|Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016)|
Having earned and subsequently defended the World Championship title in his 2013 and 2014 matches against Viswanathan Anand, Magnus Carlsen was now confronted with defending his title against his childhood rival, Sergey Karjakin. Karjakin earned the right to challenge the title by winning the World Championship Candidates (2016) by a full point. This was the second title match to feature a champion and challenger who were under age thirty, after Kramnik - Leko World Championship Match (2004). Although the match was predicted by many to be a blowout victory for the Norwegian wunderkind, the tremendous defensive prowess of Karjakin transformed the contest into a grueling war of attrition that would test the mental fitness of both great modern masters.
While the best of 12 match started off slowly, with seven consecutive draws, Karjakin surprised many by winning the eighth game with the Black pieces, against Carlsen's rather uninspired approach to the Colle System. The reigning world champion refused to participate in the mandatory postgame news conference and caused a major controversy with his absence. However, in the tenth game, the "Mozart of Chess" returned with a vengeance, mercilessly pressing an advantage from the White side of the Ruy Lopez and levelling the score at one win apiece. When the last two classical games resulted in draws, the match entered the tiebreak phase.
The tiebreaks were conducted in the rapid time format, with draws in games 13 and 14 and an unexpectedly easy set of back-to-back victories for Carlsen in the fifteenth and sixteenth games. As a result, the far higher rated world champion retained his crown, but the tiebreak methodology stirred up significant controversy in the world of chess. Former world champion Anatoly Karpov, as well as American grandmaster Yasser Seirawan, objected to the rapid tiebreak, pointing out that the World Rapid Championship was the venue where that time control was rightly to be contested. However, while the world champion agreed that the tiebreak format was less than ideal, Karjakin insisted that he was pleased with the tiebreak format and, playing the part of a genuine gentleman and sportsman, insisted that he failed to utilize his preparation and performed well below his own ability during the tiebreaking phase of the match.
| page 1 of 1; 16 games
| page 1 of 1; 16 games
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 160 OF 160 ·
|Jan-18-17|| ||YouRang: <chessfilmmaker> So, your argument is that a <perfect 70 move line> is different from having to <make 70 perfect moves>?|
|Jan-20-17|| ||chessfilmmaker: <YouRang> See discussion at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouR...|
|Jan-20-17|| ||YouRang: <<YouRang: <chessfilmmaker> So, your argument is that a <perfect 70 move line> is different from having to <make 70 perfect moves>?>|
chessfilmmaker: <YouRang> See discussion at: ...>
Okay. You didn't answer the question there either.
|Jan-21-17|| ||beatgiant: <YouRang>, <chessfilmmaker>
It's getting hard to keep all the arguments straight without a scorecard. Here's my list of points that have been at issue.|
(A) 38. Rb1 is a much better defense.
(B) Bisguier said 38. Rb1 leads by force to an obvious draw.
(C) 38. Rb1 actually does lead by force to an obvious draw.
(D) It's not obvious whether 38. Rb1 holds.
(E) Even if 38. Rb1 holds, Black still has pressure and can keep playing for a win for a long time.
(F) 38. Rb1 still loses, but only if Black plays a perfect 70 move line.
(G) 38. Rb1 still loses, but only if Black plays 10 moves perfectly.
Let me know if I've missed any claims.
My own beliefs are (A), (D) and (E). From the discussion, it seems <YouRang> also believes those, while <chessfilmmaker> believes (A), (B), (F) and (G). I don't think anyone believes (C).
Did I get that right? If not, please clarify.
And finally, if we're going to have a deep discussion about that game, doesn't it belong on the game page Karjakin vs Carlsen, 2016 ?
|Jan-21-17|| ||YouRang: <beatgiant> You did pretty well! A few notes:|
For your point (B), it's Lombardy, not Bisguier.
There have been some further points stated and believed only by <chessfilmmaker>:
(H) If you analyze one line of a position and decide that it draws, then the position is drawn.
(I) One example of an obvious draw is for 38.Rb1 to be followed by 38...Qf2 [even though 38...Qf2 is actually a blunder that loses for black].
(J) You may suggest that someone is taking credit for analysis produced by an engine even if that person explicity cited the engine as the source of the analysis.
(K) Somehow, burritos are involved.
(L) The elapsed time required for two people to play moves by posting them on an internet forum and hitting Refresh until the other person replies gives a good estimate for how long it would take for two people playing those moves OTB.
(M) A "perfect 70 move line" is significantly different from a "making 70 perfect moves".
<And finally, if we're going to have a deep discussion about that game, doesn't it belong on the game page Karjakin vs Carlsen, 2016 ?>
Yes. But IMO this discussion hardly qualifies as "deep discussion". It's more like "forum pollution".
|Jan-21-17|| ||beatgiant: <YouRang>
Regarding (M), a line could be 10 moves deep but include some branching bringing the total number of moves up to 70, such that a player would only need to actually <play 10 perfect moves> within a <perfect 70-move line>.
As for (K), presumably consumption of burritos improves one's chess skill, as evidenced by the play of Carlos Torre Repetto, probably a burrito eater.
I'll wait for <chessfilmmaker> to explain his position on the timing. Myself, I would not consider it an obvious draw when White's defending a tough position in time pressure. And the other stuff looks like just random rhetoric that might qualify the debater for a career in politics.
|Jan-21-17|| ||chessfilmmaker: <beatgiant: And finally, if we're going to have a deep discussion about that game, doesn't it belong on the game page Karjakin vs Carlsen, 2016 ?>|
Actually, it belongs on a discussion page on YouTube, since it all seems to be about this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouR...
|Jan-21-17|| ||boz: Strange discussion. Even by cg standards.|
|Jan-22-17|| ||YouRang: I'm done with the discussion of game 15 here, but FWIW I did decide to follow-up with some analysis showing that black still had a winnable game even if white had found the best defense, 38.Rb1.|
Karjakin vs Carlsen, 2016 (kibitz #217)
|Jan-22-17|| ||chessfilmmaker: As a final note, Carlsen DOES make mistakes (even if he is winning--sometimes missing 3 move mates): Carlsen vs A Giri, 2017|
|Feb-04-17|| ||OhioChessFan: Magistral Internacional Ruibal (2008)|
<Sally: Heart breaking. (he was 60 when that happened) >
Larsen was 73, for the record.
|Feb-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <hessfilmmaker: As a final note, Carlsen DOES make mistakes (even if he is winning--sometimes missing 3 move mates):>|
That's true; most of his losses seem to stem from these occasional errors of a tactical nature. He is rarely ever outplayd positionally.
I think Carlsen will be champion for a long time, mainly because no other chess player of his generation comes close to him in positional and endgame mastery.
No, it's not because he has good computer prep. If anyting, Carlsen plays the most classically of the top players of his generation. Notice he generally does not employ fianchetto systems (or Indian systems based on indirectly controlling of the center), or assymetrical systems (Sicilian- a counterpunching system) which is the hallmark of post-WW2 chess. He plays openings like he were a 1920s master- he likes directly occupying the center.
Regarding the 2010s generation, IMO it is weaker than the 1980s and 1990s. Only Carlsen plays in the same field as Karpov and Kasparov.
IMO the mid 1990s probably was the strongest era of chess. Karpov was already declining but still playing at a level that could still get him to be Challenger in today's era. Kasparov was at this prime. Anand was at his early peak, and Kramnik was on the way up. So you had all of Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik playing in the same tournaments at levels still close to their peaks.
Even today, if either Anand or Kramnik (both clearly in decline) were to play a match (not a tournament) with anyone other than Carlsen, I would put their chances of winning at over 50%.
|Feb-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I posted this in another page but it properly belongs here.|
I'm happy that Carlsen won the tie breaks in the end. He was in the same situation as Anand in his tied match with Gelfand. For the second time in chess history we could have gotten a World Champion that did so without properly beating the previous one in a classical match (had Gelfand or Karjakin prevailed in the quick game tiebreakers).
My thoughts regarding the quick game tiebreakers:
1. Ideally the Champion must have beaten the old one to be Champion.
2. I hate these FIDE quick game tie-breaks to decide the Classical Champion.
My suggestion (which I have previously posted on other pages) if the World Championship match ends in a tie:
Two additional classical games. The Challenger receives two Whites. If the match still ends in a tie, the Champion retains his Title.
This way the Challenger must beat the Champion in a classical game (not a quick game) in order to grab the Title, and in so doing win the match outright.
Now the above gives an advantage to the Champion. All he needs is a tied match, secured by drawing the two classical tiebreaker games, to retain his Title.
Giving two successive Whites at the end of the match to the Challenger gives an advantage to the Challenger.
So things even out.
We still retain the tradition of the Challenger beating the Champ to get the Title.
The Challenger gets to do it in a classical game, not a quick game.
|Feb-15-17|| ||SugarDom: Since we are discussing formats again, I think the best way to address the "draw" problem is to make the 25m/10s rapid format as the new "standard" chess.|
In this generation, people are a lot more impatient. In the internet, you have 5-secs to get people's attention. The 5-hour game and match drawfest would simply keep chess unpopular in the internet age.
Of course, we can argue about preserving chess traditions, however, sooner or later the older generation will disappear.
|Feb-15-17|| ||alexmagnus: <Now the above gives an advantage to the Champion. All he needs is a tied match, secured by drawing the two classical tiebreaker games, to retain his Title.|
Giving two successive Whites at the end of the match to the Challenger gives an advantage to the Challenger.>
You give me a million dollars. That's an advantage for me. I give you one dollar. That's an advantage for you. So things even out :D
Advantages have to be quantified.
Also, this is not a <classical> world championship. It's a <chess> world championship. The classical format is just the means to an end, not the end in itself. It's like as if the runners decided to determine who is the best overall (distance-independent) runner running <one> distance.
|Feb-15-17|| ||alexmagnus: <visayan> Assuming a draw rate of 64% and white advantage being 53-47, the champion has a 70% chance to defend the title in your tiebreaker.|
|Feb-16-17|| ||alexmagnus: I shouldn't do mental math at 2 AM :D . It's 68.71% actually. Not that it changes much...|
|Feb-16-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <alexmagnus: Assuming a draw rate of 64% and white advantage being 53-47, the champion has a 70% chance to defend the title in your tiebreaker.. I shouldn't do mental math at 2 AM :D . It's 68.71% actually. Not that it changes much...|
Advantages have to be quantified.>
No I believe it can't be accurately quantified in this case. Whatever the win/loss and draw percentages vary from one event to the next. Tournament stats on this are probably different from match stats, and match stats differ depending on the type of match- a World Championship would be a different situation from that of a friendly match or even a Candidates Match.
In such a situation where the Challenger needs to win at least one game in order to be world champion, he is going to play more aggressively and I believe that the draw percentage taken from ordinary matches will decrease.
We get a scenario where one player has to win; and the other can merely draw. In such situations in the past, the player that has to win will play more aggressively, and may actually increase his chances for a win, against one whose end goal is a draw, and will accept a draw at first opportunity.
<SugarDom: Since we are discussing formats again, I think the best way to address the "draw" problem is to make the 25m/10s rapid format as the new "standard" chess.
In this generation, people are a lot more impatient. In the internet, you have 5-secs to get people's attention.>
I don't think it's impatience. Every generation has always played quick games. From what I have read pre WW2 masters in the US would regularly enter weekend quick game club tournaments. We just don't know much about these because they aren't well documented. However, it's possible that they played even more quick game tournaments than modern masters. At least for one world champion, Capablanca, the number of quick games that he played in such untouted tournaments may have far surpassed the number of classical games he played.
