WCC 2012: Assessment

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

As I look back today on the quotes of Kramnik that are given above, I'm wondering about at least a couple of things.

In anyone's database stats for recent years, I imagine White is still scoring better than Black. Should Kramnik be taken seriously about Black easily equalizing in the opening in all (top?) tournaments nowadays (and should we really feel sorry for White in general, so long as interesting balanced positions can arise out of the opening still, perhaps if Black wishes)?

I have read just the opposite, though from an IM, in that she claimed Black openings were under pressure in general these days (circa 2007) in that White was often trying to either to blow Black away or else grind him down in dull positions where he had no winning chances. Has, circa 2012, the time for blowing Black away or else grinding him down (at least not so rarely) really gone by already, at least in top chess, as Kramnik alludes to?

I also have to wonder if a player like Karpov would trust his own judgement about evaluating a significant proportion of quiet positions a lot more than Houdini's. Speaking of players like Karpov, there's still room for [im]perfect technique to count, even in top chess, as Gelfand found out (albeit in the rapid phase of the match).


P.S. I edited my previous post slightly today, for clarification.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

...In principle, yes FIDE could approve chess960 [edit: at least if there's a seperate body that sets itself up to govern it worldwide] as another type of chess they sanction. But is there currently enough demand worldwide [edit: for anyone to want to set up a seperate body governing chess960]?...

Why can't FIDE govern it? If it's going to be under the chess umbrella, FIDE should govern it, barring some technical reason I don't know about.

But regardless of that, you ask about whether there's currently enough demand worldwide. This must mean that for you, there has to be Occupy Wall Street-like demonstrations demanding chess960 before you will finally say, ok, there's enough demand.

Brad Thomson has taken the opposite approach. The lack of growth, the lack of demand, for standard chess, and in particular the absolute dullness of top-level WC chess, is itself a message of demand for something else, and the natural something else that obsoletes opening preparation and brings creativity back to chess is chess960.

Some people are running the race with blinders on and don't even realize it. Kudos to Brad Thomson for taking the blinders off.

...I occasionally think about switching my openings, but I normally stick to the ones I've played for a long time in the end anyway.

Why do you do that? Are you afraid to explore new avenues, to lose some rating points in exchange for playing from unfamiliar positions? Are you driven by the need to succeed, or do you just not like change?

It seems natural that you would be against chess960. If (for whatever reason) you can't even play a new opening occassionally, you sure as heck aren't going to play a whole new opening position. Well, except maybe in a bar where nobody's keeping track.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Why can't FIDE govern it [chess960]? If it's going to be under the chess umbrella, FIDE should govern it, barring some technical reason I don't know about.

I believe in your previous post you wanted FIDE to at the least try having organized chess960 as seperate from organized standard chess FIRST. Hence the smoothest way to go, perhaps, would be as I said for FIDE to regard chess960 like correspondence chess, in that it can, arguably without breaking its precident of sanctioning a seperate correspondence chess world governance body, sanction some seperate chess960 world governance body, should someone create it.

But regardless of that, you ask about whether there's currently enough demand worldwide. This must mean that for you, there has to be Occupy Wall Street-like demonstrations demanding chess960 before you will finally say, ok, there's enough demand.

If I recall correctly, FIDE was created in the first place in order to fulfill the need for having a regulated world chess championship cycle. If someone to wants to create a world chess960 championship cycle then they can put up their own money and create a chess960 world governing body and then call for bids from aspiring tournament/match organizers. I'd wish them luck. :)

Fwiw, Walter Browne tried to set up a speed chess organization some years ago, but it went nowhere. Probably he just didn't have enough people behind him, and/or enough money.

Brad Thomson has taken the opposite approach. The lack of growth, the lack of demand, for standard chess, and in particular the absolute dullness of top-level WC chess, is itself a message of demand for something else, and the natural something else that obsoletes opening preparation and brings creativity back to chess is chess960.

Some people are running the race with blinders on and don't even realize it. Kudos to Brad Thomson for taking the blinders off.

I believe all these 'points' were being debated in this thread, but only you and I seem to carrying on with the debate now. Your quotations of a player like Kramnik may have taken a lot of the air out of the debate, but I'm still wondering how much hyperbole he was given to at the time. Plus he's just one player. Nigel Short, for example, agrees there's a wide margin of a draw in chess, but I think he hasn't given up hope yet the way Kramnik maybe has. Nigel, like Kasparov, came down hard on Anand's play this match.

Fwiw, maybe Kramnik should play a White opening like 1.b4. Not too likely to gain an advantage, but the normally resulting balanced positions are more interesting for both sides than say main line Slavs, Berlins or Petroffs (though the last two can at least be met by a very early d2-d3, if nothing else). Then again, who wants to be snickered at? :)

Why do you do that [not play different openings] ? Are you afraid to explore new avenues, to lose some rating points in exchange for playing from unfamiliar positions? Are you driven by the need to succeed, or do you just not like change?

It seems natural that you would be against chess960. If (for whatever reason) you can't even play a new opening occassionally, you sure as heck aren't going to play a whole new opening position. Well, except maybe in a bar where nobody's keeping track.

