Carlsen-Caruana Chess World Championship
 

Anybody following the Magnus Carlsen- Fabiano Caruana Chess World Championship which began yesterday in London? The first game took seven hours and 115 moves and ended in a draw. Caruana somehow got into a losing position by move 15 but hung on for another hundred moves to pull out a draw. Crazy start to an important match.

I'm a big fan of Fabi but he did not look ready yesterday. Perhaps it was first game jitters.

At seven hours that is the equivalent of an 18 inning World Series game without a Caruana home run to break the tie (gotta tie this thread into baseball some way). Is every checkmate in chess considered a walk off?

While channel surfing last night I ran into a new one for me that will allow me avoid basketball all together this winter

CURLING NIGHT IN AMERICA

Mixed doubles format with Team Italy defeating Team USA 5 to 4.

I remember the early days of ESPN, when it was live sports 24/7, and you could treat your insomnia with live sheep racing from Scotland at 2AM, which was vastly more engaging than non stop sports center reruns.

No attempt to hijack your thread Barry, for you can read my post between moves in the chess match.

Wait! I think Caruana is reaching for his King’s Bishop. That’s all for now.

To answer one question Frank, high level games very rarely end in checkmate. When the losing side recognizes that his game is hopeless, he typically resigns. It usually entails a simple handshake followed by his signing off on his scoresheet. The image of the winner making a move and loudly declaring "Checkmate" is pretty much a myth and nonexistent.

My opponents always think they can win and I never resign, so a “checkmate” is usually required.:D

Trying my best to follow online. Sounds like Carlsen missed a win in game 1.

I was hoping for more coverage given the first US participation since Fischer in '72. Oh well. Ironically, I did watch a documentary on Kasparov vs. Deep Blue last week. Basically saying that IBM cheated to provoke a bump in their stock price. Not sure I believe it, but still pretty interesting.

Carlsen definitely missed a win in Game 1. Game 2 was a more conventional draw, so the match now stands at 1-1.

You can watch the moves being played live during the match. I watch on Chess.com but I'm sure there are other venues. It's not as exciting as watching the Superbowl, but if you love chess it is certainly interesting.

Still tied up after game 6.

From the reports, it sounds like Caruana missed the win in the last game. That makes six ties and one missed win each.

Game six was extremely complicated. It went into an endgame that is seldom seen. The players have to figure out all the intricacies over the board, and Caruana missed his chance at move 67. I'm disappointed he didn't get the win. But chess is like that.

Hey Barry. I am not a chess player but have always been fascinated with the game since I followed the Fischer/ Spassky matches. At that time I lived in St Louis and the matches had a lot of coverage in the paper there. I live in San Antonio now and have not noticed any coverage in our paper here. So I enjoy you updates.

I believe I'll tune in to the radio broadcast...yawn

My guess is you could find online coverage in addition to Barry's. Just a guess though.:eek:

Cheep related plug.

My most recent book discusses briefly Deep Blue beating Kasparov, computer versus human, in chess, concerning the theory of how to identify intelligence in computers. There are various theories, methods, tests (the Turing test being the most famous) and games (such as chess) to try to identify intelligence in computers. And some famous philosophers say that, even if it exists, intelligence in a computer cannot be verified.

Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence

Peter-- likely could, but Barry's summaries are just right sized :)

, but he didn’t comment on move 56! :eek:

Well, after eight rounds we have eight draws, and I'm really not sure how this match will end. If all twelve games are drawn, quicker tiebreaker games will be played until someone wins. And Carlsen is a much better speed player and would have the advantage.

Caruana had a nice attack in today's game, as well as winning chances, but the pattern of the match has been he hasn't been able to bring home the point.

The 9th game just ended with yet another draw. The match is tied 4 1/2- 4 1/2, with all nine games drawn. Caruana plays white in two of the last three games, which are his best chances to win.

