2014 World chess championship - Page 2

GG. If there's 1 game to watch from this match, it's this last one, game 11. Awesome fighting chess, much more tactical than the usual Carlsen game.

On November 23 2014 13:54 Graisseux wrote: GG. If there's 1 game to watch from this match, it's this last one, game 11. Awesome fighting chess, much more tactical than the usual Carlsen game.

Tactical? The only tactic i saw was rook take pawnon c3 i believe. The game was already GG after rook exchange sac, the rest standard procedure for carlsen

any resources if i wanted to get better at chess?

or join the conversation etc. like the way you can talk knowledgeably about poker when watching the best play

chesstempo.com for puzzles and resources
https://www.youtube.com/user/Chessexplained on youtube
play on a free site like http://en.lichess.org/

enjoy. I have a case full of chess trophies from when I was in elementary school but i quit in middleschool because it was too boring of a game for me at the time. Not to toot my own horn but if I wanted to I could probably become a grandmaster if I dedicated a lot of time to it and learned all the openings and variations. It's just not worth the time though. Poker and gambling is more important!

On November 23 2014 21:24 Nitewin wrote: chesstempo.com for puzzles and resources https://www.youtube.com/user/Chessexplained on youtube play on a free site like http://en.lichess.org/ enjoy. I have a case full of chess trophies from when I was in elementary school but i quit in middleschool because it was too boring of a game for me at the time. Not to toot my own horn but if I wanted to I could probably become a grandmaster if I dedicated a lot of time to it and learned all the openings and variations. It's just not worth the time though. Poker and gambling is more important!

Same, except I haven't touched chess since elementary school at all so I'm pretty clueless of what s going on in those games

Same, I was crazy good at basketball in elementary school but I stopped playing. Probably would have made the NBA if I stuck with it.

^lol

Not to toot my own horn but is very talented at tennis in elementary school and if i wanted to i could become a top10 player in a couple of years with ease.

I like chessnetwork and kingscrusher videos. They are fun. Play on chess.com for example.

ahahaha... not to toot my own horn but i did times divide add minus in my head faster than my classmates in nursery. i could probably have been a mathematics fields medal winner easily if i wanted to but wasn't worth my time. clearly browsing lp, breaking even at ssnl and losing at sportsbetting are what make life truly worthwhile

Guys not to toot my own horn but I was able to beat my little brother in brawls during my childhood. Could probably have become the greatest UFC fighter ever but posting silly gifs and working 9-5 in an office is just way more fun.

i love LP :D

why couldnt he thou? anyone w/ average iq could after 'dedicating a lot of time to it and learning all the openings and variations', not possible for sports coz hes too old

i dont know much about chess but the fact there are 1444 grandmasters in the world as of jan 2014 suggests that statement is ridiculously false given how long the game has been around, how widespread it is and the total resources that go into teaching it in schools, running clubs and tournaments etc.

1444 living grandmasters or awarded total?
how many ppl are willing to devote half of their lifetime to game which makes no money?

almost everybody i know plays tennis everyweekend but none of my friends is in atp top10, i find it ridiculous given how long the game has been around, how widespread it is and the total resources that go into teaching it in schools, running clubs and tournaments etc.

dont understand your tennis point. do you think anyone with average athletic ability could have become top tennis pros had they had the right background and training? or are you suggesting tennis somehow makes money whereas chess doesn't? (both have plenty of money relative to human needs at the toptop and hardly anything below that, same as just about any other competitive pursuit that isn't poker).

also if you think money is what drives people to dedicate half their lives into some game then you must be under the impression the net volume of human time, effort and talent going into poker is greater than that going into chess?

0 for 3

how can you judge someones athletic ability if they didnt devote fully to such an activity? 300lbs fat guys you meet in the street might have been amazing athletes.. anyway i was just suggesting that two persons doing the same doesnt mean the same. you cant compare someone who goes to local chess club once a week with nitewin whos planning on devoting next 20 years becoming a grandmaster. even i play chess occasionally coz i like the game but i m not interested in learning openings or strategies, i just play for fun.

true, i have no idea how much top chess players make, but even tho player bases might be comparable (counting everyone who plays now and then), chess isnt the most popular games these days. how many kids dream on becoming a chess grandmaster? not many, tennis pro on the other hand... ones lifetime is relatively short and ppl tend to focus on things that motivate them not only internally but also externally and you cant argue sports bring more fame and money than chess. i m not interested in tennis at all and still could name 7players of atp top10.

2nd paragraph is nonsense

sry for my broken english -_-

reread my second paragraph. seems ok to me. im saying that if the potential to get money/fame is what drives people to dedicate themselves to game x over game y then poker should be tougher or as tough as chess because poker has more money. from what i can see the reality is the overwhelming opposite - chess is much tougher. clearly there are other factors.

1444 looks like the total GM titles awarded since FIDE has been around from what I can see (so since 1924). even if it was the number of GM currently active (which it isn't close to), that would still be such an insanely small number compared to any reasonable estimate of the number of people in the last 40 years that threw most of their lives into competitive chess from a young age trying to make it.

like i said i only have passing knowledge of the chess scene so hopefully someone who knows more can shed some light, but from what I can see just putting your life into the game and learning book openings to a decent level is only going to bring you up to the level of top club player. only the best of the set of top club players can become national masters. of the set national masters only the very few best can become international masters. of the international masters only the few best can reach GM. seems pretty obv that someone with average ability but dedication has no shot and you need some pretty significant genetic gifts to go along with that dedication to have any shot.

i was the best chess player in my primary school as well and won some trophies, but the difference is i realise how utterly worthless that is. it's a big world.

well poker is perceived as gambling by majority of ppl so its not a very fair comparison, stock markets would be better, also i didnt state money were the only motivation

my understanding is that nitewin isnt implicating learning some opening and basic strategies is the only thing it would take, more like 1st step. anyway i recall seing some study suggesting some masters has below-average iq, no idea if its true or if every grandmaster is a genius

extrapolating from winning trophies in elementary that you would become grandmaster.. that is silly. It's very possible that nitewin has some other reason to believe he could have been one of the world's top dogs, like an actual grandmaster told him he was blown away by his talent, but yeah.. if you remove the injury aspect, it's much like me stating that I could have been a professional football player if I had tried

My wife used to tour europe winning chess tourneys when she was a kid. Then she stopped after losing once. Me, I have some talent for the game much like most other games, but I've probably played only ~100 full chess games throughout my life - there are probably like 15 layers of dominance between me and grandmaster players. When me and my wife played some during summer - her first games in more than 15 years - I won something like 8-3. She didn't just win local competitions, but ones with players from all over europe (granted women so yeah), but yeah.. there's a lot more to becoming chess grandmaster than just dominating local competitions as a child and then dedicating yourself to it later.

it's kinda like how I'd assume 10% of people might consider themselves in the top 1-2% intellectually. ;(

I was once and adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee