Chess thread

[millidonk]

Fantastic video. Will be watching the others very shortly. Really makes you realise how much of a fish you actually are.

[Tal]

Perfect lesson for beginners. Answered a couple of questions I was afraid to ask and learnt so much.

Why do they use a clock and if your time runs out what happens?

Clocks are used in tournaments to control the length of a game. In a standard game, there will tend also to be a set amount of time to make a certain number of moves (a time control, like you might get in rallying or cycling). In the league games I play, by way of example, I get 75 minutes to make my first 30 moves and the other guy gets the same to make his first 30 moves. Once Black has made his 30th move, we stop the clocks and add 15 minutes to each and we have whatever is left to finish the game - so, if I've used an hour, I have 30mins left to make all my remaining moves, be that one move or 100 moves.

If you run out of time, you generally lose. The only exception is where the other guy doesn't have enough pieces left to checkmate you and then it is a draw. The vast majority of the time, tho, it's a loss.

[Tal]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8518

The final round of the first half of the Grand Slam saw all three matches drawn. Anand-Carlsen is generally drawn (keep an eye out on that one, betting fans) and, although Anand made a small mistake after the opening, it wasn't enough for Magnus to get the full point.

It was a similar story between Vallejo-Pons and Karjakin, with the Russian not being able to convert a small edge.

Caruana will be relieved on the plane home, as he was very much against it, playing an Aronian in full swing.  Aronian created weaknesses all over Caruana's position but missed a slew of chances to seal the W. The commentators were surprised, but probably not as much as Caruana, who will be thinking himself very fortunate to be where he is. Remember that he was losing against Carlsen, only for Carlsen to blunder and lose.

Half time report? Caruana leads but if Aronian or Carlsen are able to sort their killer instincts out in the gap between now and the resumption in Bilbao, I can see one of them mounting a serious challenge.



Carlsen goes for a wander early in the game to see what openings the other players are playing. Will he be back on song for round 6 on 8 October?

[The Baron]

Hi Tal,

Something that fascinates me is the age of Vishy. In short, he shouldn't really be that good at his age should he?

(Cue no tikay jokes please.....)

[Tal]

Hi Tal,

Something that fascinates me is the age of Vishy. In short, he shouldn't really be that good at his age should he?

(Cue no tikay jokes please.....)

Hi Baron.

Anand is 42. It's not uncommon to see players going back through history of that sort of age. Even today, Kramnik is 37 and very much among the elite.

Part of the problem is that there are so many younger players in that top bracket. It makes it look like a young man's game, where it isn't quite that simple.

Gelfand was the challenger to Anand's crown this year and he's 44.

This might help: a list of the top 100 players in the world, along with their year of birth:

http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men

Plenty of younger players but the more experienced heads (in what is, let us remember, a game that relies on memory as well as calculation) aren't without mention.

Last year, Caruana was beaten by a former World Title Challenger called Viktor Korchnoi. He is 80. Now THAT'S amazing.

[The Baron]

Hi Tal,

Something that fascinates me is the age of Vishy. In short, he shouldn't really be that good at his age should he?

(Cue no tikay jokes please.....)

Hi Baron.

Anand is 42. It's not uncommon to see players going back through history of that sort of age. Even today, Kramnik is 37 and very much among the elite.

Part of the problem is that there are so many younger players in that top bracket. It makes it look like a young man's game, where it isn't quite that simple.

Gelfand was the challenger to Anand's crown this year and he's 44.

This might help: a list of the top 100 players in the world, along with their year of birth:

http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men

Plenty of younger players but the more experienced heads (in what is, let us remember, a game that relies on memory as well as calculation) aren't without mention.

Last year, Caruana was beaten by a former World Title Challenger called Viktor Korchnoi. He is 80. Now THAT'S amazing.

Isn't the modern game more of a young man's game though? I can't remember where I read it now but I remember reading that as the game has evolved the average ELO ratings have increased, software has become a big part of the game somehow this was all related to a younger average age at the top.

I'm hoping for Carlsen in the 2013 WC match anywho.

[Tal]

Ratings increase all the time, but there are two main reasons for that:

1. The amount of knowledge/understanding of the game increases;
2. As the opposition's rating gets higher, you get a higher rating yourself for beating them.

It is worthy of note (although likely an anomoly soon to be rectified) that Kasparov still holds the highest ever rating.

All that said, I think there is some truth that the average age of the elite player is getting younger. There's more travelling, more sponsorship commitments, more technical research, more interest in the young players.

It's not a million miles from being analogous to poker. Unlike in poker, there has always been a young prodigy around: Morphy, Reschevsky, Capablanca, Spassky, Fischer, Carlsen. Maybe Wesley So will kick on from where he is now and become the first Philippino World Champion.

Anand has embraced technology more than most. Kramnik, too, in fairness.

[The Baron]

Which brings me nicely onto my next question.

Is the ELO rating any good for comparing players in different eras?

Whilst I've read a lot of criticism about the rating, no one seems to have come up with a better one yet.

[The Baron]

Ratings increase all the time, but there are two main reasons for that:

1. The amount of knowledge/understanding of the game increases;
2. As the opposition's rating gets higher, you get a higher rating yourself for beating them.

It is worthy of note (although likely an anomoly soon to be rectified) that Kasparov still holds the highest ever rating.

All that said, I think there is some truth that the average age of the elite player is getting younger. There's more travelling, more sponsorship commitments, more technical research, more interest in the young players.

It's not a million miles from being analogous to poker. Unlike in poker, there has always been a young prodigy around: Morphy, Reschevsky, Capablanca, Spassky, Fischer, Carlsen. Maybe Wesley So will kick on from where he is now and become the first Philippino World Champion.

Anand has embraced technology more than most. Kramnik, too, in fairness.

I guess then, that is even more incredible based on the fact he was playing against players with a lower average.

[Tal]

Which brings me nicely onto my next question.

Is the ELO rating any good for comparing players in different eras?

Whilst I've read a lot of criticism about the rating, no one seems to have come up with a better one yet.

I'll answer your question this way: George Best in his boots with his training methods and his lifestyle would not be a match for Messi. What if he had a dietician, predator boots, a cupboard of personal trainers..?

There have been studies on who would be the greatest player of all time on a level playing field. They're fun for pub chats but I don't take too much notice.

The best player there has ever been IMHO is Garry Kasparov. However, the second best is much harder. Maybe Anand. Maybe Fischer. Maybe Alekhine, Capablanca, Tal...Carlsen? He is the second highest rated player of all time.

[Tal]

Ratings increase all the time, but there are two main reasons for that:

1. The amount of knowledge/understanding of the game increases;
2. As the opposition's rating gets higher, you get a higher rating yourself for beating them.

It is worthy of note (although likely an anomoly soon to be rectified) that Kasparov still holds the highest ever rating.

All that said, I think there is some truth that the average age of the elite player is getting younger. There's more travelling, more sponsorship commitments, more technical research, more interest in the young players.

It's not a million miles from being analogous to poker. Unlike in poker, there has always been a young prodigy around: Morphy, Reschevsky, Capablanca, Spassky, Fischer, Carlsen. Maybe Wesley So will kick on from where he is now and become the first Philippino World Champion.

Anand has embraced technology more than most. Kramnik, too, in fairness.

I guess then, that is even more incredible based on the fact he was playing against players with a lower average.

Absolutely.

Edit: I should just clarify what I mean by that bold bit. Kasparov's 2851 from the year 1999-2000 is higher than any other player has been able to reach. Carlsen is currently 2843.

[The Baron]

Which brings me nicely onto my next question.

Is the ELO rating any good for comparing players in different eras?

Whilst I've read a lot of criticism about the rating, no one seems to have come up with a better one yet.

I'll answer your question this way: George Best in his boots with his training methods and his lifestyle would not be a match for Messi. What if he had a dietician, predator boots, a cupboard of personal trainers..?

There have been studies on who would be the greatest player of all time on a level playing field. They're fun for pub chats but I don't take too much notice.

The best player there has ever been IMHO is Garry Kasparov. However, the second best is much harder. Maybe Anand. Maybe Fischer. Maybe Alekhine, Capablanca, Tal...Carlsen? He is the second highest rated player of all time.

Understood - it's so subjective but only to those who know the game well. Unlike most other sports where everyone has a fairly valid opinion.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Tal]

With the exception of the group in Brazil, many of the top players in the world have been playing in London for the past couple of weeks. Simpson's-in-the-Strand is an iconic place to host chess and has a rich history. But that, as they say, is for another time...

As even the hardiest chess followers would struggle to maintain interest levels - and as there is a much bigger and more interesting tournament in London in December, details of which I shall discuss nearer the date (or just Google London Chess Classic) - I chose just to focus on the Grand Slam Masters Final.

The Simpson's tournament (even saying it makes me think Professor Frink is involved) has former World Number 1 and World Title Challenger Topalov, Super-GM Nakamura, one of the finest young players Danish Giri, England's number 1 Michael Adams and a number of other top players.

With two rounds left, here is the cross table:

Click to see full-size image.

Anything rating-wise over 2700 is outstanding. These are the ones who tend to be labelled "Super-GMs", which, while not a title, highlights that a GM rating will generally be over 2500 and 200 points is a fair old whack.

Despite being number 4 in the world in the latest ratings, American Hikaru Nakamura has had a royal stinker of a tournament. In his latest game, he lost to Michael Adams after a pretty silly blunder for a player of his level.

[Tal]

You will also notice the huge percentage of drawn games from the cross table, which never makes for great punditry. When so many players are of a similar standards, that can happen, of course, but it is also frustrating for the spectators, who - as do we all - like seeing blood. Metaphorically of course.

[rex008]

A thought occurred to me this morning: I was reading an interesting article in the Sunday Times about the rise of women in society compared to historical expectations, and how they are now dominating education (58% of university entrants), and a lot of new entrants to the professions now (new doctors and solicitors are majority female), but then you see pics of chess tournaments, and they are all blokes. I'm assuming that if a women was ranked high enough, she'd be playing, so I presume there are few (none?) high ranked women? Any in the world top 10 at the moment? Top 20? Has there ever been a female in the top 10?

Was wondering why this was. Obviously there are considerable historic reasons for few women, but I suspect these days it is more likely to be neurological reasons - it's long been accepted that women's brains are different (on average), and I suspect the differences generally give men the advantage when it comes to chess.

What are your thoughts?