<we can argue about preserving chess traditions, however, sooner or later the older generation will disappear.>
They haven't disappeared since the time that the chess clock was invented in the Steinitz era. IMO they probably will continue long after we are both gone.
|Feb-16-17|| ||alexmagnus: Actually I argue the challenger will <not> play riskier in your tiebreak. Why? For the same reason why unlimited matches had quite an extreme draw rate: the fear of losing is bigger than the need to win. In your mode, if the champion wins the first tiebreak game, he defends the title. So the challenger will rush anything only in the second game.|
|Feb-16-17|| ||perfidious: <alex: Actually I argue the challenger will <not> play riskier in your tiebreak. Why? For the same reason why unlimited matches had quite an extreme draw rate: the fear of losing is bigger than the need to win....>|
Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984) is a case in point: after Karpov went up 4-0, he was more than content to play safely in order to secure the fifth and ultimately elusive sixth win, while the young challenger could 'cover up' with a series of fairly short draws played with either colour, secure in the knowledge that he was not risking anything.
Had Karpov played more sharply when up five games, he may well have won the match by something like 6-2 or 6-3; but that did not fall in with his plan of attaining the goal by playing it safe.
|Feb-16-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I forgot to add:
My proposal above is just a general rule in order to preserve the principle <We still retain the tradition of the Challenger beating the Champ to get the Title.
The Challenger gets to do it in a classical game, not a quick game.>
So the tiebreaker can be just one extra White for the Challenger. Or two as written above. Or even three or four. We could even vary further, say one Black followed by one to three Whites for the Challenger. Studies can be made in order to determine the best specific format (of Blacks and Whites) that can afford the Challenger a fair chance at winning.
IMO this would probably be welcomed by most of the chess world in terms of the sporting excitement it affords. Here we have the Challenger; forced to try all means to win in classical games against a sitting Champion that only needs to draw all the tiebreak games (or game). A real drama at the end of the match.
<alexmagnus> I disagree. It is the world championship and the situation is uniquely different. IMO the Challenger will play very aggressively in each game.
If he is intrinsically a better player than the sitting Champion, the odds will be further in his favor.
At least this way, we do away with the quick game tiebreakers, which I would reject in principle (if I were FIDE President, but I am not).
I do not think there will be much constructive discussion with you in this matter because you obviously do accept quick game tiebreakers (which I don't). There is nothing I can propose that would convince you to try under the principle that I accept.
|Feb-16-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <perfidious> I'm not sure if you read my posts above correctly. If you have inadvertently misinterpreted them, let me point out that it is not a case in point because the extra classical tiebreak games (or game) are limited; not an indefinite format. As you correctly say, in an indefinite format, they can continue drawing and drawing indefinitely. |
In the format I'm proposing within say one to four games at the end of a tied match, the Challenger has to win more games than the Champion, but at the same time has more Whites in making the attempt.
|Feb-16-17|| ||alexmagnus: <visayan> I accept <rapid> tiebreakers. I have my trouble with Blitz and completely reject Armageddon (<any> Armageddon, including "classical" one - as Armageddon changes the rules of the game). Fortunately, blitz and Armageddon are quite improbable with current system) my estimate is one match in 30 years being decided by blitz and one in no less than 700 years being decided by Armageddon). |
But I reject your favorite tradition for the very same reason as I reject Armageddon: it changes the rules of the game. It declares one player a winner in case of a draw. Base on the fact he ein against some totally different chap two or more years ago ("or more" if the previous matches were drawn too). Why should the challenger be somehow accountable for that other guy's play?!
|Feb-16-17|| ||alexmagnus: Based on the fact he won against some other chap*. Sorry if those typos made it unreadable :)|
|Apr-03-17|| ||chancho: From Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016)|
<Anatoly Karpov, and American Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan objected to the rapid tiebreak (to decide a World Classical Championship match) pointing out that the World Rapid Championship was the venue where this time control was rightfully to be contested>
But back in 1998, apparently the venue was irrelevant for Karpov:
<Anand played Karpov in a 6 game match match. In the event of a 3-3 tie, the match would be decided by a series of 2-game rapid matches. Anand fell behind 2 games to 1 but summoned enough strength and won the sixth game to bring the match into overtime.
Karpov, however, won 2 speed games and remained FIDE champion.>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 160 OF 160 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC