Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlthoughts2018 | Hacker News Reader

mlthoughts2018

The article moans about Carlsen’s Game 12 draw offer but it’s ridiculous. He had a plan going in to play for a draw, and given how much of an advantage there was (a modest advantage that by no means guaranteed a win, and which would still be hard to spot by human players), he knew the risks in continuing to play and appraised it to be more prudent to spend that risk budget in rapid games where he has a superior record.

There is no drama in this at all, and it’s hardly bad for competitive chess. This title matchhas produced exciting games and creativity, and yes also blunders. It’s been fantastic to watch!

Carlsen stuck to his overall match plan. That’s all that happened. Now it’s up to Caruana to prove he can hold his own in rapid games, and frankly he should feel confident that he can given his overall performances across the 12 matches so far. Carlsen is the favorite for sure, but it looks to be a great set of rapid games.

View on HN

It's strategic, it's rational, and still it's disappointing. He was renown for pressing forward against the odds and clinching unexpected victories. Mathias Feist on Carlsen:

"There is an equal position on the board, and the opponent thinks: this is dead drawn. I can play almost anything and there is nothing he can do. But Magnus plays on, seeking complications, setting up threats. He is narrowing the margin required to hold the draw. Soon his opponent is thinking: why is he still playing – I can hold a draw with any of these three moves. Then: I can hold with this move and with this move. And then: I still have one clear way to hold a draw. And under the strain of constantly having to solve deep and complex problems, more often than not the opponent will crack. Magnus wins not because it was in the position, he wins because he is Magnus."

Anish Giri: “the whole match was worth it because finally I saw Magnus offer a draw in a playable position”

(https://youtube.com/watch?v=ikiHTNQnh58?t=237m45s)

> “It's strategic, it's rational, and still it's disappointing.”

You’ve lost me there. I don’t see how disappoint is the conclusion. It seems equivalent to suggesting the player should take risks or chances based on what might stylistically please the audience as opposed to what might win the match overall.

I’ve never understood spectators watching competitors and thinking, why won’t they do what I want them to do instead of what they think is best for the situation?

I agree and think all the "shocking" and "bizarre" assessments are clickbaity. He did a similar thing against Karjakin. It's a smart strategic move given the situation and his advantage in the tiebreaks. Having watched the Karjakin tie-breaks, I can't wait. It's going to be so exciting. Having said that, if Caruana should defy expectation and prevail it will also be a great story and counterpoint to Carlsen's strategic calculation.

Sure, it’s very similar to American football with situations regarding late punts or 4th down attempts. If you make it, you’re a genius, if you don’t then everyone cannot believe the risk you foolishly took, and if you punt and the other team scores late, then you’re also foolish for trusting your defense.

After the fact, the media will reinterpret the choices to fit the most compelling narrative regarding what gets clicks or views, which is often an intentionally antagonistic or divisive interpretation to stir up controversy.

When you consider that Carlsen was in the last classical match and that a blunder would mean no chance to recover, it makes even more sense. If the same position occurred in Game 5, he probably plays another 30 minutes before deciding if there’s winning potential. If he really blunders, he’s got 7 games to possibly recover.

You’re always going to be way more conservative than that in game 12.

It's not just about pleasing the audience. Showing respect and appreciation for the game itself is important to chess players, and to competitive sports overall.

People who follow and participate in competitions passionately don't usually just try to maximize their chances to win, they also want to deliver the best effort they can.

Magnus Carlsen specifically was always respected for his fighting spirit. In his championship game against Anand a few years ago he played out a practically drawn endgame to a win through sheer tenacity, and he once managed to win a game in St Louis where a draw that was offered to him would have won him the tournament on the spot, but he declined and played it out.

This fighting aspect has always made him an especially great player (not just for the game and the audience, but it has also put him above the competition).

This reply borders on incoherent to me. What is best effort if not choosing the course of action you deem gives you the best chance to win? Exhausting yourself and risking a blunder in the final classical match just because other people want to see the spectacle of it? That doesn’t seem like “effort” at all.

Why do soccer players make back passes from offensive positions when tied 0-0? You think the coach gives a shit at that point if the crowd wants someone to give “effort” in a press, leaving exposed chances for a sudden counter-attack? Sometimes playing the back pass is the right “best effort” to be made.

Same with an intentional kneel to run out the clock before halftime instead of risking injury or a turnover on a last second play in American football. Or intentionally walking a home run hitter in baseball if you think you stand a great chance to strike out the next batter.

You seem to be conflating “best effort” with “intentionally disregard the strategy you deem best because a riskier course of action would be more appreciated by spectators.”

Yes, OP is talking about being respected by the chess world, not merely winning the title.

Exactly, the OP is mistakenly conflating “respected by the chess world” (which is not equal to the prevailing opinion of casual fans) with some confused idea of taking unnecessary risks that jeopardize a sound strategy.

Boy, after today’s results, whoever was defending the idea that Magnus should have abandoned his match strategy to play out a minor advantage in Game 12 must be feeling pretty embarrassed over such a ridiculous point of view.

When trying to win does not produce beautiful games, then the game itself is faulty.

They should change the rules of the games. Like time auction suggested where draw is win for black pieces.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com