The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
But as has been said here, not exactly a piece for nothing.MJMcCready wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:09 pmWell they are all claiming that Carlsen blundered a piece. The fact that he can win a game a piece down is staggering.
Indeed - and “better player gets dodgy position then ends up winning anyway” is hardly an unknown phenomenon. We just usually see it 1000 points down the food chain, that’s all.Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:32 pm
But as has been said here, not exactly a piece for nothing.
Hou Yifan - Caruana, for instance.
Cruel and sexist without doubt, isn't the 'rule' at this level that you keep it going until the woman cracks (as, evidence says, she will)? A rule, incidentally, that might be applied to players called 'Jones'; or 'Brits' generally (absent Adams); or players <2650
Having looked at the game Hou played against Caruana, I think it was unfair to say that Caruana was struggling. It would be more accurate to say that Hou must have missed 33.Rf3 in the position below (she played 33.Qd2). I challenge anyone to see through the complications after 33.Rf3 (actually, on second thoughts, the combination is not that difficult, it is the follow-up to 33. Rf3 Kxh6 34. Rxf7 Qg5 (or even 34...Qe8 - the computer finds 34...Nb6) that may be difficult to see - is it 35.h4?). I wonder if Caruana saw it (or indeed if Hou saw it and rejected it)?
I don't see the purpose of this post. Yes, 2800 players tend on balance to make a plus score against 2650 players - there's a reason for that. But on your specific targets, only three days ago Gawain hung on to draw a highly dubious position against Kramnik. Short and McShane have held their own in memorable scraps with the world's elite. I could go on, but why?David Robertson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:33 pmCruel and sexist without doubt, isn't the 'rule' at this level that you keep it going until the woman cracks (as, evidence says, she will)? A rule, incidentally, that might be applied to players called 'Jones'; or 'Brits' generally (absent Adams); or players <2650
The purpose of my point/post is to draw attention to the uncomfortable, and to me unpalatable, 'truth' that the strongest male players believe 'objectively' (ie from the evidence) that, with even the very best female players, a critical error will occur if they keep going long enough unless proven otherwise. That's my main claim. But because I don't have all the 'evidence', I concede that it could be true of all players in the class <2650 that they will be taken on by the super-elite in a similar fashion. That's not my impression though. I am not asserting that elite GMs are sexist per se. I am suggesting they are aware of the stats; hence, play the probabilities with specific reference to female players. DiscussNickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:00 pmI don't see the purpose of this post. Yes, 2800 players tend on balance to make a plus score against 2650 players - there's a reason for that. But on your specific targets, only three days ago Gawain hung on to draw a highly dubious position against Kramnik. Short and McShane have held their own in memorable scraps with the world's elite. I could go on, but why?