (:
I'm certainly surprised the British are letting Adams go off at 9/2 odds today, with the White pieces yet, given his plus 5, minus 2, equal 2 record against Caruana (:
The way you toss those numbers around I'm sure you can explain what they mean. I'm not familiar with Ladbrokes but I understand that they're a reputable betting site. So when they give >>>>>
Adams 9 / 2
Draw 8 / 13
Caruana 5 / 2
.......is the first number the amount you bet to win the second amount, or vice versa?
Of course one of the numbers must be reversed to make any sense.
If for example, betting $2 on Adams could win you $9
while betting the $2 on Caruana could win you $5
!!! ................ then I would like to make both bets In which case I would make a profit if either player won.
Please explain. What am I missing?
The way you toss those numbers around I'm sure you can explain what they mean. I'm not familiar with Ladbrokes but I understand that they're a reputable betting site. So when they give >>>>>
Adams 9 / 2
Draw 8 / 13
Caruana 5 / 2
.......is the first number the amount you bet to win the second amount, or vice versa?
Of course one of the numbers must be reversed to make any sense.
If for example, betting $2 on Adams could win you $9
while betting the $2 on Caruana could win you $5
!!! ................ then I would like to make both bets In which case I would make a profit if either player won.
Please explain. What am I missing?
You're missing the fact that a draw, the most likely outcome according to Ladbrokes, would result in you losing both your bets, Vlad. A $2 bet on Adams does get you back $11 (i.e. a win of $9) should Adams win. Likewise, a $2 bet on Caruana gets you back $7 (i.e. a win of $5) should he prevail with Black. Only if you bet a draw do you have to give odds, betting $13 to get back $21 (i.e. a win of $8).
Re: Re : Re: 2016 World Chess Champion: Fabiano vs Magnus?
Adams has played his first 13 moves in negative 3 minutes and 12 seconds and it starting to accrue a bit of a time advantage (30 minutes and counting). He's undoubtedly still in his Carlsen prep. As Carlsen's surprise (revealed only after the match) star 2nd, the game today does take on a bit of added significance (:
If you have to ask, it means you'll never really know what is a good chess game. ;)
I'm asking you, not because I need your infinite wisdom, but because you seem to think there is some kind of universal 'real' chess out there. Like everything else, though, when pressed to define it, you run away with your tail between your legs. You see, that's the risk you take in engaging in debate 'for sport' as you put it to Olivier Tessier: if you are constantly taking a position, and then prove unable or unwilling to defend it, no one is going to listen to you. And when you do try and defend it, your logic rises up to beat you on the head, as proven by your inconsistent stand on whether definition of a blunder should be based on long computer analysis or not.
"No, a blunder should be obvious enough without any long analysis.... but when Karjakin, Svidler, Kramnik and Caruana all call a move a blunder without long analysis, they are wrong, and I can (cough, cough) prove it with some long computer analysis."
I do have an answer for you as to what is a good game of chess.... but you're not going to like it....
like so many other things in life, and as you would learn if you had ever analyzed a poker hand.....
IT DEPENDS.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Wednesday, 10th December, 2014, 02:10 PM.
Reason: spelling
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment