Chess

[honestbharani]

Seconded. I suck at both but there is a chance of someone making a mistake helping me out in blitz.. so

 

[Spark]

Really good game vs Marcuss. Felt I had thrown away my best chances about here:

But in the end that light squared bishop was just way too strong and dominated the entire game.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Magnus vs Nakamura final today. Going to be awesome. Eagerly waiting

 

[Spark]

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.

 

[Uppercut]

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 kind of sad that this is his distinctive feature as a champion though. It's like having a really boring superpower.

 

[vcs]

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.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

 

[srbhkshk]

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.

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.)

 

[Spark]

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.

I mean, we're on a cricket forum...

 

[Uppercut]

I mean, we're on a cricket forum...

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.

 

[Spark]

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.

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.

 

[Uppercut]

OK, but the point is that it doesn't matter whether Carlsen is objectively better than more exciting players. He could grind out an endgame win in every game he plays for the next 20 years and everyone would still think better of Tal. Style matters a lot in cricket too, but if you average 100 you'll still be more highly thought of than Viv Richards, regardless of how you get the runs.

 

[srbhkshk]

People don't necessarily think Tal is better than Carlsen though, they just like his games more. Much like how watching Sehwag bat could probably be more enjoyable than watching batsman better than him.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

 

[Spark]

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.

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.

 

[Anil]

interesting discussion, does no one here rate kasparov? i thought until carlsen's advent, kasparov was objectively the greatest player of all time, inarguably...and he scores points for playing attacking "attractive" chess as well...

 

[Uppercut]

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.

 

[Matteh]

Came across this recent Carlsen match where he snatches defeat from the jaws of victory after his opponent underpromoted a pawn to a knight.

 

[srbhkshk]

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.

Petrosian is well respected too - couldn't have a more sedate style.

 

[Uppercut]

Petrosian is well respected too - couldn't have a more sedate style.

Yeah that's true. I think it's partly because he was such a likeable guy.