|
Does anyone have a video of the commentators freaking out as Ding was frozen and not making any move during one of the early games? I heard about it, but haven't seen it. Meanwhile, Magnus Carlsen is just having a good time because he finds the classical championship too stressful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldcOroTREOE
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Chamale posted:Does anyone have a video of the commentators freaking out as Ding was frozen and not making any move during one of the early games? I heard about it, but haven't seen it. https://www.youtube.com/live/_YXmQajBJwY?feature=share If the timestamp in the url doesn't work, go to 4h08m00s in the video for the start of the turn where Ding locks up. 4h15m20s is roughly where Anish has to walk off-camera from the stress/sympathy pains. Edit: Sharing a "live" youtube video is hell. Very happy for Ding & Rapport et al. Very sad for Nepo. I hope he can make it back and win it down the line, but drat it seems tough. I assume he auto-qualifies for the Candidates at least in 2024?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Does anyone have a video of the commentators freaking out as Ding was frozen and not making any move during one of the early games? I heard about it, but haven't seen it. https://clips.twitch.tv/DignifiedDeterminedAlbatrossTooSpicy-S-GvgfLIZhj94lfK Chess isn't that popular in China but I do recall hearing about Xie Jun many years ago when I was first learning it, so probably this event being more prestigious will get some coverage. I was expecting Nepo to win this match in the classical portion given his additional prep and experience, but sadly he just couldn't clinch it when he had his chances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Incredible scenes. I thought Ding was gone for all money after Game 7. What a match.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
kalensc posted:Very sad for Nepo. I hope he can make it back and win it down the line, but drat it seems tough. I assume he auto-qualifies for the Candidates at least in 2024? yeah that's how it's worked in the past Zwabu posted:Did Twitch change their policies regarding music on streams? I was watching Hikaru's stream of the tiebreakers and it was a continuous playlist of copyrighted music going. I thought they cracked down hard on that years ago? Or is it just that you can play it during the stream but they mute the music or prevent you leaving the video up after the stream? I believe it's mixed somehow so it doesn't show up on the vods
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
great match, glad to see interesting games and a variety of openings without it turning into a walk over. i've been a fan of ding's for a long time, so it's good to see him get the win it feels weird to have the winner determined by rapids, though. i get that the days of drawn out matches of dozens of games is past and that it's no longer viable for the players (carlsen even decided that the current format isn't worth it), the organizers, or the fans, but it still rubs me the wrong way. i guess it wasn't so obvious to me when carlsen was taking part because he was so strong in both categories
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 09:03
|
|
|
Deciding it with rapids is weird, but the alternative of continuing with classical forever until x wins is also unacceptable. Caruana-Carlsen could have been continuing until this very day. That said, I'm not entirely sure what the alternative is. Maybe armageddon? But I'm not sure how well that works in classical among super GMs
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 09:25
|
|
|
Yeah I agree that it being decided by tiebreaks is unsatisfying, regardless of the incredible drama it created at the end. First to X wins is the best format I think. Encourages attacking play as you can't sit on a lead and means if you're behind you're theoretically never out of it. The farce of the 1984 championship has killed that forever though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 09:30
|
|
|
Official pics of the Ding support team: For as long as the Classical Championship keeps pretending that they are the ultimate chess title they will have to accept having rapid/blitz as tie-breaks. If they decide that rapid is too different from classical to count for their title, they are also accepting that the rapid champion is an equal title to the classical champion.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 12:07
|
|
|
I realize this is an unpopular opinion in some circles, but personally I think they should accept that as long as they want to have it be the unqualified "world chess champion" they should accept that these days rapid and blitz are just as much a part of the game as classical. If they want it to be classical only then they should call it the "world classical chess championship" the same way they qualify the titles for rapid and blitz. I would be fine with some kind of format change that incorporates rapid and blitz into the format (i.e., not just as tiebreaks) but works out some way to give them less priority than classical, like idk, making a classical game worth 4 points, a rapid game 2, and a blitz game 1 or something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 13:19
|
|
|
They are allowing performance in faster time controls possibly count in terms of qualifications for the next Candidates via the 2023 FIDE Circuit spot.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 13:23
|
|
|
