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.
Wonderful! Just what I was thinking of. Does the black bishop have a “white” top? Does anyone mind playing with bi-coloured pieces?
I don't particularly like the bi-coloured pieces... I find it distracting (but it would be one minor distraction in a zillion possible distractions for me).
I suppose one could get used to it...
I recall playing in a tournament in NYC in (I think) 1968 - Bill Goichberg was the organizer and likely the TD as well... During one of the early rounds, there was a great kerfuffle at a nearby board and I found out later that one of the players had brought "his" chess set and was severely irritated when he found out he could not use it for his game - it was a CIVIL WAR chess set. I L'dMAO
I don't particularly like the bi-coloured pieces... I find it distracting (but it would be one minor distraction in a zillion possible distractions for me).
You would get to used to them
Can you imagine playing these ones? :D
and imagine that they have sand to makes them more heavier :D:D
I don't particularly like the bi-coloured pieces... I find it distracting (but it would be one minor distraction in a zillion possible distractions for me).
I suppose one could get used to it...
I recall playing in a tournament in NYC in (I think) 1968 - Bill Goichberg was the organizer and likely the TD as well... During one of the early rounds, there was a great kerfuffle at a nearby board and I found out later that one of the players had brought "his" chess set and was severely irritated when he found out he could not use it for his game - it was a CIVIL WAR chess set. I L'dMAO
Some very interesting comments. I agree that it is much better to have "standard" Staunton chess pieces. It is even better when the organizer provides all sets and they are all the same!
I recently played in a tournament and found more difficulty in handling the "3D" aspect of live chess vs. the "2D" chess I have personally been playing and watching over the internet over the last 5 (maybe 10) years or so.
That extra dimension is that difficult enough of a distraction - I can not imagine using the "bi-coloured" pieces to boot.
I would have nO difficulty with Egid's set. In grade school tournaments I occasionally had to play with a non-standard design where the pieces were extremely thin, and the king and queen were virtually identical. The king was maybe a 1/4" taller.
On another occasion I was offered a circular board someone made in shop class. It had 64 "squares" all connected right, but all the lines and diagonals were swooping arcs instead of straight. Looked cool but hard to play.
The variety in chess pieces is amazing. I really don’t know what I would do if I sat down to a tournament game and there were bi-coloured men set up.
This leads to another question: If most of the super-grandmasters are not looking at the board when they are sitting at the table but rather analyzing in their heads – do they actually see pieces in their mind’s eye or a vague representation of them?
Perhaps Hans, with his background in blindfold chess, has an opinion.
The always interesting Christopher Kreuzer in the ECForum (posted Mon. Mar.25):
The interesting thing is that if whoever wins this goes on to defeat Anand in a match (and that is by no means certain), they will be the defending champion and won't be taking part in the next Candidates tournament. It will be Anand instead, at least I think that is how it works (this scenario is based on him losing to the challenger). If that scenario comes to pass, you may have a more exciting candidates tournament in something like 2015 with either Carlsen attempting to win to challenge Aronian, or Aronian attempting to win to challenge Carlsen. Either way, it is possible that the World Championship match after the next one may be Carlsen against Aronian. Some other possibilities would be Aronian against Kramnik, or Carlsen against Kramnik, or even, as you say, Caruana in the mix somewhere (and some of the others from the world's top players). I'm not sure Anand would be able to come through a candidates tournament any more, but he has a good chance of defending his title in matchplay for a few more cycles yet.
If Carlsen does manage to win this and defeat Anand in a match (this is all getting rather ahead of ourselves with five rounds still to go), and turns out to be better at matchplay than people are giving him credit for, then you have the prospect that this may be the first and last Candidates tournament he ever plays in! Which would be a pity in a way. But as I said, there are still five rounds to go and only a single point separating the top three. Lots to play for here.
