Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 225 posts

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

#171

Post by splonk »

dlbucci wrote: post #84

For anyone looking for a simpler recap of the event, there's been a 4-part series running at Deadspin that has been an awesome read for me. The last part covering the last 4 matches is here https://deadspin.com/armageddon-looms-over-the-world-chess-c... and there are links to earlier parts in the article. I'm sure there will be a final part covering this victory as well.

I've been skipping through Deadspin in my RSS feed for years now, but I was really pleasantly surprised at how readable and in depth the chess articles were when they popped up (speaking as someone who hasn't played a competitive game of chess in 25+ years). It definitely hit the sweet spot for me in terms of being both understandable and enlightening.

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

#172

Post by gpm »

chasontherobot wrote: post #169
gpm wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both get paid 400k for competing. That's payment, and maybe a prize for reaching the championship, but not a prize for the winner of the championship, so I ignore it. The winner gets 200k in prize money. In the case of a tie the winner gets 150k, the loser gets 50k. That is to say the winner gets 100k, and they split 100k, which is half the prize, which is what I said.

> In the case of a tie the winner gets 150k, the loser gets 50k. this literally makes no sense. In a tie, there is no winner and no loser. There was a winner and loser in this case, so there was no tie. I don't know why you keep insisting there was.

Huh, that's why that comment is attracting downvotes...

That has to be the least charitable reading ever. Do you seriously need me to spell out "In the case of a tie after the 12 games under the regular time constraints" while defending my math?

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

#173

Post by emmelaich »

hnuser1234 wrote: post #163
mindgam3 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't argue with your logic here. We do live in a world where people say winning isn't everything. But actually, it is. It's not just happening in chess. This is the same "win at all costs" mentality that gave us the wonders of "growth hacking" i.e. unethical behavior that becomes glorified in Silicon Valley, because it works. I don't mean to get all Ghandi-like on you, but I do want to ask you sincerely - what kin…

I don't see any moral failings in trying to win a game at all costs.

> ... at all costs.

Within the rules.

Not arguing with you, just refining the point for the audience :-)

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

#174

Post by inopinatus »

sytelus wrote: post #122
michalu wrote: post #106

In the end, Carlsen is the man who knows the best how to win in chess. Regardless of all critics. He played the 12th game safe knowing he's a huge favourite in rapid and blitz. Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves. Under these conditions it's more than sensible to move into the terrain where you have an…

This is quite funny thread. I often marvel at folks dissecting sport game outcome for hours retrospectively as if everything was perfectly explainable only after outcome was seen. We don't see this in HN threads much - well, except for chess games :). In reality, pro games have such strong contenders that each have very thin edge, if at all, and the outcome is usually just same as throwing dice.

The top contenders in many sports got there, at least in part, by studying the tactics and strategies and outcomes of the past. Even a casual participant can learn and improve from unpacking classic games from history. This is true of every contest of ability, from chess to soccer. It is not a fruitless exercise.

However I agree that HN is not the most efficient venue for chess strategy analysis

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

#175

Post by kamaal »

michalu wrote: post #106

In the end, Carlsen is the man who knows the best how to win in chess. Regardless of all critics. He played the 12th game safe knowing he's a huge favourite in rapid and blitz. Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves. Under these conditions it's more than sensible to move into the terrain where you have an…

>>I would argue the problem is that most of the fans have become conditioned to expect entertainment, drama and bold moves in sports like we see in overly dramatic movies.

Sports is entertainment, social interaction, emotions etc. Other wise there is no point in wasting hours and hours of one's life other people's career.

Also likability of a person in sport decreases when you take away these things.

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

#176

Post by emmelaich »

RebeccaHarris wrote: post #117
RebeccaHarris wrote: post #65

You may recognize RebeccaHarris from Lichess, but for those who don't: I'm GM Daniel Naroditsky, senior at Stanford and - like all of us - still wrapping my head around the massacre we just witnessed in Rapid. I had a feeling this would happen, though I have gotten the better of Magnus in bullet on Lichess with a mix of wild play and lucky tactics. Speaking of which, I've been involved in beta-testing the killer onli…

Correction: daniel@stanfordchess.org. Thanks for letting me know... too much going on today!

The weird thing is that stanforchess.org is a thing!

Well, registered.

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

#177

Post by emmelaich »

stouset wrote: post #87
notyourday wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's currently +3-18=14. That's 3 wins for Caruana's position, 18 wins for Carlsen's, and 14 draws. That's about as decisive a position as you can get in high-level chess. Yes, with perfect play, Caruana might have reached a draw, but Carlsen was in an overwhelmingly strong position. And this isn't even truly accounting for the time pressure Caruana put himself in. If this was not the game 12, they would have had a…

Humans are not computers. And the fact that computers won some of those games is further evidence that, while Carlsen had winning chances, the position was complicated enough that one or two suboptimal moves might be enough for Fabi to capitalize and win. A slight advantage in a complicated position with lots of tension and many ways for the game to continue is wildly different from a slight advantage in a quieter po…

Agree. The last 50+ years of 1-1 contests (chess, boxing, tennis, mma, ..) have tended towards the defensive(1), for good reason.

In the old days a bit of flair and risk might have taken you a long way.

1. or at least the minimisation of mistakes.

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

#178

Post by TangoTrotFox »

Isofarro wrote: post #93
msbarnett wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're misstating the results of the Game 12 replays (see: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship , which is pitting numerous engines against each other in the position at Game 12's resignation). It's currently +3-18=14. That's 3…

> It's currently +3-18=14. That's 3 wins for Caruana's position, 18 wins for Carlsen's, and 14 draws. That's about as decisive a position as you can get in high-level chess. Except that +3 would mean three chess engines, supposedly stronger than Carlsen, have managed to lose Carlsen's position. That's eye-opening, and perhaps justifies Carlsen offering a draw than risking being in that +3 column. Caruana was supposed…

There's one important nuance here. Those machines are playing against super human defense. In human chess there are countless positions that computers can easily defend whereas even the best players in the world would lose nearly every time. Finding only moves in very complex positions is not really that hard for most modern programs. Doing this over and over for humans, let alone with limited time and with mental fatigue a very real issue, is just not possible to consistently do.

This position hadn't reached that critical of a juncture yet, but that's largely because Magnus just started winging it long before the final position. His position was much stronger earlier on. But even in the final position he was very much the attacker and Fabiano's clock was starting to run low. In practical chess, Fabiano definitely faced an uphill battle to try to draw that position.

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

#179

Post by School-Cotton »

waterpigcow wrote: post #138
gpm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We expect people to play to win. In other sports we have rules against playing to draw/stall (e.g. see delay of game in hockey). Likewise in chess (or this and a number of other tournaments anyways), we have rules against agreeing to draw within the first 30 moves to attempt to discourage this sort of behavior. Not only did Carlsen not play to win the game, he didn't even play to win the championship. Instead he chos…

Chess is a game that can be played perfectly. There is no perfect Hockey game. If you get two super computers to play chess against one another they will draw a majority of the time, I think it is a testament to the skill of both players that they drew 12 games in a row.

Yep. In chess, you have to make mistakes to lose. Top players don't make very many mistakes, so often nobody loses.

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

#180

Post by monadgonad »

gpm wrote: post #129
monadgonad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He made a sacrifice and "conceded" one game to a draw in order to increase his chances of winning the championship via his superior rapid play. He lost the battle to win the war. That is complely playing to win.

I dispute this on two points. He did not fully "win" the championship. Sure, they had to give the title to somebody, so it's him, but splitting half of the prize is not a complete win. Even if he had fully won, I don't view it as a sportsmanlike strategy to give up a game to put yourself in an advantageous position. That's why we have a rule against agreeing to a draw to early. That's why in hockey stopping trying to…

Caring about prize money more than the title is not sportsmanlike, in my view.
Post reply on HN