Chess

[britbox]

Interesting documentary on the reclusive Bobby Fischer



Have you seen this @Twisted?

 

[Federberg]

I'll have to find some time to watch this. Thanks Britbox.

Anyone else getting excited about the Candidates? Should be starting in about a week. Please please let someone else win this time instead of Anand!

 

[Federberg]

if you like chess documentaries here's the first part of one of my favourites...

 

[DarthFed]

Interesting documentary on the reclusive Bobby Fischer



Have you seen this @Twisted?

I have not, will definitely need to check that out soon.

 

[DarthFed]

if you like chess documentaries here's the first part of one of my favourites...

Not many people are familiar with Nezhmetdinov. Tactical monster!

 

[britbox]

Who's regarded as the Chess GOAT @Twisted? Kasparov?

 

[DarthFed]

I'll have to find some time to watch this. Thanks Britbox.

Anyone else getting excited about the Candidates? Should be starting in about a week. Please please let someone else win this time instead of Anand!

Yes I am definitely excited for it. It starts in about a week as you mentioned. Double round robin (14 games total)

Anand
Nakamura
Caruana
Giri
Aronian
Karjakin
Topalov
Svidler

Pretty wide open I'd say. I can't picture Topalov, Svidler or Karjakin winning but any of the others would be no surprise to me. I like Karjakin but I don't think he can score well enough to take the whole thing, but he could definitely be near the top. The favorites figure to be Nakamura, Caruana and Anand in some order.

 

[DarthFed]

Who's regarded as the Chess GOAT @Twisted? Kasparov?

Kasparov by most including myself. He was champion for 15 years and even when he lost the title he was still the #1 rated player for another 5 years after that. Resume wise I'd say Lasker comes close or even exceeds it but he played in the early 20th century and didn't have to defend his title for many years due to World War I and other things. I'd have the top 4 as Kasparov, Lasker, Karpov and Capablanca. You could interchange the last 2. Capablanca was a monster and he'd be up higher if he didn't get upset by Alekhine after holding the title for just 6 years. If I had to guess I'd say Carlsen will end up either #2 or #1. It's still early but he is extremely dominant and just 25 years old and he has already been #1 for the better part of 6 years.

Some wackos think it was Fischer based on his run to the championship in 1972. He never defended the title so I don't think he can even be in the discussion.

 

[Federberg]

Kasparov by most including myself. He was champion for 15 years and even when he lost the title he was still the #1 rated player for another 5 years after that. Resume wise I'd say Lasker comes close or even exceeds it but he played in the early 20th century and didn't have to defend his title for many years due to World War I and other things. I'd have the top 4 as Kasparov, Lasker, Karpov and Capablanca. You could interchange the last 2. Capablanca was a monster and he'd be up higher if he didn't get upset by Alekhine after holding the title for just 6 years. If I had to guess I'd say Carlsen will end up either #2 or #1. It's still early but he is extremely dominant and just 25 years old and he has already been #1 for the better part of 6 years.

Some wackos think it was Fischer based on his run to the championship in 1972. He never defended the title so I don't think he can even be in the discussion.

Yes I would second this, although I might possibly consider both Botvinnik and Alekhine in place of Lasker. I'm not convinced his longevity is all that it's made up to be. There were are lot of champions prerogatives that allowed him to survive that long. That said though the quality of his games is special. I think Carlsen will end up being the number 1. The guy is simply phenomenal. I can't understand why people say his games are boring. There's a game he played against Kramnik, I think at Shamkir last year which is a great example of the seeming simplicity of his play. A GM recently described his style as nettlesome. A perfect description. He doesn't necessarily go for the best move. He makes the moves he thinks will cause the most problem to a specific player. To me that makes his games exciting because you're sitting there wondering if the other guy will have the mentality to get through the torture. This is why I don't want to see him play Anand again. There is total ownage there now

 

[Federberg]

Yes I am definitely excited for it. It starts in about a week as you mentioned. Double round robin (14 games total)

Anand
Nakamura
Caruana
Giri
Aronian
Karjakin
Topalov
Svidler

Pretty wide open I'd say. I can't picture Topalov, Svidler or Karjakin winning but any of the others would be no surprise to me. I like Karjakin but I don't think he can score well enough to take the whole thing, but he could definitely be near the top. The favorites figure to be Nakamura, Caruana and Anand in some order.

I can't see Giri winning either. He won't lose much, but I can't see him going on a streaky winning run. Anand, Caruana and Aronian are all capable of that. And Nakamura can be very strong as well. Not sure I want to watch Hikaru play Magnus though. That might be painful. Especially as the title will be fought for in New York!

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah you're right about Giri. It'd be a long shot for him too, just give him slightly better chances than the other 3. Nakamura has improved some and it would be an entertaining match from a trash talk perspective. But I don't think he'd threaten Carlsen at all, total ownage there as well.

