Antrax Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 The latter is definitely true. I don't know if anyone can really know the answer to the former.[edit]Simul-post. Meant as a response to jjbrr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Sorry about the general tone of my previous post, just wanted to say that these discussions are usually going nowhere, in any sport. :) I will say though that if you want to learn to play well, it's much smarter to learn from Morphy games ( 19th century) or Capablanca (30s) or Fischer (60-70s) because the ideas are much easier to follow. Today's chess is much more about concrete moves than grand strategic themes. Of course this also has to do with the quality of opps :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Fischer had the GOAT peak, and Kasparov is obviously the GOAT if you include longevity with dominance over field and give more weight to more modern times. Obv we can't give Carlsen GOAT yet, and it is insanely hard to compare different eras in any game or sport, but what he has done so far is remarkable and I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up as the GOAT. He is like 66 points ahead of 2nd in 2013. That is amazing when the edges have become smaller as knowledge has gotten higher. And he's only 22, he's going to get better. If he ever did something like 100 points ahead of 2nd, that would be the greatest achievement ever to me (even though fischer had been higher ahead of the field, there was more room back then). Of course this is all subjective. Also, Carlsen hasn't distinguished himself at match play, I get the feeling that to chess afficianados tourneys are like pair games and match play is like the bermuda bowl, so he has to crush in a few world championship matches also before he's GOAT. I do wonder how good Carlsen will actually get, if you look at the games from the last tata steel it was a JOKE how much better he was than everyone else lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 OK, do you predict Carlsen will ever outrank the #2 by more than 125 points? Double the amount he currently outranks Kramnik edit: some xpost with jlall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 The guy just wins drawn nothing endgames all day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 OK, do you predict Carlsen will ever outrank the #2 by more than 125 points? Double the amount he currently outranks No, probably not, but how much you are ahead from #2 is not a great measure of greatness since it depends a lot on who is #2 :) It is a nice stat because it eliminates rating inflation but it's not relevant imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiros Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 The Candidates' Tournament is about to get under way, the big discussion center is here: http://www.chessgame...ss.pl?tid=80233 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 My own preference for the title format would be a double round robin tournament, with the top four finishers playing knockout matches. And most importantly, the defending champ should not be exempt; he/she should have to play through just like everyone else. Roger Federer never sat around waiting for Wimbledon to come down to one guy, then play just him for the trophy. This "champion's priviledge" is an ancient policy designed to protect the champion from competition. It should have been discarded decades ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 My own preference for the title format would be a double round robin tournament, with the top four finishers playing knockout matches. And most importantly, the defending champ should not be exempt; he/she should have to play through just like everyone else. Roger Federer never sat around waiting for Wimbledon to come down to one guy, then play just him for the trophy. This "champion's priviledge" is an ancient policy designed to protect the champion from competition. It should have been discarded decades ago.It is good to be the king. I like the idea of someone slugging their way through the fetid masses to become the most worthy challenger of this year and to attempt to unseat the king and ascend to the throne. It is inherently more dramatic and while it may not be the most fair way of determining the best player of the year, it is a way of pitting the best(or perhaps 2nd best should he lose) player of this year against the best player of a previous year. Sure, maybe the current champion might have been better prepared had he played through the tournament, certainly true in tennis where being match tough is very relevant. Or perhaps the challenger will be at a disadvantage having expended so much effort just to get there. No matter, this format determines something fairly, it may not be the something you wanted but what that something is is really arbitrary. In this case, it determines who the champion is rather than who the best player is. They will often be the same but not always and when they are not it is because it is harder to become the champion than it is to be the best player of the year. Making the achievement more worthy and granting you the champions privilege in future years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 My own preference for the title format would be a double round robin tournament, with the top four finishers playing knockout matches. And most importantly, the defending champ should not be exempt; he/she should have to play through just like everyone else. Roger Federer never sat around waiting for