After 12 Draws and a Day of Tiebreakers, Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana To Win World Chess Championship (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: After three weeks, 12 straight draws and a day of tiebreakers, Norway's Magnus Carlsen finally retained the world chess championship in London on Wednesday with a victory against Fabiano Caruana (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), his American challenger. Carlsen's victory came in what amounted to sudden-death chess: a scheduled series of four so-called rapid games in which the players started with 25 minutes to make their moves. The speedier pace of the games, after the far more deliberate matchups of the previous three weeks, meant players were more likely to make blunders. And that increased the chance of a victory by one player. Carlsen won the first two games, then closed out Caruana in Game 3.

Caruana, 26, was bidding to become the first American champion since Bobby Fischer beat Boris Spassky to win the world title in 1972. The famously cantankerous Fischer forfeited his title in 1975 amid a dispute with the world chess federation, and the sport has been dominated by Russians and Eastern Europeans in the decades since then. The tiebreaker result was not a shock. While Carlsen, 27, and Caruana, 26, are closely matched in longer conventional chess games, known as classical chess, Carlsen had been considered the favorite in the tiebreaker because he has had better rapid chess results than Caruana. "It was the first time in the history of the world championship, which dates to the 1800s, that regulation play ended with every game a draw," the report notes.

Comments

Hang on, so they played a different game then?

[Anonymous Coward]

All this proves is that he's champion at this other version of the game.

What a scam.

Re: Hang on, so they played a different game then?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my understand is he retained his crown in classic chess due to the fact he was not defeated.

Re: Hang on, so they played a different game then?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my understanding is that he retained his crown in classic chess due to the fact that after an all-draw match in classic chess he won a match in speed chess, validating the OP's statement.

Re:Hang on, so they played a different game then?

[Paradise Pete]

All this proves is that he's champion at this other version of the game. What a scam.

Many contests in many sports are determined by some other means than to keep playing the same rules over and over again. Penalty kicks, shootouts, tiebreakers in tennis. Even baseball is talking about doing something to avoid long extra-inning games.
Chess is still chess. The longer time control they were originally playing is not built into the game and is not even constant from championship to championship. Nor is the number of games they play.

Re: Hang on, so they played a different game then?

[turbidostato]

"No, my understanding is that he retained his crown in classic chess due to the fact that after an all-draw match in classic chess he won a match in speed chess, validating the OP's statement."

In fact, no, it doesn't. Historically, a challenger in chess must win the champion to take his title: a draw meant the 'statu quo' is to be preserved; the current champion retains his crown, that is. So, compared to past championships, Caruana would have already lost by the end of the "standard" phase, but he got another oportunity at the rapid games phase, which he also lost.

Re:Hang on, so they played a different game then?

[mcvos]

I'm not sure how it is in chess, but I noticed that in go, rapid go is a somewhat different game than regular go. In rapid go, it's worthwhile to intentionally create complex situations for the opponent just to waste their time. And in the days before digital clocks, it could be viable to prolong a losing position just to get your opponent to lose on the clock.

I've been able to defeat normally far stronger players by leveraging these kind of "dirty" strategies. The basic rules may be the same, but there's a totally different strategic layer on top of the game.

Re: Hang on, so they played a different game then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right.

The engines dualed to a draw after 12 games.

The players needed just 3 games to confirm Carlsen is way better.

What next

[alvinrod]

I'm rather curious what would have been used as the next form of tie-breaking if rapid chess proved no better at establishing a victor. Even more rapid chess? Three-legged sack race is probably out, but I would be interested if anyone happens to know the rules offhand.

Re:What next

[ranton]

From this article:

Carlsen will play as white in Wednesday’s first tiebreak stage after the drawing of lots following Monday’s game: a best-of-four rapid match with 25 minutes for each player with an increment of 10 seconds after each move. (This is where the Norwegian was able to close the show after he was pushed to tie-breakers against Russia’s Sergey Karjakin two years ago in New York.)

If that is not enough to settle matters, they will play up to five mini-matches of two blitz games (five minutes for each player with a three-second increment). If all five mini-matches are drawn, it will come down to one sudden-death Armageddon match in which white receives five minutes, black receives four minutes and both will receive a three-second increment after the 60th move. If that game is drawn, black will be declared the winner.

Re:What next

[Kjella]

I'm rather curious what would have been used as the next form of tie-breaking if rapid chess proved no better at establishing a victor. Even more rapid chess?

Yes, after rapid then blitz and if still even then Armageddon - white gets a slight time advantage, black only has to draw to win.

Re:What next

[PopeRatzo]

I'm rather curious what would have been used as the next form of tie-breaking if rapid chess proved no better at establishing a victor.

If that happens, things start getting really interesting. They do play more rapid chess, but now one player gets 5 minutes on the clock and the other gets 4 minutes. If the one with 4 minutes can play to a draw, it's considered a win and that breaks the tie. This is known as "Armageddon". I'm not kidding.

Way back in the day before I lost my mind, I played competitive chess in ICF-sanctioned events, and those are still the rules.

Also, did you know that this was the first championship in history to have all the games in regulation-play drawn? By the way, the best coverage of this tournament was by Ben Tippett over at Deadspin.

https://deadspin.com/armageddo...

Re:What next

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia:
Match regulations

The match is organized in a best-of-12-games format. The time control for the games is 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, an additional 50 minutes added after the 40th move, and then an additional 15 minutes added after the 60th move, plus an additional 30 seconds per move starting from move 1. Players cannot agree to a draw before Black's 30th move.[8][9]

If the match is tied after 12 games, tiebreaks will be played on the final day in the following order, as necessary:

        Best-of-four rapid games (25 minutes for each player with an increment of 10 seconds after each move). The player with the best score after four rapid games is the winner; otherwise they proceed to blitz games. The players are not required to record the moves.
        Up to five mini-matches of best-of-two blitz games (5 minutes plus 3 seconds increment after each move). The player with the best score in any two-game blitz match is the winner. If all five two-game matches are tied, a "sudden-death" game is played.
        One sudden death "Armageddon" game: White receives 5 minutes and Black receives 4 minutes. Both players receive an increment of 3 seconds starting from move 61. The player who wins the drawing of lots may choose the color. In case of a draw, the player with the black pieces is declared the winner.[10]

----------------

So yes, even more rapid chess.

Re:What next

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'm rather curious what would have been used as the next form of tie-breaking if rapid chess proved no better at establishing a victor. Even more rapid chess?

. . . I'm thinking chainsaw chess. Every time a player loses a piece, the opponent gets to whack the other player with a chainsaw.

Let the player feel the pain of losing a pawn!

The player who is no longer able to hold the chainsaw loses.

Re:What next

[whoever57]

Also, did you know that this was the first championship in history to have all the games in regulation-play drawn?

Yes .... because I read the summary.

Re:What next

[alvinrod]

To be fair, he did say that he lost his mind.

Re: What next

[nastyphil]

http://www.chessboxing-global....

Re:What next

[PopeRatzo]

Yes .... because I read the summary.

What is this "summary" that you speak of? And why weren't we told that there was going to be required reading?

Re:What next

[PopeRatzo]

To be fair, he did say that he lost his mind.

It was no great loss.

Re:What next

[SuiteSisterMary]

After the rapid, they'd have five rounds of blitz, IIRC, and after that, if still no winner, one game of Armageddon; basically, White gets five minutes, Black (the challenger) gets four minutes, and a draw gives the championship to the challenger.

Re:What next

[Anonymous Coward]

Pistols at twenty paces, high noon.

Re:What next

[davidbofinger]

How about random changes to the rules. "In this game, knights and bishops start switched around."

Re:What next

[ShanghaiBill]

Yes, after rapid then blitz and if still even then Armageddon - white gets a slight time advantage, black only has to draw to win.

Magnus excels at speed chess, the faster the better. So it was widely presumed that he would have a bigger and bigger advantage as the games moved to faster and faster formats ... and that is what happened.

It is believed that he offered a draw in game 12, despite having a stronger position, because he figured a single blunder could cost him the championship if the game continued, and going to a 4 game rapid tie breaker would give him better odds.

Re:What next

[Anonymous Coward]

Three-legged sack race is probably out, but I would be interested if anyone happens to know the rules offhand.

The last thing you want to do is let Magnus get to the three-legged sack race. You might as well just resign at that point.

Re:What next

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Reading the summary is overrated, it states Carlsen won the first two games, then closed out Caruana in Game 3 which implies he didn't win the third game as well. Caruana was desperately trying to keep the match alive and made a mistake which Carlsen jumped on to complete the sweep.
Carlsen defended his title in the tie-breaks the last time around as well, that time he finished the last game with an amazing queen sacrifice.

