[HN Gopher] Magnus Carlsen wins longest world chess championship...
___________________________________________________________________
Magnus Carlsen wins longest world chess championship game of all
time
Author : Moodles
Score : 205 points
Date : 2021-12-03 20:18 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.chess.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.chess.com)
| montblanc wrote:
| I don't know much about chess but Magnus throwing away his queen
| like that (traded his queen + rook for two rooks), was that a
| common thing to do? Looked outrageous to me but what do I know.
| fullwaza wrote:
| There are values associated with pieces. Without considering
| the position, a pawn would = 1, Knight = 3, Bishop = 3.5, Rook
| = 5, and Queen = 9. I've not seen the game yet, but if he
| traded a Queen for 2 rooks that isn't such a bad deal.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Modern engines value the pieces more, like knight/bishop ar
| 4.1, rook closer to 6 and queen at 11.
| umanwizard wrote:
| It looks like he traded just his Queen for two rooks.
| montblanc wrote:
| Ah sorry my bad
| ajkjk wrote:
| Not uncommon, but doesn't happen in most games.
| DSMan195276 wrote:
| A queen for two rooks is not too crazy, whether it's worth it
| depends a lot on the position. The naive piece worth suggests
| that two rooks (5 each) is worth more than a single queen (9),
| but in practice it's more complicated. I would say though, as
| someone who's not amazing at chess that was definitely one of
| the most significant moments in the game for me - Not that
| Magnus was making a mistake, but that he was creating a very
| big imbalance in the pieces which was going to make the game
| get a lot more interesting.
| pg_bot wrote:
| I feel like the 30 second increment is a bit cheesy given the
| time constraints of classical chess. Magnus was down to less than
| a minute but can just make some quick moves to add several
| minutes back to his clock. If you have an increment it should
| only be 1-2 seconds regardless of time format.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| So now Carlsen is heavily encouraged to play for a draw in the
| next 8 games?
| birken wrote:
| Yes, but also keep in mind Ian has a lot of agency. Throughout
| the first 6 games, he has had moments to make the games more
| chaotic, increasing the chances of one side having an
| advantage, and thus far he has almost always played calmer,
| less chaotic moves.
|
| Now he will likely have to change tactics and enter into more
| aggressive and risky ideas. It should increase the odds of a
| decisive result one way or the other going forward, regardless
| of whether Magnus is "playing for a draw" or not.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| More or less yes, except it's 9 more games. The match ends if
| someone reaches 7.5 points, and Magnus now has 3, so with 9
| more draws he wins the match by 7.5 to 6.5. Going into the last
| game the score is 7-6 so if Nepo wins then the match is tied
| and goes into tiebreaks.
|
| CORRECTION (see below): this was game 6, not game 5 (I had lost
| count), so current score is 3.5 to 2.5, and there are
| potentially 8 classical games left.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I'm only aware of this through this post, but the website
| says Carlsen now has 3.5 points. So 8 draws.
| junar wrote:
| This was Game 6. Magnus leads 3.5 to 2.5. There are only 8
| more classical games remaining.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| Oops, sorry, I just came back to fix that but you caught it
| first. I had somehow thought it was game 5.
| [deleted]
| adflux wrote:
| Change the title, wtf man?
| YossarianFrPrez wrote:
| I'm not a chess expert, so feel like I must be missing something.
| In the last move Black's king isn't in check? Was the loss due to
| time?
| llimllib wrote:
| The player with the black pieces, Ian Nepomniachtchi, resigned
| because he saw his position was lost
| YossarianFrPrez wrote:
| Ah! Thanks a bunch for clearing that up.
| Scarblac wrote:
| The pawn wil advance twice and promote to a queen, after which
| the win is trivial (both squares the pawn moves to are
| protected, by the rook and the Knight).
|
| In reply black can only try to give endless checks with his
| queen, but the white king can hide behind the Knight and they
| will end.
| wadkar wrote:
| Vishy Sir during the end game commentary said that the engines
| say it'll be a draw.
|
| Where/which move did Ian make the mistake?
|
| Anyways, hats off to everyone involved. Magnus, Ian, commenters,
| and the chess twitterati. What a game! ~8hrs!!!
| icelancer wrote:
| The game was drawn for about 30 moves but only Magnus had
| winning chances with piece overload. Ian had to play very
| precisely to preserve the draw, and he didn't, because Magnus
| is elite in exactly these situations.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| From the post game interview
|
| Q. What was the decisive moment?
|
| "I don't know," he [Carlsen] says. "But it felt like at the end
| when I got [133. e6] and maybe there was still some miracle
| defense there, but it didn't really feel that way. At that
| point I felt very, very good about my chances."'
| gpm wrote:
| In the game theoretic sense, it was move 130... Qe6 which moved
| the endgame from drawing to losing. We knew that under perfect
| play the game had been drawn since 115... Qxh4, since that's
| the point at which the pre computed table of endgames has the
| position (which is also why we know the exact move where the
| game from drawing to winning under perfect play).
| perihelions wrote:
| 130...Qe6 was the "mistake" (if one dares call it that!) I
| don't think any commentators expected Nepomniachtchi to
| actually hold this mathematical draw; it's superhuman. (I was
| certainly rooting for him though!)
|
| https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=4k3/8/8/4PR2/5P2/6NK/q7/8%20...
|
| > _" From May to August 2018 Bojun Guo generated 7-piece
| tables. The 7-piece tablebase contains 423,836,835,667,331
| unique legal positions in about 18 Terabytes."_
|
| https://syzygy-tables.info/
| thaurelia wrote:
| This is why evaluation bars are misleading. Computer will say
| it's equal but for one side, every move is equal and for the
| other side, you have to make the only drawing move each time.
|
| I wouldn't say that Ian made a mistake. That position was
| winning for white after pawn on h4 was traded. It's not Leela
| vs Stockfish, it's two humans playing. Defending with solo
| queen against RNPP w/ connected pawns is extremely hard unless
| perpetual check is unstoppable.
| qw wrote:
| The computer also does not take time limits into
| consideration. If the players could take as much time as they
| wanted, they might have been closer to the perfect match.
|
| Maybe that would be a fun concept. A game where the players
| would start with 1 year on the clock?
| nvr219 wrote:
| Imagine lasting 136 moves against Carlsen... This is the guy who
| gives people eight free moves and still destroys them two minutes
| later.
| WJW wrote:
| Nepo is not exactly a slouch either. There's a reason he's the
| challenger for the world championship.
| [deleted]
| ssiddharth wrote:
| Magnus, the GOAT! What else is there to say? He's an endgame god.
| Incredible win. After the 2018 championship match, I was pretty
| much expecting no decisive games here.
|
| Tough luck for Ian though. It'll be hard not to tilt after this
| but he's a champion.
| unixhero wrote:
| Typical of Norwegians to win.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| Utterly insane. Not only required a bunch of stamina but careful
| work to not trigger a draw.
| [deleted]
| typon wrote:
| I know that because Magnus won, people will be heaping praise on
| him. But it is incredible how well Ian kept playing engine move
| after engine move to defend in the end game, while trying to keep
| time. Unbelievable the level of chess that's being played here.
| enneff wrote:
| Nepo is fantastic. And of course Magnus is brilliant. The game
| is at an all time high imo.
| vittore wrote:
| Was rooting for Nepo!