I play new variations now and then within the many openings that I've played for years. Every so many years I do in fact decide to take up a new opening, but I try to minimize memory work I must recall in order to survive. Now and then I gamble and play something I really should know more thoroughly, but don't, but then again I'm normally faced with sub-2400 opponents.

As I wrote earlier, I find other games such as Shogi (Japanese chess) interesting if I wish to depart from standard chess. People I know play such other games, and worldwide there are more people who currently play them then chess960. Also, I think chess960 simply isn't different enough from standard chess to interest me anyway, though if standard chess became obsolete then I might feel forced to take it up.

I wonder if one will be able to enter one's chess960 games in a database, in order to study them - even if the opening phase might never be as important to learn from as it is for standard chess. A game like Shogi still has one standard starting position, which is another reason I prefer it at the moment.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

FIDE has incorporated chess960 into its rulebook, though not its rating system. The major chess engines support it, and databases do as well. The key is to put the starting position code into the PGN or game record.

Five years ago an IM said white is either punishing black in the opening or grinding down to a draw? It appears now the champs have figured out how to dodge the punishing lines with black and get the grinding draw more often.

If it turns out the aggressive lines peter into a draw, then the best hope for white may be closed positional chess such as Karpov played. Keep the position unclear and complicated until you can secure an edge.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Nigel, like Kasparov, came down hard on Anand's play this match.

I am in extreme disagreement with Short and Kasparov. What else could Anand do when he reached positions where he was out of his Houdini and had the reasonable fear that Gelfand might still be in his own Houdini? It would be potentially suicidal to play on and get out-Houdinied. Hence fast exchanges, simplifications and early draws, and on the parts of both players. Yes, one could argue that the draws should have been played out, but this is the only plausible criticism given the fact that computers analyse chess better than humans do.

The standard opening position is obsolete. Anand and Gelfand proved it. Fischerandom is necessary.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

I am in extreme disagreement with Short and Kasparov. What else could Anand do when he reached positions where he was out of his Houdini and had the reasonable fear that Gelfand might still be in his own Houdini? It would be potentially suicidal to play on and get out-Houdinied. Hence fast exchanges, simplifications and early draws, and on the parts of both players. Yes, one could argue that the draws should have been played out, but this is the only plausible criticism given the fact that computers analyse chess better than humans do.

The standard opening position is obsolete. Anand and Gelfand proved it. Fischerandom is necessary.

You are disagreeing with Kasparov and Short ? Big deal. These guys know so little about World championships, computers and chess in general...

A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
-Winston Churchill

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

The standard opening position is obsolete. Anand and Gelfand proved it. Fischerandom is necessary.

There is still Tal chess :p (in Moscow, starts tomorrow, today is a BLITZ day.)

[Brad Thomson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Ah, but tomorrow Jean I shall be sober. :)

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

The standard opening position is obsolete. Fischerandom is necessary.

Did you (or anybody else in this thread) ever play a game of fischerandom? Just curious...

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

I've played many on FICS, but far less than 1% do that.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Casually and badly, yes. The game does not change in essence, but you do have to start thinking immediately, instead of playing a dozen or more moves by memory alone. The same principles apply, and as the game moves along the fact that it was started from a non-standard position becomes less recognizable.

I think Kevin Pacey has offered a very reasonable position. It may be too soon to suggest changing immediately, it is certainly suspect to suggest that the change will never be needed, and the question therefore may be as to when the inevitable should take effect. The chess world will decide.

Chess has always been a game where over time more and more was done in homework, pre-game analysis and memory, and less and less over the board. But at least humans were the ones doing it. This is no longer the case.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

"It is thought that the top grandmasters have everything analysed at home, but nowadays you cannot manage to do this even if you use all the search engines. Chess is still an unexplored game! - Boris Gelfand

[Olivier Tessier]

.................................

[Kerry Liles]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

Gelfand comment is kind of irrelevant.. of course he won't say chess has been played out.. he's one of the top player in the current format.. Fisher said the game was played out after he stopped(ish) playing.. I wouldn't be surprised if one day Kasparov say the game is played out.. he has virtually nothing to gain by keeping the game the way it is..

It's like you'll never hear a goaltender currently in the NHL saying they should increase the size of the net.. however you hear retired one's saying it all the time(ish)..

Almost as often as you hear amateurs bemoan the current state of the game.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: WCC 2012: Assessment

"It is thought that the top grandmasters have everything analysed at home, but nowadays you cannot manage to do this even if you use all the search engines. Chess is still an unexplored game! - Boris Gelfand

Ah, so Gelfand showed up to a match for the world championship of chess without having explored any openings at all, he was thinking from move one, he showed up without having explored in advance how to save king against king and pawn endings by taking the opposition, without having explored how to mate with a rook, and so on...??? No wonder he offered or accepted fast draws. And yet he stayed remarkably close to Anand despite all of this!? My goodness he must be a profoundly lazy, but wonderful natural player. :) Fischerandom would be perfect for someone like this, no? Perfect for someone who has no wish to explore opening theory, no?