10051 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Looking at this game 8 again, was at work when happening live, it does seem an amazingly low quality game. Qf2 doesn't seem that incredible. Earlier Nh5 was very weird move, e6 was standard move. Then Anand's response Bg5 was strange, why not g4? Then Gelfand's Bf6 never seen a top class game, were black wanted this bishop on long diagonal exchanged before, why not f5? So whole series of strange moves.
Compared with top players of past, the present ones seem capable of very bad play when not in their computerised opening preparation.
Have look at old games and you will see many nonsese and useless moves too. BTW Qf2 was undoubtedly supreb move. Twomove if there wasn't engine/ analysis by commentators, would you be able to figure out easily that Qf6 by Gelfand was blunder ? We are watching online alongwith commentary by GMs and we think yeah man I also know better. Just turn off commentary / engine analysis and then figure out mistakes/ blunders ( If possible ).
I still think that the last great world chess championship was Karpov-Kasparov. The later generations -while they are still great players- lack the formidable aura of an invincible champion. The gap between the world champion and strong GMs is too small nowadays. Back then, Karpov and Kasparov were like two chess demigods battling each other out in the sky while the rest of us mortals could only watch in awe on the ground.
This is so true, but the question needed to ask is why? The answer is computers. Back then, chess analysis was mostly done the long and hard way, with only the obsessed like Kasparov and Karpov putting in the long hours to analyse all the branches...add their hard work output to their talent, and the result was the "great divide" why is mentioned back then.
In 2012, all GMs have all the same software and analysis at their finguretips, with far less work need to be done...with games going 20 moves into theory. IMHO, this is why the standard is so close now as opposed to then...a perfect example would be the current WCC. When they stick to chess theory both Anand and Gelfand have played as equals...but once theory is over, Anand clearly shows that he is the stronger chess player.
but once theory is over, Anand clearly shows that he is the stronger chess player.
Exactly, infact in game 8 both of them avoided book moves after few moves of opening and experimented with their own moves and result is there.
didn't Anand himself get mashed in game 7 ?
He did after committing 2 blunders. Gelfand did not had trap for Anand. It was Anand who rook risk. He is human and can mistake sometimes. I hope we can tolerate that.
The trick of trapping queen after capturing something in corner is hardly novel. Of course somebody like me can blunder like this, or worse, but in world championship match would expect something better. Ok though humans can blunder, what was more suprising to me was the bf6 move. Just by positional assement why does black want his best minor peice exchanged?
Agreed at world championship level it could have been better but maybe both had 6 draws in row after performing perfect moves so they might have decided to do something diff and taste poison. Did any of them explained in press conference ? I missed that.
The essence of the human being chrisr2212, is that of non-perfection...unlike the computer. Anand is not a computer...although he sometimes play like one...in fact he makes his share of mistakes like everyone else.
And based on the above is why I don't buy into the "this position is drawn" arguement. The fact is the position is only drawn if perfect chess is followed, and they play like a computer...but none of them are perfect...and none of them plays like a computer for very long, and we see it time and time again. I can't remember who recently admitted that GMs are afraid to continue at a drawn position because they are afraid of loosing...I believe it was Nigel Short.
Don't think Anand lost game 7 due to taking risks, was more the opposite of trying to play too safely. Had a rather prospectless position from opening. Personally think will ditch the a6 line, and play something more active in next game but will see. He lost a rather similar game to Topalov in slav endgame. Don't think Anand has Kramnik's abilty to resist in passive positions, very few players do.
It is not to discredit Anand. Anand is a strong player and he definitely earned the title when he won the championship against Kramnik. It wasn't easy to defeat Kramnik.
All I am saying is that chess is a game played by two people. It takes two geniuses to produce magnificent games. Karpov and Kasparov were already head and shoulder above the rest at that time, and they helped each other to get to a new height. In fact, Kasparov wouldn't be as strong if it weren't for Karpov, and vice versa. It was iron sharpens iron and their rivalry brought them to a whole new level. The fiery and daring play of Kasparov met with the ice-cold and precise play of Karpov. It was an exciting championship to watch. They both became legends and certainly belong to the short-list of the greatest chess champions of all time.
The later champions lack this intense rivalry. They seem content with themselves. They became good, but not great. Take a look at the games played by Anand and Gelfand in this championship. I'd say that in general Anand plays poorly. Gelfand plays better than his usual games, but it was no world champion material. There is nothing truly outstanding so far. As a champion, Anand probably hasn't reached his true potential. (But I am probably not worthy to talk about Anand's potential.)
