Magnus Carlsen is now the world chess #1 (1 Viewer)

[Dentist]

Kasparov in his prime would've crushed this kid.

there's a prime in chess?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If you're good enough to be around 1100, youre good enough to be around 1700-1800, which is my level. You have to learn openings so that you don't lose in the first 10 moves. Unless you're naturally good at tactics (I'm not) study queen pawn openings- they tend to involve locking up the middle of the board more. And study basic endgame strategy- if you can master that, you'll win many more games than you lose. Lock up the middle, trade pieces off, all the time knowing that you can win in the endgame. That's the ticket, unless you have real talent, which I do not.

IIRC 1700-1800 is pretty good. ETA: yeah... average at Chess.com is around 1350.

If someone wanted to put an FBG group together online somewhere I'd join and play some. Been years for me, but was a wildly inconsistent ~1500 when I played fairly often.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Kasparov in his prime would've crushed this kid.

there's a prime in chess?

Yes, grade school apparently.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Thanks for the advice, Tim - I'll definitely look into openings and endgame scenarios.

 

[Dentist]

Look, i know how to play chess (i enjoyed BattleChess on the SNES) but I've never read a book about it or thought about it at all.

I figured Chess was one of those games that was pretty well "solved" by now and that there were consensus correct moves to make... how are there still better and worse players once you have some basic strategy and moves down?

 

[Steve Tasker]

If you're good enough to be around 1100, youre good enough to be around 1700-1800, which is my level. You have to learn openings so that you don't lose in the first 10 moves. Unless you're naturally good at tactics (I'm not) study queen pawn openings- they tend to involve locking up the middle of the board more. And study basic endgame strategy- if you can master that, you'll win many more games than you lose. Lock up the middle, trade pieces off, all the time knowing that you can win in the endgame. That's the ticket, unless you have real talent, which I do not.

IIRC 1700-1800 is pretty good. ETA: yeah... average at Chess.com is around 1350.

If someone wanted to put an FBG group together online somewhere I'd join and play some. Been years for me, but was a wildly inconsistent ~1500 when I played fairly often.

I wouldn't necessarily take Chess.com ratings as any real equivalent to ELO. OTB chess is wildly different than correspondence. I hovered in the 1700 correspondence range for awhile, but I highly doubt I'd have been anywhere near 1700 OTB. Totally different beast (as I'm sure you understand).

Give me a 3-day time limit to study continuations and I can play competitively with most above-average chess players. 30-min clock? 10-min blitz? No chance.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What is OTB? I forget the time limits in my games but it was my biggest problem...lost a few games I had won when click ran out...maybe 20 mins a side?

 

[Steve Tasker]

Look, i know how to play chess (i enjoyed BattleChess on the SNES) but I've never read a book about it or thought about it at all.

I figured Chess was one of those games that was pretty well "solved" by now and that there were consensus correct moves to make... how are there still better and worse players once you have some basic strategy and moves down?

At the top grandmaster level, most openings are down to a science for the first, say, 10-15 turns (or more, depending on the opening). Top GMs practice for hours and hours every day, exploring every little variation, trying to predict their opponents' moves. It may look like nothing to a schmoe like me or you, but GM games can be won or lost on the move of one piece. It may take another 30 moves to see the result of it, but eventually the blunder will be discovered.

 

[DiStefano]

Look, i know how to play chess (i enjoyed BattleChess on the SNES) but I've never read a book about it or thought about it at all.

I figured Chess was one of those games that was pretty well "solved" by now and that there were consensus correct moves to make... how are there still better and worse players once you have some basic strategy and moves down?

Well, if you open with your King pawn, or your Queen pawn, you have already doubled the number of possible good opening moves. Or could go to the English opening, which adds a third. Depending on your opponent's next move, you are into the range of several good moves; by the next time, you have dozens, and after that just keeps multiplying. Which is why really good players spend hundreds, even thousands of hours studying opening moves so they don't have to spend a long time analyzing in the opening rounds of a match. But once you get into ten or twelve moves down the pike, you are probably playing a unique game that has never been played before.

