more important than all of this is that we still have a crook at the head of FIDE.

I like Kasparovs take on it:

I am very critical about the role of FIDE and Agon, and their marketing of chess. Did they do a good job? If they did any job at all, beyond organizing the match itself, I am not aware of it. Nobody even knows where the prize money comes from! They could not find single bid for what should have been an attractive event so they bailed out to Putin’s Olympic ghost town. No legitimate sponsors want to work with this shady gang. Agon was just sold for one pound and the reputation of Ilyumzhinov’s FIDE is worth even less than that.

Taminov's I'm fairly sure he's played before, if a few years ago.

Not sure it was that bad a choice - he did of course get rather flattened in the Berlin the first time he played it! Quite close to losing one of the other Berlin games too.

MM0621 wrote on 11/25/14 at 20:08:51:



I doubt it very much. Gelfand strikes me as a man for whom his personal integrity is paramount.

I was not originally referring to Regan except to discount the general notion that the world champions of today are stronger at solving problems in the positions they get than were the earlier world champions. Even Regan does not claim this, but only claims that the top 30 players or so as a group are better. My point isn't that today's lines are more computerish stylistically--just that they contain fewer computer-detectable errors since they are scrubbed by computers before being played.

I just want to know how Aronian thinks Kasparov thinks as opposed to the younger generation. It may not be about computers.

ReneDescartes wrote on 11/25/14 at 14:02:41:


i assume you are referring to Ken Regan' analysis as your later post indicates. Query whether the findings can be extrapolated to your conclusion? i am no mathematician and hence cannot really comment on Regan's study and design. perhaps you can comment?

re computer generation vs Kasparov-Anand generation, query, using a tennis analogy, is it comparable to the divide between Sampras-Agassi generation vs Federer-Nadal generation? Again I am no tennis expert but from reading some commentary, there is quite a difference in style and play?

Re chess engines and style of play, can someone who actually know engines comment on this: Using engines to check a game and moves, is this the same as using an engine to actually play a game? If there is a difference in how an engine would conduct the game from move 1, i.e. the different pathways, then engines are different from humans. It is not just a matter of strength, brute calculation (millions of processing moves per second kind of thing), is it? I frequently (increasingly in recent times) read GM commentators who says, "of course, humans will never play this way" etc. Are they intuitively saying something with a kernel of truth of it is a mere rhetorical flash?

Sorry, I have more questions than answers but the questions are fascinating.

I will try to remember (but memory is very tricky at my age!) and dig up an example and perhaps we can use as a "concrete" example for discussion. Or does anyone have a concrete example of a engine move (which is good move) which no human will play?

Maybe Kasparov told Magnus Carlsen to hire Peter Nielsen.  Anand and Peter analyzed over 100+ opening variations in depth between 2002 and 2013. Maybe Anand can outprepare Carlsen. He can never outprepare Peter. Kasparov offered to help Gelfand as his second in 2012 WCC. Gelfand declined because Kasparov helped Anand in 2010 WCC. I don't know if Gelfand regrets his decision after seeing that both Peter and Gary helped Magnus in 2014. 

tipau wrote on 11/25/14 at 11:17:45:


Agree. Naka and Aronian talking rubbish IMO, probably hoping for a good quote more than anything.

tipau wrote on 11/25/14 at 11:17:45:


That is really fascinating. Computer analysis designed to exclude most openings and endgame moves indicates that players from different eras were roughly at parity in original positions (Capablanca being universally in the top two or three in everyone's studies). Of course, Aronian's comments reveal both a desire to be superior to Kasparov and fear of Carlsen, but the point he raises is fascinating, and I would pay money to hear examples of the different approach to analysis that Aronian is talking about.

What Nakamura said, on the other hand, is pure baloney. What insolence--to correct Kramnik, who created the modern Berlin and won his world title with endgame defense, on the art of defense! Nakamura could live ten lives and never defend as well as Capablanca did in the debut of the Marshall Attack. Or as well as Botvinnik and his team did agaist Fischer. Even Nunn could not find an error in Capa's defence or in Marshall's conduct of the attack after move 11. Of course, the general level of defense rose after Tal, but not for the world champions! And Houdini produces Lasker's "hooligan rook" move against Tarrasch as the best move. So much for all modern players being more concrete in their thinking.

Carlsen is simply a great champion at the height of his powers, and as Botvinnik said, every great champion has a period in which he is untouchable.