Just watching the commentary. Susan Polgar is so funckin boring. She s talking all the time and always only about most obvious things. Like what the stalemate is, what s the promotion of a pawn and how many pawns are on the board. She havent analyzed any serious line in half an hour.
Maybe she was doing it for the beginners.
Yeah, the vast majority of players are at a level where they need basic stuff explained. The average player on here is a LOT stronger than the average player. I'm sure those paying her have instructed her on how and what to talk about. They HAVE to make it entertaining for highest % possible.
Watch the match here, very good coverage so far.
It's not only the commentary. I find the games boring, too.
Can't believe Anand allowed the Semi-Slav Marshall Gambit. That line is one of the trickiest in the Semi-Slav.
Carlsen will be back with 3 fold repetition and short draw game. Meanwhile Anand is so scared with Carlsen. Even Anand has a chance, he will not take it. He will opt for a draw just to prolong the match.
Anand is 2-3 down, he certainly will not take any chance to make it 2-4. So it will be a short draw 3 fold repetition game.
Well, I agree with the rest of your post, but it wasn't less than ten days' work, it was more like 15 years' work.
Just watching the commentary. Susan Polgar is so funckin boring. She s talking all the time and always only about most obvious things. Like what the stalemate is, what s the promotion of a pawn and how many pawns are on the board. She havent analyzed any serious line in half an hour.
So much this, I don't get why everybody goes on about how "great" Polgar is. 90% of her time is spent talking about meaningless chess gossip like what the players eat and how many people are watching in India. The other two commentators are hardcore line after line of analysis trying to find wins. I always can't wait for them to come back.
Right. And it's all very well it being "for the beginners", but how many beginners who don't know how the Knight moves are going to be watching six hours of chess? And why trouble oneself to hire grandmasters when the backyard professor could have managed this level of commentating?
Tania Sanchdev is equally bad in that way, and in some other ways, worse with her partiality getting in the way of her commentary (going on about how it's clear Anand is well-prepared and has a plan against 1.c4, while Carlsen on the other hand was "clearly surprised" by the QGD Semi-Slav and not sure what to do).
I really enjoyed Abhijeet Gupta's commentary, though. Best member of the official commentary team by far, in my opinion.
Actually, for being the best in the world--these guys are low paid.
Anand sure has to try and win this next game with white
I do not think it is very easy for Carlsen to force draws for the rest of the match.
Also, that is NOT what he should strive for. Instead he should be trying to win every game with White and also he should try to win in every game where he gets an advantage.
This playing for draws which goes against his style would just mess him up and he would be looking for drawing moves rather than the best moves.
The way to draw is the find the best moves [and you might also win as a bonus]
anand can win next game
Just watching the commentary. Susan Polgar is so funckin boring. She s talking all the time and always only about most obvious things. Like what the stalemate is, what s the promotion of a pawn and how many pawns are on the board. She havent analyzed any serious line in half an hour.
So much this, I don't get why everybody goes on about how "great" Polgar is. 90% of her time is spent talking about meaningless chess gossip like what the players eat and how many people are watching in India. The other two commentators are hardcore line after line of analysis trying to find wins. I always can't wait for them to come back.