A quick seventeen-move draw in the first game, with Carlsen playing white. Not a very impressive start to the match, particularky for Carlsen.
A quick seventeen-move draw in the first game, with Carlsen playing white. Not a very impressive start to the match, particularky for Carlsen.
What the best link for analysis of the game?
The official live commentary for the first match can be replayed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH_5Ko7QCi8
and the official site will have links to livestream coverage with commentary on all the games.
ICC will also have live coverage and a game of the day recap each day. That is a subscription service but I believe the first two games they are showing for free to non-members. I think their coverage is the best.
Avocado's Number wrote:
A quick seventeen-move draw in the first game, with Carlsen playing white. Not a very impressive start to the match, particularky for Carlsen.
Grunfeld Indian Defense in which Anand forced repetition of moves.
llort wrote:
I'm a huge chess fan and I've asked myself before what would be more difficult... to win a World Champs "medal" in running or in chess. Running is more trainable than the ability to play truly world class chess. IMO, at the pointy end of chess those guys are more genetically gifted than the top marathoners.
.
Carlsen most likely wins. He's about half the age of Anand and age matters.
Plus he he's the higher rated player.
I think these grandmasters are like sub 13 5k runners If that's about right, a master (2200) would be like a sub 16 5k runner. And a 1400 rated player like a sub 25 5 k runner?
Hank Moody wrote:
I'm shocked that people actually know the names of chess players. Not making fun at all - just shocked. Is it on espn? Did you guys grow up playing or something?
Is it "shocking" that people "actually know the names" of professional distance runners? If not, then why would you be shocked that there are those who know the names of professional chess players?
ventolin^3 wrote:
J.R. wrote:Are you serious. Do people really sit and watch a chess match for hours?Well not me, that's for sure.
not since karpov in mid-80s
he wouda edged fisher in '75
karpov - best player of all-time at his peak
No. Kasparov was better - was world champ longer, had a higher peak ELO rating (2851 vs 2780) had a winning record against Karpov (+37 -26 =138)
and had a longer unbroken string of major tournament victories than Karpov (14 versus 9). Looks like your magic calculator doesn't work too well for chess.
Subfive wrote:
llort wrote:I'm a huge chess fan and I've asked myself before what would be more difficult... to win a World Champs "medal" in running or in chess. Running is more trainable than the ability to play truly world class chess. IMO, at the pointy end of chess those guys are more genetically gifted than the top marathoners.
.
Carlsen most likely wins. He's about half the age of Anand and age matters.
Plus he he's the higher rated player.
I think these grandmasters are like sub 13 5k runners If that's about right, a master (2200) would be like a sub 16 5k runner. And a 1400 rated player like a sub 25 5 k runner?
A nice comparison, but 2200 and sub 14:45 would be closer - my guess is a similar number if American males are capable of these performances
Subfive wrote:
llort wrote:I'm a huge chess fan and I've asked myself before what would be more difficult... to win a World Champs "medal" in running or in chess. Running is more trainable than the ability to play truly world class chess. IMO, at the pointy end of chess those guys are more genetically gifted than the top marathoners.
.
Carlsen most likely wins. He's about half the age of Anand and age matters.
Plus he he's the higher rated player.
I think these grandmasters are like sub 13 5k runners If that's about right, a master (2200) would be like a sub 16 5k runner. And a 1400 rated player like a sub 25 5 k runner?
Hmm lemme see here...
"Super grandmaster" => under 13 mins, the best in the world. Actually on second thought under 13:10.
Grandmaster (this doesn't mean as much as it used to) => sub 13:30
International Master => sub 14
>2200 elo => sub 15
>2000 elo => sub 16
And then for every 200 elo points, 1 extra minute added to the 5k time, (17 mins =1800, 19 mins = 1400)
Subfive wrote:
Carlsen most likely wins. He's about half the age of Anand and age matters.
