Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
I agree. Anal analysis like this is meaningful to engines only.The question if Anand missed a win in the third game is a somewhat dubious question. Because human chess isnt about "objective" certainties as long as it cannot be practically played especially in zeitnot
Steven!stevenaaus wrote:I agree. Anal analysis like this is meaningful to engines only.The question if Anand missed a win in the third game is a somewhat dubious question. Because human chess isnt about "objective" certainties as long as it cannot be practically played especially in zeitnot
The world championship will be decided by people, and
Rook and pawn endgames are very boring anyway.
Rook and pawn endgames are boring? I think they can be fascinating - sometimes, but it depends on their complexity, of course. Not that I am any great expert on them which I ain't, but ... anyways...stevenaaus wrote:I agree. Anal analysis like this is meaningful to engines only.The question if Anand missed a win in the third game is a somewhat dubious question. Because human chess isnt about "objective" certainties as long as it cannot be practically played especially in zeitnot
The world championship will be decided by people, and
Rook and pawn endgames are very boring anyway.
And creating (foreseeing) such moments, that is the psychology of Gelfand. He could play for the "easy" draw with Nb6 and Rd5 but he gave Anand a chance to blunder. This is human chess. No computer is able to figure this out yet. So, we are not coming into danger of death by draws in chess (what Giddins fears) but we play chess more like poker with seducing the alleged favorite to overestimate his chances and to take more risks and to lose in the end in time trouble!LaurenceChen wrote: Anand did not see the winning move because he did not want to take a RISK. What if he missed something, and it could cost him a point. Anand chose the safe route, that is, a draw instead of taking a RISK to win a full point.
+1 I agreeRolf wrote:And creating (foreseeing) such moments, that is the psychology of Gelfand. He could play for the "easy" draw with Nb6 and Rd5 but he gave Anand a chance to blunder. This is human chess. No computer is able to figure this out yet. So, we are not coming into danger of death by draws in chess (what Giddins fears) but we play chess more like poker with seducing the alleged favorite to overestimate his chances and to take more risks and to lose in the end in time trouble!LaurenceChen wrote: Anand did not see the winning move because he did not want to take a RISK. What if he missed something, and it could cost him a point. Anand chose the safe route, that is, a draw instead of taking a RISK to win a full point.