chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016)

Winning the World Championship Candidates (2016) by a full point, Sergey Karjakin earned the right to challenge defending champion Magnus Carlsen.

The match took place between 1130 November in the renovated Fulton Market Building in the South Street Seaport in New York City. After the 12 classical games were tied, the match was decided in tiebreaks where Magnus Carlsen prevailed 3-1 in the rapids (25 minutes + 10s/move).

Important Links:

Chessgames move relay and discussion page: Live Broadcast Page
Official site: https://worldchess.com/nyc2016/
Norwegian television: http://www.vgtv.no/#!/live/133862/d...
FIDE rules and regulations: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/...

VR Technology:

At the closing of Chess Olympiad (2016), Merenzon announced EG Capital as a sponsor, and presented ambitious plans, describing the WCC to become "the first of any sport to be broadcast in 360 virtual reality."(5) A mobile app has been released intended to provide a stereoscopic 3D live video using Google Cardboard or any other VR device.(2)

Litigative Controversy:

The organizing corporation, World Chess US, Inc. is attempting to sue both Chess24.com and Chessgames.com for "(1) misappropriation of hot news, and (2) breach of contract or, in the alternative, tortious interference with contractual relations", in spite of having lost their case against Chess24 in Russia just a week prior. World Chess also seeks 4.5 million dollars in damages.(3) Daniel Freeman of Chessgames maintained that chess moves are in the public domain and that he has done nothing wrong.(4)

In a hearing late in the day prior to the first game of the match, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero was not persuaded that organizers of the $1 million, 12-game tournament had a legal right to block the websites from disclosing the moves until after each game.(7) Rejecting virtually every argument that World Chess asserted, he said, "I know this area of the law very well."

Chessgames relayed the moves of the match at its Live Broadcast Page starting 2:00pm November 11th.

(1) Wikipedia article: World Chess Championship 2016
(2) https://worldchess.com/nyc2016/
(3) https://chess24.com/en/read/news/ch...
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...
(5) http://www.agonlimited.com/news/201...
(6) https://www.fide.com/component/cont...
(7) http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...

 page 1 of 1; 16 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Carlsen vs Karjakin ½-½42 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipA45 Queen's Pawn Game
2. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½33 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
3. Carlsen vs Karjakin ½-½78 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC67 Ruy Lopez
4. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½94 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
5. Carlsen vs Karjakin ½-½51 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC50 Giuoco Piano
6. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½32 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
7. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½33 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipD10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
8. Carlsen vs Karjakin 0-152 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipD05 Queen's Pawn Game
9. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½74 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
10. Carlsen vs Karjakin 1-075 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
11. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½34 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
12. Carlsen vs Karjakin ½-½30 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC67 Ruy Lopez
13. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½37 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
14. Carlsen vs Karjakin ½-½84 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC50 Giuoco Piano
15. Karjakin vs Carlsen 0-138 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
16. Carlsen vs Karjakin 1-050 2016 Carlsen - Karjakin World ChampionshipB54 Sicilian
 page 1 of 1; 16 games  PGN Download 
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 159 OF 159 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-14-17  chessfilmmaker: 45. Kh2.
Jan-14-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: 45...Qg5


click for larger view

Jan-14-17  chessfilmmaker: 46. Bd3
Jan-14-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: 46...Rd1


click for larger view

Jan-14-17  chessfilmmaker: Funny that 45 minutes have passed for this "winning line" but Carlsen only had 7 minutes left on the clock. Karjarkin only had about a minute, so maybe he would have caved under the pressure, anyway.

It seems like there is a winning line for black, but it must be PERFECT on every move for 20 something moves. A draw is highly likely given human players (not a computer that calculates 30 moves deep).

Lombardy is one of the best blitz players ever. He beat Korchnoi when he was World #2 by outplaying him on time. So, his analysis is based on real life experience against human players and Grandmasters generally knowing how to play darn-good blitz.

Bill told me: "When you play the game, you keep an eye on the clock, and you can beat your opponent on time."

Jan-14-17  chessfilmmaker: 47. Rb5
Jan-14-17  chessfilmmaker: I decided to check on the computer after I finished eating. It says there is a win for black, but it is 70 moves deep...

Hard to make 70 (PERFECT) moves in 8 minutes...(7 for Carlsen, 1 for Karjakin).

Bill obviously based his "obvious" conclusion on the experience he had playing the best GMs on the planet. This World Chess Championship match boasted having the best GMs on the planet. Bill believes that's quite debateable.

*Note. Had I started with a computer, there are several moves stronger than what I played (such as 40. h4 and 42. Rc1).