We can blame the computers. However, both the champion and the rest of the chess community have access to the same resource. Regardless whether there is a computer or not, the later champions probably did not have the same intensity as the earlier generations.
...we only have about 4 hours left until all the speculation about Game #9 is over...and I still can't go to sleep...it's actually 03:17am Wed23 in Toronto.
Computers have affected every field. I just read article stating that many of youngsters don't know how to spell common english words. You know why ? There is autocorrect/grammer option enabled in computer software. So no one bothers to look at grammer. LOL
hankas, I believe that chess strategy has changed over the years. It was previouly all out attack with little or no regard for your defence. And even when positional chess was introduced and one's defence was seen as important, still there were players like Fischer who wanted to win every game. Now I believe, the focus is more on defence...and the feeling among most GMs IMHO is "play not to loose first". There are players like Krannik who's strategy is play for the draw as black, and for the win as white. So, the whole focus on chess now is "playing not too loose", rather than "playing to win"...and this is why there are so many draws. GMs are afraid to loose, and not willing to take many risks.
The fight between Kasparov and Karpov was so great because Kasparov was intent on becoming the WCC. He was willing to take risks both with white and black to prove that he was better than Karpov. Kasparov was not content in just being a challenger...and this is a main diffence between those players and the current batch. I believe Kasparov calls it "the fighting spirit"...not many players have it, most might be content on surviving a WCC, and walking away with the second prize purse.
Of the current batch, maybe only Carlsen is willing to fight for a win...and on many occations will refuse a draw offer to try and get that extra 1/2 point...who else is willing to do that? This is the "fighting spirit" that is lacking in most players.
yes chrisr2212, but remember both Anand and Gelfand are on their way down the performance curve, I honestly believe that we have already seen the best that Anand can produce. Add this to their ages and lack of physical fitness, and we get a lack of stamina and strenght of mind...all which plays an important role in their "projected best performance". It is no wonder that both have cracked under pressure recently...they are showing signs of mental fatigue...and BTW Gelfand looks terrible for his age, he needs to be whipped into shape...he looks more like in his fifties or sixties, making him look about a decade or a score more than what he is.
@jesterville: all attack with little defense were already left behind ages ago. That era ended when Steiniz became the first world champion. This has nothing to do with playing offensive or defensive. In fact, Petrosian's championship games are in my opinion of better quality. Let's compare the recent world championships (from Kramnik all the way to Anand) to the earlier championships: Karpov-Kasparov, Fischer-Spassky, Botvinnik-Petrosian, Botvinnik-Tal, Botvinnik-Smyslov, Botvinnik-Euwe, Alekhine-Capablanca, Capablanca-Lasker, Steinitz-Andersson. How do you think the recent championships would stack up against their predecessors? You be the judge.
hankas, all the recent WCC have shown that the advent of strong computers have balanced the playing field, and negated deadly opening preparation. Thus, defence has the stronger hand now...because the computer shows us how to reply to all possible prepared attacks. The biggest problem for GMs now is to remember their lines...they don't have to develop any new thinking.
The focus on defence is having a big impact on the game IMHO...so much so that we hardly see any "fighting spirit" anymore...and a large amount of early draws have shown up. The worst I have witnessed I believe was about 1 years ago in a super-tournament when an 11 move draw was agreed to...even in this WCC, a lot of these draws are in the early 20 moves.
Computers are good for training, but bad for tournaments. As a matter of fact, chess was invented by humans for the purpose of their entertainment, not for computers.
Always Winner: You are right Anand gets total respect from me. Anyone who is in top 5 All-Time...out of thousands of GMs over more than one hundred years is trully a special player.
Always Winner: "Compared with top players of past, the present ones seem capable of very bad play when not in their computerised opening preparation. "
You have a very interesting point. What if Pillsbury, or Charousek had use of computer? Very intersting. Maybe guys in late 1800's early 1900's still would be champs? Interesting? Still I think Kasparov wins lol.
12/6/2013 - Mate in 8
by EdwardHeartsU a few minutes ago
can I be an IM before i die?
by brankz 8 minutes ago
In the spirit of Tal. My best game so far!
by manspider29 11 minutes ago
How to Improve??
by NM-Dale 12 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by dragonair234 18 minutes ago
Carlsen is mediocre - my analyses
by manfredmann 22 minutes ago
Pawn Promotion Bug
by CRShelton 22 minutes ago
Chess rating system
by Mr_Blackmar 23 minutes ago
by NM-Dale 24 minutes ago
Idea about the difference of Fide rating and chess.com rating for a player
by bresando 28 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!