Guess what someone with 64 squares did now?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Peter Leko: not a bongcloud fan

 

[Rob]

Peter Leko: not a bongcloud fan

 

 

This cracked me up something fierce when it happened. Now all these "respectable" sites like chess.com have to list the Bongcloud in their lists of openings.

 

It was a hell of a way to achieve a fast draw.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I was tickled that the most notorious draw-master of the oughts was this up in arms over a very stylish draw. Just added to the absurdity.

[Rob]

I was tickled that the most notorious draw-master of the oughts was this up in arms over a very stylish draw. Just added to the absurdity.

 

My interest in chess has been mostly in the last five years or so. Is Leko roughly equivalent to Giri now?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I was tickled that the most notorious draw-master of the oughts was this up in arms over a very stylish draw. Just added to the absurdity.

 

My interest in chess has been mostly in the last five years or so. Is Leko roughly equivalent to Giri now?

Leko was the Giri of 10 years ago, but with slightly better results. He won the candidates in 2005 to challenge Kramnik for the title in a best of 14 match. He was up a point heading into the final game, but lost. Ironically for Leko, the match resulted in a draw, with Kramnik retaining the title. It wound up being a kind of neat match, as openings were constantly being switched around, as both players were especially capable within lots of different systems and were trying to avoid the other's prep. I always thought his chess was on the dull side, but he was an amazing player, and everyone seems to like him.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I'm probably going to pay the .99 on amazon to watch this tonight.

 

[Rob]

The World Chess Championships are going on right now. Currently in the midst of game two, where the challenger and underdog, Ian Nepomniachtchi, is currently in the midst of trying to blow a huge advantage against Magnus Carlsen, who has held the world championship since 2013.

 

After managing to trade his knights for a bishop and a rook while already up a pawn, he has somehow pissed away his whole advantage and brought the position back to even in most evaluations.

 

Half an hour ago I thought he might win the championship. Now I think it's clear he's going to get blown out.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The World Chess Championships are going on right now. Currently in the midst of game two, where the challenger and underdog, Ian Nepomniachtchi, is currently in the midst of trying to blow a huge advantage against Magnus Carlsen, who has held the world championship since 2013.

 

After managing to trade his knights for a bishop and a rook while already up a pawn, he has somehow pissed away his whole advantage and brought the position back to even in most evaluations.

 

Half an hour ago I thought he might win the championship. Now I think it's clear he's going to get blown out.

 

That was a great example of a game that the engine evals may love the position but it was always going to be extremely difficult for a human to convert to a win against a high-level opponent.

 

12 more draws until the real world championship starts

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

The World Chess Championships are going on right now. Currently in the midst of game two, where the challenger and underdog, Ian Nepomniachtchi, is currently in the midst of trying to blow a huge advantage against Magnus Carlsen, who has held the world championship since 2013.

 

After managing to trade his knights for a bishop and a rook while already up a pawn, he has somehow pissed away his whole advantage and brought the position back to even in most evaluations.

 

Half an hour ago I thought he might win the championship. Now I think it's clear he's going to get blown out.

 

That was a great example of a game that the engine evals may love the position but it was always going to be extremely difficult for a human to convert to a win against a high-level opponent.

 

12 more draws until the real world championship starts

Yeah, that was a "Magnus position" if there ever was one. Nepo's advantage was never close to "huge."

[Rob]

The World Chess Championships are going on right now. Currently in the midst of game two, where the challenger and underdog, Ian Nepomniachtchi, is currently in the midst of trying to blow a huge advantage against Magnus Carlsen, who has held the world championship since 2013.

 

After managing to trade his knights for a bishop and a rook while already up a pawn, he has somehow pissed away his whole advantage and brought the position back to even in most evaluations.

 

Half an hour ago I thought he might win the championship. Now I think it's clear he's going to get blown out.

 

That was a great example of a game that the engine evals may love the position but it was always going to be extremely difficult for a human to convert to a win against a high-level opponent.

 

12 more draws until the real world championship starts

Yeah, that was a "Magnus position" if there ever was one. Nepo's advantage was never close to "huge."

 

You two are undoubtedly better at chess than I am. What was I missing that made it look so close to you?

 

I'm not a great chess player, but I'm capable of counting up point values. My read was that Nepo was +3, and aside from Magnus's knight squishing Nepo a bit and threatening a couple pawns, there wasn't a clear threat on the board for Magnus. The evals are saying that Nepo was up something like 1.5, which felt about right to me.

 

Is there some other factor I should have been looking more closely at? Some key piece of a standard eval I was missing? I'd really like to learn.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Carlsen had tons of dynamic positional compensation for the material. He had the outposted knight, more space, a couple of weak pawns to attack. Black's pieces were pinned down and passive, not having a lot of influence

 

A computer could take black's position and slowly unravel the tension with perfect defense until eventually the material advantage won out, but humans usually can't do that and would eventually have to give back some material to gain activity. After that, the amazing drawing ability of super GMs kicks in.

 

I'm not saying there was no reason to be excited. Nepo had a clear advantage and a dynamic position. One misstep from Carlsen could have led to a loss. Carlsen doesn't make a lot of those missteps

[Rob]

Carlsen had tons of dynamic positional compensation for the material. He had the outposted knight, more space, a couple of weak pawns to attack. Black's pieces were pinned down and passive, not having a lot of influence

 

A computer could take black's position and slowly unravel the tension with perfect defense until eventually the material advantage won out, but humans usually can't do that and would eventually have to give back some material to gain activity. After that, the amazing drawing ability of super GMs kicks in.

 

I'm not saying there was no reason to be excited. Nepo had a clear advantage and a dynamic position. One misstep from Carlsen could have led to a loss. Carlsen doesn't make a lot of those missteps

 

Fair enough. I know my grasp on positional play is weak, so it makes sense I'd underestimate that advantage. [Or I'm secretly as good as the supercomputers. Either one.]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Carlsen had tons of dynamic positional compensation for the material. He had the outposted knight, more space, a couple of weak pawns to attack. Black's pieces were pinned down and passive, not having a lot of influence

 

A computer could take black's position and slowly unravel the tension with perfect defense until eventually the material advantage won out, but humans usually can't do that and would eventually have to give back some material to gain activity. After that, the amazing drawing ability of super GMs kicks in.

 

I'm not saying there was no reason to be excited. Nepo had a clear advantage and a dynamic position. One misstep from Carlsen could have led to a loss. Carlsen doesn't make a lot of those missteps

 

Fair enough. I know my grasp on positional play is weak, so it makes sense I'd underestimate that advantage. [Or I'm secretly as good as the supercomputers. Either one.]

 

This is why I hate how engine evaluations (while useful and important) have replaced analysis. It robs people of the chance to see *why* positions are good or bad for each side and replaces it with a single number.

 

Take the position after 22. Rxc1. Black is up the exchange (rook for knight) and a pawn, which in traditional valuations is 3 points of material, or roughly equivalent to one full piece.

 

What does white have to make up for that?

 

First and foremost, an outposted knight on d6. That is probably the strongest knight you will ever see in a high-level game like this. Centralized on the sixth rank is probably the best spot a knight can ever have. It has maximum influence over the center of the board and over the back ranks where black's king is.

 

And there's no good way for black to deal with that knight. It can never be attacked by any of black's pawns, and neither can the e5 pawn protecting it ever be attacked by one of white's pawns. The knight can never be traded off evenly, because black's only remaining minor piece is a light-square bishop and d6 is a dark square So black just has to awkwardly play around it forever or give up and trade it for a rook, giving back the exchange.

 

The second big advantage white has is black's pawn structure. The pawn on e6 is isolated and could easily become a target someday. The black pawns on the queenside are vulnerable to what's called a "minority attack" where a smaller number of pawns is about to trade into them and bust them up, prevent them from comfortably advancing.

 

The third big advantage white has is that none of black's pieces are well-placed, nor do they have obviously good homes. Well, the rook on f8 is fine. But where's the other rook supposed to go? It can't do anything on the d-file because the knight can squat in its way forever. The other rook can't double-up on the f-file because white has solid control over every single square on the f-file besides f1 (look at how the knight and pawn combo are dominating f7-f5). Meanwhile, the black bishop is even worse. It's the light-square bishop, but white's pawns are stick on light squares all over the place, roadblocking the bishop's influence.

 

Compare that to white's bishop, which can exert pressure where it is now, or it could go to h3 and pressure down the diagonal that contains both the isolated black pawn and the black queen. Or it can go to e4 and put pressure on h7. Tons of options for white, while black has few obvious ways to improve his position.

 

 

In a casual game against another human being, I would gladly play the white side all day long. Super-GMs are better at defending against dynamics than I am, so these guys would probably do better with black, but it's definitely not as good for black as the eval would imply.

 

I hope all that made sense. I guess I could shorten it by saying: Super-strong knight on d6, black has no good way to double rooks, good bishop vs. bad bishop

[Rob]

 

This is why I hate how engine evaluations (while useful and important) have replaced analysis. It robs people of the chance to see *why* positions are good or bad for each side and replaces it with a single number.

 

Take the position after 22. Rxc1. Black is up the exchange (rook for knight) and a pawn, which in traditional valuations is 3 points of material, or roughly equivalent to one full piece.

 

What does white have to make up for that?

 

First and foremost, an outposted knight on d6. That is probably the strongest knight you will ever see in a high-level game like this. Centralized on the sixth rank is probably the best spot a knight can ever have. It has maximum influence over the center of the board and over the back ranks where black's king is.

 

And there's no good way for black to deal with that knight. It can never be attacked by any of black's pawns, and neither can the e5 pawn protecting it ever be attacked by one of white's pawns. The knight can never be traded off evenly, because black's only remaining minor piece is a light-square bishop and d6 is a dark square So black just has to awkwardly play around it forever or give up and trade it for a rook, giving back the exchange.