 

[Steve Tasker]

What is OTB? I forget the time limits in my games but it was my biggest problem...lost a few games I had won when click ran out...maybe 20 mins a side?

Over-the-board. Sorry.

My biggest problem is that I had trouble finding OTB players at my level to grow with, compete against and I don't really care for most online OTB sites like Yahoo and such. I'd played with a local chess club a bunch of times - though not lately - and they were all extremely good players, to where I just got slaughtered repeatedly and wouldn't really learn from my mistakes. One guy was a US National Master (well below GM range, but still, probably 2200-ish rating) and he used to just wipe the floor with me. He had his opening lines down pat (used to always play Caro-Kann as black against 1. e4...I still cringe when I see 1. ... c6) . As soon as I went off-book and ran out of ideas, he would just clean up or I'd end up running out of time.

So I ended up playing a lot of correspondence. We used to have an FBG chess team at Chesshere, but then they started charging money and #### and it all fell apart. I've tried to get back into it but have yet to find a good site. I don't even mind paying a little bit for something good...most sites out there just seem to suck though.

Honestly, I think if someone is an average player and wants to just get better at chess, online correspondence is a better option than OTB.

 

[Man of Zen]

When I was a very young boy, I was a very good chess player. Not like a prodigy or anything, but exceptional for my age. Every once in a while, they would have tournaments in school and despite being a year younger than the rest of my class, I routinely laid waste to everyone. Don't think I lost a match through all of elementary school. By the time I was 7, I was consistently pounding on my father (an M.D.) By the time I was 8, I was crucifying my grandfather as well, who was a lifelong club player.

After that, all the adults I knew stopped playing me to spare themselves the ignominy of being "outsmarted" by a 65-pound kid. None of the other kids in my class would play me anymore because the result was considered a foregone conclusion. As a result, I basically stopped playing chess around age 9 or 10. I never learned theory or openings or anything, I was just playing on raw instinct.

About 6 months ago, just out of curiosity, I logged on to Yahoo! Chess and played a couple of matches - literally the first time I had played in 30 years. I got HOUSED. I mean, absolutely bushwhacked. Guys with 1400 ratings were lighting me up like a Christmas tree. I chalked it up to rust and kept playing. After about 20-30 matches, I had settled in with what seems to be a valid 1185 rating. Pathetic. I can still beat the 1100 type players who barely know what they're doing, but probably lose 60% of my matches against 1200+ players. People I likely would have toyed with as a child. In fact, I'm confident the 9 year old me would beat the 40 year old me 9 out of 10 games.

So, here's the question : is there any hope for me, or should I just delete my log in and never play again? Maybe I wasn't that good back then, maybe all the other kids in my class sucked balls and maybe I just learned my dad's and grandfather's tendencies instinctively and learned how to beat THEM, but would have gotten spanked by a different but equally skilled opponent. I enjoy playing, but I'm a poor loser and the repeated defeats are souring me on the whole thing.

Summation for anyone that didn't want to read all that : I used to be good at chess, now I stink.

First, yes there's hope for you, but you might still consider deleting your log in. Unless you were playing on something like 60 second/game time controls, chances are you were simply facing people letting freeware chess engines with 3000+ ratings make all their moves. I've seen studies where people posited that on chess.com, as many as 75% of the users had engine-match numbers that statistically ruled out any chance they were making moves on their own. Yahoo is supposedly worse. Cheating is the scourge of online chess.

Play people you trust, or play live OTB chess, or just resolve to not worry about your results. It is, after all, entirely possible to play a beautiful, enjoyable, losing game against some schmuck parroting Houdini or Stockfish. Alternatively, pay to play somewhere like ICC, where you'll find fewer cheaters just because people don't want to get banned and lose their paid memberships.

