|
Who will win? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vishy Anand |
|
3 | 2.26% |
| Magnus Carlsen |
|
30 | 22.56% |
| Kirsan Ilyumzhinov |
|
100 | 75.19% |
| Total: | 133 votes | ||
|
BurningStone posted:Isn't white worse there? I'd certainly rather have black's side. Maybe slightly in a practical sense (I think black is easier to play too). But after a couple seconds, my Deep Rybka 4 flatlines at 0.00 if Anand plays b5, which is probably the best continuation that's not the repetition. Both players also seemed to agree that that didn't give black any real advantage either, so I trust them on that.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Yuck. Another tedious draw out of the opening. Anand is simply trying to bore Carlsen into making a rash mistake, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty lame there Vishy, just kicking for the sideline with the Queen swap. e: I am rooting for Anand though. Would be great if he could pull off one more win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
White Paper posted:worst opening game ever. It can only get better. props to Anand though. better, but baby steps. Too few games in the match to play into fast remis. I hope Kasparovs arrival in Chennai today helps Magnus bring out his A-game after the break.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
"You disappoint me, Magnus."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
It's quite possible they both just wanted to do a little probing in their first white game, seeing what the other player would do against their opening choice. On the other hand, I said that in Anand-Gelfand too, so...we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
I found it weird that Magnus chose to play the Caro, maybe it's a sign of things to come.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 e6 8.Ne5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nd7 11.f4 Bb4+ 12.c3 Be7 13.Bd2 Ngf6 14.O-O-O O-O 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Nxe5 17.fxe5 Qd5 18.Qxd5 cxd5 19.h5 b5 20.Rh3 a5 21.Rf1 Rac8 22.Rg3 Kh7 23.Rgf3 Kg8 24.Rg3 Kh7 25.Rgf3 Kg8 1/2-1/2 I figure what we're seeing so far it match strategy from both players, particularly in Anand not pressing his advantages. The earlier in the match he starts to press, the more energy he will have to exert overall, and the more Magnus' youth comes into play. While it's obvious why Magnus isn't pressing in either game so far - he is ever so slightly worse with no real prospects in both games - I'm a little miffed at his opening choice in game 1. I find it strange that, even if unambitious, he would go into an opening that wasn't any good for him at all. Maybe he just wasn't ready for Anand's semi-slav-with-fianchetto setup, but in preparing a KIA/Larsen-type setup that seems doubtful. singe posted:I found it weird that Magnus chose to play the Caro, maybe it's a sign of things to come. Someone once told me that they actually like playing the Caro for a win since it promises unbalanced pawn structures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
I have never watched live chess before; and was shocked at how little attention to detail there was in the telecast itself. The curly cable on the chess clock was driving me absolutely insane; the analogue TVs in the rest room that were out of sync with the cameras; the slightly skewed name plates; the off-center logos; the desk in the background for no reason; the worn out lettering on the side of the chess board; etc. The mountain of little details slightly off add up to the whole presentation feeling incredibly unprofessional. We're not even talking about the set itself. Whoever was responsible for the "set design" for this really needs to be blacklisted. I know that many people say these things don't matter; but if you want to draw people into chess then the impressions left by the incredibly poor staging of an event of this magnitude incredibly cheapens in the experience; and in the end the experience is what will draw people in. Chuu fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
What drove me crazy watching the official channel was you would see Anand make a move, and then have to wait 5 minutes before the commentators stopped talking about Carlsen's GSTAR career and showed you what it was. Seriously thinking about signing up with Playchess to watch King and Yasser's commentary. They're both awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:What drove me crazy watching the official channel was you would see Anand make a move, and then have to wait 5 minutes before the commentators stopped talking about Carlsen's GSTAR career and showed you what it was. The commentators/organizers claim they're doing this to appeal to a broad audience and that if master-level players want deep analysis they can just fire up an engine on their computers at home. I mean, I've seen both Polgar and the official Twitter feed for the match state this, so I guess they're doing exactly what they want to do. To be fair, I haven't actually woken up in time to catch any of either of the first two games, so I can't really speak to the quality of the commentary myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
OrangeKing posted:The commentators/organizers claim they're doing this to appeal to a broad audience and that if master-level players want deep analysis they can just fire up an engine on their computers at home. I mean, I've seen both Polgar and the official Twitter feed for the match state this, so I guess they're doing exactly what they want to do. To be fair, I haven't actually woken up in time to catch any of either of the first two games, so I can't really speak to the quality of the commentary myself. What annoyed me, being, I suppose, one of the broader audience, was that the commentators at times appeared to be so caught up in their discussions to the point of being unaware of what was going on in the actual match. So they would discus some possible move and the implications of it, and then go "oh Carlsen actually made that move 5 minutes ago"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Fornadan posted:What annoyed me, being, I suppose, one of the broader audience, was that the commentators at times appeared to be so caught up in their discussions to the point of being unaware of what was going on in the actual match. So they would discus some possible move and the implications of it, and then go "oh Carlsen actually made that move 5 minutes ago" That is annoying. I'll hopefully get to hear some of it myself tomorrow, assuming the game goes more than 90 minutes or so. I'm willing to wake up early for these games, but only to a point (at least until the last few games, when I'm sure I'll be up at 4 am to make breakfast before they start playing).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Fornadan posted:What annoyed me, being, I suppose, one of the broader audience, was that the commentators at times appeared to be so caught up in their discussions to the point of being unaware of what was going on in the actual match. So they would discus some possible move and the implications of it, and then go "oh Carlsen actually made that move 5 minutes ago" It was actually amusing in Game 1 when Anand had moved Nb6 and they were discussing his next move, either Nc4 or Nd5. They dismissed Nc4 and were developing theories on Nd5 for 10 minutes when you could clearly see on the board he had made Nc4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
I am wondering; what time do these matches actually start? The match time posted is 3:30 Central; but I was watching the official stream as a replay and the match didn't begin for about an hour in. Does the official coverage start at 2:30 and the game starts around 3:30 Central, or did coverage start at 3:30 central and the play actually started about an hour later? I want to watch the game 3 live and there is a pretty big difference between getting up at 3:30 and 4:30.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
I transcribed what was on the official site, and have (unfortunately?) not been up at the right time to see if that's when the games are actually starting. I guess tomorrow I can try and be up early enough to catch some of the game - if it runs long enough - and count backwards to the actual start time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
I know the first game, at least, began at 4:30 EST - I woke up at 6 and caught them shaking hands, and the game was said to have lasted about 90 minutes. Like Hand Knit, I'm going to try and watch some more of the game tomorrow...we'll see if that happens, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
After listening to the official commentators for game one I just switched to watching this guy restream the games. He was way more interesting to listen to along with being a National Master.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
Despite the official commentary I do like watching the actual players at the table. The black bishop for Anand is poorly placed. I think Carlsen will win this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
This does have the look of one of those positions Carlsen is "slightly worse" in and ends up winning, but I'm going to go way out on a limb and say the game ends in a draw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
Vishy is working him over here. Carlsen is getting down on the clock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Vishy is working him over here. Carlsen is getting down on the clock. Yeah, Black is much better now. Maybe not enough to win, but Carlsen has all the work to do to draw. Edit: Never mind, White looks just fine now. OrangeKing fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Just woke up. Pretty bummed that in the time between myself checking my phone and getting to the computer, Anand's advantage disappeared. I suspect we now have the queens come off and we end with an OCB endgame draw. e: OrangeKing posted:Yeah, Black is much better now. Maybe not enough to win, but Carlsen has all the work to do to draw. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Yeah that's going to be it. Vishy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Indeed. Technically speaking, White is probably even better here, though I think most strong club players would be favorites to draw this as Black.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Vishy Hey man, he did this with the black pieces. While all draws, he does appear to have been the better player through the first three games. e:  at both players insistently not offering a draw. e2: spite check! spite check! Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
1.Nf3 d5 2. g3 g6 3. c4 dxc4 4. Qa4+ Nc6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. Nc3 e5 7. Qxc4 Nge7 8. O-O O-O 9. d3 h6 10. Bd2 Nd4 11. Nxd4 exd4 12. Ne4 c6 13. Bb4 Be6 14. Qc1 Bd5 15. a4 b6 16. Bxe7 Qxe7 17. a5 Rab8 18. Re1 Rfc8 19. axb6 axb6 20. Qf4 Rd8 21. h4 Kh7 22. Nd2 Be5 23. Qg4 h5 24. Qh3 Be6 25. Qh1 c5 26. Ne4 Kg7 27. Ng5 b5 28. e3 dxe3 29. Rxe3 Bd4 30. Re2 c4 31. Nxe6+ fxe6 32. Be4 cxd3 33. Rd2 Qb4 34. Rad1 Bxb2 35. Qf3 Bf6 36. Rxd3 Rxd3 37. Rxd3 Rd8 38. Rxd8 Bxd8 39. Bd3 Qd4 40. Bxb5 Qf6 41. Qb7+ Be7 42. Kg2 g5 43. hxg5 Qxg5 44. Bc4 h4 45. Qc7 hxg3 46. Qxg3 e5 47. Kf3 Qxg3+ 48. fxg3 Bc5 49. Ke4 Bd4 50. Kf5 Bf2 51. Kxe5 Bxg3+ 1/2-1/2
