Wow. You are missing some beautiful creative play in the present environment. Look at Anand winning in a dozen moves. Look at Carlsen playing whatever move strikes his fancy an making it competitive with new ideas. In the current time, chess is wide open with innovation.
For real man, you are missing out. Carlsen out there playing novelties in almost all his recent games lmao. Then theres the 50 year old who "sticks out like a sore thumb", wrecking Nepo in less than 20 moves. Nepo and MVL's opening repertoire are also really fun to watch, especially when they go at it. Not really related to the opening but a lot of younger GMs more or less start fire on the board, see Artemiev's game against Vidit in the last Nation's cup. There are a lot more examples which shows Chess isn't "inundated", and everyday more innovations are seen on the board!
The new generations favour understanding of the game over flashy moves. I think this is a step forward. Until this is realized, you will continue with the fantasy that a Tal or a Fischer were more creative than a Magnus.
Like generals during the age of Napoleon complaining that Napoleon was less creative and making war less beautiful. Meanwhile the gods of war were like "this guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread."
Like generals during the age of Napoleon complaining that Napoleon was less creative and making war less beautiful. Meanwhile the gods of war were like "this guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread."
@sparowe14
Carlsen and several other GMs save all their creative weirdness for blitz. There's virtually zero "innovation" in super-GM classical. chess. And the only time you'll see wild openings in classical is when it's an online tourney with really nothing at stake.
Look at Hikaru. At one time he played the King's Indian in classical but good luck trying to find him playing that in the last few years. He plays the QGD. Boring. Comparing Carlsen to Fischer is totally bogus. Carlsen tied his last two world championship matches and won with those disgusting rapid tiebreaks that should NEVER be part of the ultimate title.
As far as I'm concerned classical chess died when Kasparov retired and had another stake driven through its heart when Kramnik retired before his mid forties. More than ever, classical chess is now a game for teens to thirty-somethings. I'm a 68 year old man and I'll play the Benoni until I die.
Carlsen and several other GMs save all their creative weirdness for blitz. There's virtually zero "innovation" in super-GM classical. chess. And the only time you'll see wild openings in classical is when it's an online tourney with really nothing at stake.
Look at Hikaru. At one time he played the King's Indian in classical but good luck trying to find him playing that in the last few years. He plays the QGD. Boring. Comparing Carlsen to Fischer is totally bogus. Carlsen tied his last two world championship matches and won with those disgusting rapid tiebreaks that should NEVER be part of the ultimate title.
As far as I'm concerned classical chess died when Kasparov retired and had another stake driven through its heart when Kramnik retired before his mid forties. More than ever, classical chess is now a game for teens to thirty-somethings. I'm a 68 year old man and I'll play the Benoni until I die.
@pzmp
Here's your quote: "The new generations favour understanding of the game over flashy moves. I think this is a step forward. Until this is realized, you will continue with the fantasy that a Tal or a Fischer were more creative than a Magnus."
Your statement is a logical fallacy. Some flashy moves are flashy BECAUSE they show understanding of what's in a position which leads to tactics. If chess is moving forward, how come both Kasparov and Kramnik retired from classical chess competition at age 42? Because chess now sucks, that's why. It's been taken over by engines.
Look at the chess greats from the 1950s to 1980s. The list of active super-GM players over 50 during that period is HUGE ... far too large to list. Who do we have now? Anand ... that's IT and he's barely 50. I'm 68 years old and have analyzed thousands of super-GM games and I have no doubt that chess was better when super-GM tournaments featured Benonis, Alekhines, and the like. Now, to me, it seems like players are oriented more toward not losing than winning. In the last 24 World Championship games (Karjakin and Caruana) there have been TWO decisive games.
Nowadays we're getting bored to death with endless e4/e5 and d4/d5 games because the machines have basically rejected all non-symmetrical replies with the Queen's Indian as seemingly the sole exception.
Here's your quote: "The new generations favour understanding of the game over flashy moves. I think this is a step forward. Until this is realized, you will continue with the fantasy that a Tal or a Fischer were more creative than a Magnus."
Your statement is a logical fallacy. Some flashy moves are flashy BECAUSE they show understanding of what's in a position which leads to tactics. If chess is moving forward, how come both Kasparov and Kramnik retired from classical chess competition at age 42? Because chess now sucks, that's why. It's been taken over by engines.
Look at the chess greats from the 1950s to 1980s. The list of active super-GM players over 50 during that period is HUGE ... far too large to list. Who do we have now? Anand ... that's IT and he's barely 50. I'm 68 years old and have analyzed thousands of super-GM games and I have no doubt that chess was better when super-GM tournaments featured Benonis, Alekhines, and the like. Now, to me, it seems like players are oriented more toward not losing than winning. In the last 24 World Championship games (Karjakin and Caruana) there have been TWO decisive games.
Nowadays we're getting bored to death with endless e4/e5 and d4/d5 games because the machines have basically rejected all non-symmetrical replies with the Queen's Indian as seemingly the sole exception.
@Eleuthero Rapid and blitz at the elite level have become more popular for that reason. Is it really so bad to see Alekhine played only in rapid? Why does it have to be classical?
мат
@wannabe2700
Rapid and blitz are fun recreations, no doubt. However, I think it's accurate to say that not a single rapid or blitz game is labeled as an"immortal" game, and rightfully so. Though blitz is fun there can be doubt that compared to classical it is dominated by small tactical combinations. You don't see unbelievably deep tactics like the amazing Kasparov-Topalov immortal. You also don't see amazing positional coups such as Saemisch-Nimzovich ("Immortal Zugzwang Game") in blitz.
I'm all for having fun and I want GMs to join in that fun. However, the invasion of fast time controls into the World Championship (the so-called tie breaks) shows that chess culture is embracing speed way too much. However, I am mystified by GMs playing bullet and, worse, 30 second. It's like 2 players agreeing to play a form of the game where even GMs hang pieces like a 1000 player. A can of Red Bull is almost a metaphor not just for chess culture but the entire culture in general.
Rapid and blitz are fun recreations, no doubt. However, I think it's accurate to say that not a single rapid or blitz game is labeled as an"immortal" game, and rightfully so. Though blitz is fun there can be doubt that compared to classical it is dominated by small tactical combinations. You don't see unbelievably deep tactics like the amazing Kasparov-Topalov immortal. You also don't see amazing positional coups such as Saemisch-Nimzovich ("Immortal Zugzwang Game") in blitz.
I'm all for having fun and I want GMs to join in that fun. However, the invasion of fast time controls into the World Championship (the so-called tie breaks) shows that chess culture is embracing speed way too much. However, I am mystified by GMs playing bullet and, worse, 30 second. It's like 2 players agreeing to play a form of the game where even GMs hang pieces like a 1000 player. A can of Red Bull is almost a metaphor not just for chess culture but the entire culture in general.
In the three games I've ever played the London I've won as White every time. I have more class than to move a Bishop as my first non pawn Piece. It doesn't mean I'm better than someone else because I try to win all the time.
@Eleuthero , I think you would hate me, as I play the Ruy Lopez,Qgd,and don't play modern or hypermodern openings such as the Alekhine, King's Indian, and so on. As a beginner I was told to control the center and develop my pieces, so that's what I did, and I'm so used to doing that I just play it. And I'm not playing to draw, I'm playing to win my games.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.