Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision(deadspin.com)
deadspin.com
Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision
https://deadspin.com/armageddon-looms-over-the-world-chess-championship-afte-1830671246
167 comments
Armageddon :
"the players proceed to a single game of Armageddon, where the parameters are set to so far as possible give each side a 50-percent chance of winning—White gets 5 minutes, Black gets 4 minutes, and a draw will make Black the World Champion."
"the players proceed to a single game of Armageddon, where the parameters are set to so far as possible give each side a 50-percent chance of winning—White gets 5 minutes, Black gets 4 minutes, and a draw will make Black the World Champion."
That really seems to favor black by a rather large margin. Wonder if there are any stats on the win ratios for each color in this format. And how do they decide who get's each color?
A fairer approach might be to auction the time. i.e. each player bids on number of minutes (or perhaps 10 second intervals?), the highest bid takes black with the win-on-draw condition and that many minutes taken from the 5 minute time.
Or similarly, employ "I cut you choose": one player chooses the time limit for black, the other then selects which color they want.
Color is determined by random draw. I think most people feel that black has the advantage, but because there's no standardized timing it's hard to find relevant statistics. Armageddon is pretty much a thin chess-like veneer on top of a coin flip.
Most sports that have these 'last ditch tiebreaker' rules end up being coin flips in practice, or at least end up testing a completely different skillset than the normal game. Hockey and soccer shootouts are pretty much coin flips, and American pro football overtime is a completely different game. College football overtime is even more of a diversion from the actual game.
Whenever you try to force an outcome in a sport, you get further and further away from the original game.
Whenever you try to force an outcome in a sport, you get further and further away from the original game.
[deleted]
It could make sense to instead let the players bid for black (ie, winning draws), in units of time-differential, similar to this idea for auctioning off 1st possession in a USA-Football overtime by starting yard-line:
https://slate.com/culture/2009/01/why-the-nfl-should-replace...
https://slate.com/culture/2009/01/why-the-nfl-should-replace...
This has been tried (I think for some US Championship tiebreaks), and I like it a lot. If memory serves, the winning time bids for Black were quite low; people really value draw odds.
Its pretty unlikely to end in draw with blitz clocks, one player can usually gain a minuscule advantage and win on time if necessary.
It doesn't though, because black has 20% less time than white.
Yeah, but these guys blitz out great moves like crazy, I just don't think an extra minute is enough time to capitalize on any slight inaccuracies induced by the time pressure black is under. I could be wrong of course, which is why I was interested to know if there are any win ratios for the format around.
Speaking as a former world ranked competitive player who specializes in fast time controls (blitz and bullet) — you guys are severely underestimating how important the time factor is in blitz.
Blitz is almost an entirely different game from classical chance. Yes, technically the rules are the same, but tactical ability and ability to think under pressure plays a massively more important role than positional ability, which tends to be the deciding factor in top level classical chess.
A 5m to 4m time advantage is the equivalent of a 100-200 point handicap. Think about it... if both players are evenly matched for 30 moves taking the same amount of time, say 3m, then you end up with an interesting middlegame position where White has 2m and Black has 1m. Now you are playing bullet chess with a 2 to 1 time advantage, which is more of like a 300-400 point handicap.
All that to say - blitz chess, even at the world championship level, is characterized not by "slight inaccuracies" but by major mistakes if not outright blunders. You can even have wild swings in the final minute as each player makes critical mistakes.
To get a feel for chess at this speed, I highly recommend watching some bullet chess streaming videos from chess.com or lichess. It is both highly entertaining and very instructive about the time aspect of chess.
Blitz is almost an entirely different game from classical chance. Yes, technically the rules are the same, but tactical ability and ability to think under pressure plays a massively more important role than positional ability, which tends to be the deciding factor in top level classical chess.
A 5m to 4m time advantage is the equivalent of a 100-200 point handicap. Think about it... if both players are evenly matched for 30 moves taking the same amount of time, say 3m, then you end up with an interesting middlegame position where White has 2m and Black has 1m. Now you are playing bullet chess with a 2 to 1 time advantage, which is more of like a 300-400 point handicap.
All that to say - blitz chess, even at the world championship level, is characterized not by "slight inaccuracies" but by major mistakes if not outright blunders. You can even have wild swings in the final minute as each player makes critical mistakes.
To get a feel for chess at this speed, I highly recommend watching some bullet chess streaming videos from chess.com or lichess. It is both highly entertaining and very instructive about the time aspect of chess.
Black has two disadvantages starting though, second and additional time pressure. As for the win rates I can't imagine they'd be very good data because armageddon is the format of last result for tournaments so there's likely fewer games played. On top of that there's a lot of player variation under time pressure. Some (like Carlsen who has a rapid elo of 2880 and a blitz rating of 2939) have their ELO improve as you move to faster formats while others get worse (like, unfortunately for him, Caruana who goes from rapid 2789 to blitz 2767). The rating differences alone mean Carlsen is the heavy favorite to win going into these tie breakers well before we get to the armageddon round. [1]
I think given the probabilities in the 538 model Carlsen's decision makes a lot of sense. Why slug it out to a probable draw with the chance to lose out of nowhere when you can move to another format that drastically favors you?
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...
I think given the probabilities in the 538 model Carlsen's decision makes a lot of sense. Why slug it out to a probable draw with the chance to lose out of nowhere when you can move to another format that drastically favors you?
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...
It might spice-up the whole match to have this final-someone's-gotta-win tiebreaker before other tiebreaker matches, and then hold the result "in case it's needed". That'd be in the same spirit as this recommendation to have Soccer penalty-kick shootouts before overtime.
https://slate.com/culture/2016/06/how-to-fix-the-penalty-sho...
That is: you know who will win if all other tiebreakers draw, giving the side which didn't earn this final-tiebreaker the knowledge they have to be more aggressive, much earlier. (In the extreme, you could play this before every other match.)
https://slate.com/culture/2016/06/how-to-fix-the-penalty-sho...
That is: you know who will win if all other tiebreakers draw, giving the side which didn't earn this final-tiebreaker the knowledge they have to be more aggressive, much earlier. (In the extreme, you could play this before every other match.)
It still irks me that something as rare and prestigious as the World Cup (and Olympic Hockey) can get decided by shootouts. I mean, I get it, football has a huge pitch and it'd probably be ridiculous to have guys exhausted, barely able to jog at the 150th minute.
That said, one of the things I love about NHL playoff hockey is that without compromise, it's first goal wins overtime, where players are willing to do everything and anything to get that win. Block every shot, hustle when they're exhausted... it's truly amazing. One of my favorite quotes about the quintuple overtime game between the Penguins and Flyers in 2000:
> LeClair: After the third overtime … our locker room became a lot more loose. It was pretty comical in the locker room between guys searching for food, some guys getting IVs. It was a little bit of survival mode.
> Primeau: Usually on the road the team orders pizza for the locker room. There's pizza for the guys, power gels, power bars, they were really popular. The trunk of those was gone, the pizza was gone. Trainers are going up to concession stands to see if there's anything there. [The] coaches' popcorn was eaten.
That said, one of the things I love about NHL playoff hockey is that without compromise, it's first goal wins overtime, where players are willing to do everything and anything to get that win. Block every shot, hustle when they're exhausted... it's truly amazing. One of my favorite quotes about the quintuple overtime game between the Penguins and Flyers in 2000:
> LeClair: After the third overtime … our locker room became a lot more loose. It was pretty comical in the locker room between guys searching for food, some guys getting IVs. It was a little bit of survival mode.
> Primeau: Usually on the road the team orders pizza for the locker room. There's pizza for the guys, power gels, power bars, they were really popular. The trunk of those was gone, the pizza was gone. Trainers are going up to concession stands to see if there's anything there. [The] coaches' popcorn was eaten.