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
This press conference is hilarious. To paraphrase: "will one of you please say something interesting and/or controversial about Garry Kasparov? Please?" Edit: "Will you be more active on Twitter?" Anand: "I'd like to be more active on the chessboard!" (Carlsen agreed with that sentiment). Oh look, another Kasparov question! OrangeKing fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Press conference sucked. Also Anand lacked ambition in the actual game. Not even trying to win that one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Press conference sucked. I liked Anand's answers. "What do you think about Garry Kasparov being here?" "It's very nice that he has come to watch." "Do you think he's trying to distract you?" "I haven't seen him. Why would I think that?" "What do you think of Magnus' openings so far?" "I'm flattered that you think I would answer that." He took the whole thing in stride while Magnus just looked vaguely annoyed. (I also think that Anand played very well and, looking at the computer lines for the two moves he 'missed,' (29...Bxb2 and 34...Rf8) I think that neither move is an error by human standards. Rd8 also no longer looks like a mistake, since all lines seem to reduce to OCB draws at that point. Given that he was black, I think he was perfectly ambitious that game.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Yeah, Anand played well. For newer chess viewers, remember not to always take computer evaluations too dogmatically, as they're not playing perfectly yet either (they lose games to each other all the time!) - if they don't see a tactic, they're evaluating the position...well, positionally, and while computers have gotten way better at that in the last few years, both players at the board are still better. For now. That means that if a player makes a mistake that a computer "dislikes" by -0.1, for instance, it's likely that you may want to give the 2800+ player or the World Champion at the board the benefit of the doubt. The bigger the change in the computer evaluation, of course, the more likely it really was a blunder. It will be interesting to see how this match progresses. If you're rooting for Anand, you have to be happy with the positions he's getting. If you're rooting for Carlsen, you have to be happy with the fact that Anand hasn't come close to converting anything to a win yet, and remember that Carlsen often takes equal-to-slightly-worse positions and wins them. Either way, there's still plenty of chess to be played.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
OrangeKing posted:Yeah, Anand played well. For newer chess viewers, remember not to always take computer evaluations too dogmatically, as they're not playing perfectly yet either (they lose games to each other all the time!) - if they don't see a tactic, they're evaluating the position...well, positionally, and while computers have gotten way better at that in the last few years, both players at the board are still better. For now. That means that if a player makes a mistake that a computer "dislikes" by -0.1, for instance, it's likely that you may want to give the 2800+ player or the World Champion at the board the benefit of the doubt. The bigger the change in the computer evaluation, of course, the more likely it really was a blunder. Aren't computers largely accepted as better chess players than humans now? Wasn't that even true like 20 years ago (kasparov losing to deep blue)? or have humans outpaced computers since then 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Fight Club Sandwich posted:Aren't computers largely accepted as better chess players than humans now? Wasn't that even true like 20 years ago (kasparov losing to deep blue)? or have humans outpaced computers since then But even the best humans make minor tactical goofs so computers win out in the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Computers are "better" than humans in that computers can "solve" a board much faster and more effectively, and can look at thousands of historical games and know what's up. They beat humans consistently. But neither Anand nor Carlsen is playing a computer in this match, so it still comes down to their own skill. It is not a "blunder" simply because a computer would not make the same move. It's only a blunder if it is a true gently caress up, not simply because it's not the best of all possible tactical moves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Fight Club Sandwich posted:Aren't computers largely accepted as better chess players than humans now? Wasn't that even true like 20 years ago (kasparov losing to deep blue)? or have humans outpaced computers since then Last time there was a high-level human-computer match it was between Kramnik and a Fritz variant, and Kramnik was better (and ahead in the match) until fatigue took over. H-C matches are kind of out of vogue at this point since, with the development in chess engines, the main question is more to do with how much processing power you put behind the computer. However, what I was getting at when saying that Anand's moves weren't mistakes by 'human standards' is the idea that sometimes variations rest on move orders, choices, and patterns that no human being would see. Or, to the extent that they saw it, would be unable to evaluate the difference between that line and a more 'human' line. This means that when talking about Anand's 29th or 34th move, he cannot be faulted for not playing the computer-optimal move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Elaborating a little on the differences between humans and computers.
