Live data from Hacker News

Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

deadspin.com

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#81
post #35
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#82
post #69

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 recor…

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…

> “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?

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#83
post #30

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 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 th…

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?

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#84
post #36
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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.

> 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.

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#85
post #66
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 ever…

> 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".)

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#86
post #38
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

[deleted]

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#87
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> “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 in…

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.

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We now have a little more data courtesy of chess.com's computer tournament. Starting from the final position of Game 12, the engines have played 18 games to completion against each other, with more to come. 10 draws, 6 wins for Black and 2 for White. Both of the wins for White picked up the game from the point of the draw with 32. Qa3 Rb8 and continued with White, soon after, aiming to play Nd1 and Nc3 (Stockfish wen…

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 interna…

Caruana's been under time pressure over and over and over in this match, and blundered his way into zero losses as a result.

Time pressure is practically where he lives, because of how much time he spends calculating. The idea that he's suddenly going to completely forget how to play when the clock is running low doesn't hold water. Especially when he wasn't facing any immediate threat on the board; the advantage for Black was there, but it was theoretical/positional, and was going to take significant work to convert into a result, or even into lines that would make Caruana have to sweat through the next series of moves. And the engine games keep showing that all of Black's advantage can be thrown away with one or two inaccurate moves even very soon after the draw occurred; Carlsen's well within his rights to decide not to risk that just to try to toy with his opponent.

Re: Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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 in…

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 strateg…

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.

Post reply on HN