FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
#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.