|
Chess (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
I get where you're going from. But I what I mean is that they blunder far less because their aequally novice opponent will far less exploit their blunder.
One of the things I dislike though about chess is that a mate almost never occurs unless it's a blunder. people resign before that when they are simply in a positional disadvantage. There is almost no such thing as coming back against the odds. Games already get resigned if both players have the same material but one player has a superior position. Then the other can't really win any more.
It makes matches dull to watch. I'm not saying adding chance is necessary, but in the end, if players no longer make blunders, then the game is already decided pretty early on unless Kasparov overlooks a mate against a computer.
|
Ehhhh. This is untrue. If you look at matches played at the highest level you won't find many blunders, if any. Perhaps the issue is with your definition of a blunder? Keep in mind that in chess a minor mistake is not a 'blunder'. I think the most common ranking of 'incorrect moves' would be: inaccuracy, mistake, and then finally blunder. A blunder is a move that is "obviously wrong" and "often leads to material loss".
Take a look at some of these games for an idea, or just an interesting perspective. Of course, they don't all realize mate- but resignations don't occur because of a simple positional or material advantage. In games of that level/caliber resignations occur when the material or positional advantage is debilitating and a position is obviously lost, or when a forced mate has been realized. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| well played games without blunders against skilled players often comes down to pawn structure/position in the end game. Instead of playing for the mate in the middle game, players try to force exchanges that results in better pawn position that seems minor until the board is empty. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
Ehhhh. This is untrue. If you look at matches played at the highest level you won't find many blunders, if any. Perhaps the issue is with your definition of a blunder? Keep in mind that in chess a minor mistake is not a 'blunder'. I think the most common ranking of 'incorrect moves' would be: inaccuracy, mistake, and then finally blunder. A blunder is a move that is "obviously wrong" and "often leads to material loss".
Take a look at some of these games for an idea, or just an interesting perspective. Of course, they don't all realize mate- but resignations don't occur because of a simple positional or material advantage. In games of that level/caliber resignations occur when the material or positional advantage is debilitating and a position is obviously lost, or when a forced mate has been realized. |
Where did I say that blunders are common?
I just said that a mate never occurs, people resign before that. Unless it's a blunder. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| mates do occur without blunders. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
mates do occur without blunders. |
If they see it coming? Why not surrender?
If they don't see it coming, that qualifies as a blunder to me.
Or unless you have an example? |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
if they see what coming?
the mate? to continue to play on and be mated isn't "a blunder" if they "see it coming". As noted before, a blunder is a move that is obviously wrong and often leads to material loss. If a mate is forced and there are no other possible moves then playing it out is not a blunder. I also fail to see how this detracts from the appeal of chess.
Yes, often players resign in lost positions. It does make sense to resign when a position is utterly hopeless. If you're trying to say that not resigning when playing in a hopeless position is a blunder then I will have to disagree with you. The term blunder refers to one move.
You asked for some sort of example- I guess of a game that was played to completion even though it was obvious that one side had lost. Look at The Game Of The Century . Byrne plays the game out even though by the 35th move he is "hopelessly entangled in fischer's mating net."
You can check out the comments on that game as well as the debate that you've invoked here is discussed at length in them.
Anyway, if anybody is up for a game I'm awfully bored right now. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
if they see what coming?
the mate? to continue to play on and be mated isn't "a blunder" if they "see it coming". As noted before, a blunder is a move that is obviously wrong and often leads to material loss. If a mate is forced and there are no other possible moves then playing it out is not a blunder. I also fail to see how this detracts from the appeal of chess. |
It detracts the appeal of chess to watch because the tide can't really swing unless someone blunders. Tides aren't swung by daring and bold attacks, but by blunders.
| quote: | | Yes, often players resign in lost positions. It does make sense to resign when a position is utterly hopeless. If you're trying to say that not resigning when playing in a hopeless position is a blunder then I will have to disagree with you. The term blunder refers to one move. |
No, I'm just saying that high level players know when they are in a hopeless position and then resign. Very rarely does a game end up to an actual checkmate.
| quote: | | You asked for some sort of example- I guess of a game that was played to completion even though it was obvious that one side had lost. Look at The Game Of The Century . Byrne plays the game out even though by the 35th move he is "hopelessly entangled in fischer's mating net. |
And Byrne himself said he would have resigned a lot earlier if he wasn't playing against a 13 year old kid who he liked to have the honour to mate him. He even asked him if he wanted him to resign or if he wanted to play on to mate him. Byrne according to some [citation needed] already wanted to resign after the famous move 17. ... Be6!! but felt it would be a nice gesture to let the kid mate him.
In actual tournaments, not resigning once you are hopelessly lost but continuing is also just considered bad style, because you're wasting time.
I just think this makes it boring, it's not like football where you some times still have 2 goals in the last 4 minutes to turn it around. (Football is even more boring to watch in my opinion by the way.)
The Sport I like to watch most nowadays is actually StarCraft II. More stuff happens, the tide of the game can instantly switch after a careful trap. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
It detracts the appeal of chess to watch because the tide can't really swing unless someone blunders. Tides aren't swung by daring and bold attacks, but by blunders.
|
who are we talking about watching chess?
chess isn't a mass marketable sport. why is that a problem? what board games are? are there any boardgames where that reward foolish, risky play enough that they are interesting to watch on TV??
You're using 'blunders' incorrectly. That's the biggest problem here. Yes, 'blunders' will change the tide of a match but it's superior tactics and greater foresight that win games. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
who are we talking about watching chess? |
I did from the start. I used the word 'watch' all the time.
Also, the same applies by extension to playing, you gain a positional advantage and you play conservatively and keep it, there is no need to take risks and extend it. Because a pawn two squares ahead will make the difference you need in the endgame.
| quote: | | chess isn't a mass marketable sport. why is that a problem? what board games are? are there any boardgames where that reward foolish, risky play enough that they are interesting to watch on TV?? |
Table-tennis isn't marketable either, nor StarCraft (except in Korea), but I personally enjoy those a lot more.
| quote: | | You're using 'blunders' incorrectly. That's the biggest problem here. Yes, 'blunders' will change the tide of a match but it's superior tactics and greater foresight that win games. |
Yes, but once you're already ahead, it's very easy to keep that advantage and it will take a severe error on your part to give it away.
I'm just saying that once you have an advantage, it takes an error on your part to give it away. Not excellent play from your opponent who's behind to pull him- or herself back into it. |
|
|
| eckmek |
| So...did she died? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| I hope you're just trolling because you are not making a lot of sense if you're serious. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
I'm just saying that once you have an advantage, it takes an error on your part to give it away. Not excellent play from your opponent who's behind to pull him- or herself back into it. |
No. |
|
|
|
|
