Are Older Chess Players Bitter? Is the Grand Era of Chess over with the Advent of Computers?

@SmyslovFan, I haven't seen that video yet (thanks for the pointer!), but that basic test is really pretty basic. I have no doubt that Karpov could also handle that

Edit: yes, Smyslov too.

Perhaps, but listen to Carlsen’s comments. He destroys the myth that today’s best players don’t study the basics. He has memorized the things that he needs to know, and can work out the rest.

Well, I never noticed that myth. The test seems to be the basic introductory test chapter of that basic endgame tutorial, so I'm kinda surprised that anyone could say anything original about it. Now I'm curious to watch that video. Thanks again for sharing.

Read my previous comment, Carlsen endgame technique is awesome, but how do you explain Nakamura losing an embarrasing B+p endgame vs Nepo, or Hou losing an equal queen endgame vs Giri? A 60s Soviet player wouldn't have lost those games likely.

Things were better in the olden days.  Bobby Fischer was my generation.. I rest my case.

Even Carlsen had his embarrassing endgame blunders. I'm sure Soviet players had their share, too.

That endgame against Nepo is precisely one of the examples I was talking about. Great endgame players such as Alexander Baburin, Susan Polgar, Seirawan and others pilloried Nakamura's decision to push the pawn to the wrong square. But it turned out that he was forced to sooner or later, and was lost anyway. He made a practical choice knowing that it didn't look right. 

I'm still trying to dig up the comments and analysis of that game from these great endgame experts. In that case, at least, Nakamura's decision was no worse than the suggested improvements. 

Yes, today's best players do make endgame blunders. But so did the greats from the past!

Just for the record I have a nice embarrassing endgame blunder for you, which might very well be part of that basic test: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1437592

I don't know for sure, but I would be very confident that with the development of the Nalimov and Lomonosov tablebases + the study of historical games the endgame play of today will be stronger. The top players will look at this stuff and commit to memory the winning themes from certain situations. The older guys were doing things based on their own (sometimes faulty) understanding - no disrespect, they were excellent players with less resources. Additionally, those commenting/commentating on the top tournaments tend to be veteran/former/sub 2700 players so they will do that based again on their own sometimes faulty understanding. Or on what 'the engines' are showing as Maurice might say. 

Anecdotally, Anand said he analyzed with Fischer. They would reach a position which was clearly winning, but Fischer insisted on analyzing it further. He couldn't accept the engine's evaluations.

What year was that, would you happen to know?

Speaking as part of the older crowd - I don't feel bitter at all. I have loved chess for decades, and I still love chess every bit as much. I recognize that the element of time (meaning clock time, not tempo as in move counts) matters more than ever. That is why tactics and endgames are so important. 

If older players are bitter, maybe it is because they got comfortable knowing so much - and now that what is necessary to know has changed, they are frustrated. 

I will say, that there is some romance lost due to the computer. But I don't think it is as bad as some think. There are still positions that humans can evaluate better than computers. And it always amazes me about how much importance and credibility that younger players place on the engine analysis - when they will NEVER think like a computer. so know that you have an edge of 0.39 pawns after 17 moves in some opening line will not likely help them at all after they get to the 18th move - because they never learned really how to think in chess. they have spent too much time with rote memorization of openings, and little time on strategy and endgames. Any more, I spend my time trying to get to endgames. it is amazing how well some of my opponents play until there is not much material left on the board. once you get to the endgame, the level of play becomes (typically) very weak. 

Hence Karpov's wise observation.

Sorry, I think I may have digressed a bit.  

Maybe he was concerned the Russian's hacked his computer. 

Here's a link to the Anand interview in 2011:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/dec/02/vishy-anand-small-talk-interview

That's a great interview!  Thanks for linking it.  

Did you know that Anand lost to Judit Polgar the first time they played?  Ha! 

Anand clearly had a blueberry yoghurt. 

I would take these, being outside, digging in the dirt, and some sun any day over any video game.

if you play at your own level the game of chess is a nice game to pass the time.  it does not matter, then,

that computers, playing at their level, are better or that humans playing at a level much higher than yourself, are unhappy that computers can defeat humans.

it is a game if you are not using chess as a profession or for a template for your ego.

Yes army men!