3 ms·

Mangus is human after all, who occassionally make blunders of sub-GM levels: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+blunders https://www.yout

Mangus is human after all, who occassionally make blunders of sub-GM levels: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+blunders https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+bl... That just shows that he is fallible, which I empathize with. Also don't forget the bishop blunder by Nepo in the world championship against Magnus. That was a 1800 level blunder trapping the bishop. Nepo is in top 5 GM list. The fact of the matter is that all GMs including Magnus have the potential to make blunders.

stouset 4y ago
Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had a consistent lead against Magnus the entire game. Magnus did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect grind for 27 moves. To be clear, I'm not saying this to make a claim that this is definitive proof of anything. I'm pointing out that the theory that Magnus simply blundered away the game doesn't hold water. Niemann had the advantage—as black no less—for essentially the entire game against someone who is widely known for being capable of grinding away nearly-perfectly for extensive periods of time.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Gotham's analysis here is quite important at this time stamped link: https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 I agree but Magnus also plays bad games once in a while. So it is not quite clear from a sample size 1 and a std deviation of infinite.
  - stouset 4y ago
    For sure! It's absolutely reasonable to believe that Hans beat Magnus completely fairly. It's also completely reasonable to believe there's a better-than-even chance that Hans cheated in this game. There are a number of comments here which promote the idea that this is simply sour grapes by Magnus and totally uncalled for, and I find those perspectives to be overwhelmingly uncompelling.
- 8note 4y ago
  27 moves being mostly opening prep?
  - Taek 4y ago
    One of the chief complaints here is that it was an unusual line, specifically chosen by Magnus to be unlikely to have been explored during preparation.
- tzs 4y ago
  On Hikaru's YouTube channel today he posted a video about today's developments [1]. In the later part of that video ran some software that used Stockfish to analyze that game and show percentage of moves where each player made the top engine move. Magnus only matched the top engine move 43% of the time, which is quite low for a super-GM. Hikaru said he'd bet money that it was Magnus' worst performance in any game in the last 3 years. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ML2b7IdD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ML2b7IdD4
  - jquery 4y ago
    If Magnus was playing to detect cheating and not just to win, his play would reflect that. He did play some very obscure lines just to see if it would trigger Hans to “think” but Hans seemed to play the optimal moves quite easily every time. Analyzing the game myself, it appears Magnus was dragging out the game on purpose by picking highly dynamic lines of continuation that should’ve required long and heavy thinks from Hans.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      No, this is cope. If the evidence shows that Magnus played badly, we do not have to jump to the conclusion that actually he was playing badly on purpose, for the intent of trying to detect a cheater. He himself wasn't even stupid enough to claim this. No, instead, I am going to trust other grandmasters opinions that he was merely playing badly.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jquery 4y ago
    Later in Hikaru’s stream he analyzed some of his own personal best games and one of them only got a 43% engine match score. So whatever the tool does, it does not conform exactly to ideas of whether a super GM played good or bad, at least not for any single game. (Sorry for the dupe reply, too late to edit my other comment)
- lmm 4y ago
  > Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had a consistent lead against Magnus the entire game. Magnus did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect grind for 27 moves. Of course he played near-perfectly for 27 moves. That's what it means to be a 2700 (or even a 2500, if you think his recent ratings growth is the product of cheating). Virtually any high-level game will look like that - the players playing mostly perfectly, with on average one or two significant mistakes, but sometimes not even that.
  - Taek 4y ago
    Can we get concrete statistics on that? What does an actual 2700 game look like in terms of perfect move percentage? What about Hans?
    - lmm 4y ago
      What I read was that Hans' average centipawn loss in that game looked completely normal, for him or for any GM at that level.
buitreVirtual 4y ago
What was Carlsen's blunder in his game against Niemann? If he had blundered badly in that game, it would be a very different story.

stouset 4y ago

Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had a consistent lead against Magnus the entire game. Magnus did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect grind for 27 moves. To be clear, I'm not saying this to make a claim that this is definitive proof of anything. I'm pointing out that the theory that Magnus simply blundered away the game doesn't hold water. Niemann had the advantage—as black no less—for essentially the entire game against someone who is widely known for being capable of grinding away nearly-perfectly for extensive periods of time.

systemvoltage 4y ago
Gotham's analysis here is quite important at this time stamped link: https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 https://youtu.be/pfqXnFNnDII?t=433 I agree but Magnus also plays bad games once in a while. So it is not quite clear from a sample size 1 and a std deviation of infinite.
- stouset 4y ago
  For sure! It's absolutely reasonable to believe that Hans beat Magnus completely fairly. It's also completely reasonable to believe there's a better-than-even chance that Hans cheated in this game. There are a number of comments here which promote the idea that this is simply sour grapes by Magnus and totally uncalled for, and I find those perspectives to be overwhelmingly uncompelling.
8note 4y ago
27 moves being mostly opening prep?
- Taek 4y ago
  One of the chief complaints here is that it was an unusual line, specifically chosen by Magnus to be unlikely to have been explored during preparation.
tzs 4y ago
On Hikaru's YouTube channel today he posted a video about today's developments [1]. In the later part of that video ran some software that used Stockfish to analyze that game and show percentage of moves where each player made the top engine move. Magnus only matched the top engine move 43% of the time, which is quite low for a super-GM. Hikaru said he'd bet money that it was Magnus' worst performance in any game in the last 3 years. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ML2b7IdD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ML2b7IdD4
- jquery 4y ago
  If Magnus was playing to detect cheating and not just to win, his play would reflect that. He did play some very obscure lines just to see if it would trigger Hans to “think” but Hans seemed to play the optimal moves quite easily every time. Analyzing the game myself, it appears Magnus was dragging out the game on purpose by picking highly dynamic lines of continuation that should’ve required long and heavy thinks from Hans.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    No, this is cope. If the evidence shows that Magnus played badly, we do not have to jump to the conclusion that actually he was playing badly on purpose, for the intent of trying to detect a cheater. He himself wasn't even stupid enough to claim this. No, instead, I am going to trust other grandmasters opinions that he was merely playing badly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jquery 4y ago
  Later in Hikaru’s stream he analyzed some of his own personal best games and one of them only got a 43% engine match score. So whatever the tool does, it does not conform exactly to ideas of whether a super GM played good or bad, at least not for any single game. (Sorry for the dupe reply, too late to edit my other comment)
lmm 4y ago
> Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had a consistent lead against Magnus the entire game. Magnus did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect grind for 27 moves. Of course he played near-perfectly for 27 moves. That's what it means to be a 2700 (or even a 2500, if you think his recent ratings growth is the product of cheating). Virtually any high-level game will look like that - the players playing mostly perfectly, with on average one or two significant mistakes, but sometimes not even that.
- Taek 4y ago
  Can we get concrete statistics on that? What does an actual 2700 game look like in terms of perfect move percentage? What about Hans?
  - lmm 4y ago
    What I read was that Hans' average centipawn loss in that game looked completely normal, for him or for any GM at that level.

buitreVirtual 4y ago

What was Carlsen's blunder in his game against Niemann? If he had blundered badly in that game, it would be a very different story.