Any of these factors can turn a move computers consider subpar into a good or great OTB move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
McNerd posted:(Actually, can you adjust a chess engine to weight draws/wins/losses differently? It seems like an obvious feature but I've never heard of this.) The typical name for this setting is contempt. Higher contempt makes the engine avoid draws, but potentially play less accurately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Press conference sucked. Also Anand lacked ambition in the actual game. Not even trying to win that one? Actually to be fair to Anand he did quite well. He had a plan to advance the b pawn (very early on as well with the move Rb8 when it seemed silly to have given up the a file). He punished Carlsen for bringing out the Queen by forcing it onto h1 where it sat for 10 moves. In the end it was only exact defence by Carlsen that saved him. edit: Also - great reason to watch them play live - there was a point near the end when Magnus was looking at his pieces and put his hand out to make a move, only to jerk it back having seen a trap. You could see the distress from coming so close to loving it all up on his face and he buried his face down on his hands on the table. ee: Although where the gently caress does he keep running off to? Anand just sits there, staring off into space. Magnus jumps up and down constantly, taking off his jacket. Putting it back on. Running out to the back. Coming back in. Making a move and jumping straight up again and running out. V for Vegas fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:Computers are way better than humans tactically, but they're still not as good positionally as the best players. Pretty much this. My point was meant to expand on what Hand Knit was saying (which was different), because people often make two mistakes when watching games with engines: 1) They call every move that isn't the #1 choice of a computer a blunder, which is utterly ridiculous and completely ignores the human factors involved in move selection (what Hand Knit was getting at); 2) There is still some margin of error in a computer's evaluation, so if it doesn't clearly think a move is better -- which likely means it has found a way to win material or force huge positional concessions -- then a top human's judgement is usually better than the computer's when picking between moves that the computer thinks are close in quality. In a book written recently by Larry Kaufman (a grandmaster who has worked plenty with computers over the years), he described the top programs running on powerful systems as basically playing perfect tactics along with the positional knowledge of a borderline grandmaster player. In other places, I've seen people estimate the "positional knowledge" of computers as being around the 2400 level, which is a similar statement. These are all rough estimates, as there's no perfect way to measure that. Basically, computers avoid ever making big mistakes, which is way more valuable than the skill elite humans have in better choosing moves when there are several reasonably equal options. That's why the computers are now better than the best human players - they just aren't better at everything yet. Fight Club Sandwich posted:Aren't computers largely accepted as better chess players than humans now? Wasn't that even true like 20 years ago (kasparov losing to deep blue)? or have humans outpaced computers since then Today, yes. When Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, not so much; Deep Blue definitely pulled a mild upset in that match, which Kasparov lost mainly due to psychological factors that led to a couple very bad decisions. Sometime around 2005-ish the question was probably settled. If a world-class player were to play in a serious match against one of the top computer programs today, the computer would win without question...but I'd guess not by as much as the claimed ratings of these programs would suggest. If they played enough games, the human might even win a game on rare occasion as White - they'll tend to get good positions, and once in a blue moon, they might both achieve and hold onto a winning position. But I wouldn't count on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
The chess.com stream seems like they've got it together, the official fide stream is weak, but a good free alternative to both is http://www.twitch.tv/ChessNetwork Game 4 is definitely more exciting than the previous 3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 11:16
|
|
