Anyone who considers the games from this tournament boring should give up chess immediately and forever. Both you and chess will be better off for it.
No this tournament was fantastic; attacking chess, nerves, time issues. But it was unexpectedly such a great tournament, due to more passivity and safer play earlier this year and most of last year. Chucky should be invited to every tournament though, you can say alot about him(several commentators and pro players have), but he does really make things interesting.
I thought it was a great tournament, I really enjoyed it. Yes there were some mistakes, but there was a lot of great chess as well, and the mistakes add to the excitement and competitive value. The outcome went right to the wire as well, and (as much as it's possible to be excited about chess!), the finale was very exciting.
So, Anand-Carlsen, what are your predictions? Carlsen is higher rated and the favourite on paper. He's also very difficult to prepare for due to his style and relative disregard of opening theory. Anand however has been there and done it, knows how to win these matches, and is probably less likely to self-destruct than his younger opponent. So...?
Us "fanboys" realize that computers will only help players up to a point because while computers processing power increases, HUMAN processing power is NOT increasing. Look at my post re Anderssen's Immortal Game, Marshall vs. Levitsky, and Rubinstein vs. Rotlewi. The number of truly astonishing middlegame tactical combinations is noteworthy. Anand still has to face Carlsen over the board ... however much he practices his openings with Rybka or ... whatever.
I saw your post and it changes nothing. Estragon has put it more eloquently than I will attempt to. Instead of further ranting, I will just +1 his post.
Your friend Estragon is the kind of master that gives chessplayers the horrid reputation as interpersonal and social dweebs that they've earned ... especially AMERICAN ones. I did find the Candidates Tournament interesting but not memorably so. Because I did not find it absolutely scintillating, Grossmeister Estragon thinks chess would be better off if people like me gave it up now and forever?
I've played over thousands and thousands of games from innumerable books like Fischer's 60 best games, Tartakower's 500 games book, the volumes of the K-K matches, and a huge assortment of tourney games on chessbase. I do not claim that this tournament was DULL but, having played over ALL of its games, I find lots of material equality, few very odd material imbalances or open boards totally on fire.
Even at Grossmeister Estragon's level, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be some who don't think the chess was that stellar given that these guys are the 8 best in the world. It was impressive that two of Carlsen's four wins came from very, very slight endgame edges but what they showed in tenacity they certainly lacked in excitement. So some exhausted GMs made 7th hour endgame errors. Sorry Grossmeister Estragon, I don't find that to be the sine qua non of excitement.
Why don't you start a military junta, Grossmeister Estragon. Your kind of ad hominems fit in in those kind of environments.
It's funny, because we just saw it a couple months ago...
Stop glorifying the past. There are still spectacular games being played.
I suppose some gents of a certain era just struggle to let go
No matter what is said, your going to blah blah blah your own thing anyway.
Some people can accept change and move with the times, others can't. If you don't see the evolution of training equipment as a benefit to today's players, there isn't much any of us can say.
It obviously is, but if you point blank refuse to take that on board, then what can be done.
Ahh bad loss agains Kramnik and dropped to 3rd place and then finished 4th :S
I loved the Carlsen Svidler game. I was so surprised how it turned out. All of a sudden the board was on fire with a lot of tactics a beginner like me loves :)
I mean, Kasparov lost to Deep Blue in 1997. If computers in those days could beat one of the greatest players of all time, what can they do 16 years down the line. The sheer processing power of machines is vastly superior than it was then. People like Anand spend hours studying their opening prep with the best chess engines man has ever made. His opening prep is almost flawless as a result.
You're so obsessed with the idea computers are stronger than any human that you ignore many things connected with computers.
This Kasparov-Deep Blue match raised more questions than it had answered. IBM suddenly stopped their (chess) project. The recordings of Deep Blue - as requested by Kasparov - had never been published! Why not? If IBM had nothing to hide they could have easily published those recordings (lines calculated by Deep Blue and it's evaluations)!
The other (unanswered) questions went to Kasparov. Why has he changed his usual opening repertoire for this match only? After having won the first game why didn't Kasparov simply played strategical openings with lesser chances for tactics (which surely favours the computer)? Did Kasparov really want to "destroy" Deep Blue? (Probably we'll never kow ...)
Yes, tactically programs/engines were superior to human chess players. That's why GM use them to control their tactical abilities. About 12 years ago I asked a GM why he didn't use an engine for this position (he just analyzed with us - a group of chess players). He replied this position is rather strategic - here no enging can help. These engines did not progress since the beginning of chess programs. (Maybe this was a little rude - but strategical programs/engine really made little progress even with growing faster process power you mentioned!)
We already had those matches man + machine vs man + machine (e.g. Anand + fritz/crafty vs Karpov + fritz/junior and some other more - the problem there was that Anand knew much better when and where to trust the engines ...)! Why not having a match like World Champion + database/TPE vs Houdini? Could be very much fun for the World Champion!
Firstly, they are superior to humans in most ways. That's why even Super GMs use them for analysis. You keep talking about a GM with a database beating these engines, that is quite possibly true. However, the argument is about players from the past being stronger than players now. The Super GMs now have these engines for prep and practice. Fischer didn't. So the claim seems to be that a GM with a database could beat Houdini, but a Super GM with Houdini for prep couldn't beat Fischer. There is just no logic there.
Secondly, 12 years is a lifetime in computer processing power. Any engine from now would crush any engine from 2001 so the comparison doesn't work.
Lastly, IBM wouldn't publish the logs at the time but they have since been published in full online.
There's a 2 hr 45min documentary on the whole event. It explains all of this. You should maybe watch it before making claims.