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| Carlsen's grind game is peerless.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Please... please don't use titles like this and spoil it for
| everyone.
|
| Can we edit the title to say "Magnus Carlsen and Ian Nepomnitchi
| play the longest world chess championship game"?
| yyyk wrote:
| You have a good point, however HN etiquette is to be as close
| to the original headline as possible. Perhaps there should have
| an exception for sports.
| yyyk wrote:
| Yet another example of the Carlsen special - drag a game to a
| long not-obviously-drawn endgame, and grind a win from that.
| Carlsen seems to have this match well in hand.
| I_complete_me wrote:
| Well done to Magnus. To Ian. To the commentators. This was an
| unbelievable 'play' in three acts. A game for the chess books.
| Great quality match so far and I hope Ian comes back from this
| blow and makes a fight of it. I believe he will.
| loh wrote:
| It was an absolutely incredible match to watch live.
| Historical.
|
| My jaw dropped when Magnus ignored his rook being attacked at
| the end in favor of the potential fork with his knight. It is
| ultimately what led to the sure win.
| ganeshkrishnan wrote:
| The match was already lost at that point. Two moves before
| that, Stockfish 14 has mate in 49.
| varunprasad wrote:
| Stockfish having mate in 39 moves says nothing about a
| match between 2 humans, already having played for over 6
| hours, under very limited time constraints.
| tanmay7270 wrote:
| Did Stockfish have a mate at 131. Kh4 Qe6+?
| jstx1 wrote:
| Yes. You can check it out here -
| http://analysis.sesse.net/ - just click on history.
| (Sesse is Stockfish with a lot of compute, you can also
| follow it live during the games). At 131 it says "White
| mates in 47".
| tanmay7270 wrote:
| You mean Rf7 when he ignored the *pawn on e6 being attacked
| by the queen for a potential fork with the knight (Qxe6
| Ng7+)?
| loh wrote:
| I'm referring to move 133, right after Ian moved his queen
| from H6 to H7, attacking the rook. Magnus ignores this and
| moves his E5 pawn to E6.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWkBeTwbfj4&t=29890s
| jstx1 wrote:
| That specific moment is actually pretty basic. You're right
| that it was a great match to watch though.
| loh wrote:
| In hindsight, yes, it's basic for sure. But in the heat of
| the moment after 7 hours of thinking about nothing but
| chess, Ian obviously missed the potential fork and was
| visibly surprised that Magnus left his rook to be attacked.
| jstx1 wrote:
| He didn't miss it though - if he had, he would have taken
| the rook. No one at their level misses something like
| this in these games. This stuff is obvious to much much
| weaker players than Ian.
| loh wrote:
| If he was aware of it, he would not have allowed it occur
| to begin with. He was counting on Magnus to move the rook
| and was very visibly surprised when Magnus left the rook
| in place.
| toong wrote:
| Replying to sibling: no, he was not - it was obvious,
| even to a low-level recreational player (like me)
| loh wrote:
| Copying what I said in another reply: I'm referring to
| move 133, right after Ian moved his queen from H6 to H7,
| attacking the rook. Magnus ignores this and moves his E5
| pawn to E6.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWkBeTwbfj4&t=29890s
| jstx1 wrote:
| The point is that both players know very well what's
| happening and neither of them was surprised. Stuff like
| this is very routine and straightforward. The stream that
| you linked to is aimed at people who don't play a lot
| chess and their tone and the way they present things
| might have been a bit misleading.
| thom wrote:
| Genuinely enjoyable and timely game. Out of prep early, machine
| evaluations useless throughout, plenty to play for and Magnus's
| quality and stamina showed.
|
| I'm of the opinion that there's nothing to gain from fans having
| engines open during a game, despite working in sports analytics
| and ostensibly being on the side of the machines. Obviously
| engines have a lot to say about the modern game, and the match so
| far had clearly been dominated by excellent prep by both teams.
| But the excellent commentary on Levitov Chess World by the
| peerless Peter Svidler, Vladimir Kramnik and Evgenij
| Miroshnichenko was firmly of the opinion that we had a game on
| our hands throughout. They were correct.
|
| I looked into some stats from the most recent TCEC superfinal
| just to get a feel for the error bars in engine evaluations. I
| think it's clear that even up to about +1.5, a draw is still on
| the cards between the superhuman engines, let alone humans. About
| a quarter of the superfinal games were decisive, despite us
| treating them as oracles. They're far more accurate in their draw
| predictions - in games that reached a 0.0 evaluation, only 3
| ended with a win.
