Well game 3 was pretty good fun. It seemed that Carlsen was really on the ropes there for a while being smashed around the face. But he managed to get off the ropes and draw.
Boring World Championship
Sort:
Ziryab wrote:
I wouldn't say that Anand was close to winning. Perhaps he was slightly better.
It's easy to put too much stock in computer evaluations. In an unbalanced strategic position, a computer evaluation of less that a one pawn advantage should be understood as dead equal or unclear, but not a clear advantage. Certainly not "close to winning." Even when Anand had an extra pawn on the board, the engine evaluation was less than a full pawn advantage for Black.
e3 is a Fischer move.
I have seen your posts about e3. It takes me some time to think abt it. I followed the game and commented on live chat that e3 was a blunder.
Then I realize, this is chess supposed to be played. Not some boring moves until Carlsen made e3.
Why didn't Anand win? e3 was the reason. Most of us and Anand himself thought it's only technicality to finish off. But then e3 surprised him with little time to think.
Anand played safe opted for draw. That's reasonable. They have been playing boring chess.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#184
bean_Fischer wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
I wouldn't say that Anand was close to winning. Perhaps he was slightly better.
It's easy to put too much stock in computer evaluations. In an unbalanced strategic position, a computer evaluation of less that a one pawn advantage should be understood as dead equal or unclear, but not a clear advantage. Certainly not "close to winning." Even when Anand had an extra pawn on the board, the engine evaluation was less than a full pawn advantage for Black.
e3 is a Fischer move.
I have seen your posts about e3. It takes me some time to think abt it. I followed the game and commented on live chat that e3 was a blunder.
Then I realize, this is chess supposed to be played. Not some boring moves until Carlsen made e3.
Why didn't Anand win? e3 was the reason. Most of us and Anand himself thought it's only technicality to finish off. But then e3 surprised him with little time to think.
Anand played safe opted for draw. That's reasonable. They have been playing boring chess.
I may have quoted IMPfren's comment concerning e3, but did not add any of my own comments. In my annotations to the game on my Chess Skills blog, I acknowledged IM Pfren's view.
Daniel King's PowerPlay video on YouTube is worth viewing for those who think that Anand missed a win.
Ziryab wrote:
I may have quoted IMPfren's comment concerning e3, but did not add any of my own comments. In my annotations to the game on my Chess Skills blog, I acknowledged IM Pfren's view.
Daniel King's PowerPlay video on YouTube is worth viewing for those who think that Anand missed a win.
Yap, it's pfren's. Thanks for correcting it.
Here's game 3 since it hasn't been posted yet:
Nov 12, 2013
0
#187
Ziryab wrote:
I may have quoted IMPfren's comment concerning e3, but did not add any of my own comments. In my annotations to the game on my Chess Skills blog, I acknowledged IM Pfren's view.
Daniel King's PowerPlay video on YouTube is worth viewing for those who think that Anand missed a win.
thank you. I just found it. Here's the link for those who want to watch it and can't find it on youtube. It's hiding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skl59jivbiw
Nov 12, 2013
0
#188
I started subscribing to King's videos on YouTube during the Tata Steel tournament last January. It makes it easier to find his latest when someone mentions one. Of couse, that requires a YouTube account.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#189
ahhh, that explains it. I was wondering why I couldn't find it until I pulled out the heavy artillery. youtube account coming up.
if it's still a draw until game 6,,,,,,,,,,I think we can say that it's really boring,,,
Six draws at the start wouldn't be something all that unusual, both Anand's title matches against Kasparov and Gelfand started with six draws or more (followed by the eventual loser of the match scoring the first win).
Anybody who finds this WCC boring is welcome not to watch it. simple.
Chess is not a spectator's sport and will never be. One needs to have special skills to understand chess moves and when you don't understand something, good chances are that you won't enjoy it. You can't enjoy it just because you have a chess engine installed in your computer.
I would rather see draws like we had in WCC so far rather than watching two result oriented patzer playing a game full of 'Red' moves.
That was a very complicated game. Do you only care about the result?
Robkin wrote:
to play 4 - 6 hours is highly anachronistic in the 21st century, no whonder that beside other factors (too many draws!) this is a reason why chess is a boring nerd's game and no TV station will ever broadcast;
give Anand and Carlsen 30 min. each and we gonna see fun!
Why not 1 0 chess? Even more fun. We can even play best of 64 in a just over an hour. Deciding the world chess champion in one short TV friendly format. How very now!
Nov 13, 2013
0
#195
r_k_ting wrote:
Robkin wrote:
to play 4 - 6 hours is highly anachronistic in the 21st century, no whonder that beside other factors (too many draws!) this is a reason why chess is a boring nerd's game and no TV station will ever broadcast;
give Anand and Carlsen 30 min. each and we gonna see fun!
Why not 1 0 chess? Even more fun. We can even play best of 64 in a just over an hour. Deciding the world chess champion in one short TV friendly format. How very now!
Your math is interesting. It's almost impossible to play more than 30 1-minute games against an evenly matched opponent in one hour. Do the math and figure it out.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Your math is interesting. It's almost impossible to play more than 30 1-minute games against an evenly matched opponent in one hour. Do the math and figure it out.
Well, I see the fatal flaw now. I guess we'll just have to go back to "normal" chess.
Perhaps anyone who thinks the world chess championship has been boring, is either bored by watching chess, or chess played at the highest level, or perhaps worse yet, doesn't know enough about chess, especially at that level, to appreciate it for what it truly is, and just wants to complain ?
I was making a general statement...
If the 2 participants were playing chess on my level and agreeing to draws after 20 moves, then I could see the point. Some people who complained for more after the first and second games, doesn't understand enough about play at that level to appreciate why the 2 of them chose their moves, yet, still complain...
Whatsthefrequency wrote:
Yes but your general statement is weak and uninformed.
If two people were playing chess at your level, then the game would be pretty exciting, lots of one and two move combinations, fake threats, mad attacks against the castled King that fail, etc.
You deciding my statement was weak based on your opinion of what everyone elses opinion might is assuming...to call "weak" chess play, exiciting for the seasoned player is fool hearty. They would become bored quickly with watching bad moves played most likely. I would. I could only imagine Gary Kasparov's laughter and arrogant spats about my games, if he forced to watch them and comment...
actually more this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship_2013&oldid=581394969
LOL who wrote that? You ?
hehehe, funny