"Match of the Century"
November 13, 2013 10:04 PM Subscribe
It's black's move, move 11, and Carlsen has a decision to make - move his king queenside or kingside? With little hesitation, Carlsen moves queenside. His opponent, Anand does not visibly respond - kingside was the more common choice. The game is pulling away from textbook play into strange territory. As black, Carlsen is playing at a disadvantage. He knows that this is his chance to improve his odds, leading Anand into an unfamiliar middle game. After two beats, Carlsen bolts from his chair and walks away from the table. The chair swivels around lazily and the camera remains on Anand, who studies the board, either ignoring or oblivious to the young player's exit.
This is Game 4 of the FIDE Chess Championship, a 12 game series between the long-reigning world champion Viswanathan Anand and the 22-year-old prodigy and top ranked player in the world, Norwegian Magnus Carlsen. This is easily the most important chess match in decades and possibly the match of the century.
Three games have been played and three games have ended in draws. After two short, defensive games, some were questioning the hype. Then in game 3, Carlsen fought to secure a tie after having his queen cornered.
Game 4 has shown that both players are willing to take risks. Which grandmaster will be the first to break the deadlock?
This is Game 4 of the FIDE Chess Championship, a 12 game series between the long-reigning world champion Viswanathan Anand and the 22-year-old prodigy and top ranked player in the world, Norwegian Magnus Carlsen. This is easily the most important chess match in decades and possibly the match of the century.
Three games have been played and three games have ended in draws. After two short, defensive games, some were questioning the hype. Then in game 3, Carlsen fought to secure a tie after having his queen cornered.
Game 4 has shown that both players are willing to take risks. Which grandmaster will be the first to break the deadlock?
I love chess, although I suspect I am a mediocre player. My 10 year old has joined a chess club. He's been beating me regularly for at least 2 years. He'll really enjoy the framing of this post.
To be fair Chocolate Pickle, it probably is the best match of the century *so far*. That's the groovy thing about getting in early. People 80 years from now gonna have to try a lot harder. I'm just sayin.
posted by dejah420 at 10:24 PM on November 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
To be fair Chocolate Pickle, it probably is the best match of the century *so far*. That's the groovy thing about getting in early. People 80 years from now gonna have to try a lot harder. I'm just sayin.
posted by dejah420 at 10:24 PM on November 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
I've really enjoyed watching the summary of each game at The Chess Website. For someone like me who understands how the pieces move, but for whom chess strategy has been a total mystery, these videos have really helped clarify what's going on, and put some of the key moves into a context that an amateur can understand.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 10:45 PM on November 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 10:45 PM on November 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
Yeah - why exactly would it be the match of the century? Is there any reason to consider it more interesting than say Kasparov-Kramnik or Anand-Kramnik? And in what sense could this match be said to be particularly important? More important than Kasparov dropping the title after holding it for 15 years? More important than Anand's breaking the eastern european stranglehold on it against Kramnik? I'm glad to see a chess post but this is kind of weirdly sensational framing.
posted by pdq at 10:46 PM on November 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by pdq at 10:46 PM on November 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Jerry (of ChessNetwork) has been live streaming the late-night/early-morning matches on Twitch. They've become quite popular. 13,000+ simultaneous viewers last night. Even tired, his commentary is the best.
posted by Pseudonumb at 10:46 PM on November 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Pseudonumb at 10:46 PM on November 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
Somehow I was compelled to post a link to the 43rd World Stare Out Championships. I note that the Kramnik-Carlsen Blitz seems to be posted as the next most likely video to watch...
posted by meehawl at 10:47 PM on November 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by meehawl at 10:47 PM on November 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Chess was 3rd on Twitch after LoL AND DoTA 2
posted by Ad hominem at 10:55 PM on November 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Ad hominem at 10:55 PM on November 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
It's interesting to see how much time each player takes with any given move. It kind of gives you a clue as to whether a move was foreseen/prepared or not. When a game starts and both sides go into well-worn openings quick move, quick move, quick move, it's interesting to see at which point there's a surprise. Funny to see white now down over 15 minutes compared to black. Of course, this is by no means 100% reliable, because chess at that level is nothing if not a mind game, so head fakes are possible, including how much "time" a player takes. I forget which old GM it was earlier in the 20th century who took an hour as white before he made a FIRST(?!) move.
posted by VikingSword at 10:58 PM on November 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by VikingSword at 10:58 PM on November 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
I've really enjoyed watching the summary of each game at The Chess Website.
I really didn't enjoy visiting their Strategy page, seeing nine of the videos marked MEMBERS ONLY, and finding out it's not free registration.
posted by JHarris at 11:35 PM on November 13, 2013
I really didn't enjoy visiting their Strategy page, seeing nine of the videos marked MEMBERS ONLY, and finding out it's not free registration.
posted by JHarris at 11:35 PM on November 13, 2013
I really didn't enjoy visiting their Strategy page, seeing nine of the videos marked MEMBERS ONLY, and finding out it's not free registration.
Huh, sorry about that. I've been watching their videos directly on youtube, and honestly didn't even know there was a members only section to the site.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 12:02 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Huh, sorry about that. I've been watching their videos directly on youtube, and honestly didn't even know there was a members only section to the site.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 12:02 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I've never watched chess before, but do people really watch this stuff for four and a half hours? (Don't mean to threadshit or anything like that. I just don't get it.)
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 12:04 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 12:04 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I've never watched chess before, but do people really watch this stuff for four and a half hours?
A few days ago, there was a story here about Slow TV in Norway, in which this Grantland story was discussed: "Wait For It: Norway's Slow TV Revolution"...
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:09 AM on November 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
A few days ago, there was a story here about Slow TV in Norway, in which this Grantland story was discussed: "Wait For It: Norway's Slow TV Revolution"...