The problem with excessive overtime (and the now abolished Golden Goal) in football is that the quality of play decreases dramatically as the players get ever more exhausted. Going to 120 minutes already doesn't lead to one team clearly outplaying the other in almost all cases.
The big difference to e.g. american football is that football is a low scoring game even at the best of times. Tired attacking players will score even less, since a succesful offense relies on outrunning and outplaying the defense, while the defense typically can deny a lot of goalscoring opportunities by simply being in the correct positions. If no one can score by minute 120, it really doesn't make sense to make the game go on even longer.
I agree that a penalty shootout is close to a coin flip most of time and that this isn't a satisfying way to decide a winner. However there are teams (e.g. the german men'sn ational team) that consistently outperform on penalties. That's because penalties are far less about technique than they are about psychology. It's all about performing under pressure. That pressure is even higher in a penalty shootout at a big turnament. This plus the sheer drama of it make penalty shootouts one of the most thrilling events at a big turnament.
The big difference to e.g. american football is that football is a low scoring game even at the best of times. Tired attacking players will score even less, since a succesful offense relies on outrunning and outplaying the defense, while the defense typically can deny a lot of goalscoring opportunities by simply being in the correct positions. If no one can score by minute 120, it really doesn't make sense to make the game go on even longer.
I agree that a penalty shootout is close to a coin flip most of time and that this isn't a satisfying way to decide a winner. However there are teams (e.g. the german men'sn ational team) that consistently outperform on penalties. That's because penalties are far less about technique than they are about psychology. It's all about performing under pressure. That pressure is even higher in a penalty shootout at a big turnament. This plus the sheer drama of it make penalty shootouts one of the most thrilling events at a big turnament.
I fervently believe that soccer would be a much more entertaining game if the substitution rules were significantly loosened. When I played in high school, substitution was allowed on any dead ball situation, and we effectively used something like a hockey line shift, with midfielders shuttling in and out every five minutes. The result was that you could play at a much higher tempo than if you had to conserve energy for the entire match. It was far more enjoyable both as a player and a spectator.
There was a very good rule change recently: if a game goes to overtime, all teams can do one more exchange. This allows teams to safely use up their regular 3 changes without having pressure to save one change for a possible overtime.
But watching "friendship" games between national teams where often there are much relaxed change numbers (these games are the one opportunity for the national trainers to experiment widely with the team setup), they tend to be pretty bad. Changing the compositon of a team strongly has a huge potential to be very disruptive. This shows how much football is actually a team play.
But watching "friendship" games between national teams where often there are much relaxed change numbers (these games are the one opportunity for the national trainers to experiment widely with the team setup), they tend to be pretty bad. Changing the compositon of a team strongly has a huge potential to be very disruptive. This shows how much football is actually a team play.
you'd also spend a whole ton of time waiting for players to get on and off the field.
You're talking about Golden Goal. Soccer already have that from as long as I remember.
Then it was "downgraded" to Silver Goal. Only both to be abolished later on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal
Wiki mentioned "The golden goal and silver goal were widely perceived as failed experiments" but I'm in the opposing camp. Golden Goal is freaking exciting as a spectator.
Then it was "downgraded" to Silver Goal. Only both to be abolished later on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal
Wiki mentioned "The golden goal and silver goal were widely perceived as failed experiments" but I'm in the opposing camp. Golden Goal is freaking exciting as a spectator.
This sounds mad - madly entertaining that is:
>In a qualification game for the 1994 Caribbean Cup, Barbados deliberately scored a late own goal in a successful attempt to qualify for the finals by forcing golden-goal extra time against Grenada, as an unusual tournament rule stated that golden goals counted double in calculating goal difference. Needing a two-goal victory to qualify, Barbados found themselves 2–1 up with three minutes left of normal time. After the Barbadians scored an own goal to bring the scoreline level at 2–2, Grenada tried to score in either net while Barbados defended both goals for the final three minutes of normal time.[4] Barbados won the game in extra time and advanced to the next round.[5]
>In a qualification game for the 1994 Caribbean Cup, Barbados deliberately scored a late own goal in a successful attempt to qualify for the finals by forcing golden-goal extra time against Grenada, as an unusual tournament rule stated that golden goals counted double in calculating goal difference. Needing a two-goal victory to qualify, Barbados found themselves 2–1 up with three minutes left of normal time. After the Barbadians scored an own goal to bring the scoreline level at 2–2, Grenada tried to score in either net while Barbados defended both goals for the final three minutes of normal time.[4] Barbados won the game in extra time and advanced to the next round.[5]
> Golden Goal is freaking exciting as a spectator.
It wasn't. Teams played super safe for extra time, just passing the ball in their own half and so on, because they felt like they'd have a more consistent chance in the penalty shootout.
It wasn't. Teams played super safe for extra time, just passing the ball in their own half and so on, because they felt like they'd have a more consistent chance in the penalty shootout.
I remember a lot of bitching over the French national teams wining by the Golden goal in 98 world cup and 2000 European one. And I had forgotten the old term of sudden death.
It was only European cup. World Cup was a very clean 3-0.
Vs Paraguay and Laurent Blanc goal in 1998. My original message wasn't clear, I meant they won two games with golden goals,one during the world cup in 98, and the other for the final in 2000. Basically France profit of the Golden goals in two consecutive major competitions.
I disagree. It doesn’t give teams a chance to fight back, which you get even on penalties. Absolutely one of the worst ideas to ever feature in football.
Golden Goal can have the problem of teams playing too defensively. My favorite option for these sorts of things is drop offs, every x minutes a player from either side comes off. In soccer space is the most important factor to goal scoring. For a while field hockey used this but I'm not sure why they switched back.
Side note - I appreciate these sports threads, they're very rare in geek circles.
Side note - I appreciate these sports threads, they're very rare in geek circles.
Golden goal has been tried in the past in football tournaments, and has been rejected. It was widely perceived that it did not lead to more attacking football.
I hold to the even nuttier notion that soccer should abolish goalies entirely. Figure out a goal system that works without creating a one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others position with as many rules as the entire rest of the game.
It would end "ripping nil-nil ties" and the ridiculous(!) separate game of tiddlywinks that is penalty shootouts (and nothing like the game you just spent 120 minutes playing). As a bonus you'd have higher scores and more usable stats.
It would end "ripping nil-nil ties" and the ridiculous(!) separate game of tiddlywinks that is penalty shootouts (and nothing like the game you just spent 120 minutes playing). As a bonus you'd have higher scores and more usable stats.
In hockey, players rest most of the time, and can keep playing much longer. Also skating takes much less effort than running.
A soccer player must first of all be a decent mid distance runner: They run an average of 7 miles per game!
In soccer, I think the longer they play, the more tired people get, the more it rewards defense, and you'd just see very few goals after 120 minutes.
You could imagine things like removing the goalies to get a playing result that's not penalties.
A soccer player must first of all be a decent mid distance runner: They run an average of 7 miles per game!
In soccer, I think the longer they play, the more tired people get, the more it rewards defense, and you'd just see very few goals after 120 minutes.
You could imagine things like removing the goalies to get a playing result that's not penalties.
I've played both hockey and soccer for a long time (not super-competitive though). Hockey is far more tiring even with short 60-90s shifts in a 60 min game vs. full time for a 90 min soccer game.
I'm not sure why but for me at least the short shifts mean I'm flat out when on the ice and never quite get a rhythm like I do in soccer where I eventually settle into a steady pace... like a long distance runner.
Anyway, agree with parent comment that penalties aren't a great way to settle a competition. One option that could be interesting in soccer is to drop to 9 players in overtime and allow a couple extra subs.
I'm not sure why but for me at least the short shifts mean I'm flat out when on the ice and never quite get a rhythm like I do in soccer where I eventually settle into a steady pace... like a long distance runner.
Anyway, agree with parent comment that penalties aren't a great way to settle a competition. One option that could be interesting in soccer is to drop to 9 players in overtime and allow a couple extra subs.
It really depends on the individual. I’m like you, I prefer regular running over sprints, and could happily run a full football game, but I’d be dead after 5 minutes of full-court basketball. Some of my friends are the opposite, they could kill it on the court for ages but wouldn’t last 30 minutes in football. Some of it is due to conditioning, but like all athletic performances there is also an element of genetics.
You don't have to imagine to find a sport with greater running distances, match lengths, and goals-without-a-goalie: Just go watch an Aussie Rules Football match.
They have roughly 2 hours of play, and it's not unknown for players to run over 11 miles a match.
They have roughly 2 hours of play, and it's not unknown for players to run over 11 miles a match.
20min quarters with stoppages
120 interchanges per side for the match
different, but still equally intense as FIFA Football
120 interchanges per side for the match
different, but still equally intense as FIFA Football
I imagine there aren't a lot of drawn games?
The scoring for Australian football is dramatically different. The final score in the last australian football grand final was 79 to 74. Its closer to basketball scores than it is soccer.
2010 Grand Final was a draw.
As a Geelong fan I enjoyed neither St Kilda or Collingwood winning for the week before the rematch.
As a Geelong fan I enjoyed neither St Kilda or Collingwood winning for the week before the rematch.
> It still irks me that something as rare and prestigious as the World Cup (and Olympic Hockey) can get decided by shootouts.
Even without the shoutouts, football is a very random game (compare with something like Tennis). And this is amplified by the tournament format. I like how experts take this game so seriously and come up with deep analysis when there's so much randomness in the result.
Even without the shoutouts, football is a very random game (compare with something like Tennis). And this is amplified by the tournament format. I like how experts take this game so seriously and come up with deep analysis when there's so much randomness in the result.
You need some data to back that up.
The bulk of football is played in "league" format, not "cup" format, where teams all play each other two times in a year. With 34 matches, for example, much of that "randomness" is gone.
The bulk of football is played in "league" format, not "cup" format, where teams all play each other two times in a year. With 34 matches, for example, much of that "randomness" is gone.
Some of the public analysis can be qualified as theological debate, yes; but behind the scenes, in professional clubs, there is a lot of actual tactical work and preparation, which really removes a lot of the “randomness”. The best team doesn’t always win a game, but it usually wins a league and it often wins a cup, and that’s not by accident.
> It was pretty comical in the locker room between guys searching for food, some guys getting IVs.
It's impressive that they made such an extreme effort, but I'm not sure I would use the word "comical" to describe needing medical treatment. (I mean, lots of athletes receive medical attention and presumably nobody considered it a life-threatening emergency, but that part still doesn't sound quite "comical".)
It's impressive that they made such an extreme effort, but I'm not sure I would use the word "comical" to describe needing medical treatment. (I mean, lots of athletes receive medical attention and presumably nobody considered it a life-threatening emergency, but that part still doesn't sound quite "comical".)
They get IVs to stay hydrated. They're not "in need" of medical treatment, they're choosing to use something that's usually a medical treatment as a routine process instead of drinking from a water bottle. I assume because it's either faster hydration, or avoids stomach issues.
Part of me feels the same, but (in NHL overtimes at least) I've also heard that injuries become progressively more common per time played as games stretch into longer and longer overtimes. That seems worth avoiding.
That would be really awful. The winner of the tiebreak would have a huge incentive to go for a draw. In chess, it's a lot easier to go for a win or draw than try for a win at the Grandmaster level. This would only increase the likelihood of there being more draw matches. I mean, just look at the 12 games in the WCC. Magnus was clearly playing super safe in order to draw the match and go to the tiebreaker, where he has a huge advantage. He did the same thing in 2016.
This is the tiebreaker format in fencing bouts. 3 3 minute rounds up to a max of 15 points (touches). If the final period ends tied, 1 minute sudden death overtime with a predetermined winner ("priority") by coin flip.
For what it's worth, it does work pretty well, but it helps that the tiebreaker doesn't require physical effort. A long set of PKs followed by an overtime would be a hell of a burden on goaltenders, especially the (would-be) loser.
For what it's worth, it does work pretty well, but it helps that the tiebreaker doesn't require physical effort. A long set of PKs followed by an overtime would be a hell of a burden on goaltenders, especially the (would-be) loser.
It would also encourage the winner of that game to play extra slow and defensively for a draw, but still - the tradeoff might be neat
Hi all, for those planning to watch tomorrow's rapid/blitz tiebreakers live, Stanford Chess team will be livestreaming analysis and commentary at https://www.twitch.tv/stanfordchess and https://lichess.org/@/StanfordChess.
Our team captain is GM Daniel Naroditsky, one of the top blitz and bullet players in the world, who regularly beats Magnus in the LiChess Titled Arena. And our coach is NM Jordy Mont-Reynaud, a ~2350 bullet player who formerly held the record for youngest master in the US.
We'll be responding to questions and comments from the chat for any HN members who want more context on what's going on. Looking forward to an exciting finale!
Our team captain is GM Daniel Naroditsky, one of the top blitz and bullet players in the world, who regularly beats Magnus in the LiChess Titled Arena. And our coach is NM Jordy Mont-Reynaud, a ~2350 bullet player who formerly held the record for youngest master in the US.
We'll be responding to questions and comments from the chat for any HN members who want more context on what's going on. Looking forward to an exciting finale!
Can folks at Stanford come by and watch live? (This is the first I've heard of the Stanford Chess Club…)
NM Jordy Mont-Reynaud will be live streaming from the CoHo at 7am. All Stanford students and affiliates are encouraged to join for commentary + banter! Normally we have a room reserved at Tresidder Old Union, but we got a bit of a late start on this so we're winging it for tomorrow.
Slack group open to Stanford students/alums/faculty: https://stanfordchess.slack.com
FB page for general public: https://www.facebook.com/stanfordchessdotorg/
Slack group open to Stanford students/alums/faculty: https://stanfordchess.slack.com
FB page for general public: https://www.facebook.com/stanfordchessdotorg/
Sorry guys, wifi issues at CoHo prevented streaming.
We are live now on Twitch: www.twitch.tv/stanfordchess
An alternative opinion for why Carlsen offered the game 12 draw: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/11/ga...
Another is that Carlsen is very good at rapid (Carlsen 2880 vs Caruana 2789) and blitz (2939 vs 2767) formats compared Caruana so it makes sense to just take things to the tiebreakers where Carlsen has a significant advantage.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...
> So it actually is a draw! (sort of)
There's been a tournament of top engines playing out the position after the draw -- I think black (Carlsen) won 11 games and white won 2 games, with the rest draws. So this declaration of the lack of advantage just isn't true.
> just take things to the tiebreakers where Carlsen has a significant advantage.
But he had a significant advantage on the board, too. The question is the magnitude of the advantages. Caruana has previously been a world blitz champion too, so it seems unlikely that any advantage would be more than 60%-40% to Carlsen. Which seems smaller than the advantage we see from the computer tournament results.
There's been a tournament of top engines playing out the position after the draw -- I think black (Carlsen) won 11 games and white won 2 games, with the rest draws. So this declaration of the lack of advantage just isn't true.
> just take things to the tiebreakers where Carlsen has a significant advantage.
But he had a significant advantage on the board, too. The question is the magnitude of the advantages. Caruana has previously been a world blitz champion too, so it seems unlikely that any advantage would be more than 60%-40% to Carlsen. Which seems smaller than the advantage we see from the computer tournament results.