+++++++++
Also from the ECForum
- It's been noted that this is a "winner takes all" event. I suppose there are monetary prizes for the runners-up, but I don't know how much of a motivation this is. With the perhaps increasing importance of style of play and post-mortem commentary, there's another incentive to establish a reputation by playing to the end of winning chances.
- I think stamina will be key in the closing rounds. It has been tiring watching them play. Imagine what it must be like to play games like this nearly every day for 18 days. They have experience of this from other tournaments, but this must still be very draining for them mentally and physically.
- Being a spectator at any level of event can be hard work. You end up with the equivalent of playing a simul if you try to work out the best move on every board. Non-playing match captain is one of the most taxing.
- Yeah, and add to that, battling to and from the venue across Waterloo Bridge in the teeth of a Siberian wind howling down the Thames! No, seriously, some might think you are joking here, but you are right. Trying to follow several games at once can be mentally tiring. However, unlike the players, the spectators are legitimately allowed to doze off! No comment on non-playing match captains, I've only ever usually been a playing captain.
+++++++++++
John McKenna: Thanks to Adam - one of the arbiters - for the prize structure.. Add on at least a million for the one who gets to play the match with Anand.
++++++++++
Kreuzer: First it is results between those in the tie-break (which can be interesting when it is more than two), then it is total number of wins in the tournament as a whole, then "Sonneborn-Berger System".
Can anyone remind me what Sonneborn-Berger System means here? I presume it is the standard sum of the score of opponents you defeat and half the scores of the opponents you draw with? Presumable some calculation will be possible before the final round. And if you draw both games against someone in a double-round APA, then the SB tiebreak contribution is just the raw score of your opponent? And if you win both, it is double the score, and if you lose both, nothing, and if you win one and draw one, 1.5 times the score, and if you lose one and draw one, it is half the score?
The variety in chess pieces is amazing. I really don’t know what I would do if I sat down to a tournament game and there were bi-coloured men set up.
This leads to another question: If most of the super-grandmasters are not looking at the board when they are sitting at the table but rather analyzing in their heads – do they actually see pieces in their mind’s eye or a vague representation of them?
Perhaps Hans, with his background in blindfold chess, has an opinion.
The popular opinion amongst GM's is a vague representation of pieces, others say they see "nothing" - they just know where everything is (lol) Others say they see a 2 dimensional representation of diagram chess pieces (like computer generated popular programs have). One should not underestimate the power of visualisation. When I was younger I could picture full (exact size) Staunton tournament pieces. Now I can still do that although scattered (here and there - patchwork if you will). Overall answer - it varies from GM to GM.
8th place: 21,000
Last place gets 21000 Euros just for showing up. (although the spot has definitely been earned) Thats a couple years income in most of Eastern Europe and points east. Chess does pay at the top.
The popular opinion amongst GM's is a vague representation of pieces, others say they see "nothing" - they just know where everything is (lol) Others say they see a 2 dimensional representation of diagram chess pieces (like computer generated popular programs have). One should not underestimate the power of visualisation. When I was younger I could picture full (exact size) Staunton tournament pieces. Now I can still do that although scattered (here and there - patchwork if you will). Overall answer - it varies from GM to GM.
I find it's a bit like peripheral vision. I can look at a piece on the imaginary board, and see there's other pieces nearby, but I don't know what they are or exactly what square unless I shift my focus. So it's much easier to analyze while looking at the board because most pieces are where they will be and I only have to imagine the ones that switch. The same goes for the board. If I want to analyze without pieces, it's much easier to have a board in view so I can trace out relations with my eyes.
in which he analyzes Ivanchuk-Kramnik and Carlsen-Svidler from the last round.
He was watching the commentary downstairs, while listening to Bach on Radio Three and occasionally running upstairs to see what the analysis engine on his PC was saying about Ivanchuk-Kramnik.
There is a multi-tasking question here that I won’t ask.
Quite an entertaining blog and you get a run-down on Pachman’s Decisive Games in Chess History thrown in at the first for free.
Tweet
Comment