WCC 2012: Assessment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WCC 2012: Assessment

    Now the dust is settling, I thought it would be interesting to share views on the just-completed World Chess Championship. Was it an heroic struggle? Or a debacle? I have heard and seen both views expressed by chessplayers much more knowledgeable (not to mention higher-rated) than I am.
    With some trepidation and for what it's worth (?), here, upon reflection is my own assessment as a prompt to invite others to share theirs:
    First, it has to be said that allowance must be made for the incredible stress involved in playing a match at world championship level. History has shown that it can make strong men weep and tactical wizards blunder. The pressure is surely exascerbated in a short match of fixed duration and, worse, in subsequent rapidplay tiebreaks. As one who has lived through extremely stressful experiences in other fields, I am hesitant to be critical of champion or challenger. That said, some who have played at that level (notably and publicly, Kasparov) have been caustic in their comments about the match just completed.
    Second, objectively and with the benefit of time (and computer programmes) to analyze the games, one suspects the quality of play in this match was certainly not the highest, although perhaps not the worst, in modern chess history. It may be that in this age of intensive computer preparation by teams of assistants it is inevitable that the depth of preparation should take much of the element of surprise out of the opening play. It will be most interesting to hear the considered judgment of recognized opening experts on the results in this match. Based on my limited personal familiarity with two of the opening systems---Anand's chebanko-style defence against d4 and his Moscow against the Sicilian---I am not overly impressed. In the case of the latter, the b3 line is known as rather unambitious---the only bright spot was Gelfand's improvised pawn sacrifices, beginning with c4, which showed a deep appreciation of the value of activity over material. In the case of the latter, it was only in game seven, if memory serves, that either player (in this case Gelfand) came up with new and promising ideas resulting in the first win of the match and arguable the best game over all.
    Third, world champion Anand's play was risk averse in the extreme. This may have been largely driven by the format of the match. Knowing that a tie would be broken in quickplay, in which Anand has historically had a huge advantage over Gelfand (9 to 1 in decisive games), his strategy was clearly to avoid losing at all cost during the classic games. After the match, he appeared to be irritated as he rejected the suggestion that he was playing deliberately to get to the tiebreaks but did observe something to the effect that he was not about to do anything stupid during the classic games. The result, perhaps predictable, was that Anand's play was solid and, I believe, largely blunder-free but also uninspired, even insipid.
    Fourth, even allowing for the circumstances, I was surprised by the extent to which Gelfand, despite his great experience, including high level matches, was prone to blunders. The experts will judge whether in the first six games he was heroic in holding back the pressure from Anand or, rather, timid in his choices. After his fine win in game seven, his play in game eight was most encouraging, until he blundered with Qf3 and Qh1 (although to be fair, some superGM commentators were equally taken by surprise by Anand's Qf2), after which he seemed to lack the confidence to enter seriously unbalanced positions. In the rapidplay, Gelfand's play was astonishingly weak, particularly in the technical elements of endgame play, in which one would expect him to be almost computer-like. In the second game, he managed to lose a dead drawn ending and, most surprising, in the final game he made a rudimentary blunder in a simple rook and pawn ending (if there is such a thing) with his bizarre Rh7, thereby putting his rook just close enough to the White King to enable Anand to draw. Although he was, yet again, hopelessly short of time and clearly flustered, it is not the sort of mistake one would expect from a GM.
    Finally, the organizers, sponsors and media did an unprecedented job of putting on the best possible show with respect to the elements under their control. It was not their fault that the match proved so controversial in its dullness nor that the players were, in the final press conference, so testy with the journalists attempting to ask the obvious questions. One hopes this will not discourage future organizers and sponsors.

  • #2
    Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

    I'm a huge fan of Anand's... but all I could think of during the match was "Really? A Sicilian Rossolimo?? With b3??? This is the World Championships for heaven's sake!!!!"