They should go back to "first to six wins" but make sure that the only players who are allowed to compete are too psychologically weak to draw 40 games in a row. e: I guess as a slightly more serious tangential answer what we saw from Ding is a pretty serious departure from conventional match strategy, where instead of focusing in on a couple of openings he instead changed what he was playing every game. This meant that, instead of pursuing an advantage by knowing one thing better than the opponent, the match was played as much as possible in a state of novelty. Ding still held an advantage in familiarity but, in total, each player was playing at a much lower level of familiarity and expertise. I think that's a fairly significant part of the reason why we got so many results (and a few more near results). I'm curious to see if that sort of strategy carries over into future matches, and if we get similar results.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
Decide the next world champion via correspondence chess. First to 6 wins or until someone dies of old age.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
i want to hug and kiss ding on the lips
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:They should go back to "first to six wins" but make sure that the only players who are allowed to compete are too psychologically weak to draw 40 games in a row. I strongly agree with this. A grandmaster from my home country complained about the level of chess in the tournament because it was lower than when Magnus played. I agree with that in a limited sense - if we define good chess as how closely we hew to the best stockfish line. But why should that be the metric? Why not play moves that are hard for humans to refute (because they haven't prepped this line), even if a machine thinks it's easy to refute (because when you can calculate into like, 40 depth or whatever, every move is easily refutable)? Like, stockfish would say you're playing a bad and inaccurate game. But is it, tho? Or put a different way - is it bad chess if a 600 elo player moves for a scholar's mate because his 600 elo opponent might not be able to calculate it? Even if it's trivially obvious and refutable for his 2000 elo chess teacher? When Daniel Naroditsky prepped a line for MoistCritikal to mate xqc, was that bad chess just because it was effectively a gambit on whether xqc would notice it? Exercu fucked around with this message at 15:42 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Exercu posted:I strongly agree with this. A grandmaster from my home country complained about the level of chess in the tournament because it was lower than when Magnus played. I agree with that in a limited sense - if we define good chess as how closely we hew to the best stockfish line. But why should that be the metric? Why not play moves that are hard for humans to refute (because they haven't prepped this line), even if a machine cannot? Like, stockfish would say you're playing a bad and inaccurate game. But is it, tho? It speaks to what makes for "good" chess. Is a good chess player someone who is better than their opponent at memorizing a long opening line? Or is a good chess player someone who is better than their opponent at adapting to unexpected situations and calculating new lines in the moment? Obviously there are players who are better at one or the other, and the best players are exceptional at both. But especially in the engine age, it feels like most high-level matches focus on the first aspect, as players try to prepare and memorize long opening lines that will give them an advantage over their opponent so that they don't need to adapt to unexpected situations and calculate new lines in the moment. The Carlsen-Caruana championship match was really bad for this imo, and most of the games were really boring to watch as a result. It really felt like Ding's approach to this match emphasized the second aspect of good chess play, by quickly putting Nepo into unexpected situations where he would have less prep and where both players would have to do a lot of calculation of new unexpected lines. Given what we know about Nepo being a supremely talented classical player but one who's prone to making mistakes in the moment, I think that was a smart approach and it clearly paid off. And in the process it was way more interesting and exciting to watch as a spectator.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
Huxley posted:correspondence chess... or until someone dies of old age.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
Exercu posted:I strongly agree with this. A grandmaster from my home country complained about the level of chess in the tournament because it was lower than when Magnus played. I agree with that in a limited sense - if we define good chess as how closely we hew to the best stockfish line. But why should that be the metric? Why not play moves that are hard for humans to refute (because they haven't prepped this line), even if a machine thinks it's easy to refute (because when you can calculate into like, 40 depth or whatever, every move is easily refutable)? Like, stockfish would say you're playing a bad and inaccurate game. But is it, tho If you get the chance, it might be worth it to ask that GM what they mean by the level being inferior because I suspect they don't just mean "silicon suboptimal." There's a good chance they would refer to games by people like Petrosian or Ulf Andersson as showing a higher standard of play even though by computer standards those players played at a far lower level than not just this match but just about any top 20 game today. Both players' play really wasn't that