2014 World chess championship

Magnus Carlsen vs Viswanathan Anand
Game 3 today. Won't spoiler for anyone who has missed the start. Brag about your rating, comment on the games.

http://www.twitch.tv/chessnetwork
https://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork
https://www.youtube.com/user/kingscrusher

They played eachother in 2013 and i found myself following the event then. It has been brilliant so far.

Enjoyed both games and thought they were pretty interesting. I especially liked game 2. Didn't think you could come up with any strong "anti-berlin" kind of openings. The maneuver Ra3-g3 with Nh4-f5 and Qh5 was sexy.

awww shit A Patel in the house

Rematch city. Last battle was epic, impressed that Anand is back

>thinking i was going to see a live chess game

Nope.

>triple pawning yourself

last match was as big a blowout as youll ever see in chess. this probably will be as well. real shame it wasnt carlsen/caruana

every time i hear about chess in the news, i start playing, hoping i don't completely blow donkey dick, but indeed, i blow complete donkey dick at this fucking game

This is an annual event? How did Anand get back in it, did he really win the candidates or was it an auto rematch or something like that? Made a pretty penny on Magnus last year 100% would have bet him again had I any idea this was going on. Seems like last years WC was a much bigger deal.

anand won the candidates tourney. seconding daut, carlsen/caruna wouldve been a sick matchup. But then carlsen is gonna win this and prolly another couple years so caruna should get his shot.

Vishy won game 3. Things are getting interesting.

Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 3m3 minutes ago

Easy win for Vishy today. Terrible prep by Carlsen. No matter how well you play, can't expect good results when lost after the opening.

Kasparov gets to say "I told you so" to Carlsen after he abandoned his training 8)

I thought game 4 would've lasted more moves with Carlsen trying to exhaust the older player in prevision of next games and hoping for a blunder. It felt like the type of endgame that has always suited Carlsen so well, little disappointed about that.

On November 11 2014 15:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: anand won the candidates tourney. seconding daut, carlsen/caruna wouldve been a sick matchup. But then carlsen is gonna win this and prolly another couple years so caruna should get his shot.

Yes, and I think Aronian is also trickier than Anand and could've surprised us with a better match, even though he's been falling due to sickness and stuff lately.

Though with the great win on game 3 we can't complain much at this point.

with the exception of last years world championship match, i always thought anand had excellent opening preparation.

from the 2013 tata steel, anand vs aronian:


was really blown away by anand's performance in that game, just had to be opening prep work since it was far too complex to come up with over the board. due to this perceived strength in opening prep, i thought he would sometimes have an edge on carlsen. if carlsen doesnt play one of the unknown off beat or new lines and enters into one of anand's preparations he may fall into big problems.

last year seemed weird, anand just kept playing e4 and getting nowhere. not sure why it took him so long to play something else when clearly he wasnt making progress. anand is brilliant, but it seems like he loses focus in long games.

aronian is pretty great and it would be fun to watch carlsen enter into a more tactical battle with a player like that, but carlsen/caruana is the real prize. those guys are going to be 2830+ for a long time, big gap between them and everyone else. there is no world championship next year and caruana is probably ~40-50% to make it through the next candidates tourney. so we have to wait at least 2 years for it

Do you guys think its worth betting on Carlsen at 4.4 ?
Obv doesn't include it if they go into tie-breaker

At 4.4 nope. I like Carlsen to win this but I think its much closer than a lot of people think. Vishy is very motivated. Since losing the championship he has been working really hard and is in top form. His prep for this match has been second to none and I actually wouldn't be too surprised if he won.

ouch.....the old double blunder

Crazy stuff. At one point during the press conference I thought Carlsen would throw his microphone at the audience after being asked for the 15th time how he felt about the blunder.

Marathon 7th game, felt like Carlsen was pretty frustrated at Anand's great defense and just wouldn't give up pressing.

At the end Anand was looking at Carlsen with eyes saying "are we done yet"? Haha

Carlsen playing computer moves.

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

If you put in thousands of hours of studying into chess I believe anyone could reach at least strong expert or low master at the minimum. You will never reach GM unless you have undeniable talent/iq on top of the hard work.

