Digging Up Bobby Fischer

Yeah, he miscalculated this one ("death is not the end there remains the litigation over the estate").

If he had been more tactically alert he would have seen this "filipino-daughter" gambit coming... and saw it as a clever plot to have him exhumated and eventually reinterred in a Jewish cemetery with the proper burial ceremony.
They may still got him after all.

LOL, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to exhume you.

To be honest I never understood the sentimentality about Fischer. He seems to have been a shallow, egotistical person with a marked streak of cruelty ("I like the moment when I break a man's ego"), and to have been so long before he went insane. He just happened to be a genius at chess.

This is a minority view among chess fans, of course.

Horseman wrote:

"To be honest I never understood the sentimentality about Fischer."

It's simply a very high degree of admiration for Fischer's chess genius, to the point that the less-than-stellar rest of the man is overlooked or glossed over.

And yes, I agree that Fischer was a despicable human being in every sense and quite stupid for anything other than chess. Over the board, he was genius; no question about it. intelligent chess fans will be able to separate Fischer the nasty, stupid person from Fischer the absolutely brilliant chess genius.

Well put.

@chess fans will be able to separate Fischer the nasty, stupid person from Fischer the absolutely brilliant chess genius.

He would have been a better person had he invested lifetime in educate himself in other things than chess, but then he would have not been that good at chess. The price paid has been terrible.

Even more terrible is the fact that in such a situation (i.e., involving self/personality) one just can not realize the price he has paid.
One simply feels content with himself, with what he is, at every moment. He would need to become first a different person in order to become aware (in retrospect) what a sorry being he once was.

Most likely, "braaaaaaaaainssss...."

Wow, that is indeed a remarkable likeness.

I'd heard those theories, too. However, we do in fact know that RJF held a sizable portfolio at UBS because of his public dispute:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3265

Sometimes the paranoid are right: what RJF apparently didn't understand what that UBS was trying to do RJF a favor (and cover its own hindquarters) by dropping him as customer of the bank.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061703754.html?hpid=moreheadlines

@the Russians' readiness to brood obsessively over anything and predisposition for quiet reflection

if there is any "russian predisposition" that is for vodka not for quiet reflection, if you look closer most of 'russian' chessplayers were jewish

@the old Fischer Discussion is dead, it's
been played out.

Fischer died before chess, he is survived by it

@the same debates are repeated word for word,
month after month, year after year.

1. "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

3. What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?

4. Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

5. The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

6. The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

7. All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.

8. All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

9. What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

10. Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

Ecclesiastes, Old Testament (~ 300 BC)

@Old Testament writers never had to endure Fischer, Toiletgate, Kasparov matches/non-matches, rating inflation, Topalov cheating etc etc "debates" every three weeks complete with multiple repetition conditioned responses...

Well now, it's like playing over the recent GM-games played in a fashionable opening (say Berlin or Catalan). Yes all the games look pretty much as the same thing (same moves, conditioned manouvers, long term plans, thematic sacrifices) but if you focus (very) hard on the subtle twists between these OTB-"debates" each of them will start to feeling as "refreshingly new ". It's a "political issue", it depends on what you want to focus : on what they have in common or on what they differ.

...Are you insinuating that a grandmaster cannot be BOTH Russian and Jewish ?

we know, of course he can (but he can in the same sense that Mary was both virgin and mother of Jesus) see for instance :

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/jews.html

Hey Badger - Let's see you hold down three jobs, a wife, and two kids (one a brand new baby) and see how well you maintain a blog on the side... Shut yer pie-hole!

@Ovidiu:
Shall we, then, count Mr Weinstein as 1) Russian, 2) Azerbaijani, 3) Armenian, 4) Jewish, or 5) two or more of the above (please specify).

The venerable Mr Weinstein is generally counted as a Russian grandmaster, though born in Azerbaijan to an Armenian mother and Jewish father.
.

* (Mr Weinstein is of course better known as Garri Kasparov.)

"He seems to have been a shallow, egotistical person with a marked streak of cruelty ("I like the moment when I break a man's ego")"

Guess that makes me a shallow etc. etc. person too :P

Maybe the field in romania is kindof weak ? Of course magnus is playing like usual , but is everyone else there too?

P.S. to clarify: I was proposing a match, not a eugenics experiment.

"I talked to Magnus about it, and he threatened that he would *not* stop beating his opponents until Mig made a blog posts in praise of his achievements."

He he. Today’s game was awesome! Absolutely incredible that Carlsen managed to squeeze a win out of this.

That brings his rating to 2825 – which is astonishing. To put this in perspective: That’s 96 points ahead of former US Champion Hikaru Nakamura!

Gelfand is also doing well in Bazna, and trailing by a mere half point. Tomorrow he plays Carlsen. That should be an exciting game. Gelfand has been playing very well in recent months.

@Bobby:
That would, indeed, be a fitting alternative title for the blog entry.

However, I trust and hope that Mig is in the best of health (and in Cloud 9 rather than 6 feet under), and spending some quality time with his family. Especially his new-born kid. :)

probably he is spending some 'quality time' with Garry... coordinating the FIDE campaign and/or writing stuff for Garry to sign

Carlsen may be rated 96 pts. on the "Live" list, but he still can't hold Nakamura's jock strap when it comes to blitz!

"Carlsen may be rated 96 pts. on the "Live" list, but he still can't hold Nakamura's jock strap when it comes to blitz!"
.

There is no doubt that Nakamura is one of the top blitz players in the world. But methinks you’re a bit hasty when you conclude that Nakamura is better just because he beat Carlsen in a mini-match some months ago.

Need I remind you that Magnus Carlsen is reigning World Blitz Chess Champion? Carlsen proved himself by playing against the very best players in the world – and his performance was stellar!

Interestingly, Hikaru Nakamura elected not to partake in that tournament. Word has it that he was miffed about the "late invitation"...

Nakamura will have a new chance next year. If he beats Carlsen and becomes World Blitz Champion, then I’ll eat my words. Meanwhile: Carlsen is the best blitz player in the world.

Thank you mishanp, it's really very interesting.

I second that, Mishanp. Thank you for introducing an excellent website!

"Is it true that.?..No, it’s not. At the very highest level losing or winning games in the opening is only likely if you play a very risky or rare line."

Gelfand has just lost to Radjabov's home preparation in Petroff (after 18.Bf6! Bd6 19.Qh3 Rfe8 20.Bxg7! it was over, it was all home prep by Radja, see the video with Radja at chessvibes).

That line looks pretty risky to me! At least in this tournament (and in others - e.g. his loss to Ivanchuk at Amber, or Topalov at Linares) Gelfand's been proving his other point from the interview - that the Petroff can produce very lively games!

btw of Gelfand about Carlsen.
Nisipeanu-Carlsen and Carlsen-Ponomariov featured good novelties by Carlsen in Sicilian-Dragon (13..Re8, and 16.Nxd5 respectively) and both Nisipeanu and Radjabov reacted by entering the complications... and ended up in worse postions and in zeitnot.

http://www.chessintranslation.com is great. Thanks, mishanp!

Good point. Carlsen's played much more sharply in the openings at times, e.g. in Nanjing, or in Wijk this year (where he was probably the best prepared player). He's going to be a true monster (well, he already is, of course!) if he takes his Karpov-like talent but then works anywhere near as hard as Kasparov on the openings.

Thanks for the comments on the site! I don't want to take over this thread, but later I should be able to publish a Russian interview with a large section on Fischer, so that should be more on topic :)

Good points, RQP.

I do, however, believe that Hikaru Nakamura is a colourful addition to a number of recent top-level tournaments, such as the one in London. His aggressive style is highly entertaining; when he is at his best, Nakamura is a tactical master.

I hope he will continue to compete in top-level tournaments. If he works hard and continues to compete against superior players, there is a strong chance that Nakamura may one day establish himself in the Top 10. At the moment, however, he is far too unstable to achieve such a feat.

May we see more of the exciting American grandmaster in the years to come!

Perhaps ever new people picking up tournament chess and thus enetering the ELO list but who start start with a rating higher than their real ELO worth.
It is true that in few months of playing they (as indidividuals) will lose those extra rating but the points are not lost in general, they are now added to the total and will be distributed equally to all the rest through further playing. The result is a slight increase "out of nowhere" for each individual.

The only way out of this would be doing a standard "normalization" procedure (the ELO list is a statistical distribution function) in which case the ELO -rating will be reajusted so as the average ELO (total sum/ nr. of FIDE players) to always be the same.

It should be quite easy but it would imply a FIDE decision.

I posted this before :
http://www.truechess.com/web/champs.html
This isnt done with Rybka 4 obviously.

Nakamura was NEVER invited to the World Blitz. This rumor he declined a late invitation is bs. I asked Nakamura directly.

If this is so, then I hope Mig never writes a complimentary blog on Carlsen's great achievements!

RQP - Given the amount of verbage and time you spent putting down Nakamura, do I detect a bit of an inferiority complex? Mmmmm? LOL

ArcticStones replied to comment from noyb - "But methinks you’re a bit hasty when you conclude that Nakamura is better just because he beat Carlsen in a mini-match some months ago. Need I remind you that Magnus Carlsen is reigning World Blitz Chess Champion?"

Uh yeah ArcticStones, I guess you better, because right after Carlsen won the WBCC, that's when Naka pounded Carlsen in the "Mini-Match", 3-1. IN YOUR FACE!

interview with Svetozar Gligoric

"I don’t think that classical chess will ever die out...Perhaps a time will come when grandmasters can’t think up anything new in the opening, but then the struggle’s centre of gravity will shift to the middlegame, and the endgame. To a degree we can already observe a situation like that now."

Did Gligoric have in mind the WCH-match and Topalov's (supercomputer analyzed) Slav ending ?

Nice one mishanp. I had read about that River variation in a book, I think How Fischer Plays Chess by David Levy.

Future of classical chess:

Eventually the time can be cut down a little bit + they can apply Sophia rules. Just like in Nanjing Pearl Spring 2009. I think they had 90 min first 40 moves and 60 min rest of the game.

Then you get plenty of action (and inaccuracies)!

"Future of classical chess: Eventually the time can be cut down a little bit + they can apply Sophia rules."

Cutting down the time only decreases the quality of the game. This leads to less intellectual involvment which in turn leads to less satisfaction when winning and to less motivation (and respect) for achieveing mastery.

What we need is to get back the game, to get back the excitement of real OTB play and fight, as opposed to watch the would be players enacting moves prepared at home for hours with computers as if they have just thought them OTB out of their general understanding of the chess positions.

Such a situation it is not a game, it is not a fight, it is an execution. You are left to watch the other guy trying desperately to cope OTB and most of the cases failing. Gelfand was executed by Radjabov's home prep. attack in Petroff and few rounds later Radjabov himself lost to Carlsen 16.Bd5 novelty ( he coped well for the moment, found OTB "all the right moves" according to Carlsen, but he also lost too much time to do it and could not cope the rest of the game).

In similar cases, as GO and Draughts, they haven't cut down the time, they have simply increased the complexity the game (from 9X9 to 13X13 and 19X19 in GO and from 8X8 to 10X10 and 12X12 in draughts) and this hasn't changed the character of the game but has made impossible to prepare the would be game as if you were playing tic-tac-toe.

All these makes me believe that the future of chess lies in one of the chess-variants. Perhaps played on 9x8 or 10X8, perhaps with added pieces (for instance a second Queen moving as combined R+N to balance the R+B-one).
Something which will preserve the character of the chess game but which will be complex enough to keep the OTB play a game, a fight.

@Changing the game itself will be very controversal, will probably not happen in the near future.

Yes of course. Such a change would mean a culture shift, it can not be brought forward by one man however significant he may be (as Fischer was).

The game changed significantly when it had to keep up with the times. It changed during the Renaissance (15th century) along with the other radical changes which the European culture was going through those times.
The same will eventually happen again.

But until that happens there will be many cosmetic changes (as Sofia-rules, shorter time controls, etc.) which are not actually meant to adress the issue at its roots but, to the contrary, they are meant to "patch" the bugs so as to keep it somehow working.

I was wondering if Gligoric had mentioned it before - it would be surely be too interesting to leave until you were 87 to reveal! - though I hadn't seen it. Funnily enough I just found this on Chessbase about the same game: http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=164 There the author thought Gligoric was stunned by Fischer's move (as it was a famous variation etc.), but doesn't mention that he was stunned because Fischer had shown him the move before (or during) the tournament!

Sorry I didn't reply sooner - I went out to watch the World Cup... I don't know if Gligoric had anything specific in mind, though e.g. the Berlin would be another example of an opening/endgame.

Overall although it's great to see in almost the oldest GM around - http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/the-best-chess-players-of-every-age/ - I think he's maybe a little too positive about the way things have gone with computer preparation. There was a long radio interview with Grischuk not too long ago, mainly on poker, where he talked about how GMs have to spend hours just memorising lines before a game and then don't have that much energy left for the game itself. For the record he claimed to have nothing more than an average memory.

"Perhaps ever new people picking up tournament chess and thus enetering the ELO list but who start start with a rating higher than their real ELO worth."

Nope. The players in the pool have on average been "leaking" rating points in most of the last 20 years. Not much, of course, but comparing - for every rating list published - all players present in the rating list, the sum of these players' ratings is more often lower than higher one year later

For example, considering the July lists 1990 to 2009, the average of all the players in 1990 was 1,3 points higher in july 1991, the average of all players on the rating list of july 1991 was 1,0 points higher in july 1992, but the average of all players on the rating list of july 1992 was 0,5 points _lower_ in july 1993, and the average of all players on the rating list of july 1993 was 0,3 points _lower in july 1994, and so on.

Here's the summary for july to july changes 1990 to 2009:

1990-1991 9231 1,3
1991-1992 10147 1,1
1992-1993 11330 -0,5
1993-1994 13200 -0,3
1994-1995 15428 -0,3
1995-1996 17912 -0,2
1996-1997 15995 -0,2
1997-1998 17378 0,3
1998-1999 22264 0,3
1999-2000 31306 -0,3
2000-2001 34724 1
2001-2002 36706 0,4
2002-2003 40118 -0,2
2003-2004 46243 -0,2
2004-2005 53518 -0,1
2005-2006 62992 -0,3
2006-2007 71832 -0,2
2007-2008 81237 -0,2
2008-2009 92387 -0,4

The second column is the number of players it was possible to identify (by means of their FIDE ID) from the july list in year one to the july list in year two. The third column is the average increase or decrease in rating (per player).

Some observations: from july 1990 to july 2000, there was a net addition of rating points of ca. 4500, with additions of points ("inflation") mostly 1990 to 1992 (+ 23000), and 1997 to 1999 (+ 12000), but with a "loss" of points in all the 6 other years (- 9400 from 1999 to 2000, for instance). The average increase in that decade was 0,28 points per player.

July 2000 to july 2009, there was a net "loss"/leakage of points of ca. 60 000 points - "deflation" in the pool as a whole. The only two years with addition of points were 2000 to 2002 (+50000, with +35000 for 2000 to 2001), while the 7 remaining years all gave leakage of points - about 110 000 in total, or 1,6 points per player on average over _all_ those 7 years combined (- 0,23 per player per year). For the 2008 to 2009 comparison nearly 37000 points "disappeared".

In the entire period, considering july year 1 to july year 2 changes 1990 to 2009, there were 13 years with rating loss on average, and 6 years with rating increase on average. In total, ca. 55000 points "disappeared" - that's roughly _minus_ 1,5 points per sampled player on average. Or a little less than -0,1 points per player per year.

Hence, the FIDE rating system as a whole does not experience inflation, but is actually quite stable at the system level. What's happened over those 19 years though, is that very many new, strong players have entered the pool, but very, very many new average or weaker players have also entered. :o)

Of course, this is a pure "rating point economy" consideration, but the hypothesis (or myth) that the FIDE rating system experiences sustained and consistent "rating point injection" can safely be burried. Both the rating distribution among players and the total number of FIDE-rated players have changed considerably, obviously.

"in which case the ELO -rating will be reajusted so as the average ELO (total sum/ nr. of FIDE players) to always be the same."

That would be incredibly silly as a normalization strategy, as it implicitly assumes that the strength distribution of the new players is the same as the distribution of the old players.

This assumption has been consistently wrong for many, many years due to the lowering of the lower bound of FIDE ratings and since the majority of the increase in number of players are "weak". Just give it another thought, Ovidiu, and I'm sure you'll realize that it would make little sense to do the kind of "normalization" suggested above.

Also note that I basically avoided the entire problem of the increasing pool size when I made the calculations of my previous post, by always comparing the exact same players year by year (but a different set of players year 1 to year 2, than year 2 to year 3, and so on - always including the newly added players).

I think your second column is the key to the "problem" of rating inflation, implicitly defined by many as average rating of the top, top 10 or top 100 players. If the width of the ELO pyramid at its base increases, so can the height of its summit.

If there are 10-20 players rated >2600, one or two of them can cross 2700 - but that's basically their upper limit unless they consistently score close to 100% against top oppposition. [I still remember the times when >2600 was considered a super-GM].

If there are 100 players above 2600, we can have 10-20 crossing 2700 and - again - one or two crossing 2800. And in this new situation, there are also many more players rated 2000-2600 which - directly or indirectly - can donate rating points to the top players.

"consistently score close to 100%"

Close to 100% means a rating difference of several hundred points (6-700) - not 100 points, Thomas.

Even if you on average play 150 points down, you don't need more than 70% to defend your rating. In other words - Kasparov could reach 2800 by scoring 70% against a 2650 average.

"rating inflation, implicitly defined by many as average rating of the top, top 10 or top 100 players."

Which is a really silly definition, since if there's a 1000% increase in the number of players in the pool, it really would be realistic to expect a little more than 0% increase in the number of players that become "really, really strong", don't you think?

Jeff Sonas wrote the following in a Chessbase article (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5608 ):

"Another common explanation for inflation in the top 100 is that the pool of players is getting bigger, and thus it would make sense that the top 100 (which is really just the right edge of the bell curve) is shifting further and further to the right (and thus has a higher and higher rating). I do not agree with this explanation. I don't think we are adding in players anymore at the right edge; I think we are adding in players at the left edge, via inclusion of new provisional players or via the reduction of the rating floor."

I find it very, very odd that Sonas doesn't think that a notable increase of young talents added at "the left edge" (because that's where everyone starts, obviously) won't quite quickly result in MORE strong players at "the right edge" as the young TALENTED players improve (which they do very quickly these days) and move through the pool - in fact it's quite ILLOGICAL assuming that the number of strong players isn't strongly related to the number of YOUNG players with POTENTIAL taking up the game.

Even though the big majority of the new players - there's roughly a 1000% increase in the pool size from 1990 to 2010 - are players without much (or any) potential for improvement (guys like me :o), it's very much contra-intuitive to assume that it hasn't resulted in ANY increase in the number of young talents with potential; in fact it's not very hard to show that this has indeed been the case, by an analysis of the relationship between rating progress and age of the players - and I've made these kinds of analysis for ALL players in the pool but at the INDIVIDUAL level (making stats for huge groups of players from individual age/development characteristics). I intend to discuss how to best quantify this increase with a professional mathematician that I know, so I won't give exact figures yet.

Jeff Sonas implicitly assumes that the number of new talents in the pool is more or less UNCHANGED from 1985 to 2010 - or at least that the same number (note: number, not percentage) of the talents actually ending up getting close to their potential has been unchanged. That assumption is simply wrong, and that broken assumption quite clearly refutes the majority of the arguments he put forward in the linked Chessbase article.

This quote - "I don't think we are adding in players anymore at the right edge;" - is basically the only "explanation" Sonas gives to justify that it's meaningful to define "inflation" in terms the rating of the #100 ranked player. His counterargument regarding the (wrong) assumption that the players added to the pool have the exact same distribution of strength as the "old pools" isn't very relevant, as it's clearly NOT the case that the distribution has been the same. There's a much bigger AMOUNT (percentage) of weak players in the pool now (and the average rating over ALL players is down around 100 points or so in the last 10 years). However, that does _not_ mean that the (absolute) NUMBER of strong players haven't increased. Hence we're left with Sonas' claim that the number of "very, very strong players" has been basically CONSTANT since say 1985 or 1990 - and I think such an undocumented proposition is a very weak basis for any kind of definition, also that of "rating inflation".

Note however that it would've been perfectly possible to observe an increase (at least temporarily, meaning over a decade or two) in the number of "very, very strong" players even with a CONSTANT supply of young talents, given the two assumptions 1) that young players more quickly reach high levels of play these days (is anyone in doubt that they do?) and 2) that the "older" and established players don't lose their strength faster than before (why should they?). The situation would eventually stabilize, but until it does, the number of "very, very strong players" would inevitably increase - EVEN with a hypothetically constant supply of new talent.

In summary: the clearly most notable inflation is in the number of players, not in their rating numbers. :o)

Irv wrote : "If we wanted the truth in chess, we would stop watching humans and would watch computers play each other. They play the best chess today. But we don't do that."

Actually we do. What we eatch today in many top-GM games are computer analyzed deep lines and, in the following games in the same opening line, their deeper counters which also have been found and anlyzed by computer, and so on better and deeper with each new game.

Strange enough, it is all as if the computers play themselves while the GMs are serving only to relay the moves in successive OTB encounters.
Chess has become a dialogue between comps with the elite GMs carrying the messages between them while mindlessly happy that they have scored a point this round for their efforts to deliver the moves.

"Strange enough, it is all as if the computers play themselves while the GMs are serving only to relay the moves in successive OTB encounters. "

Very well said, Ovidiu.

I long for the days of imperfect chess and big blunders. Leko and Svidler are objectively stronger than Tal, but Tal's "unsound" chess put him in the public's imagination forever.

I advocate shorter time controls because modern players are cheating the clock in the sense that those "classical" time controls were used at a time when players often "left the book" before move 10-15. Today, top players will just play their memorized computer analysis up to move 30 or more. So, in essense, Fischer was getting 2.5 hours for 25 moves, while Anand is getting the same 2.5 hours for 10 moves.

It's time to recognize and acknowledge the damaging influence of computers on our game. Shortening the time controls is the only chance of bringing the fun back.

I think we essentially agree with each other, I just got some words and figures a bit wrong ... I will try again:
Let's replace "close to 100%" by "excellent result" as defined below. How could Carlsen reach 2900, more or less the same as someone else (say, Kasparov) crossing 2800 with most of the world top stuck below 2700?

In his last five tournaments (Bazna included) he had two excellent results and three "good" ones (but good ain't good enough):
Nanjing 80%, TPR 3002
Tal Memorial 61%, TPR 2838
London 71% (against a somewhat weaker field), TPR 2839
Corus 65%, TPR 2822
Bazna currently 75%, TPR 2922

To cross 2900, he needs two or three more Nanjing-Bazna results, without any Moscow-London-Wijk results in between - because once he's above 2850, he will lose rating points with such TPR's.

And one player crossing 2900 or 2850 wouldn't be rating inflation by any definition, that might take 5 players doing the same thing - which only seems possible if 10-20 others reach 2780-2820.

""rating inflation, implicitly defined by many as average rating of the top, top 10 or top 100 players."
Which is a really silly definition"
I fully agree, that was my very point ... but I think it IS the definition many people have (without really knowing what they're talking about)!?

"Today, top players will just play their memorized computer analysis up to move 30 or more."

That _almost never_ happens. Why do people have to exaggerate so ridiculously in this debate.

@Why do people have to exaggerate so ridiculously in this debate ?

It's basic rhetoric. When you argue for a radical change, for an off-beat, unorthodox view, you have to overstate your case in order to make a point.

btw, Nisipeanu played today 3..f5/Janisch in Ruy Lopez against Carlsen today. It went along one of the main theory lines up to move 16th when Carlsen went for the less critical 16.Rhf1 (16.Nf7)..a long forced sequence followed : 16. Rhf1 Rhe8 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Rxf6 Bxe5 19. Rxe6 Rxe6 20. Bxe6+ Qxe6 21. dxe5 Qh6+ 22. Rd2 Rxd2 23. Qxd2 e3 24. Qe2 Qg5..after which it was draw (who tries to press loses).. few more checks were given and draw agreed.

The moral of the story ?
Too slow, next time try playing f5 immediately (2..f5-Latvian)

@With shorter time controls opening prep and memorization plays an even bigger role.

If you ever played or watched blitz and rapids you would know that the opposite is true. The shorter the time controls the more you take the 'anything goes' attitude in the subject of openings.
At most you would rather go for an aggressive set-up and active defenses (say KID instead of QGD) because in such circumstances having the initiative becomes very important.

@You seem to think the only interesting part of the game is the opening.

I am not interested in openings, I am bored into death with them going with the analysis deep into the middle game and nowdays into the early endgame.
I would like to see only real games, played OTB, not games studied at home to find the good moves and plans and then (re)played OTB.

C'mon acirce. The Ruy Lopez (especially Marshall) is just ONE example of where this happens. And there are many more.

Sorry, but I know what I'm talking about. It happens very rarely.

@both Carlsen-Nisipeanu and Radjabov-Wang Yue were theory all the way - but Ovidiu's suggestion would make sense only if it really happened all the time. Faster time controls...

I was not suggesting faster time controls, that was what Irv was arguing for, I was only replying Bartleby comments to that. At faster time controls opening knowledge matters much less, as easily can be seen in practice. It is because the games are more unpredictable, more significant errors done, error which in turn alter the course of the game more significantly than the opening advantage.

I was arguing for playing a chess variant, a 9X8 or 10X8, at normal controls (thus keeping high the quality and the intellectual effort of the game)

Another interesting proposal which I have just read is playing a shuffle chess where players are allowed to chose their setup. Thus the first 8 moves of each game will be the choosing of the the set-up by each , and in response to the other guy choices.

A game would go something like

1.Kc1 Kg8 (black's 1..Kg8 reply to 1.Kc1 means that he wants an asymmetric set-up with kings having castled opposite sides).
2.Qd1 Qc8 3.Re1 Rd8 4.Rf1 Re8 (both choose to have the rooks along the central files to support later the central pawns) 5.Ba1 (b3 will follow at some point) Bf8 6.Bb1 ( after Ba1 the other bishop should be on a white square) 6..Ba8
7.Ng1 Nh8 8.Nh1 Nb8

now the "set-up of the armies" phase has ended, each has devised his set-up, and some choices were critical choices for the course of this game--white Ba1,Bb1 already "look" at Kg8, on the other hand b3 and c4 to open the their diagonals will also weaken the white king).

9.c4 e5 10.Nf3 Mg6 etc..

no opening theory, no random set-up but one thought up by each and already used to it "familiar" by move 9, no symmetry required (more possible set ups than in FRC)

"Small pool = fewer top players

Bigger pool = more top players and more extreme scores."

