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

Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

chennai2013.fide.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#31

Post by peeters »

rikacomet wrote: post #20

The worst part about that match is, Anand spent 50+ minute on one move, to loose all the time advantage he had pushed carlsen into. First I thought, it was to make Carlsen loose his nerve, but he lost his own nerve, by moving Qe4, instead of slow push hh4. That was the turning point :( He went from winning position to a clear loss. Also, I don't get the point of resigning, on this level, it should be a fight till the…

I don't see anything wrong with resigning. First off, it acknowledges your weak position, which saves you some face for at least knowing. Second, it is a strong compliment on your opponent's skill, because only poor play from your opponent would put you into a draw/win situation. This in turn is classy, because it's saying "I want to win on my own merits, not on a mistake of my opponent."

So honestly I think it makes everyone look good.

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#32

Post by po »

During the press questioning the computer they were using froze up a bit and Anand became frustrated and rattled through his thinking out loud instead.

The commentator then asks Anand something along the lines of "did you think through all of these complications?" and his response was a curt "no, I was thinking of what to eat tonight."

"Yeah… so, do we have questions to the players?"

oof... such high stakes and he just missed the move. Really gotta feel for him.

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#33

Post by super_mario »

denysonique wrote: post #18

Hopefully Carlsen's becoming the FIDE World Champion will be loud in the media and will bring back the popularity of chess into our times.

Not very likely now that most of us have a computer in our pockets that can beat each of these guys.

Chess will never be the same again.

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#34

Post by gokhan »

rikacomet wrote: post #20

The worst part about that match is, Anand spent 50+ minute on one move, to loose all the time advantage he had pushed carlsen into. First I thought, it was to make Carlsen loose his nerve, but he lost his own nerve, by moving Qe4, instead of slow push hh4. That was the turning point :( He went from winning position to a clear loss. Also, I don't get the point of resigning, on this level, it should be a fight till the…

Anish Giri says the advantage is already lost on 20. axb4 and it appears that the blundered position was a forced draw at best.

https://twitter.com/anishgiri/status/403532152685346818

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#35

Post by eterm »

Someone wrote: post #29
dfan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there's a comparison. Kasparov maxed out at 79 points higher than the second-rated player (Kramnik). Carlsen is currently 70 points higher than the second-rated player (Aronian). By the way, Fischer at his peak was 125 points ahead of the second-rated player, Spassky.

Ratings and differences of ratings may not be comparable across time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_infla... : "It is commonly believed that, at least at the top level, modern ratings are inflated."

Precisely why he measured difference to next player, rather than absolute rating.

Rating difference should be comparable, elo is designed so that a given rating difference is a given probability of beating your opponent.

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#36

Post by dfan »

Someone wrote: post #29
dfan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there's a comparison. Kasparov maxed out at 79 points higher than the second-rated player (Kramnik). Carlsen is currently 70 points higher than the second-rated player (Aronian). By the way, Fischer at his peak was 125 points ahead of the second-rated player, Spassky.

Ratings and differences of ratings may not be comparable across time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_infla... : "It is commonly believed that, at least at the top level, modern ratings are inflated."

Rating differences at any given point in time are comparable to rating differences at another given point in time. That is, A being 200 points better than B in 2013 means the same thing as C being 200 points better than D in 1963. This is a fundamental underpinning of Arpad Elo's model.

It is absolutely true that the Elo model is a relative one and does not guarantee that a given rating number represents the same ability over time, but the belief that modern ratings are inflated is not unanimous. Ratings have certainly gone up over time, but computer analyses of games have indicated that intrinsic play quality has gone up over time as well. See the work of Ken Regan, for example (search for "ken regan ipr").

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#37

Post by greyman »

S4M wrote: post #2

Anand's last move was a huge mistake. I am pretty sure it's because of the tension, because even I (fide rating 1900+) wouldn't have made it.

Yes, it was. But anyway, even after the correct Bf1, there isn't a mating attack, and the game would probably lead to draw, which isn't good enough for Anand. So he spent almost all his time to find some decisive attack, but there probably just wasn't one to be found.

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#38

Post by TylerE »

super_mario wrote: post #33
denysonique wrote: post #18

Hopefully Carlsen's becoming the FIDE World Champion will be loud in the media and will bring back the popularity of chess into our times.

Not very likely now that most of us have a computer in our pockets that can beat each of these guys. Chess will never be the same again.

I don't buy that at all, no more so than the existence of motor vehicles have made track and field events irrelevant. If anything, wide accessibility of very strong computer engines only boosts the high-level game, as it enables very deep analysis - opening theory has moved quite a bit in the last 20-30 years.

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#39

Post by jrs99 »

Someone wrote: post #29
dfan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there's a comparison. Kasparov maxed out at 79 points higher than the second-rated player (Kramnik). Carlsen is currently 70 points higher than the second-rated player (Aronian). By the way, Fischer at his peak was 125 points ahead of the second-rated player, Spassky.

Ratings and differences of ratings may not be comparable across time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_infla... : "It is commonly believed that, at least at the top level, modern ratings are inflated."

dfan, you make good points. But also we need to keep in mind that today's top players on an absolute level, really probably are better than previous era's top players. They simply have access to the past, and technology.

More databases, more games played, internet giving opportunity to play many, many more games. Programs to analyze their play, coaching in the modern era, etc.

That is something that Anand didn't really benefit from when he was young.

Re: Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games

#40

Post by jrs99 »

eterm wrote: post #35
Someone wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ratings and differences of ratings may not be comparable across time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_infla... : "It is commonly believed that, at least at the top level, modern ratings are inflated."

Precisely why he measured difference to next player, rather than absolute rating. Rating difference should be comparable, elo is designed so that a given rating difference is a given probability of beating your opponent.

yes, i believe that we can agree that it gives us some idea of where the players were relative to each other.

but, at the same time, it's messy. and comparing the top two players only will probably not be as meaningful as looking at their games and their play.

the interesting question is not that you can be dominant against bad competition, but you can dominate over great competition. I think we can agree on that point.

Post reply on HN