Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship • Hacker News Board

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#41

Post by fileeditview » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:21 PM UTC

nevi-me wrote: post #18

drewrv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. One of the things I love about the game is that it's a slow, pensive game.

Well, their ELOs are just about the same, so I agree with the spirit of your viewpoint. I'd argue that he's better because he has mastered more than just one format. If we have a tie in one category, and one of the players has a strong advantage in another category; then they'll come out as "better".

Their ELOs are currently about the same but Carlsen is on that level(and higher) for a long time whereas Caruana and a few others have just come close.

I wouldn't be surprised if Carlsen would soon again have a comfortable lead on the ELO ladder. He was once at 2882.

I am however happy that he had such a worthy opponent in this tournament!

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#42

Post by 1zee » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:22 PM UTC

fipple wrote: post #15

drewrv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. One of the things I love about the game is that it's a slow, pensive game.

Yes, as a non chess player I think of the game as two people each taking about 15 minutes per move. Blitz chess isn’t what the cultural concept of “chess” is.

What is the "cultural concept of 'chess'" then, and according to whose culture?

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#43

Post by h3throw » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:23 PM UTC

liftbigweights wrote: post #21

There are so many better links than a nytimes spam. But all we seem to get is nytimes spam lately. How about link the a website dedicated to chess? https://www.chess.com/article/view/world-chess-championship-...

NYT spam?

I'll bite. What makes a (generally considered) reputable news outlet such as the NYT reporting on relatively major news spam?

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#44

Post by YawningAngel » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:26 PM UTC

tspiteri wrote: post #31

nisuni wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am nowhere near you score, but I have heard many strong players stating that blitz is bad for you, and actually creates bad habits for classical.

Even today in the first rapid, there was a comment (from Svidler/Giri) that early on Caruana played a move too fast, as if he was already in blitz mode, when he should have thought a bit more and found a better move.

I suspect this effect depends on who you are. Within the sphere of casual chess players, playing a lot of blitz or rapid chess will make you a better chess player across the board, and any specialisation towards the format will likely be offset by the increase in general skill. For International Grandmaster quality chess players, they're already very good, so specialisation might be unhelpful. Cf. a similar effect in Google employees with programming competitions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9324209

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#45

Post by mindgam3 » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

omega3 wrote: post #36

mindgam3 wrote: post #5

I’d like to offer a few thoughts on this match as a former internationally competitive player/US Cadet U16 champion, current ~2400 bullet chess addict, and someone who has played bughouse with Fabiano as my partner at the Sinquefield Cup in 2017. First, hats off to both players for a hard fought match. To Magnus for successfully defending his title, and to Fabiano for pushing Magnus right to the brink. This was an ex…

> The truth is, blitz chess is not only insanely fun but extremely good training to develop intuition for slow chess. I find that actually quite controversial - correlation does not imply causation. The general sentiment within the community is that the causation works from the other side i.e being good at slow leads to being good at blitz. Here are some quotes you might find interesting: "Playing rapid chess, one ca…

I will refute your list of quotes by (again) pointing to the results of the world championships, just concluded.

The world crown was lost because Fabiano cracked under time pressure and lost a position in Game 1 of tiebreaks that he easily could have drawn in classical chess.

Skill in blitz chess does translate to classical, people.

It's not just about developing intuition. It's training your mind to see clearly under non-optimal situations, like when you are exhausted or, say, drunk. Not that you would ever play a serious game of chess while drunk, but still.

Being good at slow 100% does NOT lead to being good at blitz. I mean, yes, a grandmaster will beat a noob at blitz, but that's obvious.

I know what I'm talking about. I am a lowly national master who "punches above my weight" by regularly beating strong IMs and GMs at blitz and bullet.

@whatismindgam3 on LiChess, feel free to add me there or challenge me if you want to put my theories to the test.

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#46

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

msbarnett wrote: post #25

drewrv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. One of the things I love about the game is that it's a slow, pensive game.

> I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. Did they? The primary complaint about Carlsen's game 12 is that he had Caruana dead to rights, but chose not to press the advantage. Which isn't to say that Caruana didn't do a fantastic job of playing Carlsen to a standstill throughout the tournament, but Carlsen seemed to have more of…

You’re dramatically overstating the advantage Carlsen had in Game 12. It was not decisive or obvious in any way and afterwards various engines played out the position to a draw. It might have been possible to win, but it might also have been possible to blunder and miss the chance to go to rapid tie breaks (a format where Carlsen had the advantage).

You’re also not doing Caruana justice. He worked Carlsen into badly losing positions in two games, but just blundered away the winning continuations allowing Carlsen to save a draw each time.

I think the better player won the match, but that Caruana played toe to toe with Carlsen, including attacking chess that caught Carlsen off guard and caused him to respond poorly. Meanwhile, Carlsen made absolutely the correct choice (best strategic choice) to draw in Game 12.

Very nice championship match, probably my favorite one of Carlsen’s era.

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#47

Post by old-gregg » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:28 PM UTC

nisuni wrote: post #16

nevi-me wrote: post #6

I was disappointed in Carlsen's 12th game draw. He might have etched something out of the game, as computers were clearly saying he had some slight advantage. After seeing the first games from today, I eased down on my disappointment. Today's first few games changed my mind. Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. Caruana seemed to battle with time a lot, I observed…

> Today's first few games changed my mind. Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. This is completely wrong. Top players (Carlsen included) acknowledge that chess on rapid time controls is very different from longer time controls, to the point that it feels almost like a different sport. You may or may not agree that rapid (and blitz, if needed) are used as tie break…

Agreed. That's why there's a separate championship title for blitz (which is Carlen's)

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#48

Post by School-Cotton » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:29 PM UTC

nevi-me wrote: post #18

drewrv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. One of the things I love about the game is that it's a slow, pensive game.

Well, their ELOs are just about the same, so I agree with the spirit of your viewpoint. I'd argue that he's better because he has mastered more than just one format. If we have a tie in one category, and one of the players has a strong advantage in another category; then they'll come out as "better".

To someone (like the person you replied to) who considers slow chess to be "actual chess" and quicker formats to be a different game, this argument doesn't make sense.

Imagine two people of equal ability at ice hockey. You wouldn't say that one is better than the other at ice hockey because he's better than the other at field hockey.

Adding my edit to a below comment here:

Probably the best analogy here is association football -- the normal, standard game can end in a draw. During the World Cup and other elimination tournaments, a completely new rule, not part of the normal game, is introduced allowing games to be decided by penalty kicks. Is the fact that Italy beat France in the 2006 World Cup final on penalty kicks evidence that Italy's team was "better at association football" than France's? Many people would argue that it's not.

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#49

Post by truantbuick » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:31 PM UTC

msbarnett wrote: post #25

drewrv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. One of the things I love about the game is that it's a slow, pensive game.

> I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. Did they? The primary complaint about Carlsen's game 12 is that he had Caruana dead to rights, but chose not to press the advantage. Which isn't to say that Caruana didn't do a fantastic job of playing Carlsen to a standstill throughout the tournament, but Carlsen seemed to have more of…

Has anybody in the world said that Caruana was "dead to rights" in game 12?

That's not what the controversy was about. It was the fact that white had "winning chances" in a completely unclear position with most pieces were still on the board. "Winning chances" isn't winning.

Magnus's reputation is he's a guy who will usually press on in a (seemingly) flat endgame where a lot of GMs will agree to draw and occasionally will squeeze out a win in those circumstances. It's antithetical to that image for him to offer a draw in a position _no_ GM would offer in typical circumstances. He did it for strategic reasons, and given his performance in the tiebreaker today, it looks all the more justifiable for the purposes of winning, but some people don't like that attitude from a champion.

Re: Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

#50

Post by notyourday » Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 8:33 PM UTC

nevi-me wrote: post #6

I was disappointed in Carlsen's 12th game draw. He might have etched something out of the game, as computers were clearly saying he had some slight advantage. After seeing the first games from today, I eased down on my disappointment. Today's first few games changed my mind. Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. Caruana seemed to battle with time a lot, I observed…

They are wrong. World championship is not a battle, it is a campaign. At the present time Carlsen's best bet for winning is to play tie breaker games because he is much better at rapid fire games than his opponent, which is exactly why he took it there.

It is, in essence, a standard chess taken to extreme - the difference between a 1900 player and an IM is that IM would play to win while 1900 player would play to attack.