5 ms·

> 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

by drewrv 8y ago

> 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.

fipple 8y ago
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.
- pedrocr 8y ago
  The tie-break didn't get to blitz. Rapid is roughly an hour of playing which is well within the cultural concept of chess. Probably closer for most people actually.
- 8note 8y ago
  had they continued the same game instead of drawn, caruana would have had 15min to make 10 moves https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/live/2018/nov/26/magnus-carlsen-v-fabiano-caruana-world-chess-championship-game-12-live https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/live/...
- tspiteri 8y ago
  Even for classic time control, 15 minutes per move is too much; they get about 3 minutes per move on average: 120 minutes for the first 40 moves is quite common. In this championship, they each had 100 minutes + 30 seconds bonus/move for the first 40 moves, which adds up to 120 minutes if they reach move 40 anyway. Of course, some moves are played very fast and the players do take 15 minutes, or more, in some tricky situations where they have to make a key decision.
- msbarnett 8y ago
  > Yes, as a non chess player I think of the game as two people each taking about 15 minutes per move. Not even classical time controls play that way -- 15 minutes per move would rapidly lose you the match. Prepared openings come quite quickly, obviously, but most moves even beyond that are played within a very few minutes of each other, with time being saved to spend on a "deep-think" of 15-30 minutes on only one or two key moves. Which makes sense. Classical time controls in this tournament were, counting the per move increments, 120 minutes per player for the first 40 moves. That means you need to average a move every 3 minutes over your first 40 (and in reality, they spend less than that most games, preferring to maintain a healthy cushion). Rapid (not Blitz, they did not play any Blitz games) only drops that down to 45 seconds per move over the first 40. Since they tend to live closer to the margin in Rapid anyways vs Classical, this is even less of a drop than it might appear. It's unquestionably less time to think, but not nearly as much as you're suggesting.
  - fipple 8y ago
    I know, I’m not talking about real chess, but the Hollywood concept of chess. I also realize that Hollywood chess has the player representing Amerifreedom(TM) squared against a thickly accented Slav who kicks his dog.
- 1zee 8y ago
  What is the "cultural concept of 'chess'" then, and according to whose culture?
nevi-me 8y ago
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".
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Quick reminder that it's "Elo", not "ELO". It's not an acronym or initialism. It's named after its inventor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo
  - Bud 8y ago
    Always important to avoid ambiguity with Electric Light Orchestra. ;)
- fileeditview 8y ago
  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!
  - nevi-me 8y ago
    Interestingly, he has a wider gap on rapid and blitz, again showing the magnitude of his strength
- umanwizard 8y ago
  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.
msbarnett 8y ago
> 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 a clear edge several times (blundering it a bit in games 1, and slightly misplaying similar edges in games 9 and 10) before gaining an absolutely vicious one in game 12. Caruana never seemed to quite work himself into those kind of serious edges, even if he did an admirable job of defending against them.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  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.
  - nevi-me 8y ago
    I agree with your view on the overstatement. It wasn't a win, but a slight advantage. Chess championships sometimes draw the same criticism as boxing, players strategise to win on technicalities and small margins, instead of taking risks and landing hard blows. As fans, that is boring, but I agree; Carlsen made the correct choice in drawing.
    - bonesss 8y ago
      One of the lines popular in "4D space chess" (ie Starcraft), is: "when you're ahead, get more ahead". That is to say, don't just press your advantage to end the game (high risk, error prone), press your advantage to make your advantage overwhelming... From the analysis Carlsen used his advantage well: to secure continued advantage.
qyv 8y ago
Carlsen was a better player within the rules of this tournament. His strategy clearly shows he was playing to win the tournament, not beat the player.
rtkwe 8y ago
Classical chess still includes the clock in induce time pressures so speed of decision making is already a factor in the main tournament. Rapid and blitz just take that and increase it's importance given the main matches have already determined the players are largely evenly matched. I look at it this way. The main 12 games have already told us who is good given lots of time to deliberate now who has a good enough understanding to make those decisions quickly.