Caruana's strength is his preparation of openings, Carlsen tends to try off-beat openings so he can take opponents out of "the book" and outplay them over the board. Carlsen will even accept slightly inferior variations to that end. Both approaches yielded advantages during the "normal" part of the match but neither player managed to cash in and then Carlsen just went for draws in games 11 and 12. That worked.

Re:What next

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

That is a known variation of Chess. It has two names - and I can't be bothered to look them up - one being "Fischer Random". Guess who originally came up with the idea.

Re:What next

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and he came up with the idea because chess already then had become a "memorization game". Also, guess who is the current #1 in Fischer Random. ^_^

Re:What next

[Anonymous Coward]

Chess boxing. Time pressure and physical activity. It's the next logical step.

Re:What next

[SuiteSisterMary]

Caruana's strength is his preparation of openings

Caruana's strength is in his ability to memorize openings that supercomputers have plotted out. It's telling that without the supercomputer support, he was simply crushed.

Re:What next

[arth1]

It is believed that he offered a draw in game 12, despite having a stronger position, because he figured a single blunder could cost him the championship if the game continued, and going to a 4 game rapid tie breaker would give him better odds.

Not because someone had placed bets on the very long odds of 12 draws?

Re:What next

[TheCastro1689]

That was Fischer's complain about regular chess later in life. Said all you had to do was memorize openings and a some plays. Made chess boring and computerized.

More Detailed Scoring

[ranton]

Instead of speed chess, I would back a proposal I read once for more comprehensive scoring than just Win / Loss / Draw. Giving partial points for having more pieces than your opponent during a draw, being the one to force a stalemate, etc. With over 80% of World Championship Chess games ending in draws, either add a time element to all games or find a way to award a partial winner even in a draw.

Re: More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s called attrition chess or war of attrition. Most chess players have little interest in that game. Itâ(TM)s much easier and less thinking involved

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

  I would back a proposal I read once for more comprehensive scoring than just Win / Loss / Draw. Giving partial points for having more pieces than your opponent during a draw, being the one to force a stalemate, etc. With over 80% of World Championship Chess games ending in draws, either add a time element to all games or find a way to award a partial winner even in a draw.

You can do that, sure, but you're not playing Chess at that point, but a different game. The Chess brains of the world are all geared toward Chess with the current win/lose/draw rules.

That's all well and good, it's just a different game.

Perhaps a more radical strategy is just to not have a single winner. Two champions. If they're really that equally matched, isn't that more fair than one having an advantage at one skill?

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Mal-2]

I immensely disagree.

First off, material imbalances insufficient for a forced win (like king-and-bishop versus a naked king) are as much a part of the game as draws themselves. So are stalemate traps.

Basically, elite-level chess has been headed toward draw death for a long time, but in the era of engines, the pace toward complete draw death has accelerated greatly as players can prepare much more thoroughly than ever before. Magnus is weird and generally prepares less than his opponent, but his instincts are so good that he dominates at shorter time controls (you should see him play Blitz, where he Berserks* almost every single game). This is now the determining factor in these championships, since he can seem to force ties in the classical time controls almost at will.

*Berserk: your time is cut in half, but if you win, you get an extra point (5 instead of 4, generally).

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

That would fundamentally change the game, though.

Playing to win looks nothing like playing for materiel in a draw. Indeed the game would become not "who can win" but "who can lose the least before it's declared a draw". I can't imagine anything more boring.

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate that idea. Sometimes the very way you draw is through piece sacrifices (some Sicilian lines for example). This just isn't how chess works. Having more pieces but drawing doesn't mean you played any better.

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Two champions. If they're really that equally matched, isn't that more fair than one having an advantage at one skill?

Probably would be more fair, but the problem is that chess at the highest levels is rapidly devolving to a very high tied game percentage. You'd may end up with a high % of these top level matches ending up with two champions.

If chess is indeed theoretically drawn (I'm not sure that's known, but it's suspected) then the more players approach perfect play, the more that tie % will go up. It's already like 80% or something.

Re: More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Draws are part of the game of chess. Alpha Zero drew roughly 80% of the time, when playing against itself, and when playing against Stockfish, especially while playing as black.