 

The second big advantage white has is black's pawn structure. The pawn on e6 is isolated and could easily become a target someday. The black pawns on the queenside are vulnerable to what's called a "minority attack" where a smaller number of pawns is about to trade into them and bust them up, prevent them from comfortably advancing.

 

The third big advantage white has is that none of black's pieces are well-placed, nor do they have obviously good homes. Well, the rook on f8 is fine. But where's the other rook supposed to go? It can't do anything on the d-file because the knight can squat in its way forever. The other rook can't double-up on the f-file because white has solid control over every single square on the f-file besides f1 (look at how the knight and pawn combo are dominating f7-f5). Meanwhile, the black bishop is even worse. It's the light-square bishop, but white's pawns are stick on light squares all over the place, roadblocking the bishop's influence.

 

Compare that to white's bishop, which can exert pressure where it is now, or it could go to h3 and pressure down the diagonal that contains both the isolated black pawn and the black queen. Or it can go to e4 and put pressure on h7. Tons of options for white, while black has few obvious ways to improve his position.

 

 

In a casual game against another human being, I would gladly play the white side all day long. Super-GMs are better at defending against dynamics than I am, so these guys would probably do better with black, but it's definitely not as good for black as the eval would imply.

 

I hope all that made sense. I guess I could shorten it by saying: Super-strong knight on d6, black has no good way to double rooks, good bishop vs. bad bishop

 

No, that's all very helpful. I had understood the third big advantage. But while I saw the knight having significant value, I undersold just how significant. And that's partly due to not thinking about the e5 pawn. And since I missed that pawn, I think you can guess how much I was lacking as to the importance of the pawn structure.

 

That was all excellent and I think I've learned a lot. Thanks.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not saying it will, there's a long way to go. But if this one goes 14 draws, they really do need to shorten the time controls.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I'm not saying it will, there's a long way to go. But if this one goes 14 draws, they really do need to shorten the time controls.

Eh. I can see the argument for it, but I'm a traditionalist for stuff like this. (Give me Karpov-Kasparov with 34 draws or whatever) What tilts me more is that players like Caruana don't go for broke in sharp lines toward the end of regulation when they KNOW they are going to get stomped in shorter time controls.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not saying it will, there's a long way to go. But if this one goes 14 draws, they really do need to shorten the time controls.

Eh. I can see the argument for it, but I'm a traditionalist for stuff like this. (Give me Karpov-Kasparov with 34 draws or whatever) What tilts me more is that players like Caruana don't go for broke in sharp lines toward the end of regulation when they KNOW they are going to get stomped in shorter time controls.

 

I wouldn't even mind if they played the longer time controls forever until they got a result. I just hate seeing the the entire match be drawn until they get to the blitz playoff every time.

 

I think you could shorten the time limit while still keeping it long enough to be considered classical chess, and hopefully make room for more decisive play.

[Rob]

I’m of the mindset it needs to be something like first to 5 wins. Get people to actually go for the jugular and take away the incentive for draws.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I’m of the mindset it needs to be something like first to 5 wins. Get people to actually go for the jugular and take away the incentive for draws.

I prefer that style as well, but I don't think that incentivizes wins as much as making the less patient player lose his mind.

[Rob]

I’m of the mindset it needs to be something like first to 5 wins. Get people to actually go for the jugular and take away the incentive for draws.

I prefer that style as well, but I don't think that incentivizes wins as much as making the less patient player lose his mind.

 

I’m sure, but it still moves the needle somewhat. And absent making all tournaments go with Armageddon games, I don’t know what else to do.

[Rob]

On the topic of how to fix these series and resolve some of the draw-happiness of them, I saw a suggestion I kinda liked.

 

Namely, you play the tiebreakers first. That way the onus is clearly on one of the players to push a bit harder for wins.

 

If, for instance, Magnus had won the tiebreakers, I imagine we'd see Nemo pushing a bit harder. Could be interesting.

 

Of course, the downside in that situation is that Magnus would really only want and need draws. So he would never need to push offensively very hard. But still, I think it might be preferable to the status quo. I just feel like the classical chess championship should be decided while playing classical chess rather than rapid or blitz.

[cwood218]

They should just go back to the old way.

 

Classical time controls only. Some amount of games 12 to 24. I think 18 to 24 is best.

Draw leaves the title with the current champion.

It is up to the challenger to prove he/she is better and score at least one extra point.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We're on move 70 in game 6 and it's RRN vs QB. This is the kind of position that engines will see as very drawn but I think there's a chance Carlsen can squeeze out a win.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

We're on move 70 in game 6 and it's RRN vs QB. This is the kind of position that engines will see as very drawn but I think there's a chance Carlsen can squeeze out a win.

I think a Magnus win is slightly more likely than not.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Games like this reenforce how much better GMs are than patzers like me. I can hang with the concepts in most openings and middle games, but the calculation and training needed for endgames like this are gross.