|
| But in this game, even when we hit the tablebase results, where
| the result is a foregone conclusion for the machines, they still
| don't reflect the outcome of a human game, especially when the
| time controls start to get more stressful.
|
| Anyway, what a wonderful, reassuring game. The players will be
| exhausted and it sets up a fascinating weekend of play. I
| couldn't be happier.
| jjbinx007 wrote:
| Bit of a spoiler :(
|
| I prefer to watch analysis of games from YouTubers like Agadmator
| or Jerry from Chessnetwork and discover who the winner was by
| watching the game.
|
| I wonder if these long games are not particularly helpful. Most
| chess final games end in draws as players are reluctant to create
| an imbalance and instead play it safe. There tends to be more
| exciting games played in games with a shorter time limit.
|
| I'm not advocating bullet but perhaps they could try 30 minute
| matches instead?
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| You all need to watch GothamChess if games of chess seem boring
| :)
|
| I love Jerry, and I do watch him occasionally. But
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhJl3BKA-n8&ab_channel=Gotha...
| is well done.
|
| (If you do want to watch Gotham for this particular match,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoY5RSCi5pE&ab_channel=Gotha...
| starts the series, I think.)
| jstx1 wrote:
| Gotham's style isn't for everyone, he can get pretty
| annoying. One good thing to say about him is that he really
| gets how beginners think and he's good at highlighting the
| moments of "this is what a beginner would do and this is why
| the really good players do something else".
| YawningAngel wrote:
| I think Gotham's style is very oriented towards
| entertainment. I don't mean this as a criticism - he has
| successfully entertained a lot of people. But I feel like I
| learn more from ChessNetwork. The absolute peak for me are
| the recaps Peter Svidler used to record for Chess24, such
| as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJlVjicymKI - I haven't
| seen such deep and insightful analysis of games anywhere
| else.
| Scarblac wrote:
| This current match has the Levitov chess channel with
| Peter Svidler and Vladimir Kramnik analysing live. What a
| team! No engine in sight, instead a glass of whisky,
| decades of world top experience and love of the game.
| thaurelia wrote:
| You might be right in your assumption. I've watched Tata
| Steel 2021 live with Peter Leko (ex WC challenger btw)
| and Tanya Sachdev analysing the games live without
| computer assistance (except eval bar sometimes but no
| lines) and then watched Gotham's recap the next day. The
| difference was obvious with Levy missing the most
| interesting variations and positions in the game, which
| is funny because he probably uses engines for these
| analysis videos.
| hcnews wrote:
| Gotham is focussed on entertaining the masses and aims his
| content for folks below 1500. If you are closer to 1800-2000,
| you aren't going to enjoy GothamChess content much.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| +1 for Agadmator
|
| Great Youtube reviews and explanation of strategy & gameplay.
| shawnz wrote:
| Perhaps the title should be edited to remove the winner's name
| NewEntryHN wrote:
| This game is a counter-example of a long boring game. It was a
| long exciting game.
| wadkar wrote:
| > Bit of a spoiler :(
|
| I get your sentiment but this is really exciting news in the
| chess community. A win after so many years!!
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| "World chess championship has win outcome in longest-ever
| game" would be a great headline and wouldn't contain a
| spoiler.
|
| Unfortunately, they're probably optimizing for views, and
| Magnus has a lot of name recognition.
| Moodles wrote:
| Sorry about the spoiler :(
| ganeshkrishnan wrote:
| You can watch the commentary by Judith Polgar. Of all the
| people I enjoy watching her live commentary because she has
| amazing insight into best moves and explains the reasoning
| behind it.
|
| For few of previous matches by Magnus, she found moves that
| even Magnus had missed.
| iechoz6H wrote:
| Judit Polgar [1]
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r
| _old_dude_ wrote:
| Every time i see her, i see Anya Taylor-Joy in the Queen
| Gambit ...
| [deleted]
| jpmoral wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crhU-pg7Rvw
|
| Skip to 12:48 for the start of the commentary, 32:15 for the
| start of the game.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Note that this is 8h47m long video!
| hcnews wrote:
| Yeah Judit/Anish and Judit/Surya combos have been amazing for
| the 6 matches so far. It helps that Judit is a Catalan player
| and Magnus is choosing her opening.
| lvass wrote:
| And unfortunate choice of news outlet. As a developer, I can't
| help mentioning how baffling it is part of the chess community
| keeps using a proprietary website filled to the brim on dark
| patterns while a better and free as in freedom alternative is
| available.
| ajkjk wrote:
| I think that chess.com pays some people to use their website
| on streams, etc.
|
| Although Lichess isn't perfect and it's kinda annoying. One
| of the bad things about Lichess is how unrealistically
| inflated their ratings are; 2100 on Lichess is equivalent to
| about 1800 on Chess.com. Chess.com is much more similar to
| the FIDE rating and other real-world systems. Lichess is just
| super inflated for some reason and it makes it kinda hard to
| compare your progress to other metrics.
| hcnews wrote:
| Its just a relative number. After getting to your stable
| rating, you don't care about the actual number, you are
| just focussed on improvement.
|
| Lichess is overall better in my opinion, better & slicker
| product, free analysis, opening explorer etc. Chess.com
| only leads in video content imo.
| __s wrote:
| https://www.chessratingcomparison.com/Graphs
|
| There's also https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison if
| you prefer a table
| ajkjk wrote:
| I'm amused to plug in my 2100 rating on Lichess and find
| that I was almost exactly right; the site says it's 1780
| on chess.com +- 100 or so.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Just forego pathetic chess.com and fide ratings, lichess is
| the best thing that happened to chess since castling.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Why is lichess so good? Just because it's free?
| thaurelia wrote:
| You cannot compare ratings between these websites and FIDE
| for two reasons:
|
| - they use different rating systems (Elo for FIDE, Glicko-2
| for LiChess and afair, Glicko/Glicko-2 for chess.com)
|
| - ELO / Glicko rating is calculated for a _player pool_.
| Which means it will never correspond between FIDE-
| registered players and chess websites because they don't
| have the same player base.
|
| It has nothing to do with being "inflated" or
| "unrealistic". The difference is "by design"
| Tenoke wrote:
| You can't compare them 1 to 1 but you can still compare
| them and lichess choice to have them so inflated is
| annoying and likely self-serving.
| amalcon wrote:
| I think there's a third, bigger reason: FIDE rating is
| based on classical time controls. Nobody uses classical
| time controls online for various reasons. Even rapid is a
| somewhat different skill set than classical.
|
| Of course these things are correlated, but e.g. there
| have been times in the world championship when one of the
| players thought about a position for 20+ minutes before
| making a move. That's _hard_ to do, and requires very
| strong visualization skills.
| tehnub wrote:
| There are FIDE ratings for other time controls too. Here
| are the top blitz players for example:
| https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men_blitz
| amalcon wrote:
| Oh interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks!
| not_kurt_godel wrote:
| The bottom line is still that a chess.com rating will be
| more indicative of what a theoretical FIDE/USCF rating
| would be, and there's value in that, even if it's not
| rigorously tethered.
| thaurelia wrote:
| Comparison sites will give you +-150 Elo relative error
| (with I assume P=0.95).
|
| 150 Elo on levels below 2700 FIDE is almost night and day
| difference.
|
| Chess.com ratings show nothing about theoretical FIDE
| ratings. Comparison tables have been built with data
| mining and lucky guesses, there's no quality difference
| between Chess.com <-> FIDE and LiChess <-> FIDE.
| zeven7 wrote:
| I am not a chess player, but as a go player who has
| played on several different servers, all of that can be
| true and it can still be easier to compare progress
| relative to a real world association on one server vs
| another. ajkjk's point still makes sense to me.
| icelancer wrote:
| Indy streamers do a better job in this case (and most,
| probably). GM Ivanchuk covers all games live on his Twitch
| channel, and is my choice for analysis.
| toolz wrote:
| I can't get over how incredibly laggy chess is. It's the
| single reason I moved to lichess as I started on chesscom.
| not_kurt_godel wrote:
| I have the opposite problem - Lichess lags like a dog for
| me while chess.com is almost invariably rock solid.
| anoncow wrote:
| Are you referring to lichess? I second that if yes.
| jacobolus wrote:
| "It was the first decisive game in the classical rounds of a
| world championship in over five years."
|
| I wonder if there's some way other than time constraints to
| encourage higher variance moves.
| bananamerica wrote:
| I'm not an expert, but, from what I can gather, every time
| someone suggest a solution online they're immediately
| countered by multiple strong and sound counter arguments.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| There are plenty of ways you could do that. But then you
| would be playing a completely different game, and hundreds of
| years of theory and strategy would be gone.
| varunprasad wrote:
| The 5 year thing is misleading though.
|
| It would have been 4 years if not for COVID.
|
| And what it basically means is that there were decisive games
| 4 years ago, and then 2 years later (the World Chess
| Championship is played every 2 years), in the 2018 match
| between Caruana and Magnus there were no decisive games.
|
| So essentially there was 1 match with all draws during the
| standard chess part of the tournament. And that match was
| between Fabi who is regarded as one of the players with some
| of the greatest prep and play in standard chess, and Magnus,
| who is really one of the greatest players, if not the
| greatest, of all time.
| bjourne wrote:
| But there were only two decisive games in the match against
| Karjakin. So 22 of the last 24 classical world championship
| games were draws (27 out of 30 if we count the current
| match). Even Magnus himself has said that he thinks it is a
| little dull.
| thelittleone wrote:
| Rapid would be great and even blitz. Both game types offer a
| good intersection of being ease to follow and short enough to
| watch entirely for a large audience.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| Is it really a spoiler? Or is it just "news"?
| jfengel wrote:
| What does "first decisive game in the classical rounds of a world
| championship in over five years" mean?
| gameswithgo wrote:
| The last five years were decided by shorter tie breaker games
| as the longer classical games were all draws
| bonzini wrote:
| In 2016 the classical games were tied, but there were wins by
| both Carlson and Karjakin. Otherwise it would have been 7
| years, since the previous world championship match was in
| 2014.
|
| But titling "unlike the last time (and only the last time)
| there has been a win and it's also the longest game ever"
| would have been less clickbaity.
| kjgkjhfkjf wrote:
| When Carlsen previously defended his title agains Fabiano
| Caruana, all the classical (slow) games were draws. The
| championship was decided by rapid games, where Carlsen
| demolished Caruana.
|
| I love both playing and watching rapid chess, but I think it's
| better for the world championship to be decided using classical
| time limits. That way, we get more interesting games, rather
| than the indignity of top players blundering while under time
| pressure.
| jfengel wrote:
| Thank you for the explanation.
|
| I think I agree with you. Chess is only a thing because
| people have played chess for a long time. Different time
| limits are a different kind of game -- neither better nor
| worse, but different from the things that made tournament-
| style chess popular.
|
| Perhaps with computers it's time to retire the existing
| notion of chess tournaments. But people still seem
| interested, much as we still watch Usain Bolt despite him
| being outclassed by cars and even bicycles.
| [deleted]
| yupper32 wrote:
| > Perhaps with computers it's time to retire the existing
| notion of chess tournaments.
|
| You clearly don't follow chess, given your question. So I
| have to ask: why are you so quick to take a stance on
| something you don't follow or understand?
| jfengel wrote:
| I'm unclear why you'd think that a question beginning
| with "perhaps" constitutes taking a stand.
| yupper32 wrote:
| You didn't ask a question in the post I responded to.
| varunprasad wrote:
| Humans aren't computers.
|
| A machine can throw a fastball at speeds well above what
| humans can do. That doesn't mean we retire pitchers
| completely and end the game of baseball. A car can cover
| 100m in a fraction of the time humans can, doesn't mean we
| end track and field.
|
| Chess is a game between humans and that's what makes it
| exciting.
|
| And with computers we have a whole additional layer added
| where we can see what an essentially perfect game would
| look like and compare to that (although computers can still
| occasionally be surprised by human moves).
| [deleted]
| spoonjim wrote:
| It means the first non-draw. Almost all classical chess games
| at the highest levels end in draws which has completely trashed
| the game as a spectator sport.
| tehnub wrote:
| It's a bit of an exaggeration to say "almost all" games at
| the highest level end in draws. I wouldn't have said that
| from my personal experience following top-level chess, and
| the data indeed indicates it's under 75% [0]--which is a
| large proportion, but not "almost all".
|
| [0]: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-draw-rule-is-
| classica...
| initialized wrote:
| lots of games at this level result in draws, this was a win.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| I wonder if this is a limitation on how humans conceptualize
| Chess. Do games played with computers either vs human or
| another computer frequently end in draws?
|
| If not, maybe there is some insight to be gained to raise
| high level play even more.
| YawningAngel wrote:
| High level computers draw each other almost 100% of the
| time and beat humans 100% of the time.
| umanwizard wrote:
| In general as skill increases (assuming the competitors are
| evenly matched), so does draw rate. Human grandmasters draw
| much more often than human beginners, and engines draw even
| more than human GMs.
|
| This is one of the intuitive reasons for hypothesizing that
| chess is drawn with perfect play, even though we can't
| prove it.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| Engine games (you can watch them at tcec-chess.com and some
| are terrific) with the standard starting position are
| almost always drawn. Engine tournaments are usually played
| instead with human selected, unbalanced openings designed
| to produce an exciting game with lower likelihood of a
| draw. The unbalanced opening intentionally gives one side
| (black or white) an advantage, so each opening is used
| twice, with each engine playing one game as black and one
| as white, to balance things out. The games are usually
| drawn anyway, with some occasional exciting wins. The top
| human players now study engine games closely, and play more
| like engines themselves. Very few mistakes => more draws.
|
| It's unknown what would happen if a top human with serious
| preparation played against a modern engine. They'd have
| basically no chance of winning and a fairly low chance of a
| draw, with the unknown being "how low is fairly low". My
| wild-ass guess is maybe 1 game in 10 when the human has the
| white pieces and much lower with the black pieces. There is
| not much chess theory about what happens when a human plays
| a game from the beginning aiming for a draw, even though
| they do that all the time in real chess. It is something of
| a gap in the "literature".
| jfengel wrote:
| That was the one thing I found distractingly wrong in Queen's
| Gambit. It completely glossed over the sheer number of draws.
| I'm a dilettante at chess, and even I know that.
|
| (I gather that the number of draws may have been lower at the
| time, but they showed few or none.)
| jll29 wrote:
| It's perhaps a shortcoming of the medium - lack of time -
| and to keep the script short & engaging for the viewers. In
| a similar vein, computer nerds are shown to write code or
| hack systems in no time, when in reality a lot of high-
| concentration hours are burned, but from the outside
| watching someone stare at a screen doing not much other
| than think just isn't that exciting, and in the same way
| chess games ending in draws again and again aren't that
| exciting to watch for lay viewers. Also, films like that
| tend to ignore the "team" element (whether it's in sports
| or computing) and tend to over-emphasize the single
| protagonist "genius", also unrealistic.
| [deleted]
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| It's the first 'classical' (ie with full time limits) game
| that's had a win in the last 5 years of World Chess
| Championships - since game 10 of Carlsen vs Karjakin in 2016
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-03 23:01 UTC)