There is a reason the greatest player who ever played the game happens to be one of the all time smartest people in the world.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-highest-iqs-in-histoy/6/

# 8 is female grandmaster Judit Polgar

im not sure if theres a strong correlation between intelligence and chess aptitude. garry kasparov is undeniably one of the most brilliant men of all time, but i dont think all GM players are like that. the top GMs are probably all geniuses, but when you start getting into the 2650 and below level it seems chess aptitude correlates more with how early someone was exposed to chess and how hard they studied as a youngster. my good friend was very interested in mastering chess for a while and he got lessons from a mid 2500 russian GM who was a reasonably smart guy, but his chess vision was unbelievable. he would notice certain things that took us a long time of staring at a board to see. i dont think thats necessarily intellect.

that said, kasparov, fischer, capablanca, and morphy are/were all likely off the charts in terms of intelligence. magnus is very very very smart, but he seems like more of a savant than an off the charts genius like the other 4 i listed (although still a genius)

so i was right, /thread

lol why do i argue on the internet... ok if you literally mean the intelligence quotient test there is unlikely to be more than weak correlation between that and chess achievement, but there is clearly something more than just working hard needed (some innate chess-specific ability) to reach GM as suggested by the numbers alone. 1444 GMs since 1924, and if you think the total number of people dedicating their lives to chess in the last 80 years is within the same order of magnitude as 1444 then you must be smoking crack. when X people (X>>>>1444) are trying equally hard from a young age to reach the top and only 1444 achieved it, do you think the top 1444 just ran well? there isn't much variance in chess.

to predict a guy who won some school trophies has anything other than a tiny probability of reaching GM with just dedication is just wrong. it's too bad there's no convenient way i can bet against your beliefs since it takes too long to realise a winner, otherwise i'm up for betting your bankroll at odds that are consistent with your beliefs.

doubt ur betting Daut's bankroll lol

Pretty sure you have to be smart to become GM, but most of all, as for any elite sport, it is a combination of being exposed to the sport early as well as being wealthy enough to play a game for your whole life with only slight hopes of making money out of it.

You seem to infer that millions of people dedicated their lives to playing chess which I think is a wrong assumption. Comparing the number of silver+ LoL players that you know to the number 1500+ ELO chess players that you know, it is probable you will count more LoL players. Chess is popular as in everybody plays it, but it is kinda rare to find an opponent who does not totally suck at it. I think the number of serious chess players is very low.

On November 25 2014 15:09 traxamillion wrote: doubt ur betting Daut's bankroll lol

i would be betting with romm3l against nitewin. if his peak rating has been <=1800, then its 0% he ever becomes a GM no matter how hard he studies. if he managed to get 2000+ while in his early teens...then he has a shot. but pretty sure you can be a 1500 and beat 10 year olds in your school.

you mean <1%
+ Show Spoiler +

On November 25 2014 04:51 Romm3l wrote: lol why do i argue on the internet... ok if you literally mean the intelligence quotient test there is unlikely to be more than weak correlation between that and chess achievement, but there is clearly something more than just working hard needed (some innate chess-specific ability) to reach GM as suggested by the numbers alone. 1444 GMs since 1924, and if you think the total number of people dedicating their lives to chess in the last 80 years is within the same order of magnitude as 1444 then you must be smoking crack. when X people (X>>>>1444) are trying equally hard from a young age to reach the top and only 1444 achieved it, do you think the top 1444 just ran well? there isn't much variance in chess. to predict a guy who won some school trophies has anything other than a tiny probability of reaching GM with just dedication is just wrong. it's too bad there's no convenient way i can bet against your beliefs since it takes too long to realise a winner, otherwise i'm up for betting your bankroll at odds that are consistent with your beliefs.

i just dont agree with 'trying equally hard' part, thats all

Mikhail Tal was the man. Typical baller when it comes to lifestyle, and super aggro over the board player x) If someone didn't see his games, check them out, there's plenty lol

mikhail tal should be one of everybody's fucking heroes oh my god what a monster