Second, if you want to find hope, find it in this simple maxim: tactics and endgames are all that matters until master level. Every hour you spend on openings before that is a wasted hour. Find any of a trillion decent articles online on general opening principles, and do your best to follow them. If you find that general principles are still causing blunders for you in the first ten moves, bookmark a good online database (365chess.com is a good one), and play through the moves after your games, just to see what GM's do to avoid the blunders that cost you the game. Then, from that point, go back to general principles in the next game. You'll get far better, far faster doing it that way than you will memorizing the first ten moves of the Marshall Gambit or the Colle-Zukertort or whatever.

Beyond that, if you can avoid blunders and know how to grind out an endgame win, there's not a person alive on the planet under 2000 ELO who you won't have a plus score against (engine jockeys aside).

 

[Steve Tasker]

Second, if you want to find hope, find it in this simple maxim: tactics and endgames are all that matters until master level. Every hour you spend on openings before that is a wasted hour. Find any of a trillion decent articles online on general opening principles, and do your best to follow them. If you find that general principles are still causing blunders for you in the first ten moves, bookmark a good online database (365chess.com is a good one), and play through the moves after your games, just to see what GM's do to avoid the blunders that cost you the game. Then, from that point, go back to general principles in the next game. You'll get far better, far faster doing it that way than you will memorizing the first ten moves of the Marshall Gambit or the Colle-Zukertort or whatever.

Agree 100%

 

[SacramentoBob]

Thanks for the advice, Tim - I'll definitely look into openings and endgame scenarios.

Chess at your level is all about tactics. You want to know enough about openings to not make a outright blunder, but I'd focus on tactics and end game. Knowing end game is important because you want to know what you're working towards in the middle game.

 

[SacramentoBob]

. You'll get far better, far faster doing it that way than you will memorizing the first ten moves of the Marshall Gambit or the Colle-Zukertort or whatever.

Everyone should memorize Morphy vs Duke Karl and Count Isouard though.

 

[Kasparov]

Who started this thread without me?!

If you want to improve, go bust yer nut at the Chess Tactics Server

 

[Parmcat]

Just checked my rating....Mine is 368

But I touch a lot of boobs

A LOT

 

[Psychopav]

Who started this thread without me?!

If you want to improve, go bust yer nut at the Chess Tactics Server

I never was trained in chess but enjoy playing,

These problems always have me shuked whenever I try them. What are the "rules" and without any commentary how do I know that their "solution" is right?

 

[Bob Magaw]

i haven't followed chess in a long time, but this thread piqued my interest in the world championship...

reportedly upwards of a billion people might follow it...

is this the most anticipated world championship since fischer/spassky?

have people like carlsen or kasparov ever talked about how many moves they look ahead in calculating their moves?

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for the advice, Tim - I'll definitely look into openings and endgame scenarios.

Chess at your level is all about tactics. You want to know enough about openings to not make a outright blunder, but I'd focus on tactics and end game. Knowing end game is important because you want to know what you're working towards in the middle game.

Agreed. All I meant about studying openings is to study them just enough to avoid falling into early traps- you don't need to do too much beyond that. However, if you're a fan of tactical chess it can be fun to study the Sicilian opening- its a fascinating world all of its own. I

 

[DiStefano]

Thanks for the advice, Tim - I'll definitely look into openings and endgame scenarios.

Chess at your level is all about tactics. You want to know enough about openings to not make a outright blunder, but I'd focus on tactics and end game. Knowing end game is important because you want to know what you're working towards in the middle game.

Agreed. All I meant about studying openings is to study them just enough to avoid falling into early traps- you don't need to do too much beyond that.However, if you're a fan of tactical chess it can be fun to study the Sicilian opening- its a fascinating world all of its own. I

Very pretty, very pretty. But there isn't a Sicilian opening; it's the Sicilian Defense. What you are probably referring to is commonly known as the English Opening. It is the same move, C5, only in this case as an opening move, not a defense to E4.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for the advice, Tim - I'll definitely look into openings and endgame scenarios.

Chess at your level is all about tactics. You want to know enough about openings to not make a outright blunder, but I'd focus on tactics and end game. Knowing end game is important because you want to know what you're working towards in the middle game.

