Got some deep shit from a high level chess player… I think it goes something like this…
“Chess was designed with a draw in mind at the highest level of play, so it is not you that wins, it is your opponent that loses”
tl:dr
Your opponent does not cause you to to lose the game, you defeat yourself… it would not be your opponent that won, you simply lost…
Let it sink in, I didn’t get it at first…
He says something to the effect of making his opponents suffer
Swag, my chances of getting a free chess tutor is high…
Lesson 1= Trade the entire board off if possible to work and learn to play the endgame…
As a beginner, don’t stare at the board and pretend that you know something, because more than likely, you don’t…
I’m actually on a little chinese checkers kick myself lately.
that’s how nadal plays tennis.
im outi
Roberth
A lot of people actually replied
EDIT: Wow, even the chess scene has it’s trolls
Regarding thread “Will chess ever be popular”:
I thought chess was already one of the most popular board games or at least one that alot of people know the rules to…
EDIT: Speaking of which, I haven’t gotten to play Chess in a minute…
I love chess, but live games are my favorite…
I got hooked on live games, and haven’t had the opportunity to play them lately…
Online just isn’t the same to me…
DOUBLE EDIT: People even rage quit on chess websites… it’s their fault that they lost the game, not mine…
You have to make a bad move in order to get taken advantage of…
I guess chess isn’t as popular on SRK. Chess should be the basis in the fighting game community, especially for Street Fighter franchise
Who will be the next world chess champion?
That bitch Anand unless Magnus quits being a little bitch and enters.
Depends on whether Carlsen participates or not. There’s noone even halfway close to his level.
People need to understand that match and tournament play are completely different.
Gelfand was “not even halfway to Anand’s level” when it came to his tournament results before their world championship match. Guess what? It turned out to be irrelevant, and they played the match itself on totally even terms.
Carlsen is the best tournament player alive by a considerable margin, but what will it matter when he is playing against someone over and over, and the champion is perfectly happy to just draw each game?
Honestly, I’m unsure that Carlsen could beat Anand in a long match, even now. The reason I write this is because Carlsen has the worst opening play of any top 10 (maybe even top 20) player in the world. And so much of match play comes down to high-level opening preparation, something that by Carlsen’s own admission, he hates doing.
Meanwhile, it’s something that Anand absolutely thrives upon.
Speaking of which. Look at how far behind in rating the 2nd highest chess player is in the world, never mind everyone else.
Yeah, a whopping 33 points. In other words, you would expect a guy rated 33 points higher than his opponent to score 51%. A different that is less than the natural variance over a match that is 24 games long (classic), let alone 12. (Anand-Gelfand)
Top chessplayers are more closely matched than they have ever been in the past. And there are more incredibly strong players than ever before. The difference between the 5th best player in the world and the 20th is razor-thin.
As recently as the late 90s, Kasparov was ranked 80-100 points higher than his closest rival.
Oh, and he ended up LOSING his world championship title to a guy ranked a good 90 points lower than him on that list…Vladimir Kramnik. Oh, and Kasparov also lost that match without winning a single game.
Thus, the idea that 33 points is some giant advantage is comical, especially since matches are so different than tournaments. And even in tournaments, I have to play to the best of my abilities to beat guys rated 200 points less than me. (My rating is 2029)
Funny, I think he has the ‘best’ opening play by any player by far - in his own way.
Carlsen has created an entirely new way of playing openings that only works for him at that level - happily going into “equal” but unexplored openings with white and just winning by being the superior player… it’s a path that 1800 rated club level players generally take, and Carlsen makes it work at 2800 level.
I’m fairly sure no opening prep ever is going to help, since Carlsen can choose out of literal busloads of openings as he doesn’t mind the theoretical evaluation whatsoever…
I’m confident he is capable of steering the game into unfamiliar waters with black (again, something no amount of opening preparation ultimately helps against), holding to the draw either way in what is theoretically a worse position - and grinding out a win here and there with white.
Carlsen has managed to ridicule Bobby’s claim of “Soon, chess will be nothing but opening prep”, which seemingly became truer and truer with each passing decade.
I just noticed the next Chess WC is in 2013 … … … oh FIDE, way to ruin a title.
Yes, and he sometimes gets into far inferior/borderline losing positions as Black…only to outplay his opponent and draw, and occasionally, even win.
Honestly, I don’t think there is much thought behind it. Carlsen just hates the 5+ hours of opening prep per day that is the bane of a chess professional’s existence. (I don’t blame him, either) He has stated as much in numerous interviews.