Re: More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

"If chess is indeed theoretically drawn (I'm not sure that's known, but it's suspected)..."

Please explain the theory behind the perfect game being drawn. In practice, Alpha Zero demonstrated that the game can be won by playing as white and making lots of sacrifices.

Re: More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll. If anybody found perfect forced moves as white from start, they'd just play it over and over.

Chess at highest plays will draw all the time, by definition of not making mistakes. Logical proof.

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a time element to a games already. The trouble with your proposal is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the game, and renders all past analysis and expertise obsolete at a stroke. Can't see that being popular with people who've made chess their livea' work.

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a more radical strategy is just to not have a single winner. Two champions. If they're really that equally matched, isn't that more fair than one having an advantage at one skill?

The problem with that, is that next year you get another guy trying to beat these champions. Then you have some complicated outcomes:
1. The newcomer fails, the two champions remains. Or perhaps they again try to beat each other?
2. He beats them both, and is the new champion. The one easy outcome.
3. The newcomer ties with both champions. Now we have three chess champions :-/ Come next year, we may have four!
4. He beats one old champion, and is defeated by the other. Now what? Especially if the defeated old champion also beats the champion that defeated the newcomer.

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic chess has become more of a game of how many lines you can memorize, rather than actually outplaying your opponent. If we look back in time, to Fischer, Kasparov and the other great masters, they would be reading books. Sometimes, especially those who knew Russian, would pull some crazy stuff from a book in Russian, which other players wouldn't "have access" to. This isn't the case any more. All players have access to databases and engines, basically giving them "perfect knowledge". Caruana is better than Carlsen in preperation, or memorization as one should call it. I believe classic chess, with long time controls are dead. These guys are so good, that given "enough time", they play perfect - resulting in all these draws.

I don't think it would matter if they played 4 more classic games - those games would probably end in a draw too, simply because neither of them would take risks. Caruana is undoubtly, at least in this tournament, better in preperation, but when they came to the rapid games, where preparation and memorization has less of an effect, and it comes down to actual play, and not simply reproducing know lines for 40-50 moves, he got his ass handed to him. It was almost like watching an amateur playing a master. Carlsen gave him a lesson in PLAYING chess, not memorizing it.

Re: More Detailed Scoring

[Anonymous Coward]

"If anybody found perfect forced moves as white from start, they'd just play it over and over. Chess at highest plays will draw all the time, by definition of not making mistakes."

In fact, opening moves are not forced moves, so there goes the commenter's proof down the drain. Alpha Zero draws, because it can't find perfect moves, all the time, in every board position.

As Carlsen demonstrated in this match, chess players either play for a draw, or play for a win. In the early days, the world championship only counted wins, not draws. In other words, draws were deemed irrelevant. In this match, Judit Polgar was disappointed in Carlsen's play. However, Carlsen also played not to lose in this match, as one of his strategies. He was patiently waiting for Caruana to make mistakes, and Carlsen didn't detect any crucial mistakes in Caruana's game until the tiebreak. Even while Carlsen was playing for a draw, he was keeping up the pressure on Caruana, and extending each game hoping for a blunder at some point to come his way. It didn't happen until the tiebreak.

If the commenter's logic is correct, chess programs would not play with Monte Carlo selection of moves. By the commenter's definition, chess programs do not play perfect games of chess, because they play with variety, and yet they still play to win, every chance they can.

The commenter's second statement doesn't hold true in the real world. Chess programs don't play to draw as their main objective. They play to win, and win they do, roughly 20 percent of the time, usually when they play as white. During the tiebreak in this match, Carlsen also won as black, to his credit.

Re:More Detailed Scoring

[Mal-2]

They're not perfect, though. Engines tear them to pieces. But the human limitations are common to both of them, and they manifest in pretty much the same ways -- namely, they're not thinking "if I take this line, I win a pawn 22 moves out". Well, they are, but unlike a machine, they're also thinking "and I have x% confidence I can pull this off if my opponent goes off script". The machines already know how to handle all the variations before they commit to the line, out to their horizon. Not only is their horizon longer than most human players, it's vastly more inclusive. A human might think "c4 has been refuted, in the 2012 Bilbao" or whatever. A machine doesn't care, it will search there eventually, and there may be some brilliant move five or ten moves down the line that works where absolutely nothing else does. Humans stay out of those minefields, unless they're named Tal (who pulled opponents into them).

