I miss knowing the openings, games, and results months before the event occurs.
An incredibly witty, interview on the topic, that i enjoyed a lot, due to the hilarious sense of humor.
I recommend watching:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nq9ueqiLKw
I recommend watching:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nq9ueqiLKw
I've got a limited understanding of chess, but I saw the games and I felt a little (I hope it's not like that) like the players were playing recklessly on purpose. There's lot of interest for that to happen (people were getting bored and FIDE doesn't want that), and it brings popularity to those who play like that. We saw huge blunders.
Draws are a big problem, but forcing reckless play to make chess more spectacular is just bad.
What is the solution? Unfortunately chess is a limited game and between GMs a high percentage of draws is unavoidable. Chess was more exciting and unbalanced when it was something new, less people played it, there wasn't online play and there weren't engines. Now it's all well known and analyzed, it won't be the same anymore... I think this wonderful game, at high levels, is going towards its end, at least at long time controls. Introducing variants to unbalance things could be interesting... for example letting White start in a slightly better position (with a pawn already pushed), giving him even more advantage... Chess960 could be very interesting too, it would be the end of the absurd preparation behind the games...
Draws are a big problem, but forcing reckless play to make chess more spectacular is just bad.
What is the solution? Unfortunately chess is a limited game and between GMs a high percentage of draws is unavoidable. Chess was more exciting and unbalanced when it was something new, less people played it, there wasn't online play and there weren't engines. Now it's all well known and analyzed, it won't be the same anymore... I think this wonderful game, at high levels, is going towards its end, at least at long time controls. Introducing variants to unbalance things could be interesting... for example letting White start in a slightly better position (with a pawn already pushed), giving him even more advantage... Chess960 could be very interesting too, it would be the end of the absurd preparation behind the games...
Magnus got punked by Hans. Then Magnus said “ Classical Chess is dead “. Magnus is all dun , forget him and move on.
I think there should be at least a 30 second increment from move 1. Something like 40/100, 20/50, SD/15 +30 (from move 1) would technically give the players less freedom then 40/120, 20/60, SD/15 + 30 (from move 61) (which is what we currently have), but I know I'd rather play the former than the latter, and I'm sure Ding would feel the same way if not Ian as well.
While I respect your right to having this opinion, I believe you are lionizing or even deifying Carlsen.
Yes, he's arguably the greatest GM of our time, if not ever, but he is not the sole embodiment of skill, refinement, or a paragon of what chess should be.
Nor would I argue that the current games - while they are, as you said, highly entertaining- are farces.
I do not see how Carlsen's addition to the tournament would make it any better or less farcical.
If anything, it would make it EVEN MORE of a farce than the current Championship. Not having kept up with chess recently, I'm speaking from an outdated point of view, but everyone's frankly ATROCIOUS behavior in the Carlsen-Niemann-Chess.com-God Knows Who Else scandal proves that Carlsen himself is capable of farcical behavior as well. Good day.
Yes, he's arguably the greatest GM of our time, if not ever, but he is not the sole embodiment of skill, refinement, or a paragon of what chess should be.
Nor would I argue that the current games - while they are, as you said, highly entertaining- are farces.
I do not see how Carlsen's addition to the tournament would make it any better or less farcical.
If anything, it would make it EVEN MORE of a farce than the current Championship. Not having kept up with chess recently, I'm speaking from an outdated point of view, but everyone's frankly ATROCIOUS behavior in the Carlsen-Niemann-Chess.com-God Knows Who Else scandal proves that Carlsen himself is capable of farcical behavior as well. Good day.
I do not need your respect. I know a punk when I see one. Oh he was cheating. I think Magnus should have defended
@AlienBoyD9 said in #8:
> I do not need your respect. I know a punk when I see one. Oh he was cheating. I think Magnus should have defended
If you go by Magnus, then Hans cheated. If you go by some of the crappy analysis done around the internet, Hans cheated. If you go by chess.com's professional analysis, they had to say Hans didn't cheat OTB ever, even though they clearly wanted to say he did. If you go by Ken Regan's professional analysis, Hans didn't cheat OTB ever. Also, if you look at the accuracy of other games in the 2022 Sinquefield Cup as scored on chess.com, the losers generally were in the range of Magnus, and winners were in the range of Hans or even higher. Some games featured 98% and 99% accuracy by one or both players. Hans scored 97%.
There is zero evidence Hans cheated, and Magnus being Magnus doesn't make his opinion correct. Magnus was clearly prejudiced by knowledge of Hans cheating online when he was 16, and he was upset by losing with White. He gave in to confirmation bias when he surely knows better.
I've been a huge Magnus fan from early in his career, and I'm no Hans fan at all (I won't disagree with calling him a punk), but I lost a lot of respect for Magnus for being such a baby and abusing his status to make an unsupported public accusation. He unjustifiably injured Hans's career. It was all of petulant, self-indulgent, petty, and mean.
> I do not need your respect. I know a punk when I see one. Oh he was cheating. I think Magnus should have defended
If you go by Magnus, then Hans cheated. If you go by some of the crappy analysis done around the internet, Hans cheated. If you go by chess.com's professional analysis, they had to say Hans didn't cheat OTB ever, even though they clearly wanted to say he did. If you go by Ken Regan's professional analysis, Hans didn't cheat OTB ever. Also, if you look at the accuracy of other games in the 2022 Sinquefield Cup as scored on chess.com, the losers generally were in the range of Magnus, and winners were in the range of Hans or even higher. Some games featured 98% and 99% accuracy by one or both players. Hans scored 97%.
There is zero evidence Hans cheated, and Magnus being Magnus doesn't make his opinion correct. Magnus was clearly prejudiced by knowledge of Hans cheating online when he was 16, and he was upset by losing with White. He gave in to confirmation bias when he surely knows better.
I've been a huge Magnus fan from early in his career, and I'm no Hans fan at all (I won't disagree with calling him a punk), but I lost a lot of respect for Magnus for being such a baby and abusing his status to make an unsupported public accusation. He unjustifiably injured Hans's career. It was all of petulant, self-indulgent, petty, and mean.
Bravo , the thing we should remember it’s Freudian . Simply put, the sons trying to beat the Father.