[JLOGIC]

Carlsen -149 to win candidates on betfair lol. Surprisingly to me (but not to gwnn!), Kramnik is slightly better than Aronian (+460 to +500).

If anyone wants to make some friendly bet I'll take Aronian to win over Kramnik (if neither wins, it's a chop). Ofc I think Carlsen will win so it won't matter. Kramnik is probably a fave cuz he has done it before.

[jjbrr]

so is carlsen the GOAT?

[gwnn]

 jjbrr, on 2013-March-06, 10:11, said:

so is carlsen the GOAT?

are you trolling, jjbrr? you need to define what GOAT is first, but it's hard to believe that if Carlsen 2013 and Fischer 1972 were to play against each other via a time machine, Fischer would take anything more than a few draws here and there. Yes but what about opening theory and what about people learning from previous players' mistakes? And you have databases now and bla bla bla bla bla this has been discussed millions of times before and there are people who think new is automatically best and people who think that Morphy was the beez kneez and argh yes I think you are trolling

[jjbrr]

Didn't mean to troll. My chess knowledge is very limited.

So you're extrapolating that '72 Fischer with 2013 technology would still get curbstomped or are you just saying that 2013 chess is so more advanced than it was several decades ago?

[gwnn]

What do you precisely mean by '72 Fischer with 2013 technology? Giving Fischer a few months to prepare openings as they're played today? Or having him born 40 years later and train from the beginning with the internet? These are all scenarios that people try to make up. In my opinion though Carlsen would kill Fischer in most scenarios because the collective knowledge in openings and middlegame play is much richer now than back then. Carlsen also has much stronger opps than Fischer, thereby making him tougher.

I have no idea about Carlsen vs Kasparov though....

[Antrax]

The latter is definitely true. I don't know if anyone can really know the answer to the former.
[edit]
Simul-post. Meant as a response to jjbrr.

[gwnn]

Sorry about the general tone of my previous post, just wanted to say that these discussions are usually going nowhere, in any sport.

I will say though that if you want to learn to play well, it's much smarter to learn from Morphy games ( 19th century) or Capablanca (30s) or Fischer (60-70s) because the ideas are much easier to follow. Today's chess is much more about concrete moves than grand strategic themes. Of course this also has to do with the quality of opps

[JLOGIC]

Fischer had the GOAT peak, and Kasparov is obviously the GOAT if you include longevity with dominance over field and give more weight to more modern times.

Obv we can't give Carlsen GOAT yet, and it is insanely hard to compare different eras in any game or sport, but what he has done so far is remarkable and I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up as the GOAT. He is like 66 points ahead of 2nd in 2013. That is amazing when the edges have become smaller as knowledge has gotten higher. And he's only 22, he's going to get better. If he ever did something like 100 points ahead of 2nd, that would be the greatest achievement ever to me (even though fischer had been higher ahead of the field, there was more room back then). Of course this is all subjective.

Also, Carlsen hasn't distinguished himself at match play, I get the feeling that to chess afficianados tourneys are like pair games and match play is like the bermuda bowl, so he has to crush in a few world championship matches also before he's GOAT. I do wonder how good Carlsen will actually get, if you look at the games from the last tata steel it was a JOKE how much better he was than everyone else lol.

[jjbrr]

OK, do you predict Carlsen will ever outrank the #2 by more than 125 points? Double the amount he currently outranks Kramnik

edit: some xpost with jlall

[JLOGIC]

The guy just wins drawn nothing endgames all day

[gwnn]

 jjbrr, on 2013-March-06, 11:15, said:

OK, do you predict Carlsen will ever outrank the #2 by more than 125 points? Double the amount he currently outranks

No, probably not, but how much you are ahead from #2 is not a great measure of greatness since it depends a lot on who is #2 It is a nice stat because it eliminates rating inflation but it's not relevant imo.

[Thiros]

The Candidates' Tournament is about to get under way, the big discussion center is here:

http://www.chessgame...ss.pl?tid=80233

[billw55]

My own preference for the title format would be a double round robin tournament, with the top four finishers playing knockout matches. And most importantly, the defending champ should not be exempt; he/she should have to play through just like everyone else. Roger Federer never sat around waiting for Wimbledon to come down to one guy, then play just him for the trophy. This "champion's priviledge" is an ancient policy designed to protect the champion from competition. It should have been discarded decades ago.

[dwar0123]

 billw55, on 2013-March-15, 07:39, said:

My own preference for the title format would be a double round robin tournament, with the top four finishers playing knockout matches. And most importantly, the defending champ should not be exempt; he/she should have to play through just like everyone else. Roger Federer never sat around waiting for Wimbledon to come down to one guy, then play just him for the trophy. This "champion's priviledge" is an ancient policy designed to protect the champion from competition. It should have been discarded decades ago.

It is good to be the king. I like the idea of someone slugging their way through the fetid masses to become the most worthy challenger of this year and to attempt to unseat the king and ascend to the throne. It is inherently more dramatic and while it may not be the most fair way of determining the best player of the year, it is a way of pitting the best(or perhaps 2nd best should he lose) player of this year against the best player of a previous year.

Sure, maybe the current champion might have been better prepared had he played through the tournament, certainly true in tennis where being match tough is very relevant. Or perhaps the challenger will be at a disadvantage having expended so much effort just to get there. No matter, this format determines something fairly, it may not be the something you wanted but what that something is is really arbitrary.

In this case, it determines who the champion is rather than who the best player is. They will often be the same but not always and when they are not it is because it is harder to become the champion than it is to be the best player of the year. Making the achievement more worthy and granting you the champions privilege in future years.

[ArtK78]

 billw55, on 2013-March-15, 07:39, said:

My own preference for the title format would be a double round robin tournament, with the top four finishers playing knockout matches. And most importantly, the defending champ should not be exempt; he/she should have to play through just like everyone else. Roger Federer never sat around waiting for Wimbledon to come down to one guy, then play just him for the trophy. This "champion's priviledge" is an ancient policy designed to protect the champion from competition. It should have been discarded decades ago.

It is funny that you make the comparison to tennis. In the early days of Wimbledon (prior to 1922), the format was that the challengers would play until there was only one standing, and that challenger would play the previous years' champion.

[gwnn]

draw
draw
draw
draw

Kramnik allowing the Exchange variation (I know that it's called a Semi-Tarrasch after Nxd5 but he did allow 4 cxd5) was surprising to me, I can't remember the last time any top GM defended it.

[billw55]

 ArtK78, on 2013-March-15, 12:29, said:

It is funny that you make the comparison to tennis. In the early days of Wimbledon (prior to 1922), the format was that the challengers would play until there was only one standing, and that challenger would play the previous years' champion.

Yes, and they wisely abandoned that format ... 90 years ago.

I know, some people like the champ-versus-challenger format, I just don't. It's not only athletics either. Look at bridge - we won't see Monaco seeded into the final of the Spingold, nor the Netherlands into the Bermuda Bowl final. That's just not the right way to compete, IMO.

[gwnn]

I'm sad for Kramnik because he had great positions in basically all games except the first two rounds, he could have won any of them. But of course you have to take your chances. Anand vs Aronian or Anand vs Carlsen would both be very good pairings and I would bet on the challenger either way but not by as far as many people would.

[JLOGIC]

sick day, carlsen/kramnik/aronian all get the win...

[gwnn]

Wow @ Kramnik's second half. People on the internet are complaining about some USSR conspiracy but I'm not buying it. I am slightly peeved at Ivanchuk playing amazing chess against Carlsen and crap against everyone else (not saying he's doing it on purpose but he just doesn't care enough somehow).