I assume that Sonas' point is that the majority of the pool increase is due to the addition of weaker players with little or no potential. While this indeed is true, it's rather absurd to think that a pool that's 15 times bigger will have NO increase whatsoever in the number of young & talented players. And the rapid development of these talents (with a much, much slower decline of the established top players) is the reason that there are many more strong players around these days.

Luckily one doesn't have to guess or "feel/think" about these issues: The RIGHT kind of statistics demonstrate this quite convincingly, as I wrote in my previous post.

@Another interesting proposal which I have just read is playing..

I'm replying to myself but just in case someone read my post : that shuffle-variant is actually called Pre-Chess and was proposed in 1970 by Pal Benko.

Perspectives by Burt Hochberg :

In November 1978, as editor of Chess Life, I published a controversial article by GM Pal Benko, entitled “Pre-Chess: Time for a Change,” and an accompanying article by GM Arthur Bisguier. Benko described a chess variant in which the pawns are set up on the second and seventh ranks as usual but the first and eighth ranks are vacant. To begin each game, players place their pieces,
alternately one at a time, anywhere on their first rank (with bishops on opposite colors). No piece or pawn may be moved until all the pieces are in place. In preparation for the articles, I had organized a short Pre-Chess match between
Benko and Bisguier in the Manhattan Chess Club (a few patrons of the Manhattan and Marshall clubs provided a small prize fund) to demonstrate that,
despite the unorthodox opening array, all the principles of chess still applied.

“The continual refinement of technique and assimilation of knowledge, particularly in the openings,” Benko wrote, “will gradually lead to the extinction of the game – it will be solved, played out... Most of the blame – if
that is the word – must fall on the vast store of opening information that is available to every player (and every computer). The amount of study a master has to do to remain up to date in the openings would suffice for a college education. If he neglects his studies his score suffers. I think this corrupts the essential nature of chess, which is a fight between the creative ideas of two
individuals. The vast array of predetermined opening variations and theories is, in my view, so much dead weight that should be discarded to save the true values of chess... The task, then, is to find a minimal change in the rules that would retain as much of the present game as possible and yet eliminate its worst feature, the overanalyzed starting position.”
Benko’s solution was Pre-Chess. Although he credited the idea to David Bronstein, I learned later that it dates back, in somewhat different form, to the early 19th-century chess writer Aaron Alexandre (who, ironically, was the compiler of one of the first systematic collections of chess openings, the forerunner of such compendiums as Modern Chess Openings). Benko had shown the variant to former world champion Max Euwe, who thought it was “an interesting idea,” “very good,” and “worth considering.” Benko had also
played some games of Pre-Chess with the teenaged Joel Benjamin, a future GM and U.S. Champion, who in 1979 won a Pre-Chess tournament.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/burt02.pdf

In round 9, at least Carlsen - based on his time consumption and his own words (video at Chessvibes) - wasn't familiar with that particular line of the Ruy Lopez Janisch and had to find theory (reinvent the wheel) over the board, deliberately avoiding the sharpest and most critical lines. And none of the four players involved actually used the time "gained" on the clock, instead they shook hands because the positions were drawn. Such theoretical draws do occur, but IMO aren't _that_ much of a problem - at least in Bazna which had 50% decisive games: Carlsen was the only one who didn't lose, but not the only one winning games!

And in round 10, it seems that the players collectively proved Ovidiu wrong!? ,:) No theory until move 30, but game over or (Wang Yue) desperately struggling for survival with white.

While Ovidiu's (Benko's) suggestion is interesting for exhibition matches, opening theory also has its advantages: Methinks games tend to be of higher quality if the players are familiar with the position (pawn structure, plans to follow, ...) - and it's not a problem if such games then end with a logical draw. I feel the same in my own amateur games ... . But others seem to love blunder-struck games for their (subjectively) higher entertainment value!?

As I wrote before: "Theory until move 30 can occur [so you are _sometimes_ right] ... but Ovidiu's suggestion would make sense only if it _really_ happened _all the time_ [here I am right that this is not the case, right?]."

While postmortem comments by top players may not always be honest, I find it a bit odd that you consider those "honest" which fit your expectations, and other ones "rubbish" (dishonest? lies?).
I agree that Carlsen probably saw this line of the Janisch sometime-somewhere, so it may have been a case of remembering theory (and trying to avoid a possible novelty from Nisipeanu in the sharpest lines?) rather than re-inventing it. He couldn't possibly expect the Janisch from Nisipeanu who apparently played it for the first time. He probably looked at it before his game against Radjabov, but in the past Radja consistently played 5.-Nf6 rather than 5.-d5. Even super-GMs cannot prepare and memorize everything, including lines they will encounter once or twice per decade!?

Are you trolling or what? In the recent WC match, one out of twelve games was decided without much over-the-board by a prepared line. I guess in regular tournament play the average is even lower than one in twelve. It's not "most of the times". Most of the games are decided by "OTB game, creativity and battle of ideas".

"In regular tournament play , most of the games are decided by 'OTB game, creativity and battle of ideas'."

False.

At the top level, chess has become a battle of who can memorize the most computer-generated lines. Nowadays, computers provide the creativity, strategy and ideas. The elite players are technicians who memorize the computer's output and do their best to replicate it over the board.

When was the last time a human was credited with coming up with a theoretical innovation?

"When was the last time a human was credited with coming up with a theoretical innovation?"

Credited by whom? As you and Ovidiu insist on "it's all engine analysis", you will never believe that a human can find a novelty.