Carlsen doesn’t necessarily go into equal but unexplored openings, either. For instance, take this brilliancy over Radjabov from earlier this year;
The game is a dead, boring draw after the opening. Carlsen is one of the few players in HISTORY that could actually manage to beat a player as awesome as Radjabov there. It’s not any kind of “approach” so much as it is “Carlsen is so fucking amazing that he wins IN SPITE of (relatively) horrible opening play”.
From that same tournament, Carlsen practically lost straight from the opening here;
only to be saved by some unbelievable blunders by Morozevich.
The problem isn’t with opening prep. The problem is just the ridiculously high level of play so many different GMs now possess.
Seriously, take a young player who is currently ranked “only” 40th in the world, and doesn’t have particularly good opening preparation, Le Quang Liem. Send him back as recently as the late 70s, and he is at worst the 3rd best active player in the world, behind only Karpov and Korchnoi. And even then, he might beat either of them in a long match.
Credit computer preparation in general (which is awesome for game analysis, endgame study, and tactics, among other areas) for that, not just the study of openings.
I’m not really sure why you disagree with me, seeing that you agree with all my points :looney:
8th move of the Radjabov game, comment by GM Miton:
8. Nc3 Qg6 Probably anyway we will see the endgame which always is more pleasant for white thanks to the worse black structure on the queenside.
That’s pretty much exactly what I was stating.
No amount of opening prep ever will help you if your opponent happily steers the path into = waters with white and =+ waters as black.
Carlsen doesn’t care about any theoretical evaluations and just plays positions which he is confident in his opponent not knowing too well -
I’m fairly sure he wouldn’t have half as good results if he ran through 40 moves of Najdorf theory into endgames every GM has seen a million times over.
Magnus is incredibly proficient at winning dead drawn endgames. This is not something one can specifically prepare for, and as such it won’t change at all in a match setting.
He plays innumerable amounts of openings which are all ‘incorrect’ and it doesn’t matter because he wins/draws either way. Again, that’s not something one can really prepare for.
Who exactly would expect the best player in the world to play the KIA on a ‘regular’ basis? How do you prepare for 20 different variations in each opening, all of which are ‘bad’?
The GMs know why the things are bad in their tourney matches against him. They handle the opening well and get into a proper position - an endgame with drawing tendencies. And then Carlsen wins. That’s not something you can avoid or find a plan against. And as such, again, it’s not something that would change in a WC match.
I do think it’s the ideal “opening path” for him to take. Theoretically better openings are also better explored up until and including the following endgames, making it harder for him to play to his strengths.
I disagree that Carlsen playing worse in the opening is some incredibly deep, reverse psychology ploy. It’s not. It’s just that he chooses to focus his efforts elsewhere.
I noticed that you passed over the Morozevich-Carlsen game above in silence, too. Not surprising, since it’s a clear-cut example of Carlsen losing straight from the opening. No amount of rationalizing and excuse-making would change that.
It’s absolutely nothing like what you were stating. You were making a ludicrous claim that Carlsen playing (relatively) poorly in the opening, including some straight-up lost positions, actually means he is the BEST opening player.
Do I really need to point out why this is stupid?
And for an example of how high-grade opening preparation works, look at Aronian’s (world no. 2) stunning result in winning Wiijk An Zee this year. (A tournament where Carlsen struggled to get anything out of the opening, and suffered for it)
Does any sane individual actually think that if you combined Aronian’s openings with the rest of Carlsen’s game that wouldn’t have an even stronger player than Carlsen currently is?
Yeah, too bad every single GM who has written about the subject believes the exact opposite of this. For instance, GM Yermolinsky (at one point, a top 15 player) wrote in The Road to Chess Improvement that one thing that often dooms once-great players is not doing a sufficient amount of opening preparation, and accepting equal positions as White. (And keep in mind, this was before the whole opening preparation revolution with Rybka)
It’s the ideal opening path for someone that doesn’t like and doesn’t want to do hours of opening preparation a day, per his own admission.
It does not, however, indicate that Carlsen’s openings are the best, your original (ridiculous) assertion.
By the way, spending more time on opening study would not limit any of Carlsen’s amazing gifts. It might, however, keep him from having to rely on a couple of Morozevich blunders to stave off defeat only 20 moves in.
Yo, Chess bros…
How do you develop a stronger endgame… for a weaker player, I can keep up with even 1400-1500s(irl) in the middle game, but everything falls apart after that… how can I fix that?(still hate theory, but I don’t have to learn that quite yet, right?, I don’t play Sicilian on black and against the Sicilian, I play the Smith-Morra gambit everytime)