Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the mind-games dept.

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.

46 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Hang on, so they played a different game then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    What a scam.

    1. Re:Hang on, so they played a different game then? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re: Hang on, so they played a different game then? by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

    3. Re:Hang on, so they played a different game then? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      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.

  2. What next by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:What next by ranton · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re:What next by Kjella · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:What next by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      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...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:What next by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:What next by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:What next by alvinrod · · Score: 1

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

    7. Re: What next by nastyphil · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Dialectician. Archology.
    8. Re:What next by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:What next by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

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

      It was no great loss.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:What next by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    11. Re:What next by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

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

    12. Re:What next by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:What next by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    14. Re:What next by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    15. Re:What next by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    16. Re:What next by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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?

    17. Re:What next by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      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.

  3. More Detailed Scoring by ranton · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:More Detailed Scoring by Mal-2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:More Detailed Scoring by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  4. Robot Fighter!!! by Travco · · Score: 1

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

  5. After Game 12 by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:After Game 12 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:After Game 12 by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:After Game 12 by quarrel · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:After Game 12 by arth1 · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. Re:Simple question by Travco · · Score: 1

    Says the guy with $2000 seats for the Super bowl

  7. #news by nastyphil · · Score: 1

    #fornerds

    --
    Dialectician. Archology.
    1. Re:#news by quarrel · · Score: 2

      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.

  8. Better solution by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Better solution by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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".)

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:Better solution by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wouldn't that give the Russians an unfair advantage?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Better solution by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  9. Re:Simple question by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    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??

  10. Re:Simple question by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Make chess less theory and more fun by thePig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    1. Re:Make chess less theory and more fun by timeOday · · Score: 2
      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/...

    2. Re:Make chess less theory and more fun by teg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  12. World championship rules have changed by teg · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. For those that say the game was changed? by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    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?...

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time