Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:59:32 02/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2001 at 23:30:36, Alvaro Polo wrote:
>On February 02, 2001 at 10:39:04, Vicente Fernández wrote:
>
>>http://www.chesslines.com/petition/petitioninternational.html
>
>I favor new time controls. Here's why.
>
>I accept that some people might be interested in the pursuit of "truth".
>Nevertheless, this "truth" in 120/40 is quite relative. As correspondence
>players often point, standard chess does not allocate enough time to find the
>true ressources of chess positions, and they see standard chess as insufficient.
>
>But this is not the main reason why I favor shorter time controls. As a 1800
>amateur I find chess much more pleasurable to watch live if I don't have to wait
>half an hour for a move. It is really this simple, I enjoy much more to watch
>shorter chess games, "truth" or "falsehood" notwhitstanding.
Really? If I watch a game filled with blunders my interest in it goes down. The
more mistakes there are the less interesting it is. Why are you watching the
game? For a result? For an exchange of rating points? If you remove quality from
the game, then that is all you'll have left. The interest in the battle was
destroyed because just when it was getting interesting, such and such player
made a terrible mistake and that was the end of it. Of course this happens all
the time anyhow, and these games are the ones I don't waste my time anymore on.
I see no enjoyment in such games. None whatsoever. In the end, you have the
opening novelty, presuming it was prepared in advance and studied, the result,
and an exchange of rating points. The game? Well, it went something like this:
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Masterpiece in the Making
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moves 1-14: Well known theory, very little to say until the 14th move when White
played a very interesting novelty. Interest is high. Grandmasters and
grandpatzers alike are abuzz trying to appreciate the quality of the move.
Move 14 (Black): Black took 20 minutes to respond. Slow, boring. Think of it
this way: when you sit down to play a game, the last thing you want is to see
hours of intense battle destroyed by one stupid careless mistake. It's one thing
to see that your opponent outwitted you (however annoying that can be, at least
it's something you can respect), it's another to see the game go because you
refused to take the time to find the best reply. Your opponent studied this at
home, you didn't.
Moves 15-25: The battle has intensified. It is an absolute carnage on both sides
of the board as both sides try to balance attack and defense. The players are
taking about 5 minutes on average. Some moves are 1 minute, others are 9:
average 5 minutes. I'm not lecturing you on math, but have noticed that players
commenting in online sites NEVER seem to notice the 1 minute moves, only the 9
minute ones. In any case, it is a tough battle, and utterly fascinating. There
are two approaches to watching a game BTW. One is to look very briefly, and
pretty much wait for moves to happen. If one does this, it can be VERY boring
very quickly. I have no doubt. I also have no sympathy. Chess isn't ping-pong.
If one REALLY sits there, not contenting oneself to run an engine to feed the
answers, and trying to find what one would really have played in the player's
place, so that in a sense it isn't just Topalov playing Kasparov, it is you, the
battle will become that much more interesting. One note on engines feeding
answers. They don't really you know. If I analyse a position, I will be seeing
lines with cheap traps or tactical threats, as well as the refutations. The
engine will see it all, but won't show them to you. It will only show the best
line avoiding all those cheapos. In other words, I'd miss a LOT by not working
my noodle.
Moves 25-31: White is starting to look better as his attack seems to be going
faster, but the fight isn't over. Black not only has some defensive resources,
but there are still some very annoying threats. In other words, White has to
watch his step, as he is staring at a winning line at the end of a mine field.
He has played quite brilliantly so far.
NOW, we get to see a few scenarios that shorter time controls will bring with
increased frequency. These scenarios exist in any time control, but with less
time for such arduous struggles they will multiply considerably, that's for
certain.
---------------------------------------------
Scenario A
Move 32: The grandmasters are talking about a couple of possibilities, both of
which look like interesting continuations to the attack. The clock is ticking.
It is very hard to say what should be done, because many subvariations lead to
disaster, so it is clear White will have to be precise. Suddenly, the move comes
in: White liquidates everything to a slightly better endgame with very remote
chances for anything beyond a draw. The spectators are screaming for their money
back. What happened? Simple: No have time, and no want to risk *losing* the game
because of that first argument: no have time.
Moves 32-40: The endgame really doesn't hold any serious dangers for either, and
though White hopes Black will make a mistake, it doesn't happen. Even if Black
does trip, there's not much to be said about it. It was a game until move 32.
