4 ms·

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 po

by 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.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Two elements of Starcraft makes this "get more ahead" approach relevant there while it really isn't in Chess. Firstly Starcraft has economics in the form of the resource gathering mechanics. This means if you pursue attack as your only priority the enemy may get ahead economically and, if they survive long enough, just out-build you. No mechanic like that exists in Chess, you can't have more pawns if you invest in a pawn-making machine for one turn rather than moving. Secondly, Starcraft is a game of deliberately hidden knowledge. You don't know whether those two wounded Marines ran up that ramp hoping your forces won't follow, or if they're just bait to draw your attacking force into range of two waiting Siege Tanks who will do enormous damage. In Chess the game state is entirely open.
msbarnett 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. You're misstating the results of the Game 12 replays (see: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship 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 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 at that point. He would have been defending from an incredible time deficit. > Meanwhile, Carlsen made absolutely the correct choice (best strategic choice) to draw in Game 12. Numerous grandmasters disagree with you, including at least Anand, Nakamura, Hess, Kasparov, and Kramnik. The computer results also suggest he should have at least played on several moves before offering, because he was in a position where his likely worst case result was a draw and his best case was a decisive win.
- Isofarro 8y ago
  > 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 supposedly without counter-play. +3 is far too high a score to support that claim.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    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.

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.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Two elements of Starcraft makes this "get more ahead" approach relevant there while it really isn't in Chess. Firstly Starcraft has economics in the form of the resource gathering mechanics. This means if you pursue attack as your only priority the enemy may get ahead economically and, if they survive long enough, just out-build you. No mechanic like that exists in Chess, you can't have more pawns if you invest in a pawn-making machine for one turn rather than moving. Secondly, Starcraft is a game of deliberately hidden knowledge. You don't know whether those two wounded Marines ran up that ramp hoping your forces won't follow, or if they're just bait to draw your attacking force into range of two waiting Siege Tanks who will do enormous damage. In Chess the game state is entirely open.

msbarnett 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. You're misstating the results of the Game 12 replays (see: https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship 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 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 at that point. He would have been defending from an incredible time deficit. > Meanwhile, Carlsen made absolutely the correct choice (best strategic choice) to draw in Game 12. Numerous grandmasters disagree with you, including at least Anand, Nakamura, Hess, Kasparov, and Kramnik. The computer results also suggest he should have at least played on several moves before offering, because he was in a position where his likely worst case result was a draw and his best case was a decisive win.

Isofarro 8y ago
> 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 supposedly without counter-play. +3 is far too high a score to support that claim.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  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.