10541 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!
#144 - Aplause! Thanks, now I hope everyone will read it.
I was pointing out that there was a qualitative difference between the two declinations. The first was during a tense middle game with chances for both sides, while the second was during a theoretically drawn endgame.
The difference in competitive merit between these two declinations is my opinion, which you seem to disagree with, and that is fine. But to say that my opinion is not valid because Carlsen is a GM and I am not, I do not accept.
I think some people over here would love Carlsen to play a lone K vs K position for 50 moves and call it "fighting for a win" spirit, rather than watching the actual content the game has to offer in a short but tense game.
The best players in the world know when a position is dead, and Carlsen knew it too. He has been known in the past to play until bare kings, and this was just about the same. If he had really wanted to "fight on", he would not have allowed the pawn exchanges.
Carlsen agreed to the draw by exchanging off all the pawns as quickly as possible. He should have done it by... agreeing to the draw.
Perhaps he reads the threads and realises people need insufficient material to understand it as a draw.
why do you say insufficient material, Carlsen could have played on for a win instead of being such a pacifist.
Wow! Mate in eight! Who knew? That should be tomorrow's problem of the day.
Nalimov knew. Plugged it in and it works out just as shown.
Then he should have played
Hmm. Bishops of opposite colors are "fighting' endgames. But, soo sorry t'be sarcastic, without any pawns it's clearly drawn. Everyone should know that. Dunno. If your engine is truly ahead of it's time...but it's an farce, hate to break it to you, to think anyone could conceivably play for an win, much less mate.
Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set
by loubalch 6 minutes ago
Chess and Math
by Schackoo 7 minutes ago
by JeanMichelJamJar 9 minutes ago
Why did Fischer condemn 1. d4 ?
by casual_chess_yo 9 minutes ago
How deep should I memorize lines of the Sicilian Dragon?
by BigKingBud 14 minutes ago
Is it cheating to use youtube during games?
by blasterdragon 15 minutes ago
?Why is the Italian good for novice ?
by Fiveofswords 15 minutes ago
A Study of 19th Century Chess
by JamieDelarosa 19 minutes ago
Admin Needs Help
by somenghosh 21 minutes ago
8/2/2015 - Maintaining Focus
by jocls 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!