    This match will be completely forgotten by the end of the summer, much like when Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Khasimdzhanov won the FIDE World Chess Championships in 1999, 2002 and 2004 respectively...
    No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

      Capablanca said chess was played out, but his statement was proven to be premature. Fischer said the same thing, and by then the writing was certainly on the wall. Today, chess IS played out. Not by humans perhaps, but by Houdini and other software programs. It was inevitable that chess would become played out, in essence, once software analyzed chess positions better than humans. And we have passed this threshold.

      Now, we have a situation where players remember and play as much Houdini as possible, and then seek to exchange, simplify and draw once they are out of their Houdini. They do this, of course, in case their oppenent is still in his Houdini, and might catch them in something as a result. Players do not want to risk thinking when they play chess.

      It is time for Fischerandom. Things will only continue to get progressively worse if chess persists with the original starting position. Change tends to come slowly, and so I do not expect this shift to take place immediately. But it must come sooner or later, so why prolong the necessary and inevitable?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

        Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post

        ... Now, we have a situation where players remember and play as much Houdini as possible, and then seek to exchange, simplify and draw once they are out of their Houdini. <b>They do this, of course, in case their opponent is still in his Houdini, and might catch them in something as a result<b>. Players do not want to risk thinking when they play chess. ...
        I think the part in bold is the crux of the problem. I don't think it is a fear of thinking; I think it is understanding that if your opponent has a new move in a sharp position there is a very good chance they have a lot worked out and the possibility of "interesting" moves ultimately being just bad is very high.
        "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

          I like Carlsen's approach. He doesn't play for sharp positions or opening advantage. He plays for positions with a lot of potential, and then outplays his opponent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

            I have written an article assessing the match in the Maths/CS blog I co-manage, titled "Chess Knightmare and Turing's Dream".
            It reaches conclusions markedly similar to Brad Thomson's in this thread. It also updates a little on my "Intrinsic Performance Ratings" work. Mike Magnan chipped in (permission for) the figure of Anand---fittingly in a sombrero :-).
            Last edited by Kenneth Regan; Thursday, 31st May, 2012, 10:11 PM. Reason: Added note on Mike Magnan

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

              Originally posted by Kenneth Regan View Post
              It reaches conclusions markedly similar to Brad Thomson's in this thread.
              This in itself should be a great source of worries for you. :) If people like Capablanca, Lasker and Fischer were proven wrong or at least premature, what about Brad Thomson ?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                Originally posted by Jean Hébert View Post
                This in itself should be a great source of worries for you. :) If people like Capablanca, Lasker and Fischer were proven wrong or at least premature, what about Brad Thomson ?
                You will get no disagreement from me. :)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                  Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                  Capablanca said chess was played out, but his statement was proven to be premature. Fischer said the same thing, and by then the writing was certainly on the wall.
                  does anyone else think it is significant that Capa and Fischer said those things only after they were past their best?
                  Imagine: 10 years from now, comfortably retired, Usain Bolt says "sprinting is finished".

                  Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                  Today, chess IS played out. Not by humans perhaps, but by Houdini and other software programs....once software analyzed chess positions better than humans.
                  I don't understand this.
                  Kids still play tic-tac-toe and checkers, even though both are completely solved. They play for fun. When they have solved tic-tac-toe it's no longer fun and they move on. Ditto chess. I study it because learning is fun and I'm still learning (a lot). When I understand chess so well that those "ah ha!" moments stop coming, I'll stop playing.
                  FWIW, I think I would have lost most of the positions where Anand and Gelfand agreed to draws; and I think that's not because they were uncompetitive, but because they know a lot more about chess than I do.

                  Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                  It is time for Fischerandom.
                  I like Fischerrandom, and would be happy to see and play FR events, but I don't expect FR to make up even 10% of chess events in my lifetime. From my experience, chess players are so extremely conservative/tradition-bound --- [examples politely excised]--- that, IMHO, the zombie apocalypse will come before FR gets popular among the current generation of chess players.

                  Brad, here's one way we can start a long-term fix: maybe we (at C'NM) should start teaching beginners FR chess instead of the traditional type!? All the rules are the same, and we could stop having to correct the "Queen starts on her own square" mistake!

                  General comment on WCC2012: don't panic over one shitty match.
                  The ratio of decisive games in this one was exactly the same as in KK1984 and that match wasn't "The End of Chess". The fact that Anand and Gelfand weren't working as hard OTB as they surely were in months of preparation probably says more about men in their 40s with young children than it says about the future of chess.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                    Jean, Capa and Lasker didn't have computers, nor Fischer in his prime, whereas Brad Thomson does have a computer. :D

                    I made a substantive reply to a perceptive comment in Susan Polgar's version here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                      Originally posted by John Upper View Post
                      General comment on WCC2012: don't panic over one shitty match.
                      The ratio of decisive games in this one was exactly the same as in KK1984 and that match wasn't "The End of Chess". The fact that Anand and Gelfand weren't working as hard OTB as they surely were in months of preparation probably says more about men in their 40s with young children than it says about the future of chess.
                      John, you have put things in perspective with more eloquence than I could hope for. :)

                      Fwiw, even if tactical chess openings are becoming risky to play in important matches due to computer preparation, there is always positional chess, even if it may need to be played in dull or offbeat fashion. Players like Carlsen, Karpov in his best days, or even Morozovich (when playing offbeat openings) will always have their fans.

                      On a personal note, I find plenty of the tactical variations of arguably the king of tactical openings, the Najdorf, to be almost unfathomably deep. Many of the 6.Bg5 variations seem to lead to draws with what is considered by my books to be best play at the moment. For example, some of the old variations of the Poisoned Pawn. However, recently the line with the queens being traded off early (6...e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 Qxd4 etc.) has become fully respectable and may even just equalize. If nothing else, a semi-interesting queenless middlegame lies ahead that seems to me to be less vulnerable to computer preparation (than many 8...Qxb2 lines).
                      Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Friday, 1st June, 2012, 04:22 PM. Reason: Spelling
                      Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
                      Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                        Originally posted by John Upper View Post
                        The ratio of decisive games in this one was exactly the same as in KK1984 and that match wasn't "The End of Chess".
                        Excellent remark!!
                        And 100% mathematically correct :)

                        Adding to this: in 1994, the football (soccer for north americans) World Cup final ended for the first time (and the last until now) in a goal less draw.
                        It happened between two of the most "decorated" nations in this sport: Brazil and Italy.
                        The title was decided on penalty kicks.
                        Football survived.
                        One week from today the European Championship will start. Go Netherlands!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                          Originally posted by John Upper View Post
                          I like Fischerrandom, and would be happy to see and play FR events, but I don't expect FR to make up even 10% of chess events in my lifetime. From my experience, chess players are so extremely conservative/tradition-bound --- [examples politely excised]--- that, IMHO, the zombie apocalypse will come before FR gets popular among the current generation of chess players.
                          Is it about conservativeness or about appreciating the incredible depth and beauty of chess the way it has been for centuries ? Is it to be conservative to appreciate its history and its evolution within a set of almost perfect rules, and to wish for that evolution to continue within those same basic rules ?
                          Why should we give our interest to Fischerandom when other interesting chess variants have been around for much longer without ever coming close to replace the original thing ?
                          There is nothing to fix with chess, but a lot to fix with people around the game, especially those responsible for making tournament and match rules. We would not have that kind of discussion if the champion simply had had draw match advantage like it used to be, or if just one player had a sense of his duties to the game.
                          Steinitz, the first world champion, had it right, when he said :
                          "The game itself is fairly inexhaustible, but the players, of course, are easily exausted."
                          Of course I have also to gree with John over the fact that chess is not threatened by just one bad championship match. It is only a small setback in its ongoing history. But a significant setback over the short term nonetheless about which I cannot be happy about. It could have been prevented.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                            Originally posted by Kenneth Regan View Post
                            Jean, Capa and Lasker didn't have computers, nor Fischer in his prime, whereas Brad Thomson does have a computer. :D
                            Ken,
                            According to recent results, it seems that I am currently in my prime. :)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

                              Originally posted by Emil Smilovici View Post
                              One week from today the European Championship will start. Go Netherlands!


                              Repped.

                              Hup Holland! KNVB!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X