Agreed. All I meant about studying openings is to study them just enough to avoid falling into early traps- you don't need to do too much beyond that.However, if you're a fan of tactical chess it can be fun to study the Sicilian opening- its a fascinating world all of its own. I

Very pretty, very pretty. But there isn't a Sicilian opening; it's the Sicilian Defense. What you are probably referring to is commonly known as the English Opening. It is the same move, C5, only in this case as an opening move, not a defense to E4.

I meant the Sicilian defense, not the English. My mistake.

 

[timschochet]

I tried to play the Sicilian defense for a while, but it was just too sharp for me- my tactical skills will never be good enough. But it was great fun to read about.

 

[17seconds]

Is Magnus Carlsen still #1? Sounds like a guy who can carry a 400lb stone in the shape of Africa 100yds

 

[Man of Zen]

i haven't followed chess in a long time, but this thread piqued my interest in the world championship...

reportedly upwards of a billion people might follow it...

is this the most anticipated world championship since fischer/spassky?

have people like carlsen or kasparov ever talked about how many moves they look ahead in calculating their moves?

There's never any real answer to something like this; it's all dependent on the position. In a closed position where, for example, white is slowly building up an attack while black is intent on maintaining his solidity, a move may do nothing more than suggest a couple positional possibilities, the nature of which aren't even worth looking at in detail until the next few moves play out in absolute safety -- and sometimes there can be any number of those kinds of moves, meaning "looking ahead" would become a mathematical impossibility without a silicon brain. In those positions, even world class players look into the future only a move or two, relying instead on sharply honed positional understanding to be sure they're still going to be fine no matter how the game progresses in the short term.

In a lengthy, forced tactical position, such as a sacrificial combination or direct assault on the king, it's often possible for even a decent amateur to tell what moves the opponent will make ten or more moves down the road. Since if the opponent fails to make them, the continuations are irrelevant, and the game is won.

There are some dazzling calculators among the super GM set, but there are also lots who aren't much better than good amateurs. The difference lies more in the ability to see the potential for creating (or prophylactically avoiding) those kinds of attacking chances that can win material or force positional concessions. And of course, in the ability to convert those advantages into wins.

(Note: the bolded part is also the answer to the question above about "how do we know the puzzle's answer is correct.")

 

[DiStefano]

Is Magnus Carlsen still #1? Sounds like a guy who can carry a 400lb stone in the shape of Africa 100yds

Yes, this guy exists, but Tiger Woods uses him in case he needs to move a boulder. He can't always count on having his entourage.

 

[Hooper31]

Who started this thread without me?!

If you want to improve, go bust yer nut at the Chess Tactics Server

This is the website I use for my students. I've been teaching chess for around 15 years.

 

[Mister CIA]

It's time for me to give up on my dream to become a chess savant. I've got four Jeremy Silman books I'll give away to someone willing to pay the cost of shipping.

1. Complete Book of Chess Strategy
2. The Amateur's Mind
3. How to Reassess Your Chess
4. Reassess Your Chess Workbook

Bonus Throw-in: Larry Evans' Chess Endgame Quiz

All five books are in near-new condition. PMs accepted. David Bronstein fans get highest priority.

 

[Bob Magaw]

SPOILER BELOW

first match ends in a draw... 11 more to go...

format is a game on consecutive days, than day off (18 days?)...

carlsen's seconds were a mystery, haven't checked yet...

anand drew black first, carlsen due to the switch in middle draws black twice, which could be advantage to anand if he is in lead at that point, though carlsen white last game, so he has that in his pocket...

carlsen has likened his game to a crocodile... he waits in the depths until a mistake is made, than pounces on his prey, dragging his opponent into the depths of the end game...

i think complete game video below...

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/world-chess-championship-2013-vishwanathan-anand-magnus-carlsen-chennai/1/322367.html

 

[dparker713]

Dude looks like Meth Damon.

 

[Bob Magaw]

48 minutes into the video, great stuff...

commentator (hot indian GM) noted they have played 29 times in classic format...

