Tweet
Originally posted by Neil Frarey
View Post
-
Is there a single web site that you got that information from, i.e. a site that shows the Rapid win-loss-draw records of the top players versus each other? I wouldn't mind seeing that. -
No. Just MC's record against the top 30. I grabbed it from r/chess......top players versus each other?
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comme...e_against_ian/
...:)
Here's a few other links mentioned...
https://2700chess.com/all-fide-players
https://www.chessgames.com/index.html
...:)Comment
-
Yes. I think this is understood by the players and the organizers, and this is why the players play much more dangerous double-edged moves when playing rapid. They know we are getting bored shitless with all of the draws taking place at the slower time controls. I have long been of the opinion that the correct response to the fact that chess is played out is to play Fischerandom with the position not being shown to the players in advance, but set up only when they arrive at the board. But if chess is going to remain in the stone ages with the standard opening position, then lots of rapid where the players are not afraid of screwing up, thereby leading to more "exciting" chess, is the answer.Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View PostComment
-
Carlsen didnt blunder in the opening in Game 6, nor did Nepo blunder in return at that stage. Less than best moves maybe but it was a sporting contest at the highest level amongst humans and thats what chess fans enjoy. Chess is extremely hard at the highest level - for some its far easier to attack (and yes that is more exciting from a fans perspective). Its much, much harder to defend. I think you need to turn your engine off and just enjoy the games from your own perspective for a fresh understanding.Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
Longer time controls are not going away. Recently I enjoyed a tournament in North Carolina with longer time controls and I posted only a very small percentage of what I saw. Also the US Championship comes to mind, thoroughly enjoyed that, and there have been many others.
I post from my perspective, what gives me pleasure and what I find interesting. If others find it interesting great. If not, move on. I have total respect for these top players , their level of play is far beyond mine but I understand how they play. What I post is snippets of what actually happened (but usually brilliant combinations and interesting tactics - not generated just because of mistakes - but interesting on their own basis)
The blunders that happen in rapid chess are there because of the intense pressure which builds up ( due to position and clock) and are a natural part of that game towards the finish. Nepo's blunders were of an entirely different magnitude taking place in the middlegame, long before the game should have been decided. Fans disappointment in that case is natural.
Best post on this forum ever???? - give your head a total shake, breathe deeply, and try to see things in perspective.Comment
-
The best post by Pargat in my opinion, yes. Not the best post on this forum ever. Hans, I agree with what you say, but I do think he has a point. People love the blunders in rapid chess but complain about them in slow chess.Originally posted by Hans Jung View PostComment
-
Originally posted by Hans Jung View Post
Hans, I am sorry if you took something I posted the wrong way. I wrote that I did not mean to be critical, and that includes my remarks about what you and many others find entertaining in chess. I tip my hat to you, because I can agree that Rapid chess with it's time pressures and less-than-perfect play IS exciting. So please don't think I was being critical of you. What I was really commentating on was not what is or is not exciting in chess, but rather what is happening at a "macro" level, which is that the followers of chess, the fans, are more and more preferring Rapid chess over slow chess. It is no concern of mine as to whether slow chess disappears or not, but from the viewpoint of the fans (which is obviously a majority, not a totality, of them), slow chess is increasingly an anachronism. But I can understand that a core of fans will always enjoy slow chess also.
I myself am not doing much analyzing, although I did create the GPR single-game rating system and will be doing it on the WCM, so we will get an idea of just what ELO level they are playing at. It will be interesting to see just how big Nepo's middlegame blunders were.
In Game 6, Marc Andre posted (post #39) that somewhere in the early part of the game, not sure when but I am thinking middlegame, Magnus blundered and was losing. Then later he posted the game had "stabilized" which means Nepo must have given up his advantage. That was what I was referring to, but maybe Marc Andre's initial analysis was incorrect.