Last Friday in Norway, 1.3 million people watched strangers knit on television. For four hours they tuned in as people talked about knitting, and then they stuck around for eight and a half extra hours of actual knitting. I'm serious.People will watch for interminable amounts of time what interests them.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:09 AM on November 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
That's not too much longer than a baseball game. If you're into something, watching two of the best in the world do whatever that thing is will be entertaining. I imaging you just spend the time trying to figure out why the last move was made and what the next move will be.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 12:11 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by The Hamms Bear at 12:11 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Huh, sorry about that.
Oh! I didn't mean it as a knock against you or your suggestion, just a cranky observation. Pay me no mind.
posted by JHarris at 12:31 AM on November 14, 2013
Oh! I didn't mean it as a knock against you or your suggestion, just a cranky observation. Pay me no mind.
posted by JHarris at 12:31 AM on November 14, 2013
When Carlsen walked away I didn't think he was coming back.
Previously on metafilter: underhanded chess mind games.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:35 AM on November 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Previously on metafilter: underhanded chess mind games.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:35 AM on November 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
JHarris: "I really didn't enjoy visiting their Strategy page, seeing nine of the videos marked MEMBERS ONLY, and finding out it's not free registration."
Who wants to watch videos about jackets anyway?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:52 AM on November 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Who wants to watch videos about jackets anyway?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:52 AM on November 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Fantastic. Thanks for this. I wouldn't have known otherwise.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:46 AM on November 14, 2013
posted by ob1quixote at 1:46 AM on November 14, 2013
People watch marathons. People watch golf, for christ's sake.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:27 AM on November 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:27 AM on November 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
An article recently on Slate making a case for getting rid of the World Championship went into the history of these two guys a little. The matchup is a pretty big deal for both guys - Anand trying to join the pantheon alongside the likes of Kasparov and Capablanca, Carlsen cementing his utter dominance over the rest of contemporary chessdom at age 22.
Carlsen has been noted for his stamina, outlasting others in focus and concentration at the end of long games where his opponents are basically too tired to think straight (Anand has suggested it's because he's so young and physically fit). Meanwhile, Anand is known for really fast games. It was assumed that Carlsen would force long games and tire Anand out, but since the first game Anand hasn't let him do that.
Anand went into this championship the underdog, but his forcing control over the pace of the matches has made the whole thing a lot more interesting.
posted by vanar sena at 4:30 AM on November 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Carlsen has been noted for his stamina, outlasting others in focus and concentration at the end of long games where his opponents are basically too tired to think straight (Anand has suggested it's because he's so young and physically fit). Meanwhile, Anand is known for really fast games. It was assumed that Carlsen would force long games and tire Anand out, but since the first game Anand hasn't let him do that.
Anand went into this championship the underdog, but his forcing control over the pace of the matches has made the whole thing a lot more interesting.
posted by vanar sena at 4:30 AM on November 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
People watch marathons.
This is what I thought. I don't know a single marathoner who does not love to watch marathons (I know I do.) I don't know a single non-marathoner who does so more than just semi-willingly, and mostly only if they are a SPORTS FAN. I think things you are interested in are things you are interested in, and that makes all the difference. I also think people who participate or know a lot about something are watching different things than folks who are not invested, even if that's just the variations on a poker face.
posted by OmieWise at 4:50 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is what I thought. I don't know a single marathoner who does not love to watch marathons (I know I do.) I don't know a single non-marathoner who does so more than just semi-willingly, and mostly only if they are a SPORTS FAN. I think things you are interested in are things you are interested in, and that makes all the difference. I also think people who participate or know a lot about something are watching different things than folks who are not invested, even if that's just the variations on a poker face.
posted by OmieWise at 4:50 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
What's the reglaments position, if any, about players at this level helping themselves to big doses of whatever they are willing to use to help brain function, stamina and wakefulness? I imagine this can make a big difference, having a personal physician daily tweaking your levels of this and that, particularly these days that things as suprising as nootropics are being discovered.
posted by Iosephus at 4:51 AM on November 14, 2013
posted by Iosephus at 4:51 AM on November 14, 2013
Chess was 3rd on Twitch after LoL AND DoTA 2
Windjammers is the only true esport.
posted by kmz at 5:01 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Windjammers is the only true esport.
posted by kmz at 5:01 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Do chess players get tested for doping or is it legit to take Ritalin to get that extra edge?
posted by shothotbot at 5:40 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by shothotbot at 5:40 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Game 4 has shown that both players are willing to take risks. Which grandmaster will be the first to break the deadlock?
YOU ARE REQUIRED THIS INSTANT
posted by Ironmouth at 5:55 AM on November 14, 2013
YOU ARE REQUIRED THIS INSTANT
posted by Ironmouth at 5:55 AM on November 14, 2013
Do chess players get tested for doping or is it legit to take Ritalin to get that extra edge?
This article mentions that the introduction of drug testing is part of a scheme to eventually get chess into the Olympics:
Chess players are tested for drugs that appear on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) banned list. There are more than 100 substances on the banned list. This includes steroids, Erythropoietin (EPO), amphetamines, diuretics, tranquilizers, beta blockers, cocaine, Ventolin inhalers, etc. This list also includes excess levels of alcohol and cannabis, and, at one time, coffee (caffeine was removed from the WADA list in 2004.
If I'm reading it properly, it looks like the WADA prohibited substance list [pdf] does indeed include methylphenidate, aka Ritalin (see p. 8). I don't know if that's why some players refuse to play in tournaments where urine tests are required, but I can understand the feeling that peeing in a cup is degrading and shouldn't be part of chess, even as it seems obvious to me that some kinds of prescription stimulants would clearly be an assist in a long chess match. There was a scandal a couple of years ago when one Grandmaster refused a random pee test right after losing a match:
Ivanchuk, the No. 3 player in the world, who has been a fixture among the game’s elite for two decades, will not be suspended for failing to take a drug test at the conclusion of the Chess Olympiad last year.
The World Chess Federation began testing players for drugs as part of an effort to get chess included in the regular Olympics — a goal that most people think is far-fetched, at best. The effort by the federation has angered many players who argue that, outside of caffeine, there are no drugs that can help them play better, making testing absurd.
He was cleared on a technicality, so the deeper question - is unfair chemical advantage possible in chess competition? - didn't really get addressed.
posted by mediareport at 6:17 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
This article mentions that the introduction of drug testing is part of a scheme to eventually get chess into the Olympics:
Chess players are tested for drugs that appear on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) banned list. There are more than 100 substances on the banned list. This includes steroids, Erythropoietin (EPO), amphetamines, diuretics, tranquilizers, beta blockers, cocaine, Ventolin inhalers, etc. This list also includes excess levels of alcohol and cannabis, and, at one time, coffee (caffeine was removed from the WADA list in 2004.
If I'm reading it properly, it looks like the WADA prohibited substance list [pdf] does indeed include methylphenidate, aka Ritalin (see p. 8). I don't know if that's why some players refuse to play in tournaments where urine tests are required, but I can understand the feeling that peeing in a cup is degrading and shouldn't be part of chess, even as it seems obvious to me that some kinds of prescription stimulants would clearly be an assist in a long chess match. There was a scandal a couple of years ago when one Grandmaster refused a random pee test right after losing a match:
Ivanchuk, the No. 3 player in the world, who has been a fixture among the game’s elite for two decades, will not be suspended for failing to take a drug test at the conclusion of the Chess Olympiad last year.
The World Chess Federation began testing players for drugs as part of an effort to get chess included in the regular Olympics — a goal that most people think is far-fetched, at best. The effort by the federation has angered many players who argue that, outside of caffeine, there are no drugs that can help them play better, making testing absurd.
He was cleared on a technicality, so the deeper question - is unfair chemical advantage possible in chess competition? - didn't really get addressed.
posted by mediareport at 6:17 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Anand trying to join the pantheon alongside the likes of Kasparov and Capablanca
I'm actually not sure that Anand has that much at stake here aside from not being dethroned by a 22 year old. His place in the pantheon is quite secure. If I try to name the most significant figures in the history of chess off the top of my head, I get:
Staunton, Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand.
I think you would drop Kramnik, Staunton, and Spassky from that list before dropping Anand.
The question is, does Carlsen belong on there?
posted by 256 at 6:25 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm actually not sure that Anand has that much at stake here aside from not being dethroned by a 22 year old. His place in the pantheon is quite secure. If I try to name the most significant figures in the history of chess off the top of my head, I get:
Staunton, Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand.
I think you would drop Kramnik, Staunton, and Spassky from that list before dropping Anand.
The question is, does Carlsen belong on there?
posted by 256 at 6:25 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Only if he bulks up.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:27 AM on November 14, 2013
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:27 AM on November 14, 2013
If I try to name the most significant figures in the history of chess off the top of my head, I get:
Staunton, Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand.
I would add Philidor.
posted by WalkingAround at 6:38 AM on November 14, 2013
Staunton, Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand.
I would add Philidor.
posted by WalkingAround at 6:38 AM on November 14, 2013
When Carlsen walked away I didn't think he was coming back.
Players walk away all the time. I, for one, have to pee a lot when I play.
posted by MtDewd at 7:14 AM on November 14, 2013
Players walk away all the time. I, for one, have to pee a lot when I play.
posted by MtDewd at 7:14 AM on November 14, 2013
256: "I'm actually not sure that Anand has that much at stake here aside from not being dethroned by a 22 year old. His place in the pantheon is quite secure."
If I understand this correctly - if he wins this WC, he equals Kasparov's (FIDE) wins.
posted by vanar sena at 7:25 AM on November 14, 2013
If I understand this correctly - if he wins this WC, he equals Kasparov's (FIDE) wins.
posted by vanar sena at 7:25 AM on November 14, 2013
What happened with that burst of music at around 26m20s? Everyone's so keyed up there I'd imagine that if someones cell phone went off they'd be beaten to death.
Also, thanks for the post. I wouldn't have known about this otherwise.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:05 AM on November 14, 2013
Also, thanks for the post. I wouldn't have known about this otherwise.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:05 AM on November 14, 2013
Everyone's so keyed up there I'd imagine that if someones cell phone went off they'd be beaten to death.
I'd watch just for the possibility of this actually happening.
posted by fatbird at 8:16 AM on November 14, 2013
I'd watch just for the possibility of this actually happening.
posted by fatbird at 8:16 AM on November 14, 2013
Carlsen making a surprising (possibly negative-value) move made me immediately think about Chess computers.
People who watch this sort of thing report that Chess computers are regularly beating top players worldwide. The implication was that Carlsen was playing a headgame on Anand by making that move.
If he tried that on a computer opponent, would it just plow through its databases and reply with positive-value moves? Headgames don't work on a machine.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 8:31 AM on November 14, 2013
People who watch this sort of thing report that Chess computers are regularly beating top players worldwide. The implication was that Carlsen was playing a headgame on Anand by making that move.
If he tried that on a computer opponent, would it just plow through its databases and reply with positive-value moves? Headgames don't work on a machine.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 8:31 AM on November 14, 2013
Headgames don't work on a machine.
Don't they consult machines during play? I assumed that was what he was doing when he left the stage.
posted by shothotbot at 8:45 AM on November 14, 2013
Don't they consult machines during play? I assumed that was what he was doing when he left the stage.
posted by shothotbot at 8:45 AM on November 14, 2013
If he tried that on a computer opponent, would it just plow through its databases and reply with positive-value moves? Headgames don't work on a machine.
Sort of... Making a surprising move against a human opponent has a number of advantages. Some of those, certainly, are psychological, but not all of them. One major advantage of a surprising move is that it pushes the game "out of theory."
