just look at Tal's or Morozevich's games to see examples of fighting chess.
Boring World Championship
Sort:
No when I talk of fighting chess I'm not talking about tactics but simply playing the damn game. There were no drawn positions other than the ones they willingly waltzed into.
chesshole wrote:
just look at Tal's or Morozevich's games to see examples of fighting chess.
I'm afraid that's well above my level of understanding. Right now if you showed me a game where one side was playing extremely aggressively and the other was playing extremely defensively, I probably wouldn't be able to tell which is which. And I'm fine with that, because I don't want to spend that much time studying chess, and also because I feel like at my level chess is actually more fun because the players make blunders, and unsound sacrifices and threats often end up working.
Nov 10, 2013
0
#25
So far the draws are exciting. They are testing the waters. Both holds respect for each other. Some level of fear also there. And a weakness in some sphere,they are searching for!, may lead to eventual winner.
Nov 10, 2013
0
#26
Mersaphe wrote:
Somebodysson wrote:
Massimo, you want 'em to make bad moves so the game is more exciting? You want 'em to make a bad move so the game goes longer? They have an aversion to making bad moves. They're responding to what's on the board.
this is getting ridiculous, all this bad mouthing these pros cuz they won't make a bad move.
If I had a dentist I wouldn't want him to make a bad move to make the dental surgery more exciting. If there was a nuclear reactor next to my house I would want to make sure the manager of the reactor had a strong aversion to excitement, and that no matter how anyone tried could not be persuaded to make a bad move in running the reactor.
I remember in the 1970s when Canada and The USSR played a series of hockey matches. The Soviets had supreme control over the puck. The Canadians couldn't get close to it; there was lots of passing back and forth between the Soviet players; they just wouldn't make a bad move.
Some people said it was boring, that the Soviets were killing the game. Others learned from it. learned the principles that the Soviets brought to the game.
It was thrilling to watch the mastery they had over the puck.
The way you described the Soviets mastery over hockey and how they kept possession of the puck reminded me of the Spanish football/soccer team and how they too have been criticized for being 'boring' with the style of frequent passing and maintaining control of the ball.
I remember a college basketball game that ended 18-16. I didn't like watching my school lose, but I appreciated the other team's ball control. I recall that the NCAA shortened the duration of the shot clock.
macer75 wrote:
TitanCG wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Personally, I can't tell the difference between a game that's generally considered "boring," and one that's generally considered "fighting." And I really don't care. All I care about is the result, because that's all that counts. If Magnus/Anand wins the next 6 games and plays brilliantly in all of them, then he becomes World Champion. If they draw all 12 games and the one of them wins on tiebreaks, then he becomes World Champion. Same thing.
Boring - I don't have a forced win at move 15 so I'll draw
Fighting - I don't have a forced win at move 15 but I'll play on in this even position.
For me the latter is often much more boring than the former. At least the former is quick and concise. Then again, as I said, I don't care if the games are boring or entertaining. I just care about the result.
So that means you can cut right to the chase and gets the results of this whole thing.
......? So what is up with the comments here?
Here is an article that sums up my thoughts in a nutshell. What's interesting and kinda sad is that this guy doesn't even play chess and sees the obvious problems.
At least chess will never be as dull as futbol (a.k.a. soccer) -- *YAWN* And chess players have some dignity. You'll never see Anand knock over a rook and Carlsen hurl himself to the floor clutching a shin and screaming.
Ziryab wrote:
My views, in part:
I do not share with the majority of chess enthusiasts their antipathy to short draws. I agree with Boris Gelfand that commentators have the responsibility to explain why the players chose not to play it out. World Championship contestants are not afraid of a fight. Rather, they know that winning a match requires finding the appropriate moment to land a blow that will have some effect. Before that moment, the players must probe one another's preparation.
World Championship matches are characterized by deep exploration of a small repertoire of openings. Small truths often are revealed. Most possibilities never appear on the chessboard. Moves that are not played are central to the story. As the players seek victory by finding the correct moves, commentators explain to the rest of us why the roads not taken are less sound.
In the first game, Anand's ninth move had been played only a few times prior, and never by top players. White won the previous encounters due to unsound moves by Black. Anand's move was correct for the position, and it turns out that Black has a slight edge. The game soon ended in a draw.
I agree. If people want more "exciting" chess, then they should seek to become the next world champion themselves by playing more ambitiously than either Anand or Carlsen.
Which is to say everyone who's complaining needs to realize that it's not their own chess-playing careers on the line, but Anand and Carlsen's. Isn't it funny how when you don't have to suffer any consequences, it becomes really easy to say what other people should do?
The world chess championship match should be atleast 18 or 24 match Having only 12 match game makes players catious. They are hesitant to try riskier ideas as one defeat is costly. Unlike in 24 match games, you know you have more games for possible comeback.
Nov 10, 2013
0
#32
macer75 wrote:
Second, just as bticker pointed out, both draws were draws by repitition. There's no way to prevent that with rules. Unless you got rid of the threefold repitition rule, in which case, instead of repeating the same position 3 times, they would have to repeat it 25 times in order to draw by 50-move rule.
lol.
TitanCG wrote:
Here is an article that sums up my thoughts in a nutshell. What's interesting and kinda sad is that this guy doesn't even play chess and sees the obvious problems.
http://www.businessinsider.com/anand-carlson-world-chess-championship-off-to-a-disastrous-start-2013-11
I believe the article reached my same conclusion: chess is dead!
Here the author, who is not a chess player:
"They have several games yet to go where they can produce some fireworks. But if these first two games are indicative of future play, then this match won't do anything for the world of chess. Instead it will do the opposite of promoting the game. It will be a reminder that at the highest levels, chess is a bore that you don't need to pay attention to."
Terrible: "you don't need to pay attention to."
Nov 10, 2013
0
#34
As I had said earlier in other threads similar to this one here: If you complain how short or boring the draw games is, is obvious that you do not understand chess.
Somebodysson wrote:
If I had a dentist I wouldn't want him to make a bad move to make the dental surgery more exciting. If there was a nuclear reactor next to my house I would want to make sure the manager of the reactor had a strong aversion to excitement, and that no matter how anyone tried could not be persuaded to make a bad move in running the reactor.
If I'm watching Forumla 1 its pretty damn entertaining when they make a mistake.
Have to ask how long does it take you to make the money 2nd place will win here?
kco wrote:
As I had said earlier in other threads similar to this one here: If you complain how short or boring the draw games is, is obvious that you do not understand chess.
And I have said on other threads- they are not playing draws. They are colliding together at the highest level of play. Just watch the press conference and see what I mean. Anand says, "I studied the position and went through the very sharp variations. I could feel it going outside my prep so decide to shut the game down."
They are not playing chess, they are just using their memorized lines. And when they are forced to actually start playing they back down and just accept a draw. FIDE and world chess is a joke if they do nothing about it.
And for those who think that fireworks might start just watch Carlsen at the conference. He sits back and has no intention of saying anything. Is that the look of a man who will play to win??
Savage wrote:
iamdeafzed wrote:
If people want more "exciting" chess, then they should seek to become the next world champion themselves by playing more ambitiously than either Anand or Carlsen.
Which is to say everyone who's complaining needs to realize that it's not their own chess-playing careers on the line, but Anand and Carlsen's. Isn't it funny how when you don't have to suffer any consequences, it becomes really easy to say what other people should do?
Sorry, but plenty of previous WC matches featured players who were willing to fight for the title. Anand and Carlsen are fair game.
And you completely missed the point. Which is that it's easy for anyone not playing for the title of World Chess Champion to say what other people should do because it's not their own proverbial skins (i.e. chess-playing career) that are on the line. You want more exciting chess? Go play for the title of World Chess Champion yourself. Then the consequences for playing more "exciting" chess can be on your shoulders instead of either Anand or Carlsen's.
This ..... Express how we all feel about the first 2 games.
Tal1949 wrote:
kco wrote:
As I had said earlier in other threads similar to this one here: If you complain how short or boring the draw games is, is obvious that you do not understand chess.
And I have said on other threads- they are not playing draws. They are colliding together at the highest level of play. Just watch the press conference and see what I mean. Anand says, "I studied the position and went through the very sharp variations. I could feel it going outside my prep so decide to shut the game down."
They are not playing chess, they are just using their memorized lines. And when they are forced to actually start playing they back down and just accept a draw. FIDE and world chess is a joke if they do nothing about it.
And for those who think that fireworks might start just watch Carlsen at the conference. He sits back and has no intention of saying anything. Is that the look of a man who will play to win??
lol... wtf?
Personally, I can't tell the difference between a game that's generally considered "boring," and one that's generally considered "fighting." And I really don't care. All I care about is the result, because that's all that counts. If Magnus/Anand wins the next 6 games and plays brilliantly in all of them, then he becomes World Champion. If they draw all 12 games and the one of them wins on tiebreaks, then he becomes World Champion. Same thing.
if u can't tell the difference then you need to learn more about chess.
Assuming that I want to know how to tell the difference, which I don't.