I find it a bit disturbing that you say you post from your perspective, but then you say if I don't find it interesting I should "move on". What is that? I am not allowed to post from my perspective? I hope that isn't what I think it might be, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just put it down to overreaction since you did misunderstand my intentions, which were NOT to criticize you or what you find interesting. I hope now that is understood.
Comment
-
This echoes my sentiments Hans, you are a gentleman and I apologize for any offense my comments may have caused. It was never my intent, at least not with respect to yourself. :)Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View PostComment
-
I don't like blunders either in slow chess or blitz or rapid . Chess is such a complicated game that blunders are there to be made that GM Tartakover famously said. What Nepo did in game 8 and 9 is scoring into his own net in overtime. That's inexcusable in any sport. Nepo beat himself. And that's not what we want to see, we want to see a good fight, me regardless if the game ends in a draw. At that level, draws are part of the game. Tell that to Aronian , Caruana, or Giri who were not amused by Nepo's blunders.
You don't seem to understand chess much Pargat, sorry to say that but you don't seem to love chess like I do, You want to change everything from ratings to etc. Chess is a great game as it is and changes will perhaps be made , there already some changes made, faster time control, chess 960 etc.Comment
-
I guess I took it the wrong way. What I meant by the move on comment was I have a certain style of posting - if readers dont find it interesting they should move on from that thread. Im glad we cleared that up.Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View PostComment
-
LOL - a lot of people with thin skin on ChessTalk ... these unmoderated forums often get off topic or degenerate into rancid political/philosophical arguments about nothing at all.
...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.Comment
-
Brad no need to apologize. I didnt take your comments as anything intended towards me. I just thought your comment about best post a little far fetched. Surely Pargat has made much better posts. We have too much water under the bridge to be put out over a few words.Originally posted by Brad Thomson View PostComment
-
I understand a lot more than you realize, although I would never claim to understand everything in chess. But let's take this concept of "a good fight" in chess. What exactly is that? Well, it could be explained as both players making moves that are motivated by a desire to win the game. That would mean moves that have some risk to them. Every move in chess gains something but also gives something up. There are some moves that can be seen as completely safe, giving up almost nothing, but also threatening almost nothing. A good fighting game would be free of most of those safe moves. Do we agree on that?Originally posted by Marc Andre Beaudry View Post
When 2 players play risky moves, it is bound to happen that blunders will occur. That is the human aspect of chess. Humans don't see the entire search tree for 20 plies deep like engines do. So engines don't blunder, but humans do. Therefore we should accept blunders as part of the human chess struggle. Even the grossest of blunders can happen even to GMs, maybe because they focus on a move that has lots of upside and underestimate the downside. Two players who were famous for playing fighting chess, Tal and Ivanchuk, and both had their ups and downs as you would expect. They played fighting chess, and they blundered. They are still loved by many for their fighting style. And there are others who play much safer. The variance in their results is much less, but they aren't as loved mostly. Nepo plays more of an attacking style, according to what I've read, and so yeah, he's going to blunder. We should expect it. Before this match is over, he MIGHT play a brilliancy or two. Then everyone will be back on his side. I would say he needs to do that in at least one of the remaining games to salvage something out of this match. But he is still playing fighting chess, so why are you so disappointed?
My remarks were more about differences in the perceptions of fans like yourself based on whether it is Rapid chess or slow chess. By coming down hard on Nepo for his blunders, we might make him (and others) play much more safe in slow time controls. Do we want that? If yes, then what I was suggesting is that let's just move everything to Rapid chess where blunders are more acceptable by the fans. Two players playing totally safe in slow time controls is NOT exciting to watch. Unless you're an endgame purist, which most fans are not.
You show little understanding of the things I am doing within chess. Do YOU understand that there is a big difference between CHANGING something and ADDING TO IT?
I don't want to eradicate ELO ratings, I want to add single-game ratings (GPR) that are missing. My chess variants are to add new ideas, new challenges, to chess, to make the word "chess" much more general.