Super simple example: Even people who don't know chess frequently know that e4 (pushing the King pawn two squares) is one of the strongest opening moves. So they can do that and know that they have not yet made a mistake. Similarly, many people know that d4 (black pushing his king pawn up to meet white's) is a very strong response. So now black can make that move confident that he has not made a mistake. Now, say white knows that black knows d4 is a strong response to e4. In this case, white might choose to make a known worse move like, say, a3 (pushing his queenside rook pawn one square) just to deny black a known-good response.
Now take this one step further. Imagine that before the game, white has sat down (probably with the help of a chess computer) and considered every possible response black might make to a3. Then, for each of these moves, white figures out in advance what the best possible response is. On the more likely responses, he may even go five or six moves deep on this. Now, a3 suddenly looks like a much stronger move for white, because being in territory that he knows, but black does not, he should easily be able to regain whatever theoretical value he ceded by playing a3 over e4.
THIS aspect of going "out of theory" is also applicable against computers. Computers, like humans, have extensive opening books of precalculated moves. By pushing the computer out of this book, the human forces the computer to work from first principles. I'm pretty sure (not 100% though), that humans are still quite a bit better than the strongest computer if that computer is denied its opening book.
posted by 256 at 8:52 AM on November 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Sort of... Making a surprising move against a human opponent has a number of advantages. Some of those, certainly, are psychological, but not all of them. One major advantage of a surprising move is that it pushes the game "out of theory."
Super simple example: Even people who don't know chess frequently know that e4 (pushing the King pawn two squares) is one of the strongest opening moves. So they can do that and know that they have not yet made a mistake. Similarly, many people know that d4 (black pushing his king pawn up to meet white's) is a very strong response. So now black can make that move confident that he has not made a mistake. Now, say white knows that black knows d4 is a strong response to e4. In this case, white might choose to make a known worse move like, say, a3 (pushing his queenside rook pawn one square) just to deny black a known-good response.
Now take this one step further. Imagine that before the game, white has sat down (probably with the help of a chess computer) and considered every possible response black might make to a3. Then, for each of these moves, white figures out in advance what the best possible response is. On the more likely responses, he may even go five or six moves deep on this. Now, a3 suddenly looks like a much stronger move for white, because being in territory that he knows, but black does not, he should easily be able to regain whatever theoretical value he ceded by playing a3 over e4.
THIS aspect of going "out of theory" is also applicable against computers. Computers, like humans, have extensive opening books of precalculated moves. By pushing the computer out of this book, the human forces the computer to work from first principles. I'm pretty sure (not 100% though), that humans are still quite a bit better than the strongest computer if that computer is denied its opening book.
posted by 256 at 8:52 AM on November 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
shothotbot: no, that's a separate competition-type, computer-assisted chess. In standard chess tournaments, the players spend a lot of time consulting with machines before the game, but are entirely on their own once the clock starts.
posted by 256 at 8:54 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by 256 at 8:54 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Anand trying to join the pantheon alongside the likes of Kasparov and Capablanca."
I agree. In my opinion, Anand would have to win this to be anywhere NEAR (but not at) the level of a Kasparov, Fischer, Morphy, Lasker, Steinitz or Capablanca (Capa didn't lose a GAME for eight years). But since it's only a 12 game match, his chances are still better than they would be in matches like Kasparov played--48 games in 1984, then 24 games in 85.
But then, in my opinion, Anand has only REALLY defended his title once, in 2008 against Kramnik (maybe twice--if you count Topalov). Everything else was either a shorter round-robin or against weaker players. Again, I think Topalov was overrated, BUT last year's defense against Gelfand, #20 in the world, was a drawfest that Anand (at #4) barely won (by one game if I remember correctly--with only 2 or 3 wins total).
As Carlsen pointed out, Anand's been holding on to his title, while Carlsen has been out winning tournaments. Anand hasn't won a classical game against Carlsen in a long time--12 games I think--and Carlsen can outplay anyone on the planet in most middle and endgames; so as soon as Anand can't get an opening advantage or force a repetition (which is inevitable), Carlsen will be there. You don't get his rating without being the best in the world by far--every draw or loss hurts, and wins barely tick it up at all.
I think Anand, so far, is afraid and--it seems--hoping to frustrate Carlsen with draws and then strike when Carlsen overreaches (generally speaking, you don't beat Carlsen, he beats himself). But Anand's conservative style lends itself well to short 12-game match (kinda like how GSP wins UFC matches by taking his opponents down and then laying on them for 5 long rounds--technically winning without ever having taken the fight to his opponents). IF Anand came out and straight up BEAT Carlsen by 2 or 3 games, I'd be impressed.
--
PIRATE-BARTENDER-Z-M: The Berlin-defense is a great opening to use against computers--because of the positional dynamics, computers can't find the best way to proceed (so far). As Kasparov tweeted after yesterday's game: "Berlin also has benefit of rendering most machine analysis useless. Human chess, deep strategic planning only way." (Kramnik used the Berlin in 2000 to beat Kasparov, his old mentor.)
posted by whatgorilla at 8:55 AM on November 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I agree. In my opinion, Anand would have to win this to be anywhere NEAR (but not at) the level of a Kasparov, Fischer, Morphy, Lasker, Steinitz or Capablanca (Capa didn't lose a GAME for eight years). But since it's only a 12 game match, his chances are still better than they would be in matches like Kasparov played--48 games in 1984, then 24 games in 85.
But then, in my opinion, Anand has only REALLY defended his title once, in 2008 against Kramnik (maybe twice--if you count Topalov). Everything else was either a shorter round-robin or against weaker players. Again, I think Topalov was overrated, BUT last year's defense against Gelfand, #20 in the world, was a drawfest that Anand (at #4) barely won (by one game if I remember correctly--with only 2 or 3 wins total).
As Carlsen pointed out, Anand's been holding on to his title, while Carlsen has been out winning tournaments. Anand hasn't won a classical game against Carlsen in a long time--12 games I think--and Carlsen can outplay anyone on the planet in most middle and endgames; so as soon as Anand can't get an opening advantage or force a repetition (which is inevitable), Carlsen will be there. You don't get his rating without being the best in the world by far--every draw or loss hurts, and wins barely tick it up at all.
I think Anand, so far, is afraid and--it seems--hoping to frustrate Carlsen with draws and then strike when Carlsen overreaches (generally speaking, you don't beat Carlsen, he beats himself). But Anand's conservative style lends itself well to short 12-game match (kinda like how GSP wins UFC matches by taking his opponents down and then laying on them for 5 long rounds--technically winning without ever having taken the fight to his opponents). IF Anand came out and straight up BEAT Carlsen by 2 or 3 games, I'd be impressed.
--
PIRATE-BARTENDER-Z-M: The Berlin-defense is a great opening to use against computers--because of the positional dynamics, computers can't find the best way to proceed (so far). As Kasparov tweeted after yesterday's game: "Berlin also has benefit of rendering most machine analysis useless. Human chess, deep strategic planning only way." (Kramnik used the Berlin in 2000 to beat Kasparov, his old mentor.)
posted by whatgorilla at 8:55 AM on November 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
"One major advantage of a surprising move is that it pushes the game 'out of theory.'"
Yes, but the opponent on the receiving end of a surprise move (novelty) doesn't know if it's a way of getting "out of theory" OR the beginning of a line prepared just for this situation in order to gain an advantage--players often have prepped novelties 10-15 moves into a game (and even later).
Anand's defeat of Kramnik (one game for sure--probably two) came largely from prep done by his second, Rustim Kasimdzhanov's prep (according to Anand). And Anand destroyed Aronian this year with a brilliant 15 .. Bc5!! that he had home-prepped.
posted by whatgorilla at 9:09 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, but the opponent on the receiving end of a surprise move (novelty) doesn't know if it's a way of getting "out of theory" OR the beginning of a line prepared just for this situation in order to gain an advantage--players often have prepped novelties 10-15 moves into a game (and even later).
Anand's defeat of Kramnik (one game for sure--probably two) came largely from prep done by his second, Rustim Kasimdzhanov's prep (according to Anand). And Anand destroyed Aronian this year with a brilliant 15 .. Bc5!! that he had home-prepped.
posted by whatgorilla at 9:09 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
"(Capa didn't lose a GAME for eight years)"
-- it occurs to me that many people haven't lost a chess game in 8 years, my grandmother included. Perhaps I should stipulate that Capa played many games against the best in the world for those 8 years and didn't lose (a google search has it at 6 and 8 years--not sure which is correct).
-- also, I probably should have included Tal as well as Kramnik in my list of greats (the latter DID dethrone Kasparov, and he's been playing at a higher level for longer time than Anand). Sadly, all my favorite players are too aggressive to have ever won a World Championship (except for Tal and Spassky): Frank Marshall, Chigorin, Keres, Morozevich, etc.
posted by whatgorilla at 9:16 AM on November 14, 2013
-- it occurs to me that many people haven't lost a chess game in 8 years, my grandmother included. Perhaps I should stipulate that Capa played many games against the best in the world for those 8 years and didn't lose (a google search has it at 6 and 8 years--not sure which is correct).
-- also, I probably should have included Tal as well as Kramnik in my list of greats (the latter DID dethrone Kasparov, and he's been playing at a higher level for longer time than Anand). Sadly, all my favorite players are too aggressive to have ever won a World Championship (except for Tal and Spassky): Frank Marshall, Chigorin, Keres, Morozevich, etc.
posted by whatgorilla at 9:16 AM on November 14, 2013
BTW, your first YouTube link ends before the end of the game.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:17 AM on November 14, 2013
posted by benito.strauss at 9:17 AM on November 14, 2013
Whatgorilla: Of course, that is that I was trying to get at in the second part of my comment. Getting out of theory is an advantage in and of itself against a weaker but better prepared player. Even better, and more common at the higher levels, is to press the game into a position for which you have prepared but your opponent has not.
Sometimes a novelty is a freshly discovered move that is superior to the established moves, but a novelty is of value even when it is objectively worse, if properly prepped.
posted by 256 at 9:19 AM on November 14, 2013
Sometimes a novelty is a freshly discovered move that is superior to the established moves, but a novelty is of value even when it is objectively worse, if properly prepped.
posted by 256 at 9:19 AM on November 14, 2013
THIS aspect of going "out of theory" is also applicable against computers. Computers, like humans, have extensive opening books of precalculated moves. By pushing the computer out of this book, the human forces the computer to work from first principles.
Kasparov tried to do this to Deep Blue, and accidentally stumbled into a position from a hundred-year-old game that Deep Blue had in its library, at which point Deep Blue took Kasparov's King's Bishop's Pawn with its knight.
The problem is that you are relying on your knowledge of "the book" to decide what's out of it; and the computer's book may be bigger than yours.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:22 AM on November 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Kasparov tried to do this to Deep Blue, and accidentally stumbled into a position from a hundred-year-old game that Deep Blue had in its library, at which point Deep Blue took Kasparov's King's Bishop's Pawn with its knight.
The problem is that you are relying on your knowledge of "the book" to decide what's out of it; and the computer's book may be bigger than yours.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:22 AM on November 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
256: Ah, yeah, true.
Chocolate Pickle: Yeah, Kasparov used the caro-kann (if I remember correctly--an opening he wasn't familiar with, but would work well against a computer); however, he had forgotten about--when he saw the reply, he remembered, and resigned. He said he didn't want to play on and into the indignity of Deeper Blue announcing "mate in 24." Ironically, I think computer analysis has since showed that he COULD have still drawn the game.
(Sorry for all the posts--it's just, I'm really excited about this Match...I wake up at 4:30am and lean the ipad on my sleeping wife's back and watch it in bed.)
posted by whatgorilla at 9:25 AM on November 14, 2013
Chocolate Pickle: Yeah, Kasparov used the caro-kann (if I remember correctly--an opening he wasn't familiar with, but would work well against a computer); however, he had forgotten about--when he saw the reply, he remembered, and resigned. He said he didn't want to play on and into the indignity of Deeper Blue announcing "mate in 24." Ironically, I think computer analysis has since showed that he COULD have still drawn the game.
(Sorry for all the posts--it's just, I'm really excited about this Match...I wake up at 4:30am and lean the ipad on my sleeping wife's back and watch it in bed.)
posted by whatgorilla at 9:25 AM on November 14, 2013
Who wants to watch videos about jackets anyway?
People who know how to ROCK. From the Ladle to the Grave!
posted by FatherDagon at 10:00 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
People who know how to ROCK. From the Ladle to the Grave!
posted by FatherDagon at 10:00 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ventolin inhalers are banned in top-level chess? FFS, why? It's not like it has any cognitive or stimulating effects (aside from the "stimulus" of being able to breathe properly). There's a tiny bit of evidence that it might be helpful for athletes, but overall, not really - even WADA allows 1600µg over 24 hours, which is about 18 puffs.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:12 AM on November 14, 2013
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:12 AM on November 14, 2013
mediareport: "- is unfair chemical advantage possible in chess competition?"
Yes.
Now let's move on.
posted by IAmBroom at 11:09 AM on November 14, 2013
Yes.
Now let's move on.
posted by IAmBroom at 11:09 AM on November 14, 2013
"do people really watch this stuff for four and a half hours?" - Yes, but I find that podcasts of old Nascar races can get you through any slow spots.
posted by Ardiril at 11:14 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Ardiril at 11:14 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
If I try to name the most significant figures in the history of chess off the top of my head, I get:
Staunton, Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand.
I'd have Alekhine there (at least when not drunk), before I'd have Kramnik, Anand, Spassky, Stauton, Steinitz or Lasker. It's hard to argue about guys like Morphy because we don't have enough games and plays against other greats. If pressed, I'd say Capablanca would be greatest all-around, though of course such rankings are pretty meaningless, Alekhine perhaps the greatest attack player with Kasparov and Fischer right there too. Anand is second tier in that august company, IMHO.
Meanwhile it was comical (and often irritating) to listen to the British IM commenting on this game - busily and seemingly randomly moving pieces around and chattering incessantly, when it's clear that the level of analysis here is sub-club player, see him settle on what the likely next move is going to be by either Anand or Carlsen, and then the move actually played is completely outside of what the IM had even considered, whereupon he's properly astonished. When that happens in middle game, OK, but when that's happening right at the end where there are few pieces left on the board, that's just embarrassing. And that kept happening move after move after move - a sad illustration, that there really is a vast gulf between an IM and any old GM, let alone these guys. Now, I sympathize to a degree, because it's hard to do deep analysis for the broad public as the game is happening - after all, you can't fall silent for minutes on end while you do a deeper analysis, instead you have to provide a steady patter of commentary since dead air is unacceptable, and how deep can you think when you have to chatter non-stop... it's likely to be the most superficial stuff - and it shows.
The other thing I found irritating is how there would be long, long, long stretches when we actually don't see the board or the actual position at all, instead it's all lame 'analysis' and two guys fidgeting. There should always be a board with the current position displayed at all times.
Anyhow, good post, if by "good" we mean I didn't finish that tight deadline draft I really had to by morning. Great stuff... kept me up past 4:00 A.M. though, fucker :)
posted by VikingSword at 11:27 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Staunton, Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Spassky, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand.
I'd have Alekhine there (at least when not drunk), before I'd have Kramnik, Anand, Spassky, Stauton, Steinitz or Lasker. It's hard to argue about guys like Morphy because we don't have enough games and plays against other greats. If pressed, I'd say Capablanca would be greatest all-around, though of course such rankings are pretty meaningless, Alekhine perhaps the greatest attack player with Kasparov and Fischer right there too. Anand is second tier in that august company, IMHO.
Meanwhile it was comical (and often irritating) to listen to the British IM commenting on this game - busily and seemingly randomly moving pieces around and chattering incessantly, when it's clear that the level of analysis here is sub-club player, see him settle on what the likely next move is going to be by either Anand or Carlsen, and then the move actually played is completely outside of what the IM had even considered, whereupon he's properly astonished. When that happens in middle game, OK, but when that's happening right at the end where there are few pieces left on the board, that's just embarrassing. And that kept happening move after move after move - a sad illustration, that there really is a vast gulf between an IM and any old GM, let alone these guys. Now, I sympathize to a degree, because it's hard to do deep analysis for the broad public as the game is happening - after all, you can't fall silent for minutes on end while you do a deeper analysis, instead you have to provide a steady patter of commentary since dead air is unacceptable, and how deep can you think when you have to chatter non-stop... it's likely to be the most superficial stuff - and it shows.
The other thing I found irritating is how there would be long, long, long stretches when we actually don't see the board or the actual position at all, instead it's all lame 'analysis' and two guys fidgeting. There should always be a board with the current position displayed at all times.
Anyhow, good post, if by "good" we mean I didn't finish that tight deadline draft I really had to by morning. Great stuff... kept me up past 4:00 A.M. though, fucker :)
posted by VikingSword at 11:27 AM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I didn't include sober ALEKHINE because, as the terrible Slate.com piece (upthread) mentions, he spent 20 years ducking a lot of the better players and choosing matches against his old punching back, Efim Bogolyubov.
--
As for that Slate.com piece--which says Carlsen should win and then do away with World Championship in favor of FOUR super-tournaments, like with Tennis and Golf (who have their Grand Slams or whatever), I hate the idea.
The chess world needs champions, though it DOES need a better system--having #4 Anand draw like 15 games with #20 Gelfand, only to win with one game WAS hard to watch and terrible for chess.
Carlsen doesn't need to fix anything, but the FIDE should. It would be nice to elevate four big tournaments, BUT tournaments between huge groups of players for tennis and golf folks are a LOT easier to dominate than for chess players who have to risk much more and deal with draws (which tennis and golf don't have as far as I know--how does golf deal with draws?). Besides, we do have some great tournaments: Linares, Tata Steel, Bilbao (usually), Sinquefield Cup (new), Tal Memorial, and all the championships...
But in order to REALLY know who is best, you have to play 12-18 games minimum with them...maybe more depending on draws (again, Kasparov-Karpov, in 1984, went 48 games, and Kasparov was down 5-3 when it was canceled due to both of their healths being hurt. Then in 1985 he won the 24th and final game, with black, to beat Karpov....BUT those tournaments probably MAY HAVE MADE him the dominant player for 15 years--perhaps it was the forge that hardened him or whatever).
With 4 big tournaments we would have ONLY had like 6 truly dominating players in 160 years--Morphy, Capablanca, Steinitz, Lasker, Fischer, and Kasparov...other than Morphy, their careers were often like 20-30 years long--way longer than any modern tennis legend. Conversely, I can think of 9 tennis legends off the top of my head in the last 35 years (Connors, Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Borg, Becker, Sampras, Lendl and McEnroe have all dominated tons of the grand slams--and most only dominated for 1-8 years in a career of 10-12 years). I'm sure golf has had a lot of dominant players besides Tiger, Jack Nicholas and Arnold Palmer (I just don't know them).
posted by whatgorilla at 11:47 AM on November 14, 2013
--
As for that Slate.com piece--which says Carlsen should win and then do away with World Championship in favor of FOUR super-tournaments, like with Tennis and Golf (who have their Grand Slams or whatever), I hate the idea.
The chess world needs champions, though it DOES need a better system--having #4 Anand draw like 15 games with #20 Gelfand, only to win with one game WAS hard to watch and terrible for chess.
Carlsen doesn't need to fix anything, but the FIDE should. It would be nice to elevate four big tournaments, BUT tournaments between huge groups of players for tennis and golf folks are a LOT easier to dominate than for chess players who have to risk much more and deal with draws (which tennis and golf don't have as far as I know--how does golf deal with draws?). Besides, we do have some great tournaments: Linares, Tata Steel, Bilbao (usually), Sinquefield Cup (new), Tal Memorial, and all the championships...
But in order to REALLY know who is best, you have to play 12-18 games minimum with them...maybe more depending on draws (again, Kasparov-Karpov, in 1984, went 48 games, and Kasparov was down 5-3 when it was canceled due to both of their healths being hurt. Then in 1985 he won the 24th and final game, with black, to beat Karpov....BUT those tournaments probably MAY HAVE MADE him the dominant player for 15 years--perhaps it was the forge that hardened him or whatever).
With 4 big tournaments we would have ONLY had like 6 truly dominating players in 160 years--Morphy, Capablanca, Steinitz, Lasker, Fischer, and Kasparov...other than Morphy, their careers were often like 20-30 years long--way longer than any modern tennis legend. Conversely, I can think of 9 tennis legends off the top of my head in the last 35 years (Connors, Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Borg, Becker, Sampras, Lendl and McEnroe have all dominated tons of the grand slams--and most only dominated for 1-8 years in a career of 10-12 years). I'm sure golf has had a lot of dominant players besides Tiger, Jack Nicholas and Arnold Palmer (I just don't know them).
posted by whatgorilla at 11:47 AM on November 14, 2013
Alekhine surely ducked, but he was also a bit bitter in that he was ducked himself earlier on and rebuffed by money requests he couldn't afford, so turnaround and all that. In the end, it's about the games played is how you will be judged and Alekhine certainly played his share of brilliant games, and against strong opponents - though one could argue Capa was a bit bored and under the weather during that famous marathon... I still give Capa the edge as an all-around player (not to mention a more generous and sporting player), or human being for that matter (A. really was a bit of a goat).
And the only consistent thing about FIDE is that they've always had serious problems. It's a mess.
posted by VikingSword at 12:14 PM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
And the only consistent thing about FIDE is that they've always had serious problems. It's a mess.
posted by VikingSword at 12:14 PM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
As for that Slate.com piece--which says Carlsen should win and then do away with World Championship in favor of FOUR super-tournaments, like with Tennis and Golf (who have their Grand Slams or whatever), I hate the idea.
Totally agreed. And really, we already have the London Chess Classic, Tal Memorial, etc. which are the sort of prestige analogues of the major tennis/golf tournaments. And the Candidates cycle is a little like the BCS. So in some sense it's the best of both worlds. And also, part of what makes Tennis or golf major tournaments interesting is that they have something distinctive to them. The French Open means clay, and each golf open is at a particular golf course with particular hole location configurations and all that. Chess is chess, so it would be hard to build up the mystique of, say, the Tal Memorial in the same way that the various golf and tennis tournaments have naturally come to be so intriguing.
posted by pdq at 1:35 PM on November 14, 2013
Totally agreed. And really, we already have the London Chess Classic, Tal Memorial, etc. which are the sort of prestige analogues of the major tennis/golf tournaments. And the Candidates cycle is a little like the BCS. So in some sense it's the best of both worlds. And also, part of what makes Tennis or golf major tournaments interesting is that they have something distinctive to them. The French Open means clay, and each golf open is at a particular golf course with particular hole location configurations and all that. Chess is chess, so it would be hard to build up the mystique of, say, the Tal Memorial in the same way that the various golf and tennis tournaments have naturally come to be so intriguing.
posted by pdq at 1:35 PM on November 14, 2013
how does golf deal with draws?
At the professional level, the tied players keep playing holes until the tie is broken. When that's infeasible at lower levels due to scheduling constraints, the first tiebreaker is the lowest score on the last hole, the next tiebreaker is the lowest score on the next-to-last, and so on.
posted by persona at 2:45 PM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
At the professional level, the tied players keep playing holes until the tie is broken. When that's infeasible at lower levels due to scheduling constraints, the first tiebreaker is the lowest score on the last hole, the next tiebreaker is the lowest score on the next-to-last, and so on.
posted by persona at 2:45 PM on November 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Carlsen just won game 5, playing fearlessly after move 36--winning in his normal, Karpovian way (in the late middle and endgame--too many complications for Anand to see). It was a very dynamic and crazy game after a slow start.
posted by whatgorilla at 8:17 AM on November 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by whatgorilla at 8:17 AM on November 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
It seems to me, it wasn't the middle game so much as the endgame that really did it for Game 5, and Anand wasn't so much outplayed as frankly blundered a bit - just how it seems to me.
posted by VikingSword at 12:13 PM on November 15, 2013
posted by VikingSword at 12:13 PM on November 15, 2013
I forget which old GM it was earlier in the 20th century who took an hour as white before he made a FIRST(?!) move.David Bronstein.
posted by dfan at 8:00 AM on November 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Carlsen up another one, now as black. Again, endgame. Always bad for Anand to let Carlsen bring the fight to the endgame, because that's where this younger guy is strong (and also has more stamina). Now is the time for Anand as white to uncork some long nourished and thoroughly researched surprise. Losing as white should not be part of the plan. Seems Anand's heart is not in it.
posted by VikingSword at 9:45 AM on November 18, 2013
posted by VikingSword at 9:45 AM on November 18, 2013
Nothing much with the seventh game. One thing I'm really, really disappointed with are the post game conferences. It's a great idea, but in practice somehow the caliber of questions is just atrocious - I don't get it. There are thousands of questions one might ask about the game played or chess in general, or about their thoughts or preparations and so on, instead it's just the worst kind of listless drivel, as if nobody really wants to be there, least of all the so-called journalists.
posted by VikingSword at 6:16 PM on November 18, 2013
posted by VikingSword at 6:16 PM on November 18, 2013
There have been a few attempts to ask interesting questions that the participants have declined to answer (except with non-answers) so I can't put the blame entirely on the media there.
One unfortunate side effect of the match being of (relatively) mainstream interest is that everything tends to get pitched at the lowest common denominator. This is true of the during-the-game live commentary too; the commentators are careful to explain all sorts of basic principles so that novices can have some sort of sense of what's going on, but those who are used to seeing more detailed analysis are disappointed. Still, I'll take the hit if it gets more people interested in the game.
posted by dfan at 8:14 PM on November 18, 2013
One unfortunate side effect of the match being of (relatively) mainstream interest is that everything tends to get pitched at the lowest common denominator. This is true of the during-the-game live commentary too; the commentators are careful to explain all sorts of basic principles so that novices can have some sort of sense of what's going on, but those who are used to seeing more detailed analysis are disappointed. Still, I'll take the hit if it gets more people interested in the game.
posted by dfan at 8:14 PM on November 18, 2013
Game 8, dullest one yet. I'm really hoping Anand uses the day off as a strategy re-charging opportunity, because unless he uncorks his secret surprise soon, it's all over - there are just not enough games to catch up otherwise, plus of course nobody wants to see this thing grind on to an ignominious end. So c'mon, Anand, make it a spectacle! The Romans demand the gladiators give a good show!
On a more serious note, dfan, I do understand that the players are not going to be 100% forthcoming, but why not ask at least the very obvious questions, such as why did Anand keep falling so happily into the Berlin Defense after having had his butt kicked or near-kicked (game 5) on that before? Is there some line he's prepared that would be just a marvel and Carlsen is not cooperating? Puzzles abound.
posted by VikingSword at 1:16 PM on November 19, 2013
On a more serious note, dfan, I do understand that the players are not going to be 100% forthcoming, but why not ask at least the very obvious questions, such as why did Anand keep falling so happily into the Berlin Defense after having had his butt kicked or near-kicked (game 5) on that before? Is there some line he's prepared that would be just a marvel and Carlsen is not cooperating? Puzzles abound.
posted by VikingSword at 1:16 PM on November 19, 2013
Well, that should about do it. Finally a really exciting game - too bad it was marred by Anand's blunder at the end.
posted by dfan at 3:32 PM on November 21, 2013
posted by dfan at 3:32 PM on November 21, 2013
Yep, that was magnificent, and exactly what you said - too bad about the blunder. But running the analysis, had white not blundered, black still had at the very least a perpetual check draw; meanwhile the pressure was on white to win, so a draw was not acceptable, white had to press on, except there was no 'there' there. Really, really interesting and subtle game, and I must say, Carlsen really impressed me for the first time in this match - there were several moves that were so quiet and yet so precise, not something you expect from a strong attacking player, especially the many black pieces hardly moving from their original position, and things super cramped up on that last row. Of course, it wasn't all quiet moves from Carlsen, his queenside pawns were relentless and that b pawn was an aggressive posture. There is so much going on with the white attack, that it merits much more analysis, it just looks so dire for black at a superficial glance, it's hard to believe white didn't have a winning line somewhere.
No question Anand blundered, but overall this was one of the most satisfying games in the match so far. The question now is what's next for Anand - if he's got some secret sauce lines this is the very last moment when he can still uncork them, though frankly, considering that he's black next, things look grim for Vishy.
Not a super impressive match by any means so far, though game 9 is legitimately interesting.
posted by VikingSword at 6:03 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
No question Anand blundered, but overall this was one of the most satisfying games in the match so far. The question now is what's next for Anand - if he's got some secret sauce lines this is the very last moment when he can still uncork them, though frankly, considering that he's black next, things look grim for Vishy.
Not a super impressive match by any means so far, though game 9 is legitimately interesting.
posted by VikingSword at 6:03 PM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well Game 9 was fun to watch. Great sporting drama, interesting commentary, dramatic ending. Kept me riveted for hours.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:44 AM on November 22, 2013
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:44 AM on November 22, 2013
« Older There is nothing so redolent of the past as its... | Simon Says: "Cthulhu fhtagn" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:20 PM on November 13, 2013 [13 favorites]