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

TLDR, chess is kinda nerdy sorta, and they can't ALL be articles about Amazon's newest folded laundry announcement.

Re:Simple question

[ranton]

Why care about anything? In ten billion years no one will care that Earth ever existed. Why care about a war in the Ukraine or climate change if we have to worry about mankind's survival after our sun expands to engulf the planet? Everything is so trivial compared to that!

Or maybe we can care about major global concerns like impending war, major personal concerns like our retirement savings, and minor personal concerns like what to eat for dinner at the same time.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

> the impending war in Ukraine

Isn't that just a big game of chess with thousands of G.I. Joe acting as pawns and their players being politico psychopaths like vladiput?

(Chess was originally a battle simulator in ancient India, complete with war elephants, silver and gold rank generals, etc. King Ashoka then instituted buddhism and the concept of ahisma, so conflicts ceased and chess became a pass-time.)

Robot Fighter!!!

[Travco]

Our proven Champion is now ready to take on Deep Blue!

After Game 12

[phantomfive]

After Game 12 where Magnus clearly didn't even try to win, he deserved to lose the entire match, but it turns out he's the best player so sportsmanship doesn't matter.

Re:After Game 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Magnus is the #1 ranked speed chess player in the world. He knew playing to a draw on game 12 would have meant he'll have clear advantage on the tiebreaker. Fabiano knew this and didn't take chances to avoid the tiebreaker where Magnus had a clear advantage. Why is what Magnus did a bad sportsmanship? Both parties knew the rules before the match and one player played to his advantage.

Re:After Game 12

[Mal-2]

If sportsmanship mattered, Bobby Fischer would have been banned far more often than he was. It's not like the Soviets were exactly free of blame on establishing oppressive conditions that bothered outsiders far more than their own side, but Fischer ratcheted up the dickishness to 11 on multiple occasions.

Sportsmanship has been paid only lip service in chess for at least half a century now.

Re:After Game 12

[quarrel]

To be fair, he's also the #1 ranked standard chess player in the world.

The only real difference is that where Fabiano is #2 in the world in standard, he's #10 in speed. Still, it's not like he's bad.

Re:After Game 12

[arth1]

Some have voiced concerns that this 12-draws was deliberate, and due to being paid more sponsorship money the more games was played. Carlsen offering remis in games where many thought he was clearly ahead has made some people worry.
Personally, I think he's clean, but then again, nothing would really surprise me anymore.

Re:After Game 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Carlsen played with black, Caruana with white. Caruana had 11 games before that to try to win. He clearly wasn't interested in winning. If Caruana wanted to win that last game, he would've attacked. He would have declined the offer of a draw. This has nothing to do with sportsmanship. Caruana was simply the inferior player.

Re:After Game 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. Magnus played with black in the 12th game and had a slight advantage, according to computers. However, there is no clear way to turn that advantage into a win. So Magnus reasoned that if he drew that game, he would have 4 more games to play - the risks he would have to take in that 12th game, wasn't worth the possible loss - especially so when taking into account that he knew Caruana is not that strong in rapid chess.

Caruana also knew this, so he should probably have taken more risks in the 12 games before the tiebreaker, but he played safe, took his chances and lost - to a better player. It was clear for everyone to see, who the better player was, when they weren't playing the game of memorization any more.

Re:Simple question

[Travco]

Says the guy with $2000 seats for the Super bowl

Re: Magnus comes in roaring like a lion.

[Anonymous Coward]

"vica"? Stop drinking.

#news

[nastyphil]

#fornerds

Re:#news

[quarrel]

Yeah, the 1980s finished, people made Revenge of the Nerds films and stuff, and then the internet happened.

Now it's ok if you're into chess, anime, comic books, computer games, even computers! Guess what, even girls (shock, horror!) are.

But Grandpa, you just reminisce about your glory days of punching a kid in 1985 and thinking you were tough. You're not the first to peak in high school.

Better solution

[alvinrod]

Shot of vodka must be consumed after each game ending in a draw. Play until someone wins or someone is unable to play.

That probably just solidifies Russian and Easter European domination even more, but it would make for far more entertaining games.

Re:Better solution

[Mal-2]

Since they only played one game a day, a shot after a draw would only help them unwind. Magnus would at least participate, I don't know about Fabiano. (Carlsen's online name is usually "Dr. Drunkenstein".)

Re:Better solution

[Locke2005]

Wouldn't that give the Russians an unfair advantage?

Re:Better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It just sets up some crazy awesome Russian v. Irish matches.

Re: Better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

they would probably add a gun with one bullet in it as you got drunk

Re:Better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Drink shots immediately before the game. It would make chess training rather unhealthy though.

Re:Better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Shot of vodka must be consumed after each game ending in a draw. Play until someone wins or someone is unable to play.

That probably just solidifies Russian and Easter European domination even more, but it would make for far more entertaining games.

We should call it "blitzed chess".

Re:Better solution

[Mal-2]

I could see this. One shot for every consecutive draw preceding the game scheduled. The morning of the 12th game, they would have been facing 11 shots.

Re:Simple question

[UnknownSoldier]

All work and no play makes for a dull life.

So what do YOU do for fun?

People have different interests / hobbies -- is it really THAT hard to understand??

Re:Simple question

[alexo]

How does this affect anyone or than the two participants at all? Why should I or anyone else care about a chess championship? How does this solve any problems or make anyone's life better? There are far better things to be concerned with, like the impending war in Ukraine or man-made climate change. Priorities matter, and this seems utterly useless.

Why are you wasting your and every one else's time posting on /. instead of volunteering to peacekeeping missions in Ukraine or working on reversing climate change? Priorities matter, and this seems utterly useless.

So can anyone explain to me why a chess championship is worthwhile at all? I suspect I'll be censored to -1 because I'm not supposed to ask the tough questions, but someone needs to do it. Why would anyone at all consider chess championships a worthwhile thing? Rather than answer my important question, this will be swept under the rug by censoring my post to -1. Prove me wrong and answer my simple question about why I or anyone else should care about chess championships.

I could try making you understand, but I have better things to do with my time. After all, priorities matter, and this seems utterly useless.

Imo Chess = BEST GAME ever made... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & NO JOKE (especially IF/WHEN you play those of equal OR better skill - makes it hard, fun & never the same game twice)!

* I've posted on it before here on /. (the "immortal game" https://ask.slashdot.org/comme... in 2010 + 2014 again calling CHESS "the immortal game" https://science.slashdot.org/c... )

Man - I've played it in DOWNPOURING RAIN (drinking beer was why w/ a tenant of mine for 9 yrs. lol - he made me 10x the player I was, literally 1,000's of game under his "tutelage" until 1 day? I could "snatched the pebble from his hand" & MY "Chess Kung-Fu" consistently exceeded his in the end), by candlelight during blackouts + for a good stretch circa 2001-2010, we had a "club" here we called "Knights of the Round Table" @ my home on weekends where I met a friend of my nephew's named Lee (who now works @ BAE systems as a programmer (math wizard, & CHESS WIZARD TOO imo, beat me 1st game we played (NOBODY does that, lol)). Was fun!

LMAO - Oh, the "halcyon days of yore" & all that!

In the years following, a few tenants &/or roommates played too (again, great games & THEY got better for it + yes, so did I - nobody plays the same - I think that is how you get better along w/ PRACTICE, by playing LOTS of diff. folks).

APK

P.S.=> I've played 1 roomie (an academic noted in those posts) who was rated #3 in NYState @ least at academic levels iirc - it was QUITE the experience (draws usually) & I'd LOVE to even sit down w/ guys on Carlsen's calibre & "try him" (probably would lose but then I'd get to see what I'm "really made of" on chess)... apk

Please stop spamming Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting this once was sufficient. You were modded down and should not be circumventing Slashdot's moderarion system. Please stop using your spambot to repost your comments when they get modded down.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Fischer learned out the reality of the j00ish problem and that meant he had to be destroyed.

Make chess less theory and more fun

[thePig]

My biggest problem with the current way of chess is opening theory.
So much analysis is done (especially now that computers have taken over that part), that it has become a game of memory rather than one of enthusiasm, calculation and daring.
Springing a surprise 15 moves deep - has now become a brilliance of memory, not of calculation.
My suggestion would be -
Use computers to run matches - until say 10-20 moves deep, where they give to humans.
When it is given to humans, the state should be exactly equal (maybe a negligible advantage to one - whatever it is, it will never be as advantageous as white moving first)
Let the humans start from that position, and then play. Remove the gargantuan exercises of memory, and make it one of calculation, mind set and daring.

Re:Make chess less theory and more fun

[timeOday]

Bobby Fischer felt the same way and proposed Chess960 which has a random initial board configuration for that reason:

In a 2006 Icelandic Radio interview, Fischer explained his dissatisfaction with the current chess:[575]

[In] chess, so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century didn't know nearly as much as, say, I do and other players know about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they might not do too well, because they'd get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability, because now there is so much more opening theory, so much more memorization. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get the opening advantage against Capablanca, or especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz, easily. Maybe they'd still be able to outplay the young kid of today, but maybe not. Because nowadays when you get the opening advantage, not only do you get the opening advantage, but you know how to play the opening advantage â" they have so many examples of what to do from this position. So it's really deadly, it is very deadly... that's why I don't like chess anymore... It's all just memorization and prearrangement, it's a terrible game now. A very un-creative game now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Make chess less theory and more fun

[teg]

Bobby Fischer felt the same way and proposed Chess960 which has a random initial board configuration for that reason:

In a 2006 Icelandic Radio interview, Fischer explained his dissatisfaction with the current chess:[575]

[In] chess, so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century didn't know nearly as much as, say, I do and other players know about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they might not do too well, because they'd get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability, because now there is so much more opening theory, so much more memorization. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get the opening advantage against Capablanca, or especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz, easily. Maybe they'd still be able to outplay the young kid of today, but maybe not. Because nowadays when you get the opening advantage, not only do you get the opening advantage, but you know how to play the opening advantage â" they have so many examples of what to do from this position. So it's really deadly, it is very deadly... that's why I don't like chess anymore... It's all just memorization and prearrangement, it's a terrible game now. A very un-creative game now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This is usually called Fischer Random, and the current world champion of Fischer Random is Magnus Carlsen.

Re:Make chess less theory and more fun

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have this Carlsen guy battle the regular chess champion and see who is better over all.

Re:Make chess less theory and more fun

[Anonymous Coward]

he is the regular chess champion

Amateur Playing at Best

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit that it was painful to watch these two rank amateurs slaughter the game of chess over twelve gueling games of boring, predictable, uninspired play.

Get on TOPIC (I was on chess)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

U ADMIT writing a spambot to IMPERSONATE me & tell lies about me u pitiful hypocrite https://science.slashdot.org/c... & keep BLOWING your "downmodpoints" CENSORSHIP weapon - I'll just RUN YOU DRY of them as always.

* Thanks for incriminating yourself stupid...

APK

P.S.=> It was a REAL pleasure to see my program CYBERIAN TIGER totally got the BETTER of your wannabe bot, you wannabe... lol! apk

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

"How does this affect anyone [other] than the two participants at all?"

Modern chess in the 21st Century is a contest between the human brain and the computer. It matters to all humans, to see to what degree the human brain is weaker than the computer. It's not simply a matter of speed. It's a matter of depth and understanding, to see to what degree the computer outwhits the human being.

World championship rules have changed

[teg]

From the summary:

It was the first time in the history of the world championship, which dates to the 1800s, that regulation play ended with every game a draw," the report notes.

While that may be true, that is because until recently (1985) the match winner was the first to reach a specific number of wins - 10 in the first World Chess Championship. In 1984-1985, the winner would be the first to 6 wins - but the the match was cancelled after 48 games, including 17 draws in a row. After this, the match was changed to "best of x games" - in the restarted match it was 24 games, now it's down to 12.

I don't see how Americans could win to be honest

[Anonymous Coward]

It was without a good attempt, judging by the score sheet, but Chess is an incredibly challenging game and it requires healthy people with enormous brain capacity for analytical thinking. Petty much only people from the most intelligent countries and populations will stand a chance to beat Russians, Chinese, or in this case a Norwegian.

Fishcer was an outlier and a fluke, and, again, this American player was close to it, but certainly, it will never actually happen.

For those that say the game was changed?

[pgmrdlm]

Regular chess is either unlimited time or, in tournaments, 60-180 minutes per player. Speed chess, or Fast chess, has a lot of different time limits, but generally gives the players a very limited amount of time to move, making it much more fast paced.

https://www.google.com/search?...

Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO skill to he game of chess. It is all about who can memorize the greatest number of moves.

Drunk chess

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point they really should just move to drunk chess