Karjakin Takes the Lead in Round 12 of the Candidates • page 1/1 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Comments on https://lichess.org/blog/WrcDzCYAAMe1avYk/karjakin-takes-the-lead-in-round-12-of-the-candidates

Well , well....
Karjakin is back! The quiet power...
Thanks Fiona!

Well , well.... Karjakin is back! The quiet power... Thanks Fiona!

Dixie2011

Even though Karjakin is fairly down my list of people I would like to see as a challenger his results speak for themselves.

Also, the venue/FIDE-stuff asides, I think this years candidates has been excellent and the quality of online coverage (non-official) has markedly improved compared to 2016!.

Even though Karjakin is fairly down my list of people I would like to see as a challenger his results speak for themselves. Also, the venue/FIDE-stuff asides, I think this years candidates has been excellent and the quality of online coverage (non-official) has markedly improved compared to 2016!.

Honeyswift

1.the move is Qxh2#
2.Qg4#

1.the move is Qxh2# 2.Qg4#

ahdemeohde edited

xxx

axel000

Go Mamedyarov! two rounds left!

cafestream

Hello everyone,

I have calculated, and regularly updated the probabilities of each player to win candidates before each round. These are based on 100,000 simulations before round 13 - these include the tie-break scenarios.

http://chesspredict.blogspot.com/2018/03/current-probabilities-for-players-to.html

Hello everyone, I have calculated, and regularly updated the probabilities of each player to win candidates before each round. These are based on 100,000 simulations before round 13 - these include the tie-break scenarios. http://chesspredict.blogspot.com/2018/03/current-probabilities-for-players-to.html

A-Cielbleu

Coverage is indeed very good, but analysis is almost nowhere to be seen... Live comments and press conferences are nice, don't misunderstand my point. I was just hoping for a more serious analytical approach to the games afterwards. Most reports (with a couple of exceptions that I won't advertise) are simply replays with a few words and the most obvious computer-based improvements.
Very few reporters now quote (or know) how many opportunities were missed by a given player during the tournament, how many half-points were "served on a plate" (not really, but not far from it) by an opponent, etc.
Also, I would expect to read somewhere that Kramnik has played his worst games against fellow Russians. Even if I don't think that there is a nation-based team spirit (Wesley So is openly joking about "team US"), the tournament format was supposed to prevent that, and on the contrary it made it possible !
I don't miss the laughable drama that sometimes plagues chess (Karpov-Korchnoi psychics, Topalov-Kramnik Toilet Gate), but bringing up some in-depth analyses and controversial issues is the journalists' job.

Coverage is indeed very good, but analysis is almost nowhere to be seen... Live comments and press conferences are nice, don't misunderstand my point. I was just hoping for a more serious analytical approach to the games afterwards. Most reports (with a couple of exceptions that I won't advertise) are simply replays with a few words and the most obvious computer-based improvements. Very few reporters now quote (or know) how many opportunities were missed by a given player during the tournament, how many half-points were "served on a plate" (not really, but not far from it) by an opponent, etc. Also, I would expect to read somewhere that Kramnik has played his worst games against fellow Russians. Even if I don't think that there is a nation-based team spirit (Wesley So is openly joking about "team US"), the tournament format was supposed to prevent that, and on the contrary it made it possible ! I don't miss the laughable drama that sometimes plagues chess (Karpov-Korchnoi psychics, Topalov-Kramnik Toilet Gate), but bringing up some in-depth analyses and controversial issues is the journalists' job.