But the most recent example I can name is Topalov's (or rather Cheparinov's) exchange sacrifice in game 7 of the WCh match. Of course it was subsequently checked by engines, but apparently it wasn't high on their list of candidate moves - else Anand could have anticipated the novelty. It is also part of the picture that Anand managed to neutralize the home-prepared novelty OTB using his own creativity, strategy, ideas, defensive skills, calculating power, whatever ... .

Indeed, Topalov relied on his seconds plus brute engine force (Rybka 4 on a supercomputer) plus himself ... and lost the match. Engines do play a major role, no doubt about it, but humans still play a role.

@Are you trolling or what? In the recent WC match, one out of twelve games ..

Are you naive or what ?

G1-the Nf7 you know

G3,
G5,
G8 -all featured the same Slav endgame analyzed in depth off-board with (super)-computers by Topalov

G4 saw a strong novelty 10.Na3 by Anand which allowed him to achieve the thematic in such postions d5 breakthrough (11.Ne5/14.Rfd1/15.d5) after which of course Topalov was worse and struggling to survive. He went badly wrong with that h6? but his position was already difficult while Anand was "playing" OTB his off-board in depth home analysis

G7 saw Topalov's (or Cheparinov's) 11..Nd7 12.Bxa8 prepared exchange sacrifice and Anand struggling to cope. Even after the preparation ended (at move 21.Kh1) and Topalov was a piece down he refused the draw and continued 21..Bf8, because he knew the position, it's dangers and tricks, in depth from his home preparation OTB. Anand was close to losing after 24.Nd2 Bb4! shot

G9 we could see Anand's prepared game, Queen sacrifice for 2 Rooks (move 21 but possible also at move 19 resulting in similar position).
In the imbalanced postion which resulted white is better, has strong attack despite (counter intuitive) the presence of minor pieces ( something which Anand discovered and studied at home).
Topalov almost lost, in fact he was lost few times but Anand could not find the killer blows.

G2 was a real OTB game (seemingly Anand mixed up again his order of prep moves)

G6 was again prep by Topalov, 11..Qf6 with a long sequence (the real game began at move 22) which resulted in a no big advantage but a sharp, open and (most importantly) familiar postion for Topalov. Anand held admirably but he was under pressure.

G11, was also OTB- though it was easy for Topalov, it fizzed out quickly in equality and draw, because of the 1.c4-choice by Anand

G10--real OTB, a small surprise (old line b6 line in Grunfeld) from Anand which allowed him to equalize quickly and side step any perparation

G12-deep preparation in QGD by Anand, 16.. Nf6(N) resulting in a complex position (weak c5 pawn but dynamic compensation for it). It was new stuff for Topalov while for Anand the position and how to play it well was known from home. Topalov couldn't find OTB any plan to meet it.

This match was a match mostly played at home not over the board in Sofia.

@Engines do play a major role, no doubt about it, but humans still play a role.

A funny Bareev interview, back in 2001
..
Question: How have computers changed chess at your level?

Bareev: Well, we don't work at chess anymore. We just look at the stupid computer, we follow the latest games and find small improvements. We have lost depth.

Q: When you work with computers do you ASK the computer to find ideas for you??

Bareev: Always. The only thing I do. I switch Fritz on and then wait, for the first line, the second line, and follow this.

Q: You are just being funny! But seriously: you find ideas and check them with Fritz...

Bareev: I find ideas? No, FRITZ finds the ideas. I don't. Because we don't have time. We seriously have to follow all these games and we simply don't have enough time. Simply too much information.

Q: This information is now available to all chess players. Is that a bad thing?

Bareev: It's reality. Not good, not bad, just reality.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1020

We seem to have different perceptions of the same things.

You list all the games and say only in Game 1 that there was no OTB play.

Yet you claim we should change the rules and things like "You are left to watch the other guy trying desperately to cope OTB and most of the cases failing." would happen in almost every game.

Of course opening preparation plays a part, and opening preparation gets always more memory-intensive with the advances of the programs. But top-level chess isn't (yet) where you claim it to be. Opening preparation sets the stage, but the game is decided by playing chess, not by who can memorize more lines.

In your summary of the Anand-Topalov match, your remarks about the role of preparation make sense, but
1) the relative role of engines and humans is unclear
2) you correctly state that it was mostly about becoming familiar with the resulting middlegame positions - giving the player a head start, and making it easier to find "ideas" OTB. Memorizing computer analyses is something else.

Topalov's in-depth computer analyses of the Slav endgame yielded him just 2/3, and basically because Anand blundered in the game he lost (before, both had played several second- or third-best moves). If anything, engines clouded Topalov's judgment as he later claimed that he was winning in all three games - but engines are relatively weak in endgames.

G10 was certainly also home preparation, or do you really think that -b6 was Anand's spontaneous OTB decision??

BTW, 16.-Nf6 in game 12 was not a novelty, it had been played before by the Polish GM Grabarczyk. It may have helped that Anand had another Polish GM (Wojtaszek) on his team. Topalov may have overlooked these games in his prep, even though that particular variation wasn't too surprising under the match circumstances. And the result was nothing more (and nothing less) than a dynamically equal middlegame with chances for both sides.

On Bareev: "We" throughout the interview should be replaced by "I"!? He can't really speak on behalf of his colleagues. And the fact that he apparently didn't know how to use engines properly, efficiently and creatively may have been one reason why he soon dropped out of the world top thereafter?

@it was mostly about becoming familiar with the resulting middlegame positions

It is both, you become familiar with a position and its patterns by means of following (many) concrete lines, ..it is almost as a side effect (happens without specifically aimig for it) of doing a lot of concrete analysis.

