Chess

[Kepler]

Re: Chess

Nice breakdown:

1: draw
2: Carlsen
3: Anand
4: draw (analysis not up yet)

[FreshFish]

Re: Chess

another draw today. after five games, tied at 2.5 - 2.5

is the idea at this level to draw as black and win as white?

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Chess

another draw today. after five games, tied at 2.5 - 2.5

is the idea at this level to draw as black and win as white?

I think the idea at this level is that they are so evenly matched that draws are just very likely.

[CLS]

Re: Chess

another draw today. after five games, tied at 2.5 - 2.5

is the idea at this level to draw as black and win as white?

That's one way of putting it. Just as a data point, I just reviewed my book about the Fischer-Spassky match and, of the nine games that were not draws, white was 6-3.

Another way of putting it is that you try to get ahead and play for draws. In Fischer-Spassky, 8 of the first 13 games were won (4 draws and one forfeit when Fischer didn't show up). Seven of the last eight games were draws, with the last game a win by Fischer when he had 11.5 points (which meant he only had to draw two of the last four games to win the match).

[Kepler]

Re: Chess

another draw today. after five games, tied at 2.5 - 2.5

is the idea at this level to draw as black and win as white?

There are two schools of thought (because there are two, if not more, schools of thought about everything in chess). The first school says exactly what you said. White has tempo and so has a built in advantage. I think I read somewhere that at the GM level white vice black is worth +/-.1 points.

The second school believes that the player who dictates the opening should play for the win. Depending on openings and variations this gets complicated. The 10,000 foot view is that it is still usually white who makes the decisive "pruning" of the decision tree. For example, white might offer an early gambit loss of material. Even though it's black's decision to accept or decline the gambit, white had still narrowed down the "light cone" of game moves to a fraction of what the game started with.

Here's a hysterically funny King's Gambit Declined with Nigel Short playing a computer in 1977. In those days, the algorithms didn't quite have all the bugs worked out...

IINM there was a really, really wild FIDE title match between Karpov and Korchnoi where black won outright on a ridiculous number of games -- maybe 7 of 10. If it's the one I am thinking of it was also considered the most sloppy sanctioned title tournament ever and neither guy liked to really talk about it after that.

[XYZ]

Re: Chess

Whew...way behind on what I'd like to have been posting in here, but for starters here's the full schedule. Again, can watch here, which is what I've been doing as I like the freewheeling commentary of Peter Svidler. Can also get a live board with Houdini analysis here:

November 07 Opening Ceremony
November 08 Round 1 3PM Moscow time/7AM EST
November 09 Round 2 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 10 Rest Day
November 11 Round 3 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 12 Round 4 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 13 Rest Day
November 14 Round 5 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 15 Round 6 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 16 Rest Day
November 17 Round 7 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 18 Round 8 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 19 Rest Day
November 20 Round 9 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 21 Round 10 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 22 Rest Day
November 23 Round 11 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 24 Rest Day
November 25 Round 12 3PM MOSCOW TIME/7AM EST
November 26 Rest Day
November 27 Tie-break Games
November 28 Awards and Closing



Up until yesterday I had caught all of it, and it's been somewhat surprising so far. Somewhat uncharacteristic of such a young player, Carlsen is known for being incredibly patient and turning things into wars of attrition. This was really evident last year as after four draws to open things up Carlsen just kept grinding and Anand ultimately fell apart. Thanks in large part to that, many thought Anand had little chance to return to the title match this year. In fact, I would have bet on Levon Aronian (odd fact: who sort of looks like the hired mercenary in Angels and Demons) to come through as he had a superb year but Anand surprised most everyone and won his way back. On the heels of what happened last year most of us gave Anand little chance this year, but thus far...we've been wrong.

Very different match from last go-round. Carlsen hasn't had a great year (by his standards) and it's apparent Anand has been better prepared (aside from yesterday perhaps, up until Carlsen played 22. Qxb2 which made it hairy for a bit). Long story short, it's been a very different match from last year. Anand's overall superior prep has prevented Carlsen from gaining the slight positional advantages he needs to draw things out into prolonged, complicated endgames. Simply put, Anand's opening preparations have largely been able to keep Carlsen from getting games into positions where things really work towards what he's best at. On top of that, Anand appears to be fresher from a physical standpoint which is also in stark contrast to last year.

The next two games are going to be the defining games of this match. Carlsen is still the favorite overall and will be white in both, but if he's unable to crack Anand in either things will get very, very interesting. Carlsen has opened with e4 in both games he has been white, and if he does it again I'd like to see Anand play the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian. He played the Sicilian in game four but not the Dragon, which is considered to be very aggressive. Passive play killed Anand last year and it's his more aggressive plays that have paid dividends so far this year. I (along with a lot of others) would like to see him wheel the Dragon out. It would prove very telling for numerous reasons, but I won't mess with those until it actually happens. I do think we'll see the Berlin again in one of the next two games.

Anyway, it's been a very entertaining match so far. Neither has sat back and played for draws and there have been some very sharp placements in nearly every game. Turning into one of the more intriguing title matches of the past ten years or so.

I still bet on Carlsen but if he doesn't make something happen in the next two games it will be time to reconsider. I like Anand, but do hope Carlsen wins because it sets up a hopeful title match with 22yo Fabiano Caruana, who is an absolute freakshow. And a match between the best two players of their generation interests me far more than one taking on a fading star like Anand.

[XYZ]

Re: Chess

As far as chess in general goes:

Was always intrigued by it as a kid but never played much beyond learning a general understanding of the rules. Then, I recall reading about the first Kasparov-Deep Blue match and then watched the second one...somehow. Yesterday I was trying to figure out how and where I watched, but one way or another I did. Liked Kasparov then and love him now for a variety of reasons.

Anyway, sort of got me hooked (born in '79 so wasn't around for the Fischer fireworks but have read plenty about it). Never have taken the game incredibly seriously but it has always fascinated me. Perhaps because I despise black and white outlooks on things -- in most cases, at least -- and if there ever was a game that operated in the world of gray, it's chess. As for my own game...good, but not great. I've never played enough competitively to obtain a legitimate rating and online ratings are junk, but I can safely say it would be somewhere between 1500-2000. Oddly, I prefer tactical situations despite the fact my openings are the best part of my game and I'm hideous at the middle game. Perhaps this is a flaw . I can do diff e and high end calculus backwards in my sleep while blindfolded, I can speak four, soon to be five, languages...but for the love of all things sacred I just can't "see" the rationale behind the nuanced moves (especially with the queen and rooks) to establish a really solid middle game -- no matter how much analysis some GM wants to spit out while the board stares me right in the face. But perhaps that's why the game is so fascinating to me -- no matter how much one knows there's an infinite amount they don't.

As an aside, has anyone ever used the term "awkward Eastern European chess hot" to describe a woman? If not, I just invented it and my vote is for Anastasiya Karlovich

[FreshFish]

Re: Chess

Not particularly apropos of anything specific, when I was learning chess, one of the best exercises was for both sides to play with a limited number of pieces. Say, for example, only pawns and the king. Teaches you how to use pawns to defend other pawns, how to construct an attack using pawns, and surprisingly, how to use the king as an offensive weapon during the endgame (generally you cannot win a pawn v pawn game without using the king to capture an opponent's pawn).

I always had trouble using knights effectively, and using just knights and pawns was a bit befuddling. OTOH, I was pretty good with bishops and rooks, I could see straight lines and angles pretty well.

One of my simplistic strategies was to exchange queens early, all else being equal, as it removes one of my opponent's most powerful weapons while not costing me as much power on a relative basis. I'd also like the knight-for-knight exchange, since I was sub-par in defending against knight attacks.

Haven't played since college though, never had the time nor the inclination to devote the single-minded obsessive hours of practice and study needed to be consistently competitive at even the most basic levels. Playing against a computer is worthless for me since I tend to figure out the algorithm and play to beat the algorithm rather than play the game based on solid fundamentals.

[XYZ]

Carlsen in complete control today and then makes an enormous blunder with 26. Kd2 after which Anand completely missed it and Carlsen is back in control. Had Anand followed with the relatively obvious Nxe5 he would have been in very good position to score a win as black. This could go down ss the turning point of the entire match. Twitter is afire with downright shock that Anand missed his chance.

[XYZ]

...and from there Anand slowly unravels and ultimately resigns. Carlsen now up 3.5-2.5.

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Chess

I can do diff e and high end calculus backwards in my sleep while blindfolded,

Now that wins the redundancy redundant award.

[XYZ]

Re: Chess

Now that wins the redundancy redundant award.

Didn't even mention the part about having my head in the sand , but still might not be as redundant as some of the moves in the current endgame might be. Looked like things were headed for a certain draw today until Anand slipped up on move 31. Anand is up in material but the computers say this is winnable for Carlsen. Could be a very long, intricate endgame. Carlsen way up on time and has spent 10-15 mins on the current move so far. Broadcast just went to a brief break figuring they'll have more to talk about once he decides what to do: http://www.sochi2014.fide.com/live-video

[Kepler]

Re: Chess

Susan Polgar is tweeting commentary on the live broadcast. That's so cool! Also: the position right now is really wild.

[XYZ]

Re: Chess

Finally we see c4. This should spice things up a bit...

Everyone knew one of them had to move a pawn at some point, but no one has any clue what Carlsen might be angling at here. Whatever it is...I'm not seeing it.

Houdini still has Carlsen at +1.2 or so.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Chess

stupid work blocking the live feed