12432 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
#144 - Aplause! Thanks, now I hope everyone will read it.
I was pointing out that there was a qualitative difference between the two declinations. The first was during a tense middle game with chances for both sides, while the second was during a theoretically drawn endgame.
The difference in competitive merit between these two declinations is my opinion, which you seem to disagree with, and that is fine. But to say that my opinion is not valid because Carlsen is a GM and I am not, I do not accept.
I think some people over here would love Carlsen to play a lone K vs K position for 50 moves and call it "fighting for a win" spirit, rather than watching the actual content the game has to offer in a short but tense game.
The best players in the world know when a position is dead, and Carlsen knew it too. He has been known in the past to play until bare kings, and this was just about the same. If he had really wanted to "fight on", he would not have allowed the pawn exchanges.
Carlsen agreed to the draw by exchanging off all the pawns as quickly as possible. He should have done it by... agreeing to the draw.
Perhaps he reads the threads and realises people need insufficient material to understand it as a draw.
why do you say insufficient material, Carlsen could have played on for a win instead of being such a pacifist.
Wow! Mate in eight! Who knew? That should be tomorrow's problem of the day.
Nalimov knew. Plugged it in and it works out just as shown.
Then he should have played
Hmm. Bishops of opposite colors are "fighting' endgames. But, soo sorry t'be sarcastic, without any pawns it's clearly drawn. Everyone should know that. Dunno. If your engine is truly ahead of it's time...but it's an farce, hate to break it to you, to think anyone could conceivably play for an win, much less mate.
8/23/2016 - Revelation
by NauseatingBathtub 3 minutes ago
Should I report someone who swore at me at my language?
by jartaman 5 minutes ago
Is the traitor unstoppable, or do you have magic?
by n9531l 15 minutes ago
Can someone recommend me a good Youtube Chess Channel? thanks
by KaosKid 28 minutes ago
Good Old Bobby !
by AlCzervik 33 minutes ago
What do you say when people ask how good at chess you are ?
by AussieRookie 35 minutes ago
by wanmokewan 36 minutes ago
Does most of the world really love the stalemate factor?
by AussieRookie 47 minutes ago
Beautiful Brazilian Braganca Set Showcases Replacements by Alan Dewey
by sirrichardburton 60 minutes ago
JLP Woodworking chess boards?
by CrimsonKnight7 60 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!