honestbharani
Well-known member
Seconded. I suck at both but there is a chance of someone making a mistake helping me out in blitz.. so
It's kind of sad that this is his distinctive feature as a champion though. It's like having a really boring superpower.Carlsen is so ridiculously good at winning apparently "drawn" endgames but where the opponent has to play precisely for like 50 moves to get said draw.
It's less a death by a thousand cuts and more that the traditional AB engines make moves that Humans would just not consider even though once made it's possible to understand and appreciate their great tactical depth, NN engines make moves that feel more like "mhmm, yeah that looks like a good place to put your Knight on" (except they don't make the ones where it looks good and your Queen is hanging.)He is a master in attritional chess from what my cousin, who is hugely into chess, told me. So was Karpov apparently.
I've also read that Google's AlphaZero played beautiful chess and made several moves that human beings usually come up with, rather than the "death by a thousand cuts" style of game that chess engines usually play.
I mean, we're on a cricket forum...I wouldn't call Karpov attritional. Very positional but it's not the same thing imo.
I can't think of another game where how you win is so much more important to your legacy than how much you win.
Haha but I don't think it's true to the same extent for cricket. Fischer and Tal didn't defend their title even once and they're still (correctly) more highly thought of than almost any other world champion. It would be like Sehwag being rated higher than Bradman.I mean, we're on a cricket forum...
Haha I totally disagree with that analogy. It would be more like rating Yuvraj Singh as better than Kumar Sangakkara because the former won a World Cup.Haha but I don't think it's true to the same extent for cricket. Fischer and Tal didn't defend their title even once and they're still (correctly) more highly thought of than almost any other world champion. It would be like Sehwag being rated higher than Bradman.
In fairness, you can "watch" Tal's games just as well as if they happened yesterday, as they're basically just lines of text. Not so much with Bradman.Yeah that's true. I think it goes further than preferring Tal's games though, people respect Tal more than they respect Carlsen. I don't think it'd be possible to be a stylish enough batsman to get more respect than Bradman.
Petrosian is well respected too - couldn't have a more sedate style.Yeah Kasparov was great. I just didn’t mention him because he doesn’t fit into the binary I was setting up.
Capablanca bucks the trend a bit, massively respected without the attacking style. Definitely not a hard rule.
Yeah that's true. I think it's partly because he was such a likeable guy.Petrosian is well respected too - couldn't have a more sedate style.