One exciting variation is for the world to choose the 3 candidate moves
and the GMs select the one move.
Magnus Carlsen vs the World
Sort:
I would like to see the suggested GM moves anonymous. I would also like to see no real time voting percentages. Some people vote for a GM. Some people just vote for whatever move has the highest number of votes.
Two easy suggestions to make a better game.
Sep 10, 2010
0
#44
beardogjones wrote:
One exciting variation is for the world to choose the 3 candidate moves
and the GMs select the one move.
Assuming, of course, that the world could see the position. Maybe next time they could send the moves by email so we would would know what's going on.
I would have liked it better if the 3 GM's collaborated and came up with one suggestion per move. This 3 way voting had the world tugging the black position in inappropriately different directions.
he crushed the world under a iron fist
I'm a complete newbie to this site and to chess in general, so I hope you can forgive me for asking what's probably no-brainer question?
How did Magnus win, exactly? xD I missed watching it live, but I looked back over their game. I don't understand how Magnus won when there wasn't any checkmate that I could see. Did world give up to Magnus or something?
Anyone, humor the newbie?
Yume_Shii wrote:
I'm a complete newbie to this site and to chess in general, so I hope you can forgive me for asking what's probably no-brainer question?
How did Magnus win, exactly? xD I missed watching it live, but I looked back over their game. I don't understand how Magnus won when there wasn't any checkmate that I could see. Did world give up to Magnus or something?
Anyone, humor the newbie?
He was going to be a lot of material up and in a game at this level is pointless to keep playing as it's considered disrespectful and downright stupid. Common curtosy is to resign where you have no more counterplay and the win in simple enough to achieve even for a C-class player.
On the match itself, yes technical difficulties marred the experience but it wasn't all bad. I liked the short time control which made sure that it was people not software coming up with the moves. It's also a good illustration why in chess a head is better than three. Carrying on with just a plan as opposed to three made all the difference and Magnus was confident enough to go for blood with Nb6. I'm sure he had seen or at least felt he was winning and despite Naka's hopeful remakrs, it was all lost.
People keep blaming early moves, like Polgar's ...e5 or Nakamura's ...Bg4, but I don't think that those lost the game. It was rather a lack of communication and understanding. Should have all GMs added small comments to their suggested moves along with ideas, like Naka did, I'm sure things would have gone a different way. For example, playing the maneuvere Rb4-b3-b4 was a complete waste of time, to put it gently and not call it something else. Had the world continued with Naka's initial plan of Qb8-b7 and pressure on the b-file, Carlsen wouldn't have wiped the board with the 3 GMs so easily.
I'm hopeful these kind of events will be reapeted and they'll include more universal players in the commentary team, like Ivanchuck or Shirov. Naka himself plays 'everything' but no player can follow all the theory. Perhaps including a sound positional player like Ponomariov would have been a good idea. All in all, it was a good first run, but I hope it wasn't the last.
I agree, it would have helped if all three GMs were able to put up their thoughts. Only Nakamura did anything like that...
It would be good to be able to review the game, and also see all three recommeded moves...currently, I am only able to see the actual move played.
jesterville wrote:
It would be good to be able to review the game, and also see all three recommeded moves...currently, I am only able to see the actual move played.
Sorry i couldnt refresh fast enough =(
Nyctalop wrote:
Yume_Shii wrote:
I'm a complete newbie to this site and to chess in general, so I hope you can forgive me for asking what's probably no-brainer question?
How did Magnus win, exactly? xD I missed watching it live, but I looked back over their game. I don't understand how Magnus won when there wasn't any checkmate that I could see. Did world give up to Magnus or something?
Anyone, humor the newbie?
He was going to be a lot of material up and in a game at this level is pointless to keep playing as it's considered disrespectful and downright stupid. Common curtosy is to resign where you have no more counterplay and the win in simple enough to achieve even for a C-class player.
Thank you, Nyctalop! 
sparenone wrote:
It was over in the 3rd move. Not puting up a solid fight for CONTROL OF THE CENTER AND MAINTAINING CONTROL OF THE CENTER.
I facepalmed so hard it could be heard in outer space.
I mean seriously, are you actually claiming the KID is a losing opening for Black? Then again, I'm pretty sure you've just been trolling all along, so I'm not sure if there's any actual point in asking that.
Thanks Shadowknight; I've enjoyed replaying the game with your comments.
Sep 11, 2010
0
#55
I think the strategy for the world should have been to choose the same G.M's moves each time...namely Nakamura. Since he is (in my opinion) the closest in ability to Magnus, the world should have just gone with his moves and made it a Carlsen vs. Nakamura game. This would have given us the best chance to make a draw or win.
immortalgamer wrote:
I think the strategy for the world should have been to choose the same G.M's moves each time...namely Nakamura. Since he is (in my opinion) the closest in ability to Magnus, the world should have just gone with his moves and made it a Carlsen vs. Nakamura game. This would have given us the best chance to make a draw or win.
I dont agree. It wouldn't have been the world vs Magnus at all then.
sparenone wrote:
tyzebug wrote:
sparenone wrote:
It was over in the 3rd move. Not puting up a solid fight for CONTROL OF THE CENTER AND MAINTAINING CONTROL OF THE CENTER.
I facepalmed so hard it could be heard in outer space.
I mean seriously, are you actually claiming the KID is a losing opening for Black? Then again, I'm pretty sure you've just been trolling all along, so I'm not sure if there's any actual point in asking that.
I have a book on how to exploit inferior play it has those same first 4 moves. It is not only in that book but in another book i have. It shown more than 2 times in each book. In those books the game does not get past 40 moves.
Say what you want about me look it up in a book on how to exploit inferior play.
Better yet i can get pure satisfaction from this play like that a couple times against a good player then come back and tell me how you did if you did good i will eat my words even thouth i know i am right. They never took this serious from the beginning. I have been saying this long before the game started. I said it was going to a losing game it will look weird. I said Carlsen would be counting his money all the way to the bank and he did that before the game started. But to my surprise we did gain much from this. I thought we come out empty. So guess the joke is on them.
As i saw people talk about the strategy to approach the match i finally saw that some people are not as simple minded as i thought. They went deep under the layers of the set up of the game. Atos to me clearly was the best at this. He took time to consider each perspective of the game and basically left no stone unturned. I think he should setup the next event.
What the hell are you talking about? Many top GMs play/played the King's Indian Defense (including Bobby Fischer). It's a dynamic opening that gives lots of attacking chances to both sides.
Sep 11, 2010
0
#58
yes it would have been...we would have had a unified strategy...much smarter.
sparenone wrote:
tyzebug wrote:
sparenone wrote:
It was over in the 3rd move. Not puting up a solid fight for CONTROL OF THE CENTER AND MAINTAINING CONTROL OF THE CENTER.
I facepalmed so hard it could be heard in outer space.
I mean seriously, are you actually claiming the KID is a losing opening for Black? Then again, I'm pretty sure you've just been trolling all along, so I'm not sure if there's any actual point in asking that.
I have a book on how to exploit inferior play it has those same first 4 moves. It is not only in that book but in another book i have. It shown more than 2 times in each book. In those books the game does not get past 40 moves.
Say what you want about me look it up in a book on how to exploit inferior play.
Better yet i can get pure satisfaction from this play like that a couple times against a good player then come back and tell me how you did if you did good i will eat my words even thouth i know i am right. They never took this serious from the beginning. I have been saying this long before the game started. I said it was going to a losing game it will look weird. I said Carlsen would be counting his money all the way to the bank and he did that before the game started. But to my surprise we did gain much from this. I thought we come out empty. So guess the joke is on them.
As i saw people talk about the strategy to approach the match i finally saw that some people are not as simple minded as i thought. They went deep under the layers of the set up of the game. Atos to me clearly was the best at this. He took time to consider each perspective of the game and basically left no stone unturned. I think he should setup the next event.
You've made a mistake here. The first 4 moves (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 0-0 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0) comprise the Fianchetto Variation of the King's Indian. This is played by many GM's, and is not recognised as bad for black in my opening database or in anything I've read on the KI. The normal continuation is 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0.
One problem was Nakamura was twittering and the other two were not so
we did not know their thought processes. Maybe the moves should have
come with annotation.