"I understand I should control the center teacher, but I find the positions are so much more challenging when playing e4 (as opposed to e3), so that's why I play it."
Classical chess is dead. Bring on Fischer Random
Quoting Giri, because one guy doesn't convert in game 1 and the other doesn't convert in game 8 we now have problems with the game all of the sudden, right?
And if what wins the game are the mistakes, and with very long time controls top players don't make any, shorten the time controls until they start making a decent amount of mistakes, otherwise go watch computer championships for high quality chess.
And if what wins the game are the mistakes, and with very long time controls top players don't make any, shorten the time controls until they start making a decent amount of mistakes, otherwise go watch computer championships for high quality chess.
Bring back the old guard like Kasparov, at least we would have passion on the board
Believe me they tried. (to bring Kasparov back obv, not to bring any passion in the match)
"these classic chess are dead." "classical chess is dead, bring on fischer random."
So says the peanut gallery... the sub-2500 majority, who should be the arbiters of what is played in the "world chess championship"... not the "world 960, or world crazyhouse championship", mind you... the "world *chess* championship". Give it a rest. Variants have no place in the highest chess circles. They have their own hierarchies, as is proper. Chess is chess, 960 is 960. Different beasts.
MR
So says the peanut gallery... the sub-2500 majority, who should be the arbiters of what is played in the "world chess championship"... not the "world 960, or world crazyhouse championship", mind you... the "world *chess* championship". Give it a rest. Variants have no place in the highest chess circles. They have their own hierarchies, as is proper. Chess is chess, 960 is 960. Different beasts.
MR
@kenzaburo I don't think the results are really the issue. It's that of the past 24 world championship classical games, the vast majority have been full of insipid and relatively lifeless chess. If any meaningful chunk had rich interesting games, even draws, then I do not think most people would have any issue.
I was going to reference Kasparov-Karpov 1984 as an example of an extremely drawy match including the players making inappropriate draws in positions that were still very much live, but one where in spite of all of this there were a great amount of rich and interesting games and ideas that set the stage for the future of chess. The problem is that even in that match 1 out of 6 games still ended up decisive.
And the worst part is is that the current metagame of chess with the state of chess programs means this sort of strategy is fully justified. As Grischuk, certainly not entirely in jest, said after the conclusion of game 12: RIP classical chess.
I was going to reference Kasparov-Karpov 1984 as an example of an extremely drawy match including the players making inappropriate draws in positions that were still very much live, but one where in spite of all of this there were a great amount of rich and interesting games and ideas that set the stage for the future of chess. The problem is that even in that match 1 out of 6 games still ended up decisive.
And the worst part is is that the current metagame of chess with the state of chess programs means this sort of strategy is fully justified. As Grischuk, certainly not entirely in jest, said after the conclusion of game 12: RIP classical chess.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.