Boring World Championship
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
What are you talking about? Today's draw was very exciting and Anand was close to winning.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#164
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.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#165
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.
Klein and Krush saw a clear win for Anand, without any computer evaluation, and they said he blew it. Either you're saying your 'human' evaluation is better than Krush and Klein, or you're relying on the computer evaluation. Your post is self-contradictory.
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.
Exactly. Anyone, just check my game with Ziryab. I'm Anand, but Carlsen will manage to draw I guess. 
This 3rd game was not boring at all. I thought Carlsen was going to lose but he pulled out a draw somehow. It was very interesting.
And saying those two players are making umpeen thousands of dollars per hours is not really accurate. They are being paid for years of chess playing and beating other super grandmasters to rise to the top.
Apparently 'match' play at the highest levels is dead. I believe Carlsen wants the World Championship decided by tournament play, where you are more likely to play for a win because while you are drawing someone you're not playing may be winning. At any rate I don't fault the players for using the system as it stands. You really only need 1 win [if you don't lose any] and ofcourse they know that. So...... careful it is.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#169
Somebodysson 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.
Klein and Krush saw a clear win for Anand, without any computer evaluation, and they said he blew it. Either you're saying your 'human' evaluation is better than Krush and Klein, or you're relying on the computer evaluation. Your post is self-contradictory.
I trust Anand's evaluation more than that of Klein and Krush. He didn't think that he blew a win.
I'd love to see the lines they find superior to what the World Champion chose.
So much of shouting hoarse before the game, and total silence after an absorbing long draw? :)
Somebodysson 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.
Klein and Krush saw a clear win for Anand, without any computer evaluation, and they said he blew it. Either you're saying your 'human' evaluation is better than Krush and Klein, or you're relying on the computer evaluation. Your post is self-contradictory.
Dan King put his powerplay video up and at the crucial position at move 29 analysed Bxb2 to be slightly better for Black but with nothing clearly winning. Blacks king is too exposed with the Queens still on the board and can't get actively into the game without giving the chance of a perpetual check (or something worse) for White. Anand said he wasn't winning at any point so I'll take his word for it.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#172
Vease wrote:
Somebodysson 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.
Klein and Krush saw a clear win for Anand, without any computer evaluation, and they said he blew it. Either you're saying your 'human' evaluation is better than Krush and Klein, or you're relying on the computer evaluation. Your post is self-contradictory.
Dan King put his powerplay video up and at the crucial position at move 29 analysed Bxb2 to be slightly better for Black but with nothing clearly winning. Blacks king is too exposed with the Queens still on the board and can't get actively into the game without giving the chance of a perpetual check (or something worse) for White. Anand said he wasn't winning at any point so I'll take his word for it.
Andrew Martin thought it gave Anand chances. His best fantasy variation ends with a queen and pawn ending where Black retains an extra pawn. He did not say anything like "Anand blew it."
I'll watch Danny King's video, now.
@Ziryab
Yes, I watched Andrew Martin's video first and thought it was plausible, but even there he shied away from saying it was definitely winning. King didn't seem to think that Martin's killer move Rf8 was anything special for Black.
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.
+1 The computer evaluation for game 3 rarely got much over .5 for black; hardly 'close to winning.' There are only half a dozen people in the world that can analyze over the board like these two. The more I watch this match and review the last 40 years or so of championship games, the more I realize that Fischer, at least in 1972, had no equal since Morphy, particularly when you consider how much better they were than the competition.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#175
ponz111 wrote:
This 3rd game was not boring at all. I thought Carlsen was going to lose but he pulled out a draw somehow. It was very interesting.
And saying those two players are making umpeen thousands of dollars per hours is not really accurate. They are being paid for years of chess playing and beating other super grandmasters to rise to the top.
actually, now that you put it that way Ponz, Irina said that exact same thing, i.e. that one of Carlsen's specialities is pulling draws out of tough positions.
Nov 12, 2013
0
#176
It does appear that today's game gave us at least two positions (Anand's moves 29 and 33) about which we can enjoy arguing through the next few years. Gotta love these "boring" draws!
So far, no draw by agreement. Two by repetition, one by insufficient material.
What about Carlsen´s e3, that wasn´t on the computer cards either, or was it? Did the job though!
TitanCG wrote:
We're well aware they can do what they want. Just be aware that a lot of people don't want to see it. And the fact that there is applause after 1.e4 is a testament to that. And people can pull the niche card all they want. The fact of the matter is that if the championship of your sport dissuades exploring unknown situations then it won't look good.
Ok, so fans don't want to see "boring" chess. We get it. State your dissatisfaction and then move on to something more constructive. What's the sense in comparing Anand/Carlsen to previous world championship players and then saying Anand/Carlsen is fair game for complaining about (as user Savage has)? What does that accomplish, exactly?
Savage wrote:
@iamdeafzed:
I really couldn't be assed repeating again what I've already clearly said more than once in this thread for the benefit of the comprehensionally challenged. Keep arguing with your imaginary friend if you like, coz I ain't interested.
Fine. Don't explain then why your first reply comparing Anand/Carlsen to previous world championship players would have otherwise been relevant, unless you were merely being demanding about the match. That's your choice. Until then, all I can conclude is that you started with one motivation, and are now trying to change it to make your story sound more convenient.
In any case, you appear to still have some grave misconceptions about privately-owned vs. publicly owned property, and the correspondingly different consequences that accrue as a result. Best of luck trying to disabuse yourself of these notions, as it's obvious that I can't get through to you on 'em.
Until we "meet" again I suppose.
the draw is the heart of the chess.