Jan-14-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <chessfilmmaker: Funny that 45 minutes have passed for this "winning line" but Carlsen only had 7 minutes left on the clock. Karjarkin only had about a minute, so maybe he would have caved under the pressure, anyway.>

Well, one can't really compare "clock time" for a game being played over an Internet forum page with a direct OTB game.

<It seems like there is a winning line for black, but it must be PERFECT on every move for 20 something moves.>

I suspect that's another claim that isn't supportable. I had other good options even among the few moves we just played, and I had no "advance" knowledge of which was best. For all I knew, you really had an idea how to hold the draw.

<A draw is highly likely given human players (not a computer that calculates 30 moves deep).>

Maybe, maybe not. It would have bet on Carlsen to win even if 38.Rb1 had been played. Karjakin would have had to been quite accurate under pressure also.

But you seem to be slippery regarding the point you are making. Earlier you were dismissive of computer analysis, and even claimed that it produced multple weak moves that a GM would find. Now you're making it sound like it computers have an unfair advantage over humans.

<Lombardy is one of the best blitz players ever. He beat Korchnoi when he was World #2 by outplaying him on time. So, his analysis is based on real life experience against human players and Grandmasters generally knowing how to play darn-good blitz.

Bill told me: "When you play the game, you keep an eye on the clock, and you can beat your opponent on time.">

I'm sure he is full of good advice and still much stronger than most humans. But nowadays, engines are generally stronger even than the top GMs.

At any rate, I think we can put to bed the claim (whether from you or Lomardi) that Karjakin had an obvious draw with 38.Rb1, no?

Jan-14-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: I'm not sure if you're still playing or not. Are you? If so, then 47...Qe7.


click for larger view

<Note. Had I started with a computer, there are several moves stronger than what I played (such as 40. h4 and 42. Rc1).>

Had you started with a computer, you wouldn't have been asserting that my earlier line had multiple weak moves.

Jan-14-17  chessfilmmaker: <YouRang> Computers take time also. Yours included.

I wouldn't put Rb1 to bed, because the only way, it seems, that it would NOT be a draw, is if Carlsen played this perfect 70 move line in under 7 minutes.

I stand with Lombardy's analysis. The Rb1 move (given the circumstances) produces a draw.

Jan-14-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: Well, the "Carlsen finding perfect 70 moves" claim is contrived and frankly absurd. Besides, it assumes that Karjakin would find only good replies in his remaining 1 minute.