Move 41: They agree to a draw.
A game to be forgotten.
---------------------------------------------
Scenario B
Move 32: White has been looking at two possibilities, and sees the clock going
on. Courage, courage. With the first line, a piece will be sacrificed, and it
looks like it will lead to a winning attack. He calculates the first 2-3 moves
that are pretty much forced, and then sees that Black has many possibilities.
None look good, bgut it is very hard to say. A small change can be the
difference between losing and winning. Afterall, a piece sac is what is being
considered. The second line involves no sacrifices, continues the attack, and
looks safer, but it also gives Black some time, and those threats on the other
side of the board, can quickly become a deadly counter-attack. Think, think.
White calculates like a demon. Again, he can see what he should do, but has
trouble seeing which of Black's threats are more serious. The engines have
already given their verdict on most of the lines, but the poor player isn't an
engine. There is a third line, one that simplifies everything, but it leads to
nothing and would be a terrible way to conclude what had been an inspired game
so far. The piece sac just looks too risky, and White can't seem to convince
himself to play it. Not wanting to throw the whole game away by entering a line
only to find himself with nothing and a piece down, nor wanting to give up on
his winning intentions, he goes for the continued attack.
Move 33-36: Everything seems to go normally. Both players are playing quite
fast, compared to previous moves, and sure enough Black goes for the desperado
moves on the other side. White feels he is going to produce a masterpiece,
provided he doesn't make any mistakes.
Move 37: Black plays a move that was not properly examined by White. It had
looked like a superficial threat a few moves ago, but now White has noticed what
Fritz (and other engines) had had no trouble seeing back then: the threat is
real. White sees he has only a little over a minute to play, and is trying to
find an adequate answer. He sees none. That's ok. There isn't any. He tries the
best move, but Black doesn't miss his chance and sure enough...
Moves 38-41: The moves go fast here, but when the dust settles, White is dead
lost. The spectators are heart-broken. The most repeated comment is on Black's
luck, or White's lack of.
Intense, but we turn to the other games quickly.
----------------------------------------------------
Scenario C
Move 32: White goes for the sacrifice. He can't see where it is going, and know
he is really just throwing the dice to see what turns up at this point. Will it
work? Who can say?
Moves 32-36: So far these were forced. Not quite perhaps, but White had been
able to calculate that this was the most likely line as the others seemed to
lead to almost forced losses for Black. The situation is absolutely fascinating.
No forced checks or exchanges here. Just a piece down with an attack. It's still
horribly difficult to see the right way to continue. The spectators go wild. The
engines have shown them that White has a clear forced line to victory. The
evaluation is +3.xx and rising with each ply. True, the engines only saw this at
ply 11, but the verdict is there. White feels there is something. His experience
and guts are screaming it, but there is less than a minute to go, and he can't
find it. The move required seems to go against all logic at first sight, and
probably with more time he'd see it (he didn't get this far by luck), but time
is a luxury he doesn't have.
Moves 36-38: White goes for the perpetual check. He can't see how to continue,
and every other line that he has analysed leads to a loss. There are other
moves, but what do you expect with 20 seconds before the flag goes down?
Though brilliant while it lasted, it is still a bitter disappointment for all.
We all feel cheated somehow.
------------------------------------------------
Scenario D (happens maybe 5% of the time with the new time control - 15-20% with
the old)
Moves 32-43: White scores an inspired, beautiful victory and it is a modern
masterpiece. We all leave it feeling exulted, repeating words like fantastic,
genius, and brilliant. We go over the moves later just for the sheer pleasure of
it. We run our programs to see which ones could or couldn't see the winning
lines, and for those that did, how long it took them. Finally, we try to see a
way to improve the defense, no easy task.
So. Was it worth the extra little patience?
Just as a reminder: all these live events have several games going on
simultaneously, except for matches, so if one tires of one game, one can just as
soon take a look at another. As for matches such as the world championship,
would you really want to not only diminish the quality, but also the certainty
that the best player won? As a parentheses, I for one may still consider
Kasparov to be the best player in the world, but Kramnik beat him fair and
square, end of story.
Albert
This phaenomenom of
>watching chess games live is quite new, and is possible thanks to internet. If I
>had not the possibility of watching them live I probably would favor slower time
>controls, and for that matter, why not making correspondance chess replace
>standard chess (this last statement is only half serious)
>
>Alvaro
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.