great in several aspects. Take the first game for example. Ding genuinely got a lovely position in a way that he shouldn't have: he was way too passive, his pieces were uncoordinated, his pawn structure fell apart. More than any stockfish evaluation, you can see that not only did he lose control of the position, he never managed to have much of a grip on it in the first place. And then, similarly, Nepomniachtchi lets any sort of advantage slip away without finding much of an executable plan. This isn't "stockfish didn't like it," it's "couldn't execute is own plan" or "had no handle on the position." Like just from an overall perspective, that's inferior play from both players and you can understand it without appealing to half point margins in computer evals. And this isn't Ding playing 'human moves that are hard to refute' because the human approach isn't to get pinned back and then hope to not die. One of the things that stood out in this match is that Nepomniachtchi tried to play very professional chess, but he was too shaky to actually pull it out. This isn't just "stout defence by Ding posed real problems," it's "Nepomniachtchi was genuinely sloppy in positions of advantage and let poo poo get away from him." He tried to play like Kramnik and he just didn't have the mental discipline to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Exercu posted:I strongly agree with this. A grandmaster from my home country complained about the level of chess in the tournament because it was lower than when Magnus played. I agree with that in a limited sense - if we define good chess as how closely we hew to the best stockfish line. But why should that be the metric? Why not play moves that are hard for humans to refute (because they haven't prepped this line), even if a machine thinks it's easy to refute (because when you can calculate into like, 40 depth or whatever, every move is easily refutable)? Like, stockfish would say you're playing a bad and inaccurate game. But is it, tho? yeah - when i look at some of my game analysis and see that i played an "innacuracy" because stockfish finds a 9 move decisive advantage that maybe a GM would have seen, did I really play a bad move?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Every time I watch GMs play each other on twitch they go "oh god, I allowed this? Oh no... I'm playing so badly. That was so inaccurate, why a I doing this?" and then they check the accuracy after the game and its 93.5% or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
I love the little spikes on the eval chart when I make a blunder and my opponent blunders right back. I think my record is 3 straight blunders each, because I didn't realize I had a hanging rook and my opponent didn't realize it either.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Chamale posted:... I think my record is 3 straight blunders each... You are much, much better than me and the people I play against. EKG graphs are the norm.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
I like games where you get two pieces staring one another down and neither player feels like trading is good for them, so we just hold. You fight out what felt like a solid, smart game, then the endgame eval gives us both 20% accuracy because the right move for both of us 10 moves in a row was trading. Just 2/3 of the moves for both players are misses or blunders because the computer is yelling at us both to chop.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I love the little spikes on the eval chart when I make a blunder and my opponent blunders right back. I think my record is 3 straight blunders each, because I didn't realize I had a hanging rook and my opponent didn't realize it either. Staring at the eval history trying to figure out what it was, eventually going back to that position and discovering that the queens were mutually en prise for five moves.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
I think just looking at accuracy / number of blunders doesn't mean much without taking into account how much pressure the opponent puts on you with their moves. It's easy to play a great game against someone who's not making threats (tactical or positional). Often when I make a lot of blunders it's because my rating increased and the opponents started knowing what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Good chess is not the same as good tv. This match was good tv. Carlsen-caruana classical chess was good chess. Rapid tiebreaks are dumb and the title should just be shared if we aren’t willing to allow the 1984 format. Finding a good position with a computer or team of seconds to explore and understand and then outplay your opponent from is good chess. It is study and strategy and almost zero gamesmanship. Clock pressure and funny faces and tiebreaks are dumb and shouldn’t be part of the title game. Put the opponents online so they can’t engage in games and let the chess speak for itself. The theatre of the board degrades the game. Still, I understand why the FIDE folks love the theatre as it feeds their ego and increases viewer count. Ding’s openings were in line with finding interesting positions. Ra2 was neat, but the blunderfestivals take something away. Idk. Anias fucked around with this message at 20:15 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
If I wanted error free chess I would be watching TCEC. The also just had their championship and published a pdf writeup: https://tcec-chess.com/articles/Sufi_23_-_Sadler.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
