51–60 of 168 posts
An alternative opinion for why Carlsen offered the game 12 draw: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/11/ga...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decisi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-...
How many milliseconds does that take?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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!!
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…
> 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.…
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 inacti…