Just take a look at their relative rankings though. Caruana may have previously been blitz champion but his current blitz elo is ~170 points lower than Carlsen who iirc is the current blitz champion.
I'd like to see that same process repeated for all the other draws from the points of highest advantage and right before the draw too if we're going to be using it to evaluate the decision to draw. Not sure how closely the computer tournament reflects the actual progression we've seen from Carlsen and Caruana because if we just look at the pawn equivalent advantage game 12 wasn't the best game that's been fought to a draw in this series. (I know that doesn't take into account positional advantage but we don't have an easy number to sum up that over all the games).
I'd like to see that same process repeated for all the other draws from the points of highest advantage and right before the draw too if we're going to be using it to evaluate the decision to draw. Not sure how closely the computer tournament reflects the actual progression we've seen from Carlsen and Caruana because if we just look at the pawn equivalent advantage game 12 wasn't the best game that's been fought to a draw in this series. (I know that doesn't take into account positional advantage but we don't have an easy number to sum up that over all the games).
His current low blitz ELO ranking only says that he plays less blitz than Carlsen. Possibly to catch up to Carlsen in the normal rankings, with playing lots of normal tournaments.
ELO is not measuring the potential, just the rankings of wins and losses.
Caruana's potential is probably the same Carlsen. One should never underestimate him.
Caruana's potential is probably the same Carlsen. One should never underestimate him.
I think he was annoyed/bored. He is basically playing against a computer for an increasing number of moves. By the time the theory ends, the game is near-decided. Chess960 reveals the natural talents over the memorizers.
The chess lovers complain and complain, because everybody's style is starting to mimick closer to the objective best moves.
It is also a psychological move in trolling Caruana (part of the game): "You did not even try to win with white in your last game before the rapids. I'll draw in a superior position because I love my chances there."
The chess lovers complain and complain, because everybody's style is starting to mimick closer to the objective best moves.
It is also a psychological move in trolling Caruana (part of the game): "You did not even try to win with white in your last game before the rapids. I'll draw in a superior position because I love my chances there."
The article moans about Carlsen’s Game 12 draw offer but it’s ridiculous. He had a plan going in to play for a draw, and given how much of an advantage there was (a modest advantage that by no means guaranteed a win, and which would still be hard to spot by human players), he knew the risks in continuing to play and appraised it to be more prudent to spend that risk budget in rapid games where he has a superior record.
There is no drama in this at all, and it’s hardly bad for competitive chess. This title matchhas produced exciting games and creativity, and yes also blunders. It’s been fantastic to watch!
Carlsen stuck to his overall match plan. That’s all that happened. Now it’s up to Caruana to prove he can hold his own in rapid games, and frankly he should feel confident that he can given his overall performances across the 12 matches so far. Carlsen is the favorite for sure, but it looks to be a great set of rapid games.
There is no drama in this at all, and it’s hardly bad for competitive chess. This title matchhas produced exciting games and creativity, and yes also blunders. It’s been fantastic to watch!
Carlsen stuck to his overall match plan. That’s all that happened. Now it’s up to Caruana to prove he can hold his own in rapid games, and frankly he should feel confident that he can given his overall performances across the 12 matches so far. Carlsen is the favorite for sure, but it looks to be a great set of rapid games.
It's strategic, it's rational, and still it's disappointing. He was renown for pressing forward against the odds and clinching unexpected victories. Mathias Feist on Carlsen:
"There is an equal position on the board, and the opponent thinks: this is dead drawn. I can play almost anything and there is nothing he can do. But Magnus plays on, seeking complications, setting up threats. He is narrowing the margin required to hold the draw. Soon his opponent is thinking: why is he still playing – I can hold a draw with any of these three moves. Then: I can hold with this move and with this move. And then: I still have one clear way to hold a draw. And under the strain of constantly having to solve deep and complex problems, more often than not the opponent will crack. Magnus wins not because it was in the position, he wins because he is Magnus."
"There is an equal position on the board, and the opponent thinks: this is dead drawn. I can play almost anything and there is nothing he can do. But Magnus plays on, seeking complications, setting up threats. He is narrowing the margin required to hold the draw. Soon his opponent is thinking: why is he still playing – I can hold a draw with any of these three moves. Then: I can hold with this move and with this move. And then: I still have one clear way to hold a draw. And under the strain of constantly having to solve deep and complex problems, more often than not the opponent will crack. Magnus wins not because it was in the position, he wins because he is Magnus."
Anish Giri: “the whole match was worth it because finally I saw Magnus offer a draw in a playable position”
(https://youtube.com/watch?v=ikiHTNQnh58?t=237m45s)
(https://youtube.com/watch?v=ikiHTNQnh58?t=237m45s)
> “It's strategic, it's rational, and still it's disappointing.”
You’ve lost me there. I don’t see how disappoint is the conclusion. It seems equivalent to suggesting the player should take risks or chances based on what might stylistically please the audience as opposed to what might win the match overall.
I’ve never understood spectators watching competitors and thinking, why won’t they do what I want them to do instead of what they think is best for the situation?
You’ve lost me there. I don’t see how disappoint is the conclusion. It seems equivalent to suggesting the player should take risks or chances based on what might stylistically please the audience as opposed to what might win the match overall.
I’ve never understood spectators watching competitors and thinking, why won’t they do what I want them to do instead of what they think is best for the situation?
It's not just about pleasing the audience. Showing respect and appreciation for the game itself is important to chess players, and to competitive sports overall.
People who follow and participate in competitions passionately don't usually just try to maximize their chances to win, they also want to deliver the best effort they can.
Magnus Carlsen specifically was always respected for his fighting spirit. In his championship game against Anand a few years ago he played out a practically drawn endgame to a win through sheer tenacity, and he once managed to win a game in St Louis where a draw that was offered to him would have won him the tournament on the spot, but he declined and played it out.
This fighting aspect has always made him an especially great player (not just for the game and the audience, but it has also put him above the competition).
People who follow and participate in competitions passionately don't usually just try to maximize their chances to win, they also want to deliver the best effort they can.
Magnus Carlsen specifically was always respected for his fighting spirit. In his championship game against Anand a few years ago he played out a practically drawn endgame to a win through sheer tenacity, and he once managed to win a game in St Louis where a draw that was offered to him would have won him the tournament on the spot, but he declined and played it out.
This fighting aspect has always made him an especially great player (not just for the game and the audience, but it has also put him above the competition).
When trying to win does not produce beautiful games, then the game itself is faulty.
They should change the rules of the games. Like time auction suggested where draw is win for black pieces.
They should change the rules of the games. Like time auction suggested where draw is win for black pieces.
This reply borders on incoherent to me. What is best effort if not choosing the course of action you deem gives you the best chance to win? Exhausting yourself and risking a blunder in the final classical match just because other people want to see the spectacle of it? That doesn’t seem like “effort” at all.
Why do soccer players make back passes from offensive positions when tied 0-0? You think the coach gives a shit at that point if the crowd wants someone to give “effort” in a press, leaving exposed chances for a sudden counter-attack? Sometimes playing the back pass is the right “best effort” to be made.
Same with an intentional kneel to run out the clock before halftime instead of risking injury or a turnover on a last second play in American football. Or intentionally walking a home run hitter in baseball if you think you stand a great chance to strike out the next batter.
You seem to be conflating “best effort” with “intentionally disregard the strategy you deem best because a riskier course of action would be more appreciated by spectators.”
Why do soccer players make back passes from offensive positions when tied 0-0? You think the coach gives a shit at that point if the crowd wants someone to give “effort” in a press, leaving exposed chances for a sudden counter-attack? Sometimes playing the back pass is the right “best effort” to be made.