VA - 6, MC - 3, 20 draws

but two of carlsen's three wins have come in their last two meetings, which could give him a psychological advantage.

 

[timschochet]

It's time for me to give up on my dream to become a chess savant. I've got four Jeremy Silman books I'll give away to someone willing to pay the cost of shipping.

• Complete Book of Chess Strategy
• The Amateur's Mind
• How to Reassess Your Chess
• Reassess Your Chess Workbook

Bonus Throw-in: Larry Evans' Chess Endgame QuizAll five books are in near-new condition. PMs accepted. David Bronstein fans get highest priority.

Love Silman. I got to meet him a few times. Those books are great. I used to play a couple of the guys featured in Silman's amateur book at the Long Beach chess club. I even handled a lease for one of them.

 

[Bob Magaw]

the commentators were raving about and in awe of carlsen's memory, said it was basically photographic...

he seemed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of historic games and their variations...

maybe this is common at that level, but they weren't saying it about anand?

 

[cstu]

When I was a very young boy, I was a very good chess player. Not like a prodigy or anything, but exceptional for my age. Every once in a while, they would have tournaments in school and despite being a year younger than the rest of my class, I routinely laid waste to everyone. Don't think I lost a match through all of elementary school. By the time I was 7, I was consistently pounding on my father (an M.D.) By the time I was 8, I was crucifying my grandfather as well, who was a lifelong club player.

After that, all the adults I knew stopped playing me to spare themselves the ignominy of being "outsmarted" by a 65-pound kid. None of the other kids in my class would play me anymore because the result was considered a foregone conclusion. As a result, I basically stopped playing chess around age 9 or 10. I never learned theory or openings or anything, I was just playing on raw instinct.

About 6 months ago, just out of curiosity, I logged on to Yahoo! Chess and played a couple of matches - literally the first time I had played in 30 years. I got HOUSED. I mean, absolutely bushwhacked. Guys with 1400 ratings were lighting me up like a Christmas tree. I chalked it up to rust and kept playing. After about 20-30 matches, I had settled in with what seems to be a valid 1185 rating. Pathetic. I can still beat the 1100 type players who barely know what they're doing, but probably lose 60% of my matches against 1200+ players. People I likely would have toyed with as a child. In fact, I'm confident the 9 year old me would beat the 40 year old me 9 out of 10 games.

So, here's the question : is there any hope for me, or should I just delete my log in and never play again? Maybe I wasn't that good back then, maybe all the other kids in my class sucked balls and maybe I just learned my dad's and grandfather's tendencies instinctively and learned how to beat THEM, but would have gotten spanked by a different but equally skilled opponent. I enjoy playing, but I'm a poor loser and the repeated defeats are souring me on the whole thing.

Summation for anyone that didn't want to read all that : I used to be good at chess, now I stink.

This is what I hate about chess. You can practice your whole life, get really good at it, and then some gifted kid comes along and destroys you. It's a great game if you play casually with people on your own level but you have to live with the knowledge that there's a bunch of 7 year olds out there who can destroy you.

 

[Steve Tasker]

When I was a very young boy, I was a very good chess player. Not like a prodigy or anything, but exceptional for my age. Every once in a while, they would have tournaments in school and despite being a year younger than the rest of my class, I routinely laid waste to everyone. Don't think I lost a match through all of elementary school. By the time I was 7, I was consistently pounding on my father (an M.D.) By the time I was 8, I was crucifying my grandfather as well, who was a lifelong club player.

After that, all the adults I knew stopped playing me to spare themselves the ignominy of being "outsmarted" by a 65-pound kid. None of the other kids in my class would play me anymore because the result was considered a foregone conclusion. As a result, I basically stopped playing chess around age 9 or 10. I never learned theory or openings or anything, I was just playing on raw instinct.

About 6 months ago, just out of curiosity, I logged on to Yahoo! Chess and played a couple of matches - literally the first time I had played in 30 years. I got HOUSED. I mean, absolutely bushwhacked. Guys with 1400 ratings were lighting me up like a Christmas tree. I chalked it up to rust and kept playing. After about 20-30 matches, I had settled in with what seems to be a valid 1185 rating. Pathetic. I can still beat the 1100 type players who barely know what they're doing, but probably lose 60% of my matches against 1200+ players. People I likely would have toyed with as a child. In fact, I'm confident the 9 year old me would beat the 40 year old me 9 out of 10 games.

So, here's the question : is there any hope for me, or should I just delete my log in and never play again? Maybe I wasn't that good back then, maybe all the other kids in my class sucked balls and maybe I just learned my dad's and grandfather's tendencies instinctively and learned how to beat THEM, but would have gotten spanked by a different but equally skilled opponent. I enjoy playing, but I'm a poor loser and the repeated defeats are souring me on the whole thing.

Summation for anyone that didn't want to read all that : I used to be good at chess, now I stink.

This is what I hate about chess. You can practice your whole life, get really good at it, and then some gifted kid comes along and destroys you. It's a great game if you play casually with people on your own level but you have to live with the knowledge that there's a bunch of 7 year olds out there who can destroy you.

Those Central Asian and Caucasus kids don't #### around.

 

[DiStefano]

When I was a very young boy, I was a very good chess player. Not like a prodigy or anything, but exceptional for my age. Every once in a while, they would have tournaments in school and despite being a year younger than the rest of my class, I routinely laid waste to everyone. Don't think I lost a match through all of elementary school. By the time I was 7, I was consistently pounding on my father (an M.D.) By the time I was 8, I was crucifying my grandfather as well, who was a lifelong club player.

After that, all the adults I knew stopped playing me to spare themselves the ignominy of being "outsmarted" by a 65-pound kid. None of the other kids in my class would play me anymore because the result was considered a foregone conclusion. As a result, I basically stopped playing chess around age 9 or 10. I never learned theory or openings or anything, I was just playing on raw instinct.

About 6 months ago, just out of curiosity, I logged on to Yahoo! Chess and played a couple of matches - literally the first time I had played in 30 years. I got HOUSED. I mean, absolutely bushwhacked. Guys with 1400 ratings were lighting me up like a Christmas tree. I chalked it up to rust and kept playing. After about 20-30 matches, I had settled in with what seems to be a valid 1185 rating. Pathetic. I can still beat the 1100 type players who barely know what they're doing, but probably lose 60% of my matches against 1200+ players. People I likely would have toyed with as a child. In fact, I'm confident the 9 year old me would beat the 40 year old me 9 out of 10 games.

So, here's the question : is there any hope for me, or should I just delete my log in and never play again? Maybe I wasn't that good back then, maybe all the other kids in my class sucked balls and maybe I just learned my dad's and grandfather's tendencies instinctively and learned how to beat THEM, but would have gotten spanked by a different but equally skilled opponent. I enjoy playing, but I'm a poor loser and the repeated defeats are souring me on the whole thing.

Summation for anyone that didn't want to read all that : I used to be good at chess, now I stink.

This is what I hate about chess. You can practice your whole life, get really good at it, and then some gifted kid comes along and destroys you. It's a great game if you play casually with people on your own level but you have to live with the knowledge that there's a bunch of 7 year olds out there who can destroy you.

Those Central Asian and Caucasus kids don't #### around.

Like Norway. As in Helsinki, Sweden.

 

[otello]

the commentators were raving about and in awe of carlsen's memory, said it was basically photographic...

he seemed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of historic games and their variations...

maybe this is common at that level, but they weren't saying it about anand?

Anand is brilliant as well. He is known for his outstanding preparation and hard work, especially at his age. As for today, Anand will take draws with black all day and every day in this match. Solid coverage here:

http://www.chessbase.com/post/chennai-01-the-grandmaster-perspective

 

[otello]

http://www.chessbase.com/post/chennai-wc-g1-anand-holds-carlsen-to-draw-in-16-moves-2

 

[otello]

Video of match today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH_5Ko7QCi8

 

[Bob Magaw]

the commentators were raving about and in awe of carlsen's memory, said it was basically photographic...

he seemed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of historic games and their variations...

maybe this is common at that level, but they weren't saying it about anand?