At any rate, it stands that 38.Rb1 would have been better that 38.Rxc7 (a point which nobody disputes), but there's no way that GM Lombardi "found a draw" with 38.Rb1.

~~~~

IMO, your support for Lombardi is in some ways endearing, but it's really almost unfair to him to take his comments, made quickly in a casual review of the game, and cling to them like they're some sort of gospel -- even to the point of discounting computer analysis that disagrees with him.

I think he would be embarrassed by such fawning. Allow him to make a human mistake! I'm sure he can handle it.

Jan-14-17  chessfilmmaker: The computer analysis agrees with Bill given the time contraints and the need for perfect movement.

Actually, according to my computer program, it is CARLSEN who would have to find 10 perfect consecutive moves just to hold the advantage. Any slip-up is a draw.

After those first 10 moves, it would still take a long time to force a win and it is a narrow path, since Carlsen also managed to draw a winning position in another game analyzed by GM Lombardy.

Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: Lombardy did not make an analysis. He just looked at a few moves suggested by yourself.

But it was nice to see a glimmer of good humor in him after what has been a miserable few years for him and his housing situation.

Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <chessfilmmaker> You are missing one point. Even if is true that Black must make 70 perfect moves (unlikely) in order to win that means that if Black doesn't, that White must also make 70 perfect moves (equally unlikely) in order to draw.

OTB games are played between 2 players under specific time controls, not between computers or (human) analysts without time controls. There are many differences between those situations. So, while s theoretical win or draw is of interest, it has no practical significance in an OTB game.

Jan-15-17  rogge: This is stupid, Karjakin had 1 minute left.
Jan-16-17  chessfilmmaker: <tamar> Last I checked, looking over chess moves is considered analysis.

<AylerKupp> I am not missing anything. YOU are missing EVERYTHING:

1) I said 10 moves perfectly, not 70. 10 moves perfectly, any imperfect move would be a draw. It is extraordinarily difficult for Black to win in computer like fashion.

2) Lombardy could easily delay a game and make it difficult for Black to get anything but a draw. His reputation for playing moves quickly in time pressure is legendary. For example: he was down on time in this game and made perfect moves to clinch the win: Lombardy vs N Gaprindashvili, 1977

3) After the first 10 perfect moves are played (if Carlsen were to find them), then it is a long battle to win the game anyway, even if he is up by a Knight.

4) Speaking of being up a Knight, I vaguely recall Carlsen being up a Knight in an endgame (with plenty of time on his clock) and managing to NOT win it, even though there was a way to win: (Game 3, Move 71).

5) As a matter of fact, Lombardy analyzed that game, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEb...

6) Lombardy found an OTB obvious draw that can only be refuted by IN-DEPTH COMPUTER ANALYSIS which takes a longer time to calculate than the players even had time to play the game, once again proving that Lombardy was on the money.

7) Even if Carlsen and Karjakin were given computers with 8 minutes combined on their clocks, as was demonstrated by <YouRang's> challenge (to me), they would run out of time before the computers could calculate the win. <YouRang> took over an hour to find the winning line. I am assuming that he didn't interrupt his play for a burrito.

8) The primary interest here is that a Grandmaster of Lombardy's caliber COULD see a way to draw OTB and Karjakin could not. Need I remind you that Lombardy is a world-class blitz player, often besting Fischer in blitz.

<rogge> Lots of moves can be played in a blitz-like endgame.

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: <chessfilmmaker> Lombardy basically agrees with you Rb1 is a better move than Rc7, but that is what every poster here has said.

But he does not analyze the position except to give one bad try Qf2.

"you maybe can get a win with even this move" is far away from the title obvious draw.

That was your opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouR...

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Absentee: <chessfilmmaker>

Yes, you totally man-love Lombardy, we got it already.

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <chessfilmmaker><7) Even if Carlsen and Karjakin were given computers with 8 minutes combined on their clocks, as was demonstrated by <YouRang's> challenge (to me), they would run out of time before the computers could calculate the win. <YouRang> took over an hour to find the winning line. I am assuming that he didn't interrupt his play for a burrito.>

Sorry, but this is getting sillier and sillier.

(1) When we were playing out the line after 38.Rb1 in this forum, most of my time was spent sitting there, hitting refresh every so often to see if you replied yet. Now you're attributing that whole span of time (including waiting for you) to the time it took me to find the winning line with a computer? (Besides, it wasn't "over an hour". Earlier, you called it "45 minutes" (Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016) (kibitz #4080)), and even that was stretching it.)

(2) Furthermore, we didn't play out that line to determine the outcome of the game if Karjakin had found 38.Rb1. We played out that line because I had posted analysis suggesting that white was still winning even after 38.Rb1, and you claimed that my analysis was full of "weak moves": Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016) (kibitz #4065).

(3) All along, you have been shifting you claims. You started out saying that Lombardy had found a draw, even to the point of dismissing computer analysis that suggested otherwise.

Then it shifted to "maybe black could have won, but he would have needed 70 perfect moves!" Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016) (kibitz #4065). Later he needed "10 perfect moves".

The truth is, we cannot know what the outcome would have been if Karjakin found 38.Rb1. Lombardy himself didn't know nor did he claim to know.

*You* are the one bouncing around contrived and unsupportable claims, and unfairly attributing them to Lombardy.

Jan-16-17  chessfilmmaker: <tamar: <chessfilmmaker> Lombardy basically agrees with you Rb1 is a better move than Rc7, but that is what every poster here has said.>

Are you implying that every poster here is better than Karjakin?

<tamar: But he does not analyze the position except to give one bad try Qf2.>

A bad try?

Why is it bad?

Does a computer say its bad?

Oh no, Carlsen may find the computer move...!!!

Oh wait, game 3; Carlsen missed the win.