by drewrv 8y ago

fipple 8y ago

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.

pedrocr 8y ago
The tie-break didn't get to blitz. Rapid is roughly an hour of playing which is well within the cultural concept of chess. Probably closer for most people actually.
8note 8y ago
had they continued the same game instead of drawn, caruana would have had 15min to make 10 moves https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/live/2018/nov/26/magnus-carlsen-v-fabiano-caruana-world-chess-championship-game-12-live https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/live/...
tspiteri 8y ago
Even for classic time control, 15 minutes per move is too much; they get about 3 minutes per move on average: 120 minutes for the first 40 moves is quite common. In this championship, they each had 100 minutes + 30 seconds bonus/move for the first 40 moves, which adds up to 120 minutes if they reach move 40 anyway. Of course, some moves are played very fast and the players do take 15 minutes, or more, in some tricky situations where they have to make a key decision.
msbarnett 8y ago
> Yes, as a non chess player I think of the game as two people each taking about 15 minutes per move. Not even classical time controls play that way -- 15 minutes per move would rapidly lose you the match. Prepared openings come quite quickly, obviously, but most moves even beyond that are played within a very few minutes of each other, with time being saved to spend on a "deep-think" of 15-30 minutes on only one or two key moves. Which makes sense. Classical time controls in this tournament were, counting the per move increments, 120 minutes per player for the first 40 moves. That means you need to average a move every 3 minutes over your first 40 (and in reality, they spend less than that most games, preferring to maintain a healthy cushion). Rapid (not Blitz, they did not play any Blitz games) only drops that down to 45 seconds per move over the first 40. Since they tend to live closer to the margin in Rapid anyways vs Classical, this is even less of a drop than it might appear. It's unquestionably less time to think, but not nearly as much as you're suggesting.
- fipple 8y ago
  I know, I’m not talking about real chess, but the Hollywood concept of chess. I also realize that Hollywood chess has the player representing Amerifreedom(TM) squared against a thickly accented Slav who kicks his dog.
1zee 8y ago
What is the "cultural concept of 'chess'" then, and according to whose culture?

nevi-me 8y ago

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".

ubernostrum 8y ago
Quick reminder that it's "Elo", not "ELO". It's not an acronym or initialism. It's named after its inventor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo
- Bud 8y ago
  Always important to avoid ambiguity with Electric Light Orchestra. ;)
fileeditview 8y ago
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!
- nevi-me 8y ago
  Interestingly, he has a wider gap on rapid and blitz, again showing the magnitude of his strength
umanwizard 8y ago
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.

msbarnett 8y ago

> 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 a clear edge several times (blundering it a bit in games 1, and slightly misplaying similar edges in games 9 and 10) before gaining an absolutely vicious one in game 12. Caruana never seemed to quite work himself into those kind of serious edges, even if he did an admirable job of defending against them.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
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.
- nevi-me 8y ago
  I agree with your view on the overstatement. It wasn't a win, but a slight advantage. Chess championships sometimes draw the same criticism as boxing, players strategise to win on technicalities and small margins, instead of taking risks and landing hard blows. As fans, that is boring, but I agree; Carlsen made the correct choice in drawing.
  - bonesss 8y ago
    One of the lines popular in "4D space chess" (ie Starcraft), is: "when you're ahead, get more ahead". That is to say, don't just press your advantage to end the game (high risk, error prone), press your advantage to make your advantage overwhelming... From the analysis Carlsen used his advantage well: to secure continued advantage.

qyv 8y ago

Carlsen was a better player within the rules of this tournament. His strategy clearly shows he was playing to win the tournament, not beat the player.

rtkwe 8y ago

Classical chess still includes the clock in induce time pressures so speed of decision making is already a factor in the main tournament. Rapid and blitz just take that and increase it's importance given the main matches have already determined the players are largely evenly matched. I look at it this way. The main 12 games have already told us who is good given lots of time to deliberate now who has a good enough understanding to make those decisions quickly.