Queens moving any number of spaces is not good chess. They should leap exactly two spaces diagonally as God intended when He put the rules of chess in the bible. I think sports always have to change with the times, and the current level of computer analysis makes 20th-century-style classical championships unfeasible.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
It’s not infeasible, people are just emotionally invested in the drama instead of wanting to organize, play, and then write and read about good chess games. The tcec pdf is great and certainly better than any of the ding/nepo stuff. Completely understandable that Magnus said “no thanks”. As a spectacle, this wc delivered. Clearly no complaints about it on pure sports writer storylines. Clearly no complaints on celebrity gossip headlines. It was fine as a FIDE event. It still was disappointing chess. These two ideas aren’t at odds with each other.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Queens moving any number of spaces is not good chess. They should leap exactly two spaces diagonally as God intended when He put the rules of chess in the bible. Chinese chess 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Anias posted:It’s not infeasible, people are just emotionally invested in the drama instead of wanting to organize, play, and then write and read about good chess games. The tcec pdf is great and certainly better than any of the ding/nepo stuff. The chess may have been disappointing to you personally, but I would shy away from saying it was disappointing on an intrinsic level. totalnewbie posted:Chinese chess Xiangqi yes please
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
Anias posted:Good chess is not the same as good tv. This match was good tv. Carlsen-caruana classical chess was good chess. Rapid tiebreaks are dumb and the title should just be shared if we aren’t willing to allow the 1984 format. Baronash fucked around with this message at 23:01 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Anias posted:Good chess is not the same as good tv. This match was good tv. Carlsen-caruana classical chess was good chess. Rapid tiebreaks are dumb and the title should just be shared if we aren’t willing to allow the 1984 format. i agree, they shouldn’t let humans play in the world championship anymore
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:i agree, they shouldn’t let humans play in the world championship anymore I want the best players and this discrimination against our robot overlords is what will eventually set off the revolution!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
Another thought from this fun match is that I am sad that the woman's championship doesn't get as good commentary/publicity. We really don't need robot tier play to enjoy a tense chess duel. Maybe things will change this year. e: Also this is a really cool blog post, but dude your graph game sucks. You literally link to someone making a better graph from the same data. https://lichess.org/@/CheckRaiseMate/blog/openings-vs-ratings/KiEVbcI9 
VictualSquid fucked around with this message at 23:27 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I like games where you get two pieces staring one another down and neither player feels like trading is good for them, so we just hold. You fight out what felt like a solid, smart game, then the endgame eval gives us both 20% accuracy because the right move for both of us 10 moves in a row was trading. Just 2/3 of the moves for both players are misses or blunders because the computer is yelling at us both to chop. I love that and when you finally do play the optimal move stockfish goes "Sorry, that was two moves ago, now this is a blunder".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:i agree, they shouldn’t let humans play in the world championship anymore just let them use their phones, it'll be the same result
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
I did not enjoy the WCs where it was draw after draw. I did enjoy the classical games this year when Ding was doing off the wall stuff. I would like if the World Championship incorporated multiple time controls, so that there is some ultra-prepared classical, because after all that is probably the pinnacle of human chess, but I do not want to see 14 games of it. Exercu posted:I strongly agree with this. A grandmaster from my home country complained about the level of chess in the tournament because it was lower than when Magnus played. I agree with that in a limited sense - if we define good chess as how closely we hew to the best stockfish line. But why should that be the metric? Why not play moves that are hard for humans to refute (because they haven't prepped this line), even if a machine thinks it's easy to refute (because when you can calculate into like, 40 depth or whatever, every move is easily refutable)? Like, stockfish would say you're playing a bad and inaccurate game. But is it, tho? that WC was some of the best chess I've ever seen. if you want to see computer moves they have engine tournaments for that. nerves and the human element are as much a part of the game as strategy. it owns that the world championship was won on a psyche-out
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
Start classical but every draw, players lose 30 minutes on the clock (ramping down so they actually HAVE time left after 4 draws..)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Start classical but every draw, players lose 30 minutes on the clock (ramping down so they actually HAVE time left after 4 draws..) I love this idea
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 15:43
|
|
