|
Will Anand Win a Game? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
11 | 22.45% |
| No |
|
4 | 8.16% |
| Hell No |
|
1 | 2.04% |
| Hahaha No |
|
11 | 22.45% |
| Putin has managed to become a threat to both Russia and World Peace because Obama is not a strong leader like Ronald Reagan |
|
22 | 44.90% |
| Total: | 49 votes | ||
|
King Pawn posted:I far preferred the tiebreak days in the recent World Cup. Even on the early days with 64 or 32 boards going at once the classic time controls just made it too hard (and time-consuming) to follow the thread of games from start to finish. On the other hand, I found some of the tiebreak matches (Karjakin-Mamedyarov and Svidler-Karjakin spring to mind, and Wei Yi did some cool stuff) absolutely thrilling. Who cares that it wasn't perfect play, it was the kind of sporting drama that is going to hook people into chess far more than technical endgame play. It's okay for players to make errors. But doesn't this limit enjoyment of the game? I can't speak for everyone, but I love sitting down and watching chess because it takes awhile and there's plenty strategy and ideas/tricks involved. Enjoying the depth of the game, basically. By just making it rapid and faster means people mess up more and don't have time to really think about everything. It's just blindly moving pieces around to see who comes out on top. To me that's not an enjoyable way to play chess. I play chess because I like to form a strategy and take my time. It's a game of patience, not "MAKE A MOVE FAST!" to me. Then again, I'm like 1200. So maybe it's more interesting to me because I don't really understand every single best possible move to make in X circumstance like grandmasters and computers can. But fast games and draws midway through the game never appealed to me. It seems to take out all the fun in playing and makes it so fast that it becomes less of a game about strategy and out thinking your opponent and more about just making fast moves and hoping your opponent makes an easily found blunder you can exploit.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
King Pawn posted:I'm not disputing that you can play better chess with more time. This is obvious. I just dispute the principle that the point of a chess tournament is to produce perfect play. If that's what you want I'd recommend correspondence chess or TCEC. The goal isn't to have perfect play. I doubt even computers have "perfect" play. The goal is to just give these grandmasters enough time to sort through everything they need to before making a move. Why the focus on sporting drama and excitement anyway? This is chess; it's not E! TV. It's not football. Chess is a thinking game. Obviously a lot of the fun as a spectator comes in from wondering what move they'll make or who will win. Do we really need to make chess all about drama and action when it's a game based on patience and strategy? Come on. If you want that there's wrestling and tons of other games full of excitement and drama. Chess isn't that kind of game, so why do we need that kind of play here? And that's not an insult. I love football and love a good bit of excitement, but chess has always been a slower paced game based on out thinking the opponent and picking the best strategy you can and hoping to outwit your opponent. I don't think it's meant to be this fast paced and drama filled game like other sports where there's something happening every second. The only drama comes from theorizing about which player wins. Will Vishy win? Carlsen? And why? Who's gonna be world chess champ? Will X move be enough to force a win? If so, why? As a spectator a lot of the fun comes in trying to figure out the logic behind the strategy and moves of the grandmasters. Because we don't know the game as well as them so why would they make X move? Is that gonna be a blunder or will it become one of the moves we all try at the local club? That's the drama and fun. It's all mental. It's not like Carlsen is gonna take a steel chair to the latest contender for world chess champ and call him names on a mic. I don't know what drama and excitement you really expect from a game that is inherently mental in nature. And lowering the time limits just ensures they don't play their best and has them gently caress up a lot. That doesn't make the game more exciting. At least to me that makes the game less exciting because I know it's practically a coin toss between who wins rather than the guy who truly came with the best strategy possible. I'm not asking for perfection, I'm just asking to see the best possible game these guys can play. And playing the best you can isn't demanding perfection or anything of the sort. Because even your best game that beats X guy can probably be countered at some point by someone else in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 06:54
|
|