Same with an intentional kneel to run out the clock before halftime instead of risking injury or a turnover on a last second play in American football. Or intentionally walking a home run hitter in baseball if you think you stand a great chance to strike out the next batter.
You seem to be conflating “best effort” with “intentionally disregard the strategy you deem best because a riskier course of action would be more appreciated by spectators.”
Yes, OP is talking about being respected by the chess world, not merely winning the title.
Boy, after today’s results, whoever was defending the idea that Magnus should have abandoned his match strategy to play out a minor advantage in Game 12 must be feeling pretty embarrassed over such a ridiculous point of view.
Exactly, the OP is mistakenly conflating “respected by the chess world” (which is not equal to the prevailing opinion of casual fans) with some confused idea of taking unnecessary risks that jeopardize a sound strategy.
I agree and think all the "shocking" and "bizarre" assessments are clickbaity. He did a similar thing against Karjakin. It's a smart strategic move given the situation and his advantage in the tiebreaks. Having watched the Karjakin tie-breaks, I can't wait. It's going to be so exciting. Having said that, if Caruana should defy expectation and prevail it will also be a great story and counterpoint to Carlsen's strategic calculation.
Sure, it’s very similar to American football with situations regarding late punts or 4th down attempts. If you make it, you’re a genius, if you don’t then everyone cannot believe the risk you foolishly took, and if you punt and the other team scores late, then you’re also foolish for trusting your defense.
After the fact, the media will reinterpret the choices to fit the most compelling narrative regarding what gets clicks or views, which is often an intentionally antagonistic or divisive interpretation to stir up controversy.
When you consider that Carlsen was in the last classical match and that a blunder would mean no chance to recover, it makes even more sense. If the same position occurred in Game 5, he probably plays another 30 minutes before deciding if there’s winning potential. If he really blunders, he’s got 7 games to possibly recover.
You’re always going to be way more conservative than that in game 12.
After the fact, the media will reinterpret the choices to fit the most compelling narrative regarding what gets clicks or views, which is often an intentionally antagonistic or divisive interpretation to stir up controversy.
When you consider that Carlsen was in the last classical match and that a blunder would mean no chance to recover, it makes even more sense. If the same position occurred in Game 5, he probably plays another 30 minutes before deciding if there’s winning potential. If he really blunders, he’s got 7 games to possibly recover.
You’re always going to be way more conservative than that in game 12.
Reposting this from a comment thread below which mentions the chess.com "what would have happened" computer playoff, as I think the HN community (who are far more well versed in computer chess than I) would benefit from a better understanding of how high-level competitive chess between humans actually works.
tl;dr: In order to fully appreciate how bizarre Carlsen's draw offer was at that moment, you need to take into account the time factor, which (to my knowledge) the chess.com computer analysis ignores completely.
---
The major problem with using the chess.com data is they don't take into account the time factor. When Magnus offered, the draw, Fabi had exactly 15min 42sec time remaining to play the next 10 moves. That's less than 2 minutes per move, versus Magnus having between 2x-3x that amount.
It is hard to understand just how significant of a handicap this is unless you've ever played competitive chess at a national or international level. The human mind starts to break down and freeze up when it is forced to make critical decisions in limited time. This was already starting to happen in the game leading up to the draw offer, as Caruana took more and more time as his positioning was worsening.
The end result of this is one player being forced to make a rapid series of moves in a "time scramble" while the other player has the luxury of checking and rechecking his calculations. This gives the player with more time a massive advantage in practice. We're talking at least 100-200 rating points.
If chess.com wanted to do a fair analysis, they should have handicapped the White computer with 3-4x less compute time. I guarantee the results would have been significantly more favorable for Black then they already were.
tl;dr: In order to fully appreciate how bizarre Carlsen's draw offer was at that moment, you need to take into account the time factor, which (to my knowledge) the chess.com computer analysis ignores completely.
---
The major problem with using the chess.com data is they don't take into account the time factor. When Magnus offered, the draw, Fabi had exactly 15min 42sec time remaining to play the next 10 moves. That's less than 2 minutes per move, versus Magnus having between 2x-3x that amount.
It is hard to understand just how significant of a handicap this is unless you've ever played competitive chess at a national or international level. The human mind starts to break down and freeze up when it is forced to make critical decisions in limited time. This was already starting to happen in the game leading up to the draw offer, as Caruana took more and more time as his positioning was worsening.
The end result of this is one player being forced to make a rapid series of moves in a "time scramble" while the other player has the luxury of checking and rechecking his calculations. This gives the player with more time a massive advantage in practice. We're talking at least 100-200 rating points.
If chess.com wanted to do a fair analysis, they should have handicapped the White computer with 3-4x less compute time. I guarantee the results would have been significantly more favorable for Black then they already were.
Please don't copy-paste comments in multiple places on HN. It's a fine comment, but doing that strictly lowers the signal/noise ratio.
If you want us to move a comment to a better context, we're happy to help with such requests at [email protected].
If you want us to move a comment to a better context, we're happy to help with such requests at [email protected].
Got it. Sorry about that and thanks for the heads up. I didn’t realize it was possible to move comments like that after the update window expires.
Why would you expect a (human) psychological effect would be observable in a computer chess match?
My point was not that human psychology would be observable in computer chess. It was that using the computer chess match as a reference point to justify Carlsen's decision to offer the draw is not valid, because the computer match wasn't operating under the same conditions as humans with respect to time pressure.
If one preferred the tie break conditions and sought to actively play for draws, how confidently could one force draws?
Could you force draws consistently with someone 100 points stronger than you? 200?
Could you force draws consistently with someone 100 points stronger than you? 200?
You definitely can't force a draw against a higher rated player, but you can make one more likely by choosing quiet openings and simplifying in the middlegame. But it's often tricky to pull this off. If you make too many second-best moves in pursuit of simplification, you'll drift into a position that's both simple and bad. :)
You walk into the game with white aiming to win and black aiming to draw. If you played aiming for a draw as white, you could probably achieve it reliably against a player 200 or more ELO points ahead of you (or you could simply offer a draw at the earliest point that the rules permit - most of the time black will accept it). But if you can reliably achieve a draw as black, you're probably a better player (and certainly not a significantly worse player) than your opponent.
tl;dr after 11 draws, Carlsen offered a draw from a superior position in the final game to head into the short-format tiebreaks, where:
> he is ranked No. 1 in all three formats (classical, rapid, and blitz). Caruana is ranked 10th and 18th in rapid and blitz respectively.
Critics are appalled that he didn't fight for the win out of sense of honor. I don't see how this is different than, for instance, fouling at the end of a basketball game. Hard to blame a player for working within the rules to put himself into a position where he feels he has a greater chance of keeping the title.
"It's not the critic who counts...."
> he is ranked No. 1 in all three formats (classical, rapid, and blitz). Caruana is ranked 10th and 18th in rapid and blitz respectively.
Critics are appalled that he didn't fight for the win out of sense of honor. I don't see how this is different than, for instance, fouling at the end of a basketball game. Hard to blame a player for working within the rules to put himself into a position where he feels he has a greater chance of keeping the title.
"It's not the critic who counts...."
My theory is this - obviously they are closely matched. Losing in the 12th game would make Caruana very hungry to come back again and again.
Now, consider what happens if Carlsen crushes Caruana in the rapid or blitz rounds - this sends the message "you will never beat me at rapid or blitz, and no amount of preparation will save you". Caruana will never forget this. This will be in his his head the next time they play, and the pressure to avoid the tiebreaker rounds will be huge.
Now, consider what happens if Carlsen crushes Caruana in the rapid or blitz rounds - this sends the message "you will never beat me at rapid or blitz, and no amount of preparation will save you". Caruana will never forget this. This will be in his his head the next time they play, and the pressure to avoid the tiebreaker rounds will be huge.