Does history show that it's helpful to be below a certain age when it comes to chess? Better neural connections or something? I'd be really interested to here why.
interested to here why wrote:
Does history show that it's helpful to be below a certain age when it comes to chess? Better neural connections or something? I'd be really interested to here why.
Faster calculation speed. Grandmasters lose tactical ability as they get older. It is a very small, gradual difference, though.
Not since the early 70's with Larry Evans and his velcro demonstration chess board analysing Bobby Fischer's championship games.
michael furey wrote:
[quote]Subfive wrote:
[quote]llort wrote:
Hmm lemme see here...
"Super grandmaster" => under 13 mins, the best in the world. Actually on second thought under 13:10.
Grandmaster (this doesn't mean as much as it used to) => sub 13:30
International Master => sub 14
>2200 elo => sub 15
>2000 elo => sub 16
And then for every 200 elo points, 1 extra minute added to the 5k time, (17 mins =1800, 19 mins = 1400)
I'm not sure you're too far off. My USCF rating (I haven't played tournament chess in years) is 1847, while my 5K PR (such as it is) is 18:47. Really.
I tend to think a 19:00 5K guy is a bit better runner than a 1400 guy is a chess player, but, then, I was never a fast runner, so I may be biased in that respect.
Reading through this thread, I thought it was parody - it looks way too much like distance running talk. But as a casual chess player, I'm pleasantly surprised to see the same sort of community for chess as there is for running.
Maybe I should start following competitive chess as well. I should definitely play a little more.
BORING! Carlsen's b3 was timid.
They play 12 games. If after 12 they are tied in points does the champ keep the championship? If so I'd be more disappointed in Carlsen.
for "converting" running speed to chess rating, I believe speed [in MPH] for 5 miles x200 works well. This gives:
14 mph [4:17 pace] -> 2800 = among the best in the world
13.5 mph [4:27 pace] -> 2700 = solid pro but not at the top of the sport
13 mph [4:37 pace] -> 2600 = might be able to eek out a living as a pro, very impressive for an amateur
12 mph [5:00 pace] -> 2400 = high-level amateur or promising junior
11 mph [5:27 pace] -> 2200
10 mph [6:00 pace] -> 2000
9 mph [6:40 pace] -> 1800
8 mph [7:30 pace] -> 1600
7 mph [8:34 pace] -> 1400
and so on. Basically, as a former hack 1850, I feel comfortable saying that once you get below 1800 in chess, you're talking about kids and adults who never quite got the hang of the game, and players between 1800 - 2200 are typically making some effort but also have big flaws in their play.
Conundrum wrote:
BORING! Carlsen's b3 was timid.
They play 12 games. If after 12 they are tied in points does the champ keep the championship? If so I'd be more disappointed in Carlsen.
Rapid playoffs.
This site usually has live games and computer analysis from all the major tournaments.
dkny64 wrote:
for "converting" running speed to chess rating, I believe speed [in MPH] for 5 miles x200 works well. This gives:
14 mph [4:17 pace] -> 2800 = among the best in the world
13.5 mph [4:27 pace] -> 2700 = solid pro but not at the top of the sport
13 mph [4:37 pace] -> 2600 = might be able to eek out a living as a pro, very impressive for an amateur
12 mph [5:00 pace] -> 2400 = high-level amateur or promising junior
11 mph [5:27 pace] -> 2200
10 mph [6:00 pace] -> 2000
9 mph [6:40 pace] -> 1800
8 mph [7:30 pace] -> 1600
7 mph [8:34 pace] -> 1400
and so on. Basically, as a former hack 1850, I feel comfortable saying that once you get below 1800 in chess, you're talking about kids and adults who never quite got the hang of the game, and players between 1800 - 2200 are typically making some effort but also have big flaws in their play.
I think that's fair. I hung around A level without too much effort (and no real "homework"), and I think I could have at least approached Expert level had I applied myself a bit more. But I knew enough (and played and lost to enough) very strong players to appreciate the distinction.