Oh wait, game 10; they both missed the draw.

<Absentee: <chessfilmmaker> Yes, you totally man-love Lombardy, we got it already.>

It's not man-love. It's love for the game. Perhaps you need to develop more.

<YouRang:>

1) Let's assume that you were hitting the refresh button. Do you think Carlsen would find the 10 perfect moves he would need to find to win the game?

I think it's possible, but not likely.

2) Your analysis is not full of weak moves, it presents weak moves. One of the lines you listed had a few weak moves in it. Other lines seemed stronger, but this was based on my own analysis, not a computer assisted analysis of the position.

Interestingly, you claim it is YOUR analysis, but then you listed is as (from a 12 January 2017 post-I don't know how to do all the hyperlinking):

<I did some sliding up and down this line, and ended up with this engine result (PV=4):

Stockfish_16090806_x64_modern @ 37 ply:
-2.08 39.Be2 Kh7 40.Qf2 Rd2 41.Kg1 Qd4 42.Kh1
-2.93 39.b6 cxb6 40.Be2 Kh7 41.h4 Qd4 42.Kh1
-5.45 39.Rb3 Qg5 40.Rxe3 fxe3 41.Kg1 e2 42.Bxe2 -7.05 39.Kh1 Qg6 40.Rb3 Rxg2 41.Qxe3 Rh2+ 42.Kxh2>

So is it really your analysis? Is it your computer analysis? You say engine, but perhaps you misspoke?

3) Lombardy DID find a draw. It is a line that, if played the way we played it, leads to an obvious draw.

Computer analysis, when I checked, showed that there is a win for Carlsen but it takes a long time to achieve. Lombardy is accounting for how long and difficult it would be to find and play this win given the limited time each player has on the clock.

<*You* are the one bouncing around contrived and unsupportable claims, and unfairly attributing them to Lombardy.>

Lombardy found an obvious draw. In the line we played it leads to an obvious draw. I don't see what you're talking about. It's not a conspiracy, just the opinion of a GM in a short 3 minute excerpt he wanted put online to show his opinion of the game.

Jan-16-17  rogge: Comedy gold :)
Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <chessfilmmaker><<YouRang:>

1) Let's assume that you were hitting the refresh button. Do you think Carlsen would find the 10 perfect moves he would need to find to win the game?

I think it's possible, but not likely. >

You are the only one claiming that "10 perfect moves" are required, so it's an improper question to pose to me. All we know is that:

- Carlsen had 7 minutes to find his moves
- Karjakin had 1 minute to find replies
- Carlsen had an arguable winnable position
- Carlsen may be the #1 blitz player in the world

To claim with any confidence that Carlsen could only have drawn is silly to the point of being bizarre.

<2) Your analysis is not full of weak moves, it presents weak moves. One of the lines you listed had a few weak moves in it. Other lines seemed stronger, but this was based on my own analysis, not a computer assisted analysis of the position.>

And we played out a few moves to give you a chance to support your claim that I posted analysis that "presented" weak moves. You came up empty.

<Interestingly, you claim it is YOUR analysis, but then you listed is as (from a 12 January 2017 post-I don't know how to do all the hyperlinking):

... Stockfish_16090806_x64_modern @ 37 ply: ...

So is it really your analysis? Is it your computer analysis? You say engine, but perhaps you misspoke?>

Good grief! Since I credited Stockfish for the analysis and said "engine", and then **obviously** I am not claiming it to me my own, right?

<3) Lombardy DID find a draw. It is a line that, if played the way we played it, leads to an obvious draw.>

So, now your claim, which was originally billed as an "obvious draw", has been reduced to "a draw if played out the way we played it". Worse and worse. You really should have stopped defending this ridiculous position some time ago.

<Computer analysis, when I checked, showed that there is a win for Carlsen but it takes a long time to achieve.>

Then you must have a weak engine or slow computer. My engine found winning moves in seconds.

<Lombardy is accounting for how long and difficult it would be to find and play this win given the limited time each player has on the clock.>

You just make things up now and attribute them to Lombardy.

<In the line we played it leads to an obvious draw.>

No it doesn't. At about 2:45 in your video, after 38.Rb1, Lombardy suggested black play <38...Qf2?> which actually gives white the win: <29.Qxf2 Rxf2 30.e5!>

Worse and worse. All you've accomplished is to trade one blunder for another.

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: Lombardy had the grace to admit that ...Qf2 did not win, although when you pressed him for a move, he briefly thought that even exchanging queens would win.

Analysis is trying to find the truth of a position. That was his first try, and it didn't work. Had you given him more time, and if he wanted to, he would have soon switched to what you call engine lines.

I am surprised you don't know this. He is analyzing the same way you are, through trial and error.

He is trying to show you how to analyze in the video, but you won't hear him.

Jan-16-17  chessfilmmaker: <tamar: Lombardy had the grace to admit that ...Qf2 did not win, although when you pressed him for a move, he briefly thought that even exchanging queens would win. Analysis is trying to find the truth of a position. That was his first try, and it didn't work. Had you given him more time, and if he wanted to, he would have soon switched to what you call engine lines.>

You seem to know so much about Lombardy, I'll have to ask you what he thinks the next time I have lunch with him. Maybe you can tell us both what we are thinking (deep within our souls)?

I can't help but notice you weren't there...

<I am surprised you don't know this. He is analyzing the same way you are, through trial and error.>

Are you saying that I (an 1800 player) can analyze at the level of Bobby Fischer's chess coach? I don't whether to take that as a compliment or as a comment from someone who is sniffing glue.

<He is trying to show you how to analyze in the video, but you won't hear him.>

I will have to work on my telepathy to reach your level of insight.

<YouRing: To claim with any confidence that Carlsen could only have drawn is silly to the point of being bizarre.>

It would also be silly to conclude that both Carlsen and Karjakin (who is the current Blitz World Champion) would miss Nf2 in game 3. But....what do I know? I only had lunch with Bobby Fischer's coach.

<And we played out a few moves to give you a chance to support your claim that I posted analysis that "presented" weak moves. You came up empty.>

I came up with a continuation that held on for a number of moves. Should we sit down and go 50 moves deep?

<Good grief! Since I credited Stockfish for the analysis and said "engine", and then