With few exceptions the match saw both players having prepared the games deeply.
As Ian Rogers was commenting (after G4) :

"Instant karma hit Topalov with a vengeance when he suffered the same fate as Anand in game one; losing to his opponent's fine preparation.
So far Anand is leading the opening novelty arms race and the match, but of course Topalov is only one good piece of preparation away from equalizing the score."

You may enjoy to watching online this kind of chess fight but I don't. There is a battle indeed but it is one not really fought OTB it is fought mainly at home in hours computer analyzing
exact variations, their resulting set-ups with their specific combinations/manouvers. it is a mockery of the idea of playing OTB chess.
For such things one should properly set a journal were people would publish competing anlayses and counteranalyses until they reach a conclusion.

@We seem to have different perceptions of the same things.

yes, and we can't be both right

@opening preparation sets the stage, but the game is decided by playing chess, not by who can memorize more lines.

GM Ian Rogers :

"In the old days, just a few years ago, a player in a world title match would prepare openings with his seconds. If one player was lucky, he would find the position on the board in front of him matched the position on the board at home, and an opening advantage might be achieved. The rest of the battle was head-to-head combat and may the better player win.
Today, it seems, using computer aids plus seconds - both physical and virtual** - winning a complete game through home analysis is the rule rather than the exception.
The ability to play good chess is a given but may not be necessary in a particular game if the opening is analysed well and deeply enough, by seconds and computers...The games have certainly been entertaining yet in two of the games it seems that one player needed only to remember their home analysis to win the game. Sad to say, these have been the two most spectacular games of the match!"

@not surprising in the least that you like GM Rogers

I am necessarily fond of him, it was just easy to find at the USCF site for quick a "copy/paste reply" to Bartleby.

More interesting would be to have translated Karpov's opinions, he said in one interview that without computers Anand and Topalov wouldn’t have achieved the success they have.

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/03/karpov-on-the-pozner-show/

I agree that opening preparation has become incredibly deep, and here I can quote Bareev (even if I question the rest of his interview):
"It's reality. Not good, not bad, just reality."

Let's put things to a lower (amateur) level: I cannot afford seconds or a supercomputer, but for the openings which I play I will do all of the following:
- buy and read an opening book - not to memorize lines, but to get an idea of various possibilities
- play through GM games in that opening to get an idea of typical plans and maneouvres as well as possible mistakes to be made [a good opening book will also have some sample games]
- analyze my game afterwards, be it with my opponent, with (stronger) clubmates or on my own [BTW I don't use engine assistance, but other amateurs will]

All of this will (hopefully) make me play better next time, is this "a mockery of the idea of playing OTB chess"? If not, at which stage do we cross that limit?

Funnily enough I've got that interview in draft and should put it on the site tomorrow. For now here's the relevant bit:

"- And how would you characterise Anand and Topalov?

- Both Anand and Topalov are more computer chess players, although both of them have great talent, but all the same they're already the age of chess computerisation.

- You mean, if I can phrase it like that - chess players of the 21st century?

- I wouldn't say that, because it seems to me that chess players of the 21st century in many positions are inferior to chess players of the 20th century. But using computers and appropriate preparation they achieve sporting successes that they probably wouldn't achieve if it weren't for computers."

On a World Cup theme the latest post on my site is a Topalov interview including some frankly bizarre football-related (and other) questions. Topalov handled them quite well, considering!

@But not having to use and face computers and appropriate preparation...

But not having to face in the ring people armed with AK-47s (and memorized lines generated by Fritz) Myke Tyson achieved good sporting successes. It would have been quite a different story otherwise.

"But not having to use and face computers and appropriate preparation Karpov achieved sporting successes that he probably wouldn't have achieved if it weren't for the lack of computers."

Is this roughly the same as : "Computers provide solutions to problems we didn't have without computers"? ,:)

If not exactly a direct application of that "slogan", I guess it's in the same ballpark. :o)

Look, on any given tournament day, many of us log on after the opening phase is over to see what's cooking. Usually, there's at least two interesting struggles going on, but if it's not we can turn to other activities. Not every game can be groundbreaking - much like how a football game can be a snoozefest, or how practically all public debate (like this one) is a rehash of the same old tired arguments.

If today you cannot find even one 2500+ player that interests you, then maybe chess is indeed dead to you and you should close the book on it. Even if you liked a previous incarnation of it very much, it's in general better to simply assume that this incarnation is forever dead and move on to other topics that you will find more rewarding.

@After losing he demanded a rematch, even though he had no legal or moral right to one..."

Kramnik did well.
He squeezed for himself (publicity, money) as much as he could from becoming WCH. He must have been a fool to give Kasparov a rematch and (quite likely) risk losing the title.
Kasparov would have argued aftwerwards that Kramnik's 2000 victory was an accident.

I hate how they transcribed the 'So' and 'No' in front of many of Karpov's sentences. They are filler words, not meant to convey any meaning. For some reason, Russians seem to have a habit of using them. (I know this Russian prof who starts every other sentence with "Yea no so...".) Similarly, they should leave out the 'no' at the end of every Rafael Nadal sentence.

Agreed on the transcription! And the yea-no... they do say it - Da...niet (the no seems to win out!). I also found myself saying a quick "da..da..da" after a while spent in Russian company...

Greg - yep, I wouldn't wish another rematch debate on the world. On Chesspro Kramnik's comments on Russia still leading in chess stirred up much more of a debate, though in terms of numbers (perhaps not individual talents) it's probably true.

it depends on the method, a couple of hours (2-4) if done by PCR/electrophoresis