If the match ends tied, with either all twelve games drawn or with each player winning once, they will play a tiebreaker consisting of four games in one day, with each side getting 25 minutes per game. That's how the 2016 World Championship ended, with Carlsen steamrolling to the championship. Caruana should consider winning one of the last three games if he hopes to become World Champion.

After some spirited play, the 10th game ended in a draw. The match is now tied 5-5, with two games to play.

I'm by no means an expert on chess but this is starting to feel a little repetitive to me. Each player has the opportunity to be aggressive every other game.

This just feels like the same game, over and over no matter who is black and who is white. Carlsen does his best to be unpredictable and throw Caruana of his prepared script and then both players go into a shell and hope to draw. I agree it is advantage Carlsen if the game goes to a blitz tiebreaker. Just hoping for more wins and less draws, maybe I watch too many movies.

If this ends in a 6-6 tie, I think they should just kick field goals. Right, Jake.

Where have you gone, Bobby Fischer.

Between late 1970 and early 1972, on his way to qualifying to play Boris Spassky, Fischer won 20 consecutive games without drawing any, against the strongest grandmasters in the world. That is considered chess's 56 game hitting streak. It will never be broken.

Players today have access to reams of analysis, which anyone with a smartphone can utilize. I think the problem with the Carlsen-Caruana match is they are both playing too cautiously, rarely willing to take chances. And if one player falls behind, he has the ability to find a way to draw, even in very difficult positions. Both are incredibly skilled and know all the current theory. And their preparation is exceptional. The only thing that has been boring and predictable are the games.

Perhaps the way to shake things up is to do what Fischer eventually suggested -- for each game, pick a random order for the pieces in the back row.

They definitely need to do something to make the matches more interesting. Yes, most high level games are drawn, and always have been. But to have every game drawn is not good. I don't know what they can do.

I can assume a lot of chess fans would go crazy over something like this but I'd be all for it. Like Barry said, it feels like nearly all of the highest level games end in draws. I'm not sure the random back row is a crazier idea than having the world champion decided by a best of 3 or best of 5 blitz game.

Random chess has been played casually among players, but you would never get them to agree to play a World Championship match that way. Could you imagine if at the beginning of the World Series the umps said the field will have five bases and players were free to run them in either direction? Not gonna happen.

The Mahjong “umpires” (if you will) change the winning combinations annually. The “players” get their little cards showing the current year’s winning combinations. The best of the best keep on playing and going to their tournaments as if nothing happened, but if you don’t use this year’s card, forget about winning.:eek:

Baseball is even worse. The American and National Leagues play with different rules and then compete in a World Series.:confused:

If the 2017 Mahjong champ squared off against the 2018 Mahjong champ, each using their own cards, utter chaos would ensue.:D

In the worst case scenario, in chess, every match ends in a draw and all the competitors get a participation trophy at the end of the day, and everyone goes home happy ........ or not.:rolleyes:

My mom used to play mahjong and I remember she would get the new rules each year.

There is something in chess called the Armageddon game, and it's pretty interesting, though I don't believe one has ever been played. It's a single game where white gets 5 minutes for all his moves and black gets only 4 minutes. Now that sounds like white has two advantages- the first move, plus an extra minute. But here's the rub: if the game ends a draw, black is declared the winner. I've never played one but I think it would be an advantage to be black. Caruana and Carlsen could have one of these if all the rounds of tiebreakers fail to crown a champion.

If there was about a 96-98% chance that World Series was going to end in a tie like that All-Star game a couple years ago, then yes I could imagine that. :)

Without getting political leaving gender identity and LGBTQ issues out of the argument,

Is a women’s team ever going to compete in the World Series, the Super Bowl, the NBA finals or win the Stanley Cup?

Most would say no, but why not a female chess grandmaster winning the ultimate championship?

Is Polgar the best of the fair sex? What would be her chances in the Chess World Championship?

Judit Polgar was the strongest woman's player ever. In fact, when she won a game against Garry Kasparov, she became the first woman ever to beat a male world champion in any competitive sport (chess is a quasi-sport).