 

[DarthFed]

Yes I would second this, although I might possibly consider both Botvinnik and Alekhine in place of Lasker. I'm not convinced his longevity is all that it's made up to be. There were are lot of champions prerogatives that allowed him to survive that long. That said though the quality of his games is special. I think Carlsen will end up being the number 1. The guy is simply phenomenal. I can't understand why people say his games are boring. There's a game he played against Kramnik, I think at Shamkir last year which is a great example of the seeming simplicity of his play. A GM recently described his style as nettlesome. A perfect description. He doesn't necessarily go for the best move. He makes the moves he thinks will cause the most problem to a specific player. To me that makes his games exciting because you're sitting there wondering if the other guy will have the mentality to get through the torture. This is why I don't want to see him play Anand again. There is total ownage there now

I always thought Alekhine was slightly overrated. Taking down Capablanca was an incredible feat but he made it a point to dodge him after that and set up WC matches with people he knew he could easily beat, though he did manage to underestimate Euwe and lose his title briefly in a shocking upset. Alekhine died as WC but I don't think he was the best player at that point, it was probably Botvinnik. And Botvinnik is also a tough one to place when ranking the best players.

 

[Federberg]

Yeah you're right about Giri. It'd be a long shot for him too, just give him slightly better chances than the other 3. Nakamura has improved some and it would be an entertaining match from a trash talk perspective. But I don't think he'd threaten Carlsen at all, total ownage there as well.

Lol! I swear Hikaru could be one move from mating Magnus and he would find a way to choke it away. I sti

I always thought Alekhine was slightly overrated. Taking down Capablanca was an incredible feat but he made it a point to dodge him after that and set up WC matches with people he knew he could easily beat, though he did manage to underestimate Euwe and lose his title briefly in a shocking upset. Alekhine died as WC but I don't think he was the best player at that point, it was probably Botvinnik. And Botvinnik is also a tough one to place when ranking the best players.

yes agreed. I have the same concerns with Alekhine as I do with Lasker. Both extremely strong players though. My point was less about replacing Lasker and more suggesting that it's hard for me to place anyone of Lasker, Alekhine and Botvinnik above the other. Definitely no argument about Kasparov, Karpov, Capablanca and Carlsen. They belong at the top table for sure. Some would say that Anand does as well, but certainly when you put Vishy up against either Kaspy or Magnus it's hard to say he's of the same calibre

 

[Billie]

Guys, is chess really a sport?

They sit on their butts the whole time and I think that sport should be an activity where people at least walk.

 

[Federberg]

Try playing competitive chess @Billie and you'll find your heart beat faster than in many sports. It's a popular debate to be honest, but I find myself not caring. There are few activities which can consume me to the same extent. But that's personal taste. Feel free to define it anyway you want

 

[britbox]

Frost always did some good interviews:

 

[DarthFed]

Guys, is chess really a sport?

They sit on their butts the whole time and I think that sport should be an activity where people at least walk.

It really depends on your definition of sport. I will say this, the game is incorrectly labeled a gentleman's game. It is a gentleman's game if it's 2 people who don't know what they're doing sitting down for a "friendly" game. Chess has driven many people insane and has sprung some of the most competitive and egotistical people you can imagine. In that way I'd say it could be considered a sport. Also, despite the fact it is a huge mental struggle, the fact the games can go 6 hours makes fatigue a big issue. As someone who used to play big money tournaments I'd often lose 5 pounds in 4 days despite sitting on my ass and generally eating unhealthy hotel food. It was just pure adrenaline. You do have your fair share of nerds who just enjoy the game and don't take it as life and death but I'd say there are a greater % like me.

 

[Billie]

I didn't mean any disrespect toward chess. Actually I am amazed by it and I used to read the posts about it on TF. Even though I know how to play I am a very weak amateur. Actually one of my cousin's sons was a child wonder in chess, used to beat all of us adults, but he didn't have the conditions to grow and learn more so he just gave up. I heard a lot of different opinions about how chess is or isn't a sport, so I wanted to hear your opinions.

I bet you can lose pounds even sitting on a chair. I hear the same about professionals playing cards (poker). Those games can go on for a long time so you have to be physically fit to endure it. But to me chess has always been a brain game more than physical so I said it in a jokingly manner, not disrespectful. Just wanted to make sure you understand that.B-)

 

[Federberg]

nice article on the chess24.com website...

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-history-of-the-candidates-part-1

I didn't actually realise that 2 of Botvinnik's defences ended as draws allowing him to keep the title. The ones against Bronstein and then his first match against Smyslov. Perhaps that takes him down a notch. More impressive to retain a title by proving you're the best I would say.

 

[DarthFed]

Yep. I think the most impressive thing about Botvinnik is that he is the only 3 time champion. He lost it twice to Smyslov and Tal but was able to wrestle it back in rematches. I wouldn't hold the drawn matches against him, it has happened quite a bit. One of Kasparov's defenses vs Karpov, Kramnik vs Leko, I think Anand-Gelfand and one of Lasker's defenses were draws too