Wimbledon to come down to one guy, then play just him for the trophy. This "champion's priviledge" is an ancient policy designed to protect the champion from competition. It should have been discarded decades ago.It is funny that you make the comparison to tennis. In the early days of Wimbledon (prior to 1922), the format was that the challengers would play until there was only one standing, and that challenger would play the previous years' champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 drawdrawdrawdraw Kramnik allowing the Exchange variation (I know that it's called a Semi-Tarrasch after Nxd5 but he did allow 4 cxd5) was surprising to me, I can't remember the last time any top GM defended it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 It is funny that you make the comparison to tennis. In the early days of Wimbledon (prior to 1922), the format was that the challengers would play until there was only one standing, and that challenger would play the previous years' champion.Yes, and they wisely abandoned that format ... 90 years ago. I know, some people like the champ-versus-challenger format, I just don't. It's not only athletics either. Look at bridge - we won't see Monaco seeded into the final of the Spingold, nor the Netherlands into the Bermuda Bowl final. That's just not the right way to compete, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 I'm sad for Kramnik because he had great positions in basically all games except the first two rounds, he could have won any of them. But of course you have to take your chances. Anand vs Aronian or Anand vs Carlsen would both be very good pairings and I would bet on the challenger either way but not by as far as many people would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 sick day, carlsen/kramnik/aronian all get the win... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Wow @ Kramnik's second half. People on the internet are complaining about some USSR conspiracy but I'm not buying it. I am slightly peeved at Ivanchuk playing amazing chess against Carlsen and crap against everyone else (not saying he's doing it on purpose but he just doesn't care enough somehow). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Don't Armenians/people from Azerbaijan hate Russians lol? It's not like Aronian is russian, don't understand the conspiracy talks. Sick day though wow. Edit: Even in the press conferences, the only hint of dislike I've gotten from any two people are Kramnik and Aronian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Sick read on Kramnik pre tourney btw gwnn. About halfway through I was thinkin what a genius I was sayin Aronian >>> Kramnik, this collapse and tilt by Aronian has been pretty amazing. Pretty clear chess players tilt lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broze Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Vladmir "happy with a draw" Kramnik. lol So refreshing to see him gunning from the beginning with the black pieces. Aronian was just outplayed today. Yesterday was a clear case of tilt though with those bizarre pawn pushes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Yesterday was super clear tilt, but the most recent game I feel like the endgame was tilt, he was tryin to do too much when he had an easy draw. Maybe he was just "swinging" due to tournament conditions, but I feel like at that level they can calculate that the ending he played was just lost so it's not exactly like bridge swinging going from a lock draw to lock loss. All this said I'm basically a novice at chess so I could be way off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 btw who is the favorite who is winning? and why do you think they are winning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Carlsen was the pre-tournament favourite because of his rating and the many round-robin tournaments he'd been winning. Kramnik is winning and he is winning because he is the leader (with half a point for two games and probably a better tiebreak). JLOGIC: the conspiracionists are mainly whining about Svidler Radjabov (I don't think Azerbaijan really hates Russia) and Grischuk, but except for Grischuk's strange blunder Kramnik outplayed them all. In fact Kramnik outplayed Carlsen as well and several others in the first half of the tournament but never quite got there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Carlsen was the pre-tournament favourite because of his rating and the many round-robin tournaments he'd been winning. Kramnik is winning and he is winning because he is the leader (with half a point for two games and probably a better tiebreak). JLOGIC: the conspiracionists are mainly whining about Svidler Radjabov (I don't think Azerbaijan really hates Russia) and Grischuk, but except for Grischuk's strang so the fav..the big/huge fv is losing..... so what is the story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 We are just talking about chess, what are you doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 We are just talking about chess, what are you doing? i quote you guys......but you dont seem to know that in any event you dont seem to even understand the question I am not trying to be tricky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Yep, that must be it. And I don't think Aronian was trying to win that position when he played g6 instead of h6, he just probably thought it would come to the same thing (I still don't really see it as a blunder but OK they are 2800 and I 1700). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.