Hou Yifan is now the strongest woman player, but she is currently a Rhodes Scholar and is not playing as much as she once did.

The best women can compete with the top male grandmasters, but not quite at the world championship level.

Judit’s father was the “Urban Meyer” of grandmaster fathers. She and her sisters were raised in a chess boot camp from a very young age.

I know. All three sisters were chess prodigies, and Judit and Susan both became grandmasters. It's extraordinary, for better or worse. They all seem to be pretty well grounded, so I don't think they suffered too much psychic damage.

Chess is a game. It is not a sport, or quasi-sport, IMO.

Sport implies by definition the exertion of muscles, including the muscle between your ears. QED

Furthermore if pawns weighed five hundred pounds each, would it not be a sport?

We had this exact discussion on the main board, I believe, with regard to the three chess players in the N162 set.

Either way, Polgar's achievement of defeating a reigning male world champion is unique.

Didn't a woman win the Iditerod?

Not without them dawgs.:D

I have no idea.:confused:

If so, maybe I should have said Polgar was the first, and not the only.

Libby Riddles won the 1985 Iditarod followed by the great Susan Butcher who won in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1990.

Judit Polgar, born in 1976, didn't become a grand master until 1991.

It looks like Polgar was the third, not the first. Sorry, Barry.

She spent 87 hours in temperatures plunging to -50 degrees, tended sled dogs who needed emergency rations, and endured blizzards so bad that the competition had to be stopped twice so the competitors could take shelter. Libby Riddles earned her place in history the hard way — by being the first woman to win the Iditarod — the 1,100-mile trans-Alaska dog sled race often referred to as “The Last Great Race on Earth.”

A bit tougher than sitting behind a chessboard.

Playing a Ruy Lopez against Kasparov is much tougher.:o

Well I know I read that Polgar's achievement was a first, so there must be some technicality here. Perhaps depending on dogs disqualifies her as being the first to defeat a male, since Iditarod is a team sport. What do I know? I'm just some hack trying to sound smart on a chatboard.

The 11th game of the match just ended...(drum roll)...in a draw. It is now tied 5 1/2- 5 1/2. It really was a bland game, even by the standards of this match.

The final game is on Monday. The match is probably headed for a tiebreaker on Wednesday.

Abysmal.

So how does the betting work in chess?

Bet on either player to win in a match and you lose.

Bet on a tie and you get your money back.

Bet on both players to win and you lose double.

If you factor in the bookie, you lose every time.

Checkmate for the bookie.;)

I don't think the bookies are getting big chess money.

It would be amazing if Caruana, playing with the white pieces, pulls out a win in game 12. But I'm not counting on it.

I predict Magnus wins game 12.

It wouldn't surprise me, and I might second your prediction.

Overall, this match has been very disappointing. In the early 1960's, when Bobby Fischer played Mikhail Tal, nearly every game was a titanic struggle. They often featured amazing attacks, deep combinations, piece sacrifices, and incredible artistry that these two geniuses were able to create. They were truly a thing of beauty.

The current match is dull and uninspiring. The players are playing mostly heavily analyzed positions, that they might tweak with a new move here and there. Both are risk averse, and the games have very little creativity. I have yet to see any great plan in even a single game. Too bad.

I likewise have been following the match. I think the dull play is attributable to the significant advance in computer programs in recent years. I think both players are extremely well prepared as a result of computer analysis and realize that risky play will almost certainly be met with defeat. I hope Fabiano finds a way to win game 12 but I'm not optimistic.

If game 12 is a draw, I think organized chess has a real problem on its hands. If you're Magnus, and you figure you probably have a big advantage in a tiebreaker, and you're playing black, do you just play for the draw unless Fabiano makes a major blunder? On the other hand, will anyone really respect a champion who couldn't win even ONE conventional game? So maybe he plays aggressively after all.