What I don’t understand is why Carlsen didn’t push for even a few more moves. Fabi was running out time, it was low risk for him to probe a little more and see if he could get something a little more decisive.
I don't understand either. But Carlsen was in the seat for all 12 games, and he knows what was going on in his own head. Maybe he was simply exhausted and didn't trust his decision. Maybe that particular position gave him difficulty in a match four years ago. For whatever reason, the best chess player in the world decided that offering the draw was his best move in that moment.
I tend to agree. The most plausible reason I can think of is a combination of him being supremely confident in his rapid skills + being a bit afraid of Caruana in classical. But his lack of confidence in himself in classical is not a good sign going into the blitz.
The best chess player in the world got there by using good judgment when it comes to selective aggression. We’ll find out tomorrow if this was a brilliant move to fend off a challenger or the beginning of the end...
The best chess player in the world got there by using good judgment when it comes to selective aggression. We’ll find out tomorrow if this was a brilliant move to fend off a challenger or the beginning of the end...
Is it possible he gets paid per game by a sponsor and was confident he could push through and win ... just as an alternative option.
If he were a narcissist, another option would be to bask a little more in the limelight.
Just throwing these out there, as we really don't know his motivation.
If he were a narcissist, another option would be to bask a little more in the limelight.
Just throwing these out there, as we really don't know his motivation.
Has it not occurred to anyone that maybe Carlsen is just bored?
It takes effort to tie 12 straight games between two world champions.
Additionally, it is not in Carlsen's best interest to finish the tournament. During the tournament he is a super star. After the tournament he is just some guy who has a chess trophy (i.e. most people in real life don't care).
Maybe he is just testing himself with some criteria that is harder than "just winning... again"?
Maybe he just wants to prolong his time in the spotlight? Create some drama, have people talk about the year where every game, including Armageddon, ended in a draw!
It takes effort to tie 12 straight games between two world champions.
Additionally, it is not in Carlsen's best interest to finish the tournament. During the tournament he is a super star. After the tournament he is just some guy who has a chess trophy (i.e. most people in real life don't care).
Maybe he is just testing himself with some criteria that is harder than "just winning... again"?
Maybe he just wants to prolong his time in the spotlight? Create some drama, have people talk about the year where every game, including Armageddon, ended in a draw!
I heard a story (not sure if it's true) when I was a fencer. At one time in fencing, there was a rule about inactivity. If you refused to fence, the period ended and the next period started. There are three periods. If all three periods ended this way, it went to a one point suddend death matchoff. Well, one individual felt he liked to win with a lot of panache. As I heard it, he would deliberately incur three inactivity penalties to send the match to a one point sudden death where he would try to pull off a daring victory. So I think there is precedent for the idea of really skilled competitors thirsting for something more thrilling.
This is actually somewhat common in epee competitions (i.e. I've seen it multiple times in national level tournaments), because they are high variance and defense is hugely advantaged. It's also a reasonable strategy because a tournament can run up to 9 rounds of single elimination, so committing to this strategy means you expend only 1 minute of effort per round, instead of 9.
I thought it was a baseball player in the ninth inning who watched two strikes sail by before swinging at the last pitch.
As a non-chess-fan but casual observer, I would say that this is what sports showmanship really looks like. This is Petter Northug jr. (a fellow Norwegian; controversial cross-country skier and Olympic champion) playing chess.
The big fame and sponsor money is not in _merely_ being the best in the world, it's in winning while pushing the creative limits of the sport and causing a fair amount of drama and controversy.
Carlsen gets more out of this than winning in the 12th game, both on a personal level and in terms of notoriety and sponsorship interest.
This does not conflict with being bored, or with pushing the boundaries of the format! Like trying to re-play your favorite computer game, but placing artificial limitations on yourself to make it more interesting. If it gets all the fans and observers riled up, all the better! It's well within the rules!
Besides, what if he screws up in the later matches, in spite of the odds? The pressure is still on, which makes the entertainment value even better!0
The big fame and sponsor money is not in _merely_ being the best in the world, it's in winning while pushing the creative limits of the sport and causing a fair amount of drama and controversy.
Carlsen gets more out of this than winning in the 12th game, both on a personal level and in terms of notoriety and sponsorship interest.
This does not conflict with being bored, or with pushing the boundaries of the format! Like trying to re-play your favorite computer game, but placing artificial limitations on yourself to make it more interesting. If it gets all the fans and observers riled up, all the better! It's well within the rules!
Besides, what if he screws up in the later matches, in spite of the odds? The pressure is still on, which makes the entertainment value even better!0
I love the idea that he's so next-level that he's playing the game of 'playing the game of chess' (sic). That he's playing with a view not only of winning by also of winning at being a chess champion.
I used to wonder if the likes of McEnroe (80s tennis player) courted controversy with aggression that ran the boundary of acceptable behaviour in order to - win or lose - be the one everyone was talking about.
I used to wonder if the likes of McEnroe (80s tennis player) courted controversy with aggression that ran the boundary of acceptable behaviour in order to - win or lose - be the one everyone was talking about.
Honestly this seems closest to the truth. His attitude and body language at the press conference communicated utter boredom for the whole proceedings.
As a chess fan I admit I’m eager to see a rapid tiebreaks. I just didn’t want to get here like this.
As a chess fan I admit I’m eager to see a rapid tiebreaks. I just didn’t want to get here like this.
[deleted]
I don't know if we need to be that meta or cynical about his decision to draw here. He's also just much better than Caruana at rapid and blitz (Elo rating of 2880 and 2939 respectively) while Caruana gets noticeably worse (2789 and 2767 respectively) as the time pressure increases. Ending the game early to avoid surprises and moving to a type of game where you've got a significant advantage over your opponent makes a lot of sense.
I do not think this is the case at all. The games were all very close, with no side gaining more than a +2 ( a 2 pawn equivalent ) advantage. He actually seemed extremely nervous of losing during game 10.
It's hard to say why he called off game 12 earlier than usual but in his words he was basically rattled, and proceeding any further may open him up to defeat so he just chose to take the safer route of heading to the blitz match where is the favorite.
It's hard to say why he called off game 12 earlier than usual but in his words he was basically rattled, and proceeding any further may open him up to defeat so he just chose to take the safer route of heading to the blitz match where is the favorite.
What if his "mistakes" were intentional?
And his thrill is the nervousness brought about by not wanting to lose after putting himself into a previously un-winnable situation?
And his thrill is the nervousness brought about by not wanting to lose after putting himself into a previously un-winnable situation?
Additionally, it is not in Carlsen's best interest to finish the tournament. During the tournament he is a super star. After the tournament he is just some guy who has a chess trophy (i.e. most people in real life don't care).
This!
This!
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. The only people that care about Carlsen during the tournament are the same people who care about Carlsen not during the tournament - chess fans.
I don't agree. Having the focussed attention of those fans is different. Also there's a euphoria associated with being involved ina large event that means when it ends there's a sense of loss, normality is so humdrum it's depressing. I can see someone curtailing that return to normality by all means.
Magnus Carlsen is widely considered to be one of the very best chess players of all time, and it's more than respectable to consider him the Greatest of All Time. World Chess Championships are every two years. It's almost impossibly unlikely that someone like Carlsen (who is also very competitive) would deliberately prolong an event like this.
Carlsen is also temperamental and unorthodox. I really like that about him. He is also a good looking guy who gets girls fawning over him.
For him to answer the press in short Nos is funny.
For him to want to do more games with Fabiano and crush him in rapid is a great and FUN decision.
Obviously he could win that game but he wants to have more fun. And we all have more fun.
Instead of winning and going home he wants to do something new. It’s been a long match w unprecedented draws. Why end it now?
