Anand vs. Gelfand WCC 2012 started

[rbarreira]

Just funny they spot immediately the blunders.

I don't see what's funny about this. If I'm watching live commentary I want to know the important things as soon as possible. A tactical mistake that leads to a resignable position definitely counts...

[M ANSARI]

Just funny they spot immediately the blunders.

I don't see what's funny about this. If I'm watching live commentary I want to know the important things as soon as possible. A tactical mistake that leads to a resignable position definitely counts...

Exactly ... that is why I think it is stupid and actually very annoying, that the GM's and commentators on broadcasts do not use engines while analyzing the games. A super GM with an engine running is in most cases much stronger than an engine alone, and thus the combination would be much more interesting. Somehow it seems that some GM's think that it is embarrassing to use an engine in analysis and want to show that an engine is not necessary, thus giving the audience an inferior analysis of facts on the board. Every single GM analyzes with engines these days, so why not do the same when you analyze for an audience?

[rbarreira]

Just funny they spot immediately the blunders.

I don't see what's funny about this. If I'm watching live commentary I want to know the important things as soon as possible. A tactical mistake that leads to a resignable position definitely counts...

Exactly ... that is why I think it is stupid and actually very annoying, that the GM's and commentators on broadcasts do not use engines while analyzing the games. A super GM with an engine running is in most cases much stronger than an engine alone, and thus the combination would be much more interesting. Somehow it seems that some GM's think that it is embarrassing to use an engine in analysis and want to show that an engine is not necessary, thus giving the audience an inferior analysis of facts on the board. Every single GM analyzes with engines these days, so why not do the same when you analyze for an audience?

The reasoning I have heard for this in the last few commentaries is that seeing the output of an engine does not give a reason for the chosen move, so the commentators think it's better if they just think out loud on the position. What I never heard explained is why they don't do a middle ground between always spewing out the engine's move and never doing it...

Maybe they don't want to embarass the players by giving out tactics that none of the sides are seeing.

[IGarcia]

Just funny they spot immediately the blunders.

I don't see what's funny about this. If I'm watching live commentary I want to know the important things as soon as possible. A tactical mistake that leads to a resignable position definitely counts...

After 17.Qf2 there is no need of engine to spot the 14...Qf6 error.

with engine: commentators spot the blunder immediately. (example chesbomb ones)
without engine: commentators also blunder (example Leko and Nepo, yesterday)


Its there not big problem with this, besides the ones with engine help show themselves as strong GM, much stronger than the one just blundered.

Personalty I do not like people pretending they are more what they really are. And sadly is what I observe in some game analysis. That is funny.

The point is: its very good we have the opportunity to hear only human ideas at live. They show not only the ideas on the game, also how tricky can be playing a super GM like Anand (or Gelfand)

[JuLieN]

I beg to disagree. The first live broadcast used engines and was extremely boring to follow (we can use our own engines for the same result). They received complaints and switched to a "human brain" comment only since round two. And I find that much more entertaining. For various reasons:
1) Now they discuss the real logics behind the position, so it's very interesting and one learns a lot of things that way (Peter Leko is especially good as a commentator!) It's much more natural.
2) when they make errors, like yesterday, it's quite funny And it doesn't harm the game, as we still have our own engines at home (or Houdini in the dedicated page on the website).

Of course, we're all different and have different views on things, but as for me I'm just pleased as it is now.

[BubbaTough]

I beg to disagree. The first live broadcast used engines and was extremely boring to follow (we can use our own engines for the same result). They received complaints and switched to a "human brain" comment only since round two. And I find that much more entertaining. For various reasons:
1) Now they discuss the real logics behind the position, so it's very interesting and one learns a lot of things that way (Peter Leko is especially good as a commentator!) It's much more natural.
2) when they make errors, like yesterday, it's quite funny And it doesn't harm the game, as we still have our own engines at home (or Houdini in the dedicated page on the website).

Of course, we're all different and have different views on things, but as for me I'm just pleased as it is now.

Agreed. I find it more fun and instructive to see what the humans look at, and when they stop analyzing a line based on some conclusion, without computer help. Its also fun that occasionally I see something that they don't, which doesn't happen with computers. I find it annoying listening to humans using computers (REALLY annoying if they don't reveal it) though I don't mind if they occasionally look at chat messages from audience members who are and follow up on a few computer suggestions.

-Sam

[M ANSARI]

There is a huge difference between a GM that only spews out what the engine is showing, and a very strong GM that knows how to analyze with an engine and will actually tell you that an engine move is inferior and that the evaluation you are seeing is not true for various strategic reasons. Of course engine output alone is boring and we can all do that at home, but today's top GM's know where engines are strong and know where they are weak because they do analysis with them all the time. The combination of a strong GM showing strategic ideas that don't have some tactical cover just sends the analysis on a wild goose chase (like what happened when Leko was analyzing with the other GM). The engine will enhance the ability of a strong GM and not overtake it. I remember some years back a championship game where Kramnik played a long line that he thought was secure and winning due to quick home analysis with a computer, but Leko went for that line even though engines saw it as losing ... a few moments after the engines had a "think" on Leko's move, they then changed evaluation from completely losing to completely winning for Leko. So a GM with an engine is not boring, but rather much more interesting as it is much more accurate. Anyway that is my point of view and I can appreciate that some might prefer only faulty human analysis.

[BubbaTough]

There is a huge difference between a GM that only spews out what the engine is showing, and a very strong GM that knows how to analyze with an engine and will actually tell you that an engine move is inferior and that the evaluation you are seeing is not true for various strategic reasons.

Agreed.

So a GM with an engine is not boring, but rather much more interesting as it is much more accurate. Anyway that is my point of view and I can appreciate that some might prefer only faulty human analysis.

I understand your perspective, it just is not my own (and it sounds like vice-versa is also true ).

-Sam

[stevenaaus]

After 17.Qf2 there is no need of engine to spot the 14...Qf6 error.

with engine: commentators spot the blunder immediately. (example chesbomb ones)
without engine: commentators also blunder (example Leko and Nepo, yesterday)


Its there not big problem with this, besides the ones with engine help show themselves as strong GM, much stronger than the one just blundered.

Personalty I do not like people pretending they are more what they really are. And sadly is what I observe in some game analysis. That is funny.

The point is: its very good we have the opportunity to hear only human ideas at live. They show not only the ideas on the game, also how tricky can be playing a super GM like Anand (or Gelfand)

I agree with Ignacio. We can all run our own computer analysis, but the point of view of other GMs is priceless in better understanding the game - which has nothing to do with computers.

[shiv]

Actually way before Gelfand blundered, kibitzers on Playchess where mentioning that the Queen move was not playable and a blunder and showed the exact variation that Gelfand played more than 30 minutes before he actually played it. If Leko and other super GM caliber did not see the consequences, then that just shows how much stronger engines are. Of course the Playchess kibitzers had their engines running and thus tactically they were able to see much more. Good game by Anand and had he deviated from dry opening lines with no dynamics like he did earlier, he would probably be 2 or 3 games up.

When Leko and Nepomniatchi are analyzing on video, they are not heavily focused on the analysis. It is very hard to talk and analyze at the same time while also being required to make humorous comments.

Anand saw that Qf2 from move 10 or 11. There is a big difference between playing a tournament game and sacrificing other people's pieces. A distracted GM is far worse than an engine for sure. I am sure if it is a tournament game that they are playing, Leko and Nepomniatchi have a good chance of seeing it. I would be surprised if they still don't as that would mean that Anand is much stronger than those guys (+150-200 elo) which is not the case.

Agree that Anand should play more tactically.