Elite Chess "Reeks of Deep Computer Prep," Says Magnus Carlsen

Read the title: "Elite Chess "Reeks of Deep Computer Prep," Says Magnus Carlsen"

We are talking about elite.

Sure. But I still don't get your point. I gave the exemple of a Caruana-MVL game in the Candidates, it can't really be more elite than than..

You say I'm only 1800 in blitz (actually lower than that in blitz, but anyway...), but what's the point? in a topic about elite chess I can't comment because I'm not strong enough? Nobody in the discussion would be strong enough then... I don't get your point here...

you said " It was not boring game by my opinion". But we are talking about elite. 960 at elite is boring. they don't risk, and white has a good advantage at initial position. 

They tend to play symmetrical positions, because many positions are very limited. There is no harmony in 960. And only in the middlegame, when the boring opening is over and the game is "normal" is when they start to play.

What is the problem with choosing openings randomly? They cant memorize all defenses

@damafe I don't get your points either

Again, it is obvious that, due to the intrusion of and infestation by engines, chess is not the game it used to be. It's become a farce because of the absurd opening preparation. Here's an article where GM Andrei Deviatkin explains why he has practically left classical chess.

Fischerandom (repeat Spassky again, if the words of a World champion mean something to you) is the Same game Without op prep. It effectively eliminates both op prep crap and engines from the picture giving a fair opportunity to both players to show their true chess art.

Stop calling it "Fischerrandom" 🙄 What a stupid sounding name. Top players were talking about this variation before Fischer was even born. Why not Neo-Chess? (Neo means new) And if it takes over permanently then we go back to calling it Chess.

The only thing top level chess needs to do is lessen the amount of time per game. Less time means more mistakes and more game winning combinations. 1 hour each player per game. No increments of time added. 1 hour games would be interesting and exciting.

@roaringPawn No. Is not the same. A bishop in a1 forces you to play b3 or b4. You cant choose how to develop the bishop. And is just 1 example. Is not the same game. 

I repeat my question for last time: What is the problem with choosing openings randomly? You choose 50 openings before a tournament, and then 1 is played in the game. They can't memorize 50 openings for each tournament. 

Why do you prefer positions without harmony, boring, without risk?

The pieces do not develop harmoniously, that makes the gambits almost never work. That's why they only play it in rapid/blitz games, where they don't have time to think about the opening and that forces them to make mistakes.

Less time=more importance of opening preparation. They need more time

I don't like to see a defeat due to Zeitnot. If you want to see better games, you must let them think more time. Exciting... maybe, but not interesting. 

No one here called it Fiscerrandom. I used the term Fischerandom.

But I like your idea. As far as I'm concerned, we could call it just chess

As for the time control, I'm a bit conservative. I'd prefer the classical format.

Okay David.

You say it is NOT the same.

The world champion Boris Spassky says it IS. 

I can't find that quote from Spassky (where did you read that?), but i found this:

<Question: from Fischer to Fischer Random. Chess theory is evolving at hurricane pace. Do you think “Random-960” is the future of the game?

Kasparov: I don’t know. I heard that the idea had been recently debated in Germany regarding the possibility of playing not all 960 possible positions, but to downsize them in number to 20-30 positions. Simply pick a position and play it for a year. Next year a different position. In actual fact from the 960 positions 95% of them, frankly speaking, are poison to your eyes! The rest, to a large extent, satisfy our understanding of "chess geometry”. If such an idea were to be materialized, it would make sense. For instance one could declare a week before the tournament: we are going to play this and this position. You will have some time to prepare. You can’t be prepared seriously, of course, but new ideas will emerge not on the first but on the forth or fifth move. In order to realize this we need the political will and a different environment in chess. Right now there’s a kind of chaos in chess that to speak of any radical changes in chess would be premature.

"95% of them are poison to your eyes."

20-30 positions... can they memorize that? And 1 week to prepare 1 position.

More in: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-titan-speaks-his-mind

"Chess geometry"? Can the pol activist Kimovich explain what it is? Bunch of nonsense 

where did you read that quote from Spassky?

What is the problem with choosing openings randomly? You choose 50 openings before a tournament, and then 1 is played in the game. They can't memorize 50 openings for each tournament.

Kasparov bad, Spassky good? Why one WC is good for you but another WC no?

No answers

The Caruana-MVL game I was talking about is NOT a 960 game, it's a classical game played two days ago in current Candidates tournament. My point was that opening prep often produces interesting games.

And was it fair? yes it was since both players could prepare equally

Chess geometry and board piece structure is only defined by the relationships chessmen get into. These relationships are based on the lines of Force pieces exert in Chess Space (thanks to the smart design by Caissa, the lines of fire coincide with the movement of men and it is the same in both the classical and Fischerandom, or Neo-chess as @Bumvinnik likes calling it).

Anything else, like Kimovich's "satisfying our understanding of chess geometry" is simply a load of claptrap I'm afraid.  

I agree with that, a time control producing less errors is just better than one producing more errors. More draws? so be it, I prefer a well played draw (well played implies not prearranged) than a decisive result in a game plagued by mistakes due to zeitnot.

Am not "excited" by 1 or 0 (decisive results) at all cost but by god moves, well played games.

The result is totally irrelevant of the quality/interest of the game.

The draw played yesterday between Wang Hao and Grishcuk was a good game, and it would'nt have been better with a decisive result.

And here's one for @damafe by the same Kimovich,

• "Random chess lets me enjoy myself and get publicity for chess without having to disrupt my life for months of preparation." [highlight mine-RP] — Gary Kasparov, Aug 2018

because he don't want to waste time in opening preparation He is not playing chess now... he is not in the elite.

Oh, you are a Kasparov hater... so you like "argumentum ad verecundiam" only if your favourite WC says what you want to hear.

I'm still waiting for answers, but i see that you don't have I won't say more.

why 960 but you don't want to choose openings? Where did you read that quote from Spassky? What happens with symetry and boring games? and so on... 

You said: "repeat Spassky again, if the words of a World champion mean something to you)", but i see that the words of a World champion doesn't mean something to you

@damafe sorry, but you seem absolutely unfit I’m afraid to get simple logic behind the morbid role of op prep and that 960 is the best prescription so far to fight the disease.

Adios!