Hikaru worked intensely in the lost endgame to get the necessary seconds in that 1+1 game. He eventually played until one move before mate before he checked the time situation. Then fist pumped realizing he had 39 seconds to let run down and the match clock had only 37 left. It was an absurd scene, but having led 6-2 and 10-6, he was caught at 11-11 only to go 13-11 up again. No wonder he tried to give Magnus not another chance to equalize. The honour within these rules is that there is no honour, just pragmatics. Whoever has a big lead can waste time whenever possible to unnerve the opponent, relax and reduce the number of games to come. Do all act in this manner? Hikaru just so bailed out, but for him it's part of the match format. Magnus's wide grin acknowledged it just wasn't his day.
It's weird. There is pretty much no honor, no fair play in chess. I can't say the amount of games I've played material up - even a queen say - and the opponent doesn't resign, hoping they'll get a time out win or enduce a blunder by playing on.
I think some get confused because it's a game of mental skill that it goes hand in hand with honesty and Sportsmanship. But it doesn't. Chess players are as likely to play dirty to get a result as some in any other pursuit.
Therefore we shouldn't be surprised to see someone like Hikaru doing exactly the same thing at a higher level. Ethics and having good morals have nothing to do with playing chess.
I think some get confused because it's a game of mental skill that it goes hand in hand with honesty and Sportsmanship. But it doesn't. Chess players are as likely to play dirty to get a result as some in any other pursuit.
Therefore we shouldn't be surprised to see someone like Hikaru doing exactly the same thing at a higher level. Ethics and having good morals have nothing to do with playing chess.
It's so easy to fix, like many things on chesscom... like simply just put 8 games of 5+2, 10 games of 3+1, and 15 games of 1+1, yeap, fixed amount of games and all is solved.
This normally happens in sports
AND CHESS IS A SPORT
AND CHESS IS A SPORT
No it's not.
Yes it is lol, made a sport in 1999 by the International Olympic Committee. It's not a physical sport, but it's a sport nonetheless.
Sports are rule bound games based on physical skill. Every philosopher of sport essentially agrees with this. Chess requires no physical skill, ergo it is not a sport. As proof, if you were gravely physically disabled, you could still play chess (someone could move your pieces for you, based on your instruction), and still play it to the highest standard possible. This is a wonderful aspect to chess that sports can't do.
I have no idea why people are so desperate to call chess a sport. Chess is harder, and is a greater test, than most sports. Whilst it's only an opinion, I think chess is *better* than most sports.
Do people think it's an insult to call chess "a game"? Is that what bothers people?
And you can't "make" something a sport. It either is a sport or it isn't, and it doesn't matter what any organisation says on the matter. To call it a sport in order to include it in the programme of events of an organisation like the IOC is a useful fiction that I can agree with, but it is a fiction nonetheless.
Chess is the finest game ever invented. It surpasses most sports as well in terms of it's difficulty and aesthetic value. But calling it a sport is a category error.
I have no idea why people are so desperate to call chess a sport. Chess is harder, and is a greater test, than most sports. Whilst it's only an opinion, I think chess is *better* than most sports.
Do people think it's an insult to call chess "a game"? Is that what bothers people?
And you can't "make" something a sport. It either is a sport or it isn't, and it doesn't matter what any organisation says on the matter. To call it a sport in order to include it in the programme of events of an organisation like the IOC is a useful fiction that I can agree with, but it is a fiction nonetheless.
Chess is the finest game ever invented. It surpasses most sports as well in terms of it's difficulty and aesthetic value. But calling it a sport is a category error.
fan
@ClayAndSilence said in #27:
> Sports are rule bound games based on physical skill.
I'm not sure that's necessary 100% accurate. Take marathon running for example - an athletic pursuit which would be classed as sport. However there's no skill as such, it's about stamina and mental fortitude.
Even sprinting I guess - it there really any "skill" in that? It's about whomever has shot their thighs up with enough steroids!
> Sports are rule bound games based on physical skill.
I'm not sure that's necessary 100% accurate. Take marathon running for example - an athletic pursuit which would be classed as sport. However there's no skill as such, it's about stamina and mental fortitude.
Even sprinting I guess - it there really any "skill" in that? It's about whomever has shot their thighs up with enough steroids!
@ThePaulKrapence said in #29:
> I'm not sure that's necessary 100% accurate. Take marathon running for example - an athletic pursuit which would be classed as sport. However there's no skill as such, it's about stamina and mental fortitude.
>
> Even sprinting I guess - it there really any "skill" in that? It's about whomever has shot their thighs up with enough steroids!
I'd respectfully disagree.
Running, whether sprinting or marathons, or anything in-between, requires high levels of skill and co-ordination. I'm sure we've all seen people at PE in school or wherever, who are very poorly co-ordinated and simply can't run well. Compare this to, say, the beautifully smooth running action of Usain Bolt or Eliud Kipchoge.
Runners expend large amounts of training time and energy perfecting their gait and action. Michael Johnson used to describe this aspect of his training as designing the "most efficient way of getting from point A to point B", or words to that effect.
> I'm not sure that's necessary 100% accurate. Take marathon running for example - an athletic pursuit which would be classed as sport. However there's no skill as such, it's about stamina and mental fortitude.
>
> Even sprinting I guess - it there really any "skill" in that? It's about whomever has shot their thighs up with enough steroids!
I'd respectfully disagree.
Running, whether sprinting or marathons, or anything in-between, requires high levels of skill and co-ordination. I'm sure we've all seen people at PE in school or wherever, who are very poorly co-ordinated and simply can't run well. Compare this to, say, the beautifully smooth running action of Usain Bolt or Eliud Kipchoge.
Runners expend large amounts of training time and energy perfecting their gait and action. Michael Johnson used to describe this aspect of his training as designing the "most efficient way of getting from point A to point B", or words to that effect.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.