Anand v Carlsen

The very latest International round up of English news.
John Cox
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by John Cox » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:56 pm

[quote="Mats Winther I would also win against Anand if he, for no reason at all, sacrifices a pawn in an equal ending against me.
M. Winther[/quote]

No you wouldn't. With all due respect, you're deluded and know nothing about the game.

PeterFarr
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by PeterFarr » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:05 pm

Mats Winther wrote:
Simon Brown wrote:Completely agree. I feel even more sorry for people who think these ridiculous variants are the future of chess, when real chess unfolds new mysteries and beauty with every top-level tournament.
This is typical unhistorical eurocentrism. What you guys regard as "real chess" is really a chess variant, a few hundred years old. It is derived from Shatranj, which is still played in Arabic countries. Chinese Chess (Xiangqi), whose present form dates from about the beginning of the 12th century, is more popular than "real chess". Shogi (Japanese Chess) is also older than "real chess", although the present rules were fixed in the 16th century. Moreover, there are also other time-honoured variants, such as Korean Chess (Changgi), Hiashatar (Mongolian Grand Chess), Burmese Chess (Sittuyin), Thai Chess (Makruk)...

I don't know why you praize Carlsen's play so highly in this match. I would also win against Anand if he, for no reason at all, sacrifices a pawn in an equal ending against me. This match has shown that chess, the way it is played today, is a waste of genius. Millions of people are seated to watch a combat between two giants, and it peters out to a tiny rill of creativity. "Oh, how marvelous", you say, when Carlsen manages to count a few moves forward. I think this boils down to hero worship, and nothing more.

M. Winther
A few points on this rather mystifying post:

(1) Simon's reference was to your earlier post about specific modern chess variants, not well established Asian games which have an independent life of their own; there was no reference to any of these and hence the 'unhistorical eurocentric' claim is completely unjustified.

(2) If xiangqi is more popular than chess, then I would suggest it is only due to the large population of China, with any global reach largely due to the Chinese diaspora. Chess is far more truly global, I would suggest, including a big and growing following in China of course. The existence of a UK Chinese Chess Association proves nothing - there is also a chess boxing association I expect. It might also be fair to point out that the current world chess champion, at least for the next week or so, is Indian, and the match is being held in Chennai, India. Nothing eurocentric about that.

(3) Anand's pawn sacrifice wasn't the fatal mistake was it? I thought that came later.

(4) No you wouldn't have won that endgame against Anand after he sacrificed a pawn for "no reason" - very few people would have done that.

(5) The premise that chess is played out or terminally dull based on the play in this match is thoroughly misguided. World championship matches have quite often been fairly stolid affairs played over a narrow range of currently fashionable openings; - the 1910 match for example, was rather similar to the current one; played over 10 games, with 8 draws, 7 Ruy's and quite a few endgames, until a mad explosion at the finish.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3585
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:10 pm

Nothing will ever beat AAA v Capa for endlessly repeating the same openings, of course.

Some people said then, too, that chess was "played out" and awaiting inevitable "draw death". In 1927 :D
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:32 pm

Mats Winther wrote:I would also win against Anand if he, for no reason at all, sacrifices a pawn in an equal ending against me.
You remember a couple of days ago you claimed an 'improvement' on Carlsen's play? You know, the one in a rook ending which you claimed would have made the win easier but in fact led to an instant draw - and was easily spotted as such by somebody with only a rudimentary knowledge of such positions? You remember that?
Last edited by Jonathan Bryant on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:35 pm

John Cox wrote:II don’t see any sinks in the Berlin.
How much better history would be if the line had been, "I see no sinks"?


Anyhoo, just for the record my 'sink' strategy was not meant to imply some mad ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK hack. More a mindset of PUSH PUSH PUSH.

yeah that sounds like Anand's pregnant but I think you know what I mean.


Not that that's going to be much easier to achieve than a tactical hack.



J

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4228
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:03 pm

H J R Murray wrote in about 1914 that more had been written on chess than all other sports put together. He was including as chess, the much slower game that started in the 6th centruy AD. Arabs from the 11th century would have been able to appreciate the rook and pawn endgames in Chennai. We can still see fragments of their games. The Immortal Game is still played over by most players, although it is rubbish in modern terms. Thus Simpson's Restaurant still gets publicity even 122 years later.
Many of the oriental versions quoted above were the old, slow game.
Shogi is quite different and there are very few draws. That is partly because players are not allowed to repeat and stalemate is a win for the stalemater. If those rules applied in chess indeed there would be far fewer draws. But white would have a much bigger advantage, perhaps 60%? Thus every encounter would have to be played as a two game match - as it should be anyway.

Chess960 should again be played as two games minimum. I might like that as my opening theory is nearly 30 years out of date. It would presumably destroy the cottage industry of openings books. It doesn't seem to have caught on.

Other modern variants such as exchange, losing and such as 10x10 boards all seem inferior. I like Alice chess and Kriegspiel because they are so different from chess. Just as I like bridge and poker for the same reason.

