Carlsen - Anand Game 10

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what can we say about Carlsens style of play? play like a computer until your opponent does something human!

That sounds like a put down of Carlsen's chess. You are just an expert level or below and are not even CLOSE to the level where you could legitimately level such charges.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That sounds like a put down of Carlsen's chess. You are just an expert level or below and are not even CLOSE to the level where you could legitimately level such charges.

I doubt he's accusing him of engine use, more likely he is referring to Magnus's engine like precision.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That sounds like a put down of Carlsen's chess. You are just an expert level or below and are not even CLOSE to the level where you could legitimately level such charges.

Dude, relax, he was complimenting Carlen's precision and accuracy.

How you found a charge of cheating in this is crazy paranoia. Wow.

Edit: And weren't you the guy so quick to accuse someone else on the site here? I want to say "Pot, meet kettle", but in this case the kettle isn't even black. Amazing.

Good observations by Anish Giri http://anishgiri.nl/html/eng/anish_articles_026.html

How much Money Does he get for winning the Match?

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Dude, relax, he was complimenting Carlen's precision and accuracy.

How you found a charge of cheating in this is crazy paranoia. Wow.

Edit: And weren't you the guy so quick to accuse someone else on the site here? I want to say "Pot, meet kettle", but in this case the kettle isn't even black. Amazing.

Cheating? Who said anything about cheating? I was not eluding to that at all. I was just pointing out MC plays on such a high level that us fish shouldn't be characterizing him, I just thought that was up to people on his level.

I haven't bothered accusing anyone with engine use here for weeks now since it is a dead issue. You won't hear me accusing anyone again.

Here are some words by MC about the last game of the match:

"I was just trying to play solidly in the opening. I am pretty happy with what I got, very solid position no weaknesses. As the game went on he started to drift a bit and then I thought as long as there is no risk I should try and win it. At some point after the time control, the variations were getting too complicated so I decided to shut it down to force a draw"

Can you imagine being strong enough to fight through and then when it gets too complicated, FORCE a draw?

VG TV, not in English but neat video, MC getting thrown in a pool:

http://www.worldchesschampionship2013.com/2013/11/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-in.html

Scroll down to the video clip.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Cheating? Who said anything about cheating? I was not eluding to that at all. I was just pointing out MC plays on such a high level that us fish shouldn't be characterizing him, I just thought that was up to people on his level.

I haven't bothered accusing anyone with engine use here for weeks now since it is a dead issue. You won't hear me accusing anyo ...[text shortened]... ip2013.com/2013/11/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-in.html

Scroll down to the video clip.

I'll take your word at face value, but when you responded by accusing him of "leveling such charges", it sounded like you were.

Sometimes there is a disconnect between what we want to say and what others hear, and this may be one of those. My apologies if I misconstrued your intent.

As an aside, I don't think we have to be at the same level to characterize anyone's performance. We don't have to be talented ourselves to understand and appreciate talent. We don't have to be Tal or Petrosian to recognize, appreciate, and admire their styles. Just a thought.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I'll take your word at face value, but when you responded by accusing him of "leveling such charges", it sounded like you were.

Sometimes there is a disconnect between what we want to say and what others hear, and this may be one of those. My apologies if I misconstrued your intent.

As an aside, I don't think we have to be at the same level to ch ...[text shortened]... have to be Tal or Petrosian to recognize, appreciate, and admire their styles. Just a thought.

Why play all 10 games? It should be like baseball were if your down 4-2 why play game 7. So why play matches 9 and 10 when it is over? If I was carlsen I would resign those game without moving!!!!!

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I'll take your word at face value, but when you responded by accusing him of "leveling such charges", it sounded like you were.

Sometimes there is a disconnect between what we want to say and what others hear, and this may be one of those. My apologies if I misconstrued your intent.

As an aside, I don't think we have to be at the same level to ch ...[text shortened]... have to be Tal or Petrosian to recognize, appreciate, and admire their styles. Just a thought.

Yeah, I overspoke, "leveling such charges' was a bit heavy handed. I wasn't thinking about cheating at all.

We can certainly appreciate talent, but understand it? We would have to be at that level to fully understand it.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Why play all 10 games? It should be like baseball were if your down 4-2 why play game 7. So why play matches 9 and 10 when it is over? If I was carlsen I would resign those game without moving!!!!!

I believe it's a 12 game match. But you're right, the match is over, no point continuing.

During the match I was under the impression that MC was championing a new direction for chess. Away from the Kasparov style of going for the kill from the first move and most of the study efforts going into opening preparation.

I was wrong. In an interview just after the match he was asked if he spent more time on middle and endgame preparation, rather than on the opening. His answer was no. Most of his preparation was on openings.

Regarding his computer-like play. He is the first World Champion to be brought up in a world where chess engines are stronger than even the best humans. I think it is logical for someone with so much natural talent to lean towards the example of the most dominant style of his time. Which unfortunately is a computer style.

Hi Hedonist.

He would have needed a good grounding in openings to steer anything
Anand threw at him into positions Carlsen prefers.

The game plan which is working, is to get into a level middle game and
outplay your opponents from there. Something he is very good at.

If you pick up an advantage going from the opening into the middle game,
then all the better.

He plays nothing like a computer.
A computer does not play Chess, it calculates, nothing more.
It plays what it has calculated out to be the best move.

As all the great players from Lasker to Kasparov have proved time and
time again sometimes the best move is not the best move to play.
(the notable two exceptions are Capablanca and Karpov who usually only
resorted to creating exams for their opponent to solve if they were worse.)

Carlsen will gladly play not the best move if it holds no risk but sets
his opponents OTB problems to solve.
Lasker, Tal, Larsen, Kasparov, Alekhine would do the same but weigh up the risk.
If they saw a maze of complications coming then they would jump in
with a winner take all attitude having complete faith in their abilty to
play better chess than their opponent. They would expect a blunder.
Computers do not calculate expecting blunders.

Calrsen's skill in keeping the game alive even in the most sterile looking positions
by continually setting your opponent problems to solve is playing Chess at it's highest level.

A computer has no idea what human OTB problems are.

Originally posted by hedonist
During the match I was under the impression that MC was championing a new direction for chess. Away from the Kasparov style of going for the kill from the first move and most of the study efforts going into opening preparation.

I was wrong. In an interview just after the match he was asked if he spent more time on middle and endgame preparation, rather ...[text shortened]... rds the example of the most dominant style of his time. Which unfortunately is a computer style.

yes, its essential the reflection of a new epoch, first the great Philidor, a Frenchman heralded the importance of the peasantry and pawns, Morphy the swashbuckling epoch of duelling and gentlemanly heroism, Capablanca the pinnacle of style, Botvinnik the epoch of scientific research, Fischer reflective of the cold war and of the battle of ideologies, Karpov, soviet dominance, Kasparov, the commercialism of the eighties and now Magnus reflects our age and kind of accuracy free of error.

What i find rather interesting is that Magnus does not like conflict, he has stated as much, he avoids conflict away from the chess board and I suspect that it has something to do with his style as well.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Hedonist.

He would have needed a good grounding in openings to steer anything
Anand threw at him into positions Carlsen prefers.

The game plan which is working, is to get into a level middle game and
outplay your opponents from there. Something he is very good at.

If you pick up an advantage going from the opening into the middle game,
...[text shortened]... e is playing Chess at it's highest level.

A computer has no idea what human OTB problems are.

Yes GP, but the reference to computers is the absence of errors not that his actual play mimics a computer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes GP, but the reference to computers is the absence of errors not that his actual play mimics a computer.

Robbie, sorry if I came off heavy handed with my comments which were taken as a charge that MC used engines which was not my intent at all. I was trying to say while we at our level can appreciate his strength and style, we would only have a limited understanding of MC's true strength.