I am not out to change chess, but to add to it. You should make an effort to understand that difference before you accuse me of not loving chess!
Comment
-
Me too Hans, and keep posting, your enthusiasm is contagious! :)Originally posted by Hans Jung View Post
Comment
-
I believe that top players today play more sharply in shorter time control games, since they know that deep analysis by their opponent is impossible when trying to refute a move which is a bit unusual, new, offbeat, or borderline unsound. It certainly can make for more interesting chess. Both sides make moves that are less than perfect, just due to the shortness of time to decide; trying to provoke an opponent, force the opponent to take more time to analyze a move which may or may not be sound. Understanding and knowing the controls of a game is vital when analyzing it; some GMs have gone so far as to state that blitz games should NEVER be analyzed in print. I disagree. There are more games happening now at shorter controls among top players, and with technology omitting the need for players to record moves to paper, the game score can still be retained; that didn't used to be possible unless each board had a highly trained and sharp person to record the moves for quick games. For example, at the 1970 World Blitz Championship, at G/5', all games were collected, with assistants at each board recording them accurately.
I have found that certain opponents I encountered played very differently at shorter controls, especially in the opening. I would see stuff like 1.h4, 1.a4, 1.Na3, etc.
The late GM David Bronstein (1924-2006) is an authority I want to bring in here, on two items. I am an enormous admirer of his career and writings; he would be in the conversation about historical players with the most knowledge about chess.
1) Political thoughts during competitions: in his last book 'Secret Notes', with co-author Voronkov, published in 2007, just after his death, GM Bronstein writes at some length about the tension felt by Soviet players during the 1953 Candidates tournament, due to the recent death of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin (1879-1953). Stalin, incidentally a chess player of moderate strength, kept an irron grip on the USSR for some 30 years, and was responsible for the deaths of millions. The Soviet players in 1953, GM Bronstein writes, were unsure of just what might happen back home, as in their results being punished or rewarded; who the new leaders would be, and what they would do. Soviet chess leaders at that time wanted GM Smyslov to win the tournament (he did); GM Bronstein, who had won the previous series, was viewed as too much of a bohemian in his lifestyle; this according to GM Bronstein, who writes in his 1995 book 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' that his own father was exiled for nearly ten years without cause (he received an apology later, after his death). GM Bronstein wrote in 1995 that, playing Black against fellow contender GM Samuel Reshevsky in the 1953 Candidates', he was ORDERED by the Soviet delegation leaders ordered to win the game, to stop GM Reshevsky's progress towards the lead. GM Bronstein did win the game. He tied for second with Reshevsky and GM Paul Keres, behind Smyslov.
Incidentally, I just finished reading the book 'Stalin's Daughter' (2015), and the author has fascinating insights into the times around Stalin's death, from sources I hadn't read before. Svetlana Stalina (1926-2011) defected to the West in 1967.
I reference this from my earlier post concerning GM Nepo's state of mind during the current match, with tensions rising between Russia and NATO. While GM Nepo is probably NOT following news developments in detail, you would have to believe he and his Russian friends are very much aware of the general picture back home. Nepo's play in games 8 and 9 was very poor, after playing very well in the other games (he did lose game 6 but it took a mighty effort by Magnus to take him down). The Russian economy is a mess, the country faces sanctions, it is adversarial with almost all other nations, military tensions are increasing, and potential revolution is fomenting near the surface from many quarters.
2) It is interesting that in 1995, GM Bronstein wrote about his own insights on time controls affecting style of play, particularly in many practice games with his very good friend GM Isaac Boleslavsky (1919-1977), that in short time controls, the two would play correct technical chess, and in longer controls, let their creative fantasy come more into play. GM Bronstein was a pioneer in getting shorter time controls into reality for top competitions. He writes about this at length.Comment
-
What a beautiful way to end the match! With a king hunt!Comment
Comment