I knew there was something wrong with my last post. Sorry, I haven't slept well for three nights. I forgot about Carlsen, who did not even participate. I'd say if Gelfand wins, he is for sure a worthy champion.

trw wrote on 08/09/11 at 21:47:11:


I'd agree as well.

Stigma wrote on 08/07/11 at 23:52:41:


If he is not consistent, at least Svidler is not in a dip:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7443

I don't know how anyone else defines "serious contender for the World Championship or the very to spots in rankings". 

Svidler has been one of the top 5 in the world before, and finished as high as second in the 2005 World Championship. Five years ago, only Kasparov, Topalov and Anand were higher rated than he was. He's currently ranked 16th in the world. 

He's one of the most elite players in the world, and will almost certainly continue to compete for the World title. He's younger than Kramnik, Anand and Gelfand. I don't know if he will be a Candidate finalist again, but I certainly wouldn't write him off.

But then as strong as Svidler, Malakhov and Gustafsson are, neither of them are serious contenders for the World Championship or the very top spots in the rankings.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out that precisely in the endgame these players are weaker than Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik and Aronian? 
(I haven't performed any serious comparision obviously, just speculating!)

Up to a certain you don´t need to study chess at all; I know one person, who had just one chessbook to reach nearly 2000 elo, then he was forced to work through some opening books, because at this level without any opening knowledge, you get no advantage with white and with black you are heavily under pressure. 
Last year I played the first time at board 1 in our team and had opponents up to 2400 elo. Normally I don´t pay much attention, what my opponent plays, because usually I play the same stuff, knowing that it works till 2200 elo, but this time I studied the games of my opponents, just to survive the opening and get some chances in the middlegame and to hope for the best, because these cracks know their stuff very well.

So, all in all, what´s the use of knowing some endgameruse, when you don´t reach it.

Good interview. However, I am not very sure about their advice.

In an extreme case, suggesting to a complete beginner to study only openings doesn't seem like a very useful advice. We all know that everybody needs to know how to checkmate with K+R vs K, promote a pawn and so on. 

Also, I am not sure that you will get "killed with 100% certainty" if you don't know your openings. It is probably true for very sharp lines, such as Najdorf, but if you play KIA or 1.b3 line, you should not be killed in the opening!

Moreover, one argument for learning endgames that Gustafsson and Svidler don't address is that learning endgames helps you learn about the pieces, what they like, what they don't like, their strengths and weaknesses in different positions. Therefore, learning endgames improves your game by more than just increase in your level on endgame play.

Somehow I got a feeling that they were talking about themselves, and told us about how they allocate THEIR time studying.

I saw the video the other evening, and also found it interesting. 

nice to see everyone else got to see it also.

Svidler was hesitant to completely agree, and theres a reason for it. Gus is just more straightforward. heres the thing, for some one like Gus, even at his level, calculation and other things concerning his openings are more important than the endgame.

fundamentally, we cant do without the endgame, and a basic knowledge of them is necessary.

I mean one of the most essential lessons in chess is learning how to win K+P vs. K.

overall i feel that what should be taken from their opinions is that not too much time should be stressed on it.