Clive Blackburn

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Clive Blackburn » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:10 pm

John Cox wrote:
Mats Winther wrote: I would also win against Anand if he, for no reason at all, sacrifices a pawn in an equal ending against me.
M. Winther
No you wouldn't. With all due respect, you're deluded and know nothing about the game.
You just know when somebody prefaces a remark by saying "with all due respect" that they are going to show no respect whatsoever! :lol:

Andrew Bak
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:48 am
Location: Bradford
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Andrew Bak » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:41 pm

Clive Blackburn wrote:
John Cox wrote:
Mats Winther wrote: I would also win against Anand if he, for no reason at all, sacrifices a pawn in an equal ending against me.
M. Winther
No you wouldn't. With all due respect, you're deluded and know nothing about the game.
You just know when somebody prefaces a remark by saying "with all due respect" that they are going to show no respect whatsoever! :lol:
I often think similar thoughts when somebody says "I'm not a racist, but..."

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:54 pm

Clive Blackburn wrote:
John Cox wrote:No you wouldn't. With all due respect, you're deluded and know nothing about the game.
You just know when somebody prefaces a remark by saying "with all due respect" that they are going to show no respect whatsoever! :lol:
Also in this category: "I don't want to complain about this, but..."

I remember arguing with the person who ran the House system at my secondary school, and wanted the House Chess to be played over one lunchtime, rather than three. The three-round format made it an APA for the four Houses, and it seemed reasonable to have something like G/20 for each game to fit in a lunchtime. The person running it just assumed it'd take one lunchtime, and hadn't bothered to ask anyone connected with chess how the tournament might work. During my argument about it, "With all due respect..." kept coming out of the person's mouth. John's rather tactless reply to Mats was something I could have justifiably said in that particular conversation.

In the end, I was unable to win the argument. So I just announced the format in a notice for full school assembly some time in advance to get in first. I assembled the strongest teams I could for all the Houses myself, and the event ended up being ran my way anyway. :D

I was a stubborn child... :oops:

John Cox
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by John Cox » Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:32 am

Clive Blackburn wrote:
You just know when somebody prefaces a remark by saying "with all due respect" that they are going to show no respect whatsoever! :lol:
Obviously. 'With all due respect' is what lawyers say when they mean 'now listen to me, you stupid ****'. I thought everyone knew that.

User avatar
Mats Winther
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Mats Winther » Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:21 am

John Cox wrote:
Mats Winther wrote: I would also win against Anand if he, for no reason at all, sacrifices a pawn in an equal ending against me.
M. Winther
No you wouldn't. With all due respect, you're deluded and know nothing about the game.
I know enough to be creative. Look at this game, which I played yesterday at FICS. Opponent's rating was 2141. I ingeniously defended all entrance squares for black's pieces. After ingenious maneuvers with the king and other pieces I ingeniously opened a file, and the game is over. If Carlsen had played this, you would have said, "Look, he's a genius!". /Mats


MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2690
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by MartinCarpenter » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:51 am

Xiangqi I could believe being ahead a while back, but China have controlled their population growth very effectively while western chess has done rather well in India for instance. Same size of population as China now of course. Even vaguely relevant to the match for the obvious reason :)

The thing that means Shogi draws much less often is the dropping captured pieces back into play. You can do that reasonably with ortho chess pieces (doubles of course, hostage chess is a decent 2 player version) but they're a bit too lethal to make it work truly well.

Anyhow the next game in the match is hopefully going to be interesting. Should at least tell us if Anand has given up or not.

Clive Blackburn

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Clive Blackburn » Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:34 pm

John Cox wrote:
Clive Blackburn wrote:
You just know when somebody prefaces a remark by saying "with all due respect" that they are going to show no respect whatsoever! :lol:
Obviously. 'With all due respect' is what lawyers say when they mean 'now listen to me, you stupid ****'. I thought everyone knew that.
Yes, another one used by lawyers is "my learned friend" and the meaning is similar.
When they are corrected by a Judge on a point of law, they say "I am grateful to your Honour" (through clenched teeth).

MP's say "the right honourable gentleman/lady" to maintain an air of dignity while they proceed with the character assassination!

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:34 pm

Mats Winther wrote:
John Cox wrote:
Mats Winther wrote: I would also win against Anand if he, for no reason at all, sacrifices a pawn in an equal ending against me.
M. Winther
No you wouldn't. With all due respect, you're deluded and know nothing about the game.
I know enough to be creative. Look at this game, which I played yesterday at FICS. Opponent's rating was 2141. I ingeniously defended all entrance squares for black's pieces. After ingenious maneuvers with the king and other pieces I ingeniously opened a file, and the game is over. If Carlsen had played this, you would have said, "Look, he's a genius!". /Mats


I don't understand! How is it possible to have such games if chess is on the brink of being played out? 8)

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2419
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Anand v Carlsen

Post by Geoff Chandler » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:17 am

Good game Mats.

Pity Black missed the Win.


Post Reply