Anand is brilliant as well. He is known for his outstanding preparation and hard work, especially at his age. As for today, Anand will take draws with black all day and every day in this match. Solid coverage here:http://www.chessbase.com/post/chennai-01-the-grandmaster-perspective

nice link, thanx.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Kind of a snoozer. Drawn by triple repetition? I hope Game 2 is more interesting.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Kind of a snoozer. Drawn by triple repetition? I hope Game 2 is more interesting.

Magnus got scared. No shtick. 1st game jitters IMO.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

and yes, draws.

Two by triple repetition, in two stunningly mediocre efforts.

Someone take a chance out there. Sheesh.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

So far, the most interesting aspect of this thing is Anastasia Karlovich.

 

[Bob Magaw]

slightly less action than hagler/hearns in the first two rounds so far.

kasparov in his commentary after game one talked about a championship he was in with anand in which it started very slowly with a number of draws, but than there was a breakthrough, with the next 4/5 games being decisive.

day three is a rest interval, so we will need to wait a bit longer to see when some fireworks develope.

maybe anand is playing cautious because carlsen beat him in two previous games they met before this (that, and carlsen's best rating in history at half his age could be daunting).

and carlsen because this is his first world championship. clearly carlsen has the talent to win if he plays his best... some commentators thought coming in that perhaps anand's best shot to win was if carlsen made a mistake due to nerves, not having experience with the pressure of a world championship? but carlsen hasn't made any serious mistakes, which could help his confidence (not that he probably needs much help in that department) if anand continues to be unable to leverage his experience edge as the championship progresses.

both talked about settling into the match (like boxers feeling out each others styles initially), anand talked about how they now have more information about what to expect from each other stylistically, and what they are trying to do.

if they keep drawing, that will put tremendous pressure on the first to lose.

this seems like a situation in which one to two games in the championship will become hugely magnified in importance to the end result.

* if it comes to that, would either player have an advantage in the tie breaker round, due to that format being a better fit for their particular skill set?

i take it tiebreaker games will be shorter. they wouldn't have as much time to think about their moves, but that restriction would apply to both of them... it isn't obvious if anand's greater experience would give him some kind of edge in that context he may not have in the longer format?

 

[Psychopav]

What is the tie breaker format?

 

[Bob Magaw]

What is the tie breaker format?

in case I get anything wrong, the link in post #128 takes you to the video for the first game... there, the tie breaker format is described from approx 10:30-11:07.

if the classic format is tied at 6-6 at end of 12 matches...

1 - four games of 25 minutes plus 10 seconds each per move... if still tied 2-2...

2 - ten blitz games of five minutes plus three seconds each per move... If still tied 5-5...

3 - man to man combat with tridents and maces... vegas books have established the younger, stronger and more explosive carlsen as a prohibitive 4-1 favorite if it comes to this.

actually, it is the sudden death or ominous sounding armageddon (hungry) format... white gets five and black four minutes (no idea how they would assign color - random draw?)... in the event of a draw, black wins.

 

[SacramentoBob]

and yes, draws.

Two by triple repetition, in two stunningly mediocre efforts.

Someone take a chance out there. Sheesh.

1. f4

 

[cstu]

So far, the most interesting aspect of this thing is Anastasia Karlovich.

Anish says hi.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

and yes, draws.

Two by triple repetition, in two stunningly mediocre efforts.

Someone take a chance out there. Sheesh.

1. f4

Bent Larsen actually beat Petrosian and Spassky with Bird's opening. Bird himself usually got trounced with it against top players. I can only imagine the reaction if this dubious little nugget was dusted off in a World Championship game.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Watching the video now and currently on move 15. So far so good for Anand. Opposite sides castling and Anand is working on a pawn storm on the king side.