I would have done the same :)
Think about this... comparing it to taking a draw to win the tournament when you could win the game but risk losing - IS SILLY. THAT is cowardly.
Taking a draw when there would be nothing afterwards and you retain the title - that’s cowardly.
This... IS FUN!!
For him to answer the press in short Nos is funny.
For him to want to do more games with Fabiano and crush him in rapid is a great and FUN decision.
Obviously he could win that game but he wants to have more fun. And we all have more fun.
Instead of winning and going home he wants to do something new. It’s been a long match w unprecedented draws. Why end it now?
I would have done the same :)
Think about this... comparing it to taking a draw to win the tournament when you could win the game but risk losing - IS SILLY. THAT is cowardly.
Taking a draw when there would be nothing afterwards and you retain the title - that’s cowardly.
This... IS FUN!!
> No, it doesn't make any sense at all. The only people that care about Carlsen during the tournament are the same people who care about Carlsen not during the tournament - chess fans.
I am not a chess fan, before today I had read about and forgotten Magnus Carlsen's name. Today, I am talking to you about Magnus Carlsen.
Make of this data point what you will.
I am not a chess fan, before today I had read about and forgotten Magnus Carlsen's name. Today, I am talking to you about Magnus Carlsen.
Make of this data point what you will.
Time pressure and the position being in flux guaranteed that Fabi would accept the draw. If he had waited a few more moves, Fabi might have decided to play on. While Magnus was on the attack, his king position wasn't secure. If Fabi could have secured his position, he might have chosen to play on, considering he knows Magnus is the favorite to win the tie break.
Fabi had no real chances for counterplay any time soon. This is why playing on for at least 5 more moves would have been advantageous. Virtually guaranteed fabi would accept a draw even if Carlsen makes no headway given Fabi having burned a few more minutes on the clock.
Fabi wasn't looking for counterplay, he was looking to secure his king. If he managed to do so in a few moves, he would have less to lose by playing on than Magnus. Giving Fabi a chance to fend off Magnus' attack only increases the chance that Fabi plays on.
chess.com is running a "tournament" of the top computer chess engines to play out the final position of Game 12 and see how it goes:
https://www.chess.com/news/view/computer-chess-championship-...
https://www.chess.com/news/view/computer-chess-championship-...
The score is currently 2 wins for white, 11 draws and 6 wins for black. There is a total of 56 games involving eight engines.
So, roughly 10% chance of disaster for Black. Perhaps Carlsen thinks his odds of losing in the tiebreaks are actually lower than that?
How many milliseconds does that take?
Computer chess isn't instantaneous. While you can go get Stockfish and run it on your phone, the full power of the top engines only comes out when you throw hardware and time at them.
They're running the engines with a 30 minute starting clock plus five-second increment per move.
So far, Ethereal and Stockfish have each managed to win a game as White (Caruana) from the Game 12 position.
Also this site has been running live analysis using Stockfish on 20 CPUs during each game of the championship, and its evaluations frequently have changed with more time to "think":
http://analysis.sesse.net/
They're running the engines with a 30 minute starting clock plus five-second increment per move.
So far, Ethereal and Stockfish have each managed to win a game as White (Caruana) from the Game 12 position.
Also this site has been running live analysis using Stockfish on 20 CPUs during each game of the championship, and its evaluations frequently have changed with more time to "think":
http://analysis.sesse.net/
Computers are better but they still take a while to process the best moves, more if you're playing out a couple possible moves for each player to try to figure out the possible branches a human might go down that a computer would discard.
Perhaps Carlsen is confident he'll win the blitz games tomorrow? Caruana was low on time, but they are both 9 moves away from getting additional time.
He is pretty significantly favored to win the tiebreakers. His ELO goes up as we move from rapid to blitz while Caruana's goes down so the longer this drags on and the shorter the games get the better off he is.
Lower risk than playing the #10 seed in Rapid for the title?
Rapid and blitz chess rely on trusting one’s intuition. If he doesn’t trust himself enough to play on in such a strong position, his admittedly large advantage in rapid may evaporate.
He trusted in himself that the position was not as strong as it appeared, and decided to let another game decide the outcome of the tournament.
> Critics are appalled that he didn't fight for the win out of sense of honor. I don't see how this is different than, for instance, fouling at the end of a basketball game.
Not really. The consensus was that Carlsen really cost himself winning chances by taking a draw. In the basketball analogy, it's more like holding onto the ball to force overtime instead of shooting in the last few seconds and risking a turnover. That might be a good strategy in some circumstances, but it's rare.
Carlsen has said he didn't think it was as easy or risk free as the commentators and spectators thought, and despite the fact that they had computer assistance he's as good a judge of that as anyone in the world. Personally I think he got a little nervous here and doesn't like to have everything on the line in one game - which is consistent with his approach in game 12 two years ago where he appeared to intentionally draw with the white pieces.
Not really. The consensus was that Carlsen really cost himself winning chances by taking a draw. In the basketball analogy, it's more like holding onto the ball to force overtime instead of shooting in the last few seconds and risking a turnover. That might be a good strategy in some circumstances, but it's rare.
Carlsen has said he didn't think it was as easy or risk free as the commentators and spectators thought, and despite the fact that they had computer assistance he's as good a judge of that as anyone in the world. Personally I think he got a little nervous here and doesn't like to have everything on the line in one game - which is consistent with his approach in game 12 two years ago where he appeared to intentionally draw with the white pieces.
That's a great analogy.
I haven't seen Carlsen say it was risky to keep playing, the only quote I've seen is:
> “I wasn’t in a mood to find the punch,” Carlsen said by way of explanation after the game[0].
He had an advantage on the board and on the clock, and didn't even try for the win.
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...
I haven't seen Carlsen say it was risky to keep playing, the only quote I've seen is:
> “I wasn’t in a mood to find the punch,” Carlsen said by way of explanation after the game[0].
He had an advantage on the board and on the clock, and didn't even try for the win.
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...
It's also worth noting that by entering the tiebreaks the prize money distribution changes.
While during the classical portion the winner would have got 600k EUR and the loser 400k EUR it's now 550k vs 450k EUR.
I think it's like playing for penalty kicks in a world cup championship game where you think you have an advantage. People moan about that too.
Is any of this being livestreamed anywhere? Specifically tomorrow's matches? 7am just seems so worth it after reading the exciting tie-breaks today.
Chess.com also has a livestream on their Twitch channel (https://www.twitch.tv/chess) with the live board and analysis by IM Daniel Rensch and GM Robert Hess with other guests like GM Nakamura, GM Hou Yifan, GM Levon Aronian and so on.
World chess (https://worldchess.com) has live streaming with Judith Polgar commenting.
Chess24 also has the same with Peter Svidler, Guramishvili, Anish Giri and Grischuk commenting.
Chess24 also has the same with Peter Svidler, Guramishvili, Anish Giri and Grischuk commenting.
I watched all streams listed in the comments, but I liked the most GM Jerry: https://www.twitch.tv/chessnetwork
ChessNetwork has my favorite analysis of the world championship games. His AlphaZero vs Stockfish series is also very good. https://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork
Stanford Chess team is streaming live now: http://twitch.tv/stanfordchess/
Currently streaming is head coach and former World Youth Champs silver medalist NM Jordy Mont-Reynaud. We may be joined later by our team captain, GM Daniel Naroditsky aka RebeccaHarris on LiChess aka "guy who is known to beat Magnus Carlsen at bullet"
Join us for commentary/questions/banter!
Currently streaming is head coach and former World Youth Champs silver medalist NM Jordy Mont-Reynaud. We may be joined later by our team captain, GM Daniel Naroditsky aka RebeccaHarris on LiChess aka "guy who is known to beat Magnus Carlsen at bullet"
Join us for commentary/questions/banter!
Chess24 has had 3 top 25 GMs narrating together for the last few games. Tomorrow's live stream is at https://youtu.be/HBvQ36SqgqM.
Note: If it wasn't clear, that stream will not literally be of Carlsen & Caruana. It mirrors the current position in the game and has commentators analyze it. I don't think a free livestream exists that shows Carlsen & Caruana live, making the moves.
Note: If it wasn't clear, that stream will not literally be of Carlsen & Caruana. It mirrors the current position in the game and has commentators analyze it. I don't think a free livestream exists that shows Carlsen & Caruana live, making the moves.
If that's what I can get I'll take it. Thanks!
In past World Chess Championships when they finished tied with points the current champion retained the title, which I found disappointing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987#...
The effectively cointoss plan for this tourney isn't better. They should accept co-titles for equally matched players
I like this idea but not sure how that would work in the format of the World Chess Championship.
I believe Carlsen is on record as disliking the current format.
The way it works right now, the reigning champion does nothing until a challenger has earned the right to face him by winning a candidates tournament. Then the winner of the candidates tournament faces the reigning champion in a match for the title. Carlsen, as I understand it, would prefer that the champion take part in a tournament.
The women's championship (also played this month) does feature a tournament. 64 players were seeded, and played single-elimination two-game matches (with rapid games as tiebreakers). The final two players then faced each other in a four-game match (again with rapid games as potential tiebreakers). The final did go to tiebreaks, and was won by defending and now repeat champion Ju Wenjun.
The way it works right now, the reigning champion does nothing until a challenger has earned the right to face him by winning a candidates tournament. Then the winner of the candidates tournament faces the reigning champion in a match for the title. Carlsen, as I understand it, would prefer that the champion take part in a tournament.
The women's championship (also played this month) does feature a tournament. 64 players were seeded, and played single-elimination two-game matches (with rapid games as tiebreakers). The final two players then faced each other in a four-game match (again with rapid games as potential tiebreakers). The final did go to tiebreaks, and was won by defending and now repeat champion Ju Wenjun.
What I don't understand is why there needs to be a separate women's tournament. It's chess, not football.
Edit: I suppose that makes sense to encourage more women to play if that was an issue. (I'm used to more casual clubs where membership requires only interest and showing up.)
Edit: I suppose that makes sense to encourage more women to play if that was an issue. (I'm used to more casual clubs where membership requires only interest and showing up.)
In chess there are two kinds of tournaments: women only and open to all. For some reason or other, men dominate in chess, so it makes sense to have a separate women's tournament imho.
What is the gender ratio in the casual clubs you're familiar with? Which country is that?
We are a sexually dimorphic species. Physical differences between men and women are not limited to muscle mass.
Citation needed.
In lieu of such data, a simpler explanation is that boys are more encouraged to play chess from a young age than girls. This results in more teenage boys playing chess, a deeper talent pool, and thus better top ranked players.
This is similar to what is seen in soccer. Even though China has much bigger population than Holland by almost 100x, the number of Chinese kids playing organized soccer is less than Holland by at least 10x.
In lieu of such data, a simpler explanation is that boys are more encouraged to play chess from a young age than girls. This results in more teenage boys playing chess, a deeper talent pool, and thus better top ranked players.
This is similar to what is seen in soccer. Even though China has much bigger population than Holland by almost 100x, the number of Chinese kids playing organized soccer is less than Holland by at least 10x.
> Citation needed
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-sig...
> “[That previous study] finds no average difference in intelligence, but males were more variable than females,” Ritchie says. “This is why our finding that male participants’ brains were, in most measures, more variable than female participants’ brains is so interesting. It fits with a lot of other evidence that seems to point toward males being more variable physically and mentally.”
So if you’re looking for outliers (such as a chess prodigee), you are more likely to find them in the male population than in the female population.
Your explanation is not simpler by any stretch, it just spares you some cognitive dissonance.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-sig...
> “[That previous study] finds no average difference in intelligence, but males were more variable than females,” Ritchie says. “This is why our finding that male participants’ brains were, in most measures, more variable than female participants’ brains is so interesting. It fits with a lot of other evidence that seems to point toward males being more variable physically and mentally.”
So if you’re looking for outliers (such as a chess prodigee), you are more likely to find them in the male population than in the female population.
Your explanation is not simpler by any stretch, it just spares you some cognitive dissonance.
Chess prodigies tend to be... the nice word is "encouraged" by their parents/teachers.
Which naturally raises the question of whether they can be manufactured. And, regardless of how you may feel about the ethics of testing that experimentally, László Polgár tested it in order to explore his idea that "geniuses are made, not born". The result of his experiment:
* Oldest daughter Susan (Zsuzsanna) achieved Grandmaster at age 22. Peak rating 2577.
* Middle daughter Sofia (Zsófia) achieved International Master, peak rating 2505.
* Youngest daughter Judit achieved Grandmaster at age 15 years 4 months, at the time youngest person ever to do so. Peak rating 2735, ranked #8 (not "women's #8", worldwide #8).
Which naturally raises the question of whether they can be manufactured. And, regardless of how you may feel about the ethics of testing that experimentally, László Polgár tested it in order to explore his idea that "geniuses are made, not born". The result of his experiment:
* Oldest daughter Susan (Zsuzsanna) achieved Grandmaster at age 22. Peak rating 2577.
* Middle daughter Sofia (Zsófia) achieved International Master, peak rating 2505.
* Youngest daughter Judit achieved Grandmaster at age 15 years 4 months, at the time youngest person ever to do so. Peak rating 2735, ranked #8 (not "women's #8", worldwide #8).
Don't both players have considerable negotiating room to change the format?
Off topic but interesting: he's also rather good at Fantasy Football/Soccer.
His team is currently sitting at 1,341st in the world out of nearly 6,000,000 teams!
https://fantasy.premierleague.com/a/team/1224174/event/13
His team is currently sitting at 1,341st in the world out of nearly 6,000,000 teams!
https://fantasy.premierleague.com/a/team/1224174/event/13
For those who haven't watched the game you can see some nice analysis on Agadmator's channel which I enjoy the most, here is the last 12th game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOJNO8BRx_U
[deleted]
I don't understand the people saying that Carlsen was wrong for drawing there. Two engines (leela as carlsen, stockfish as caruana) playing it went to a draw
Because engine chess is not human chess. Defending a position with a ~3300 ELO computer is not the same as doing it as a human down on the clock. Look up some of Mikhail Tal's games to see how you can become the best in the world whilst still playing moves that are "refuted" by engines.
Still he's heavily favoured in the tiebreaks, so I don't necessarily fault his strategy.
Still he's heavily favoured in the tiebreaks, so I don't necessarily fault his strategy.
Leela is an inferior chess engine, and Leela and Stockfish were given equal time. In the human match, Carlsen and Caruana are closely matched and Carlsen had a significant clock advantage.
The engines are playing out the position here: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship
The engines are playing out the position here: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship
Why do you say Leela is an inferior engine? Genuinely curious. Is it just a matter of the neural net not up to speed (and thus a matter of time before Leela is on par with Stockfish), or something else that will always handicap it?
I should say, it's presently inferior. It has repeatedly placed behind Stockfish in recent TCEC and CCCC tournaments. I imagine it will surpass Stockfish at some point.
>usually decreeing that a true winner would at all times play in the manner of a big tough macho caveman who has no need for nuance and no time for thought
Sounds like this was written by someone with a grudge.
Sounds like this was written by someone with a grudge.
mindgam3(3)
Kasparov is the greatest of them all, imo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess#Armageddon
fivethirtyeight has been covering the tournament and their rough calculation gives it a 1:5000 chance of making it to the Armageddon game, based on Carlesen's superior Rapid and Blitz rankings.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...