anand must prevent those more
Also, I think Susan Polgar has been doing a really good job with the commentary.
> Also, I think Susan Polgar has been doing a really good job with the commentary.
Susan Polgar is a brilliant commentator. She has a way of explaining things that crystalises it for me. And she is unbelievably patient and polite. I would love to have her as my personal coach.
>Susan Polgar is a brilliant
She has done a great deal for chess in general, also a very good player in her own right,
As for Anand, he has made a couple of mistakes against a player that does not miss much and allow anyone to get away with even the smallest mistake. But there is still a chance that Anand may come back, stranger things have happened.
> As for Anand, he has made a couple of mistakes against a player that does not miss much and allow anyone to get away with even the smallest mistake
I played several engines from the position that Anand resigned in and got hammered 6 times in a row. Each engine played it differently. I ended up telling my daughter that I was stupid!
What Magnus must do now is keep the pressure on and treat it as though it's just another tournament--that's when he's at his best. If he tries to play too conservatively, going for a draw each time, he might find himself at the wrong end of things, just as what happened in the Candidates tournament, which nearly cost him this opportunity. He needs to keep being himself and keep grinding for a win at every possible chance.
Interestingly, I think that if a computer had been playing against Vishy after the openings of each of the past two games, Vishy would have been able to hold a draw. Computer programs don't have a knack for trying to continue making problems for the opponent in dead drawn positions--the computer and operator would have happily gone for the draw around move 30 or so in both games.
Anand whilst an all rounder has had his real strength in two areas: 1 playing simple chess very well and quickly (and I include in that reducing complex positions where he is worse to simple ones where he worse but knows he can hold), and 2 opening preparation. He started with 1 and added 2 over the years.
Well he is not as good at the 1 as he used to be and Carlsen is one of the all time greats at this. Maybe Anand was never as good as Carlsen is now at "simple" chess (which of course is staggeringly hard).
As for 2, Carlsen just keeps side stepping it. So far Anand simply cannot use his two key weapons against Carlsen.
So I agree Anand's best chance is to get Carlsen in a smash up but even then he may will get outplayed. His very best chance comes from a sharp line where he has a clear advantage from opening prep.
> Computer programs don't have a knack for trying to continue making problems for the opponent in dead drawn positions
True, though it ought to be fairly easy to add this feature by selecting lines that force an oponent to find only moves even if it results in a slighlty worse score for the comp with best play. As an aside, I think Carlsen rates along with Lasker at continually setting problems. Of course the computers are excellent at showing instantly why these guys are/were so good at this.
>Of course the computers are excellent at showing instantly why these guys are/were so good at this.
One of the sites that has been showing the match also has different chess engines working on the moves...find it very interesting how both players find different moves to the engines, in fact even the two grand master
commentators see the game in a different light to engines.
Anand in his day was a very impressive player but somehow even then his chess left me cold. I can really enjoy the majority of the games of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik and most of the other WCs before them but I can't say the same about Anand.
And if we look at chess legacy it is easy to see what these other guys have left behind them, in terms of both opening systems and how to play certain types of position. Anand's contributon to opening theory has been a little bit here and there; he created novelties but did not show the strength of a whole system in a way that had not been appreciated before. Equally if you look at the middlgame or endgame it is hard to point at something we learnt from his handling of these.
Perhaps I simply have not studied his games enough but I am left with the impression that he was really extremely good but somehow nothing special.
> Perhaps I simply have not studied his games enough but I am left with the impression that he was really extremely good but somehow nothing special.
Hmmm. Anand has played so many fantastic games in his career. He has played brilliant attacks, strategical masterpieces, he has shown flawless technique in difficult endgames, he was considered as the world's best defender. I really have no idea what you think is missing.
To be honest, it is no surprise that it is difficult to appreciate games one has not studied seriously, or to learn something from them.
That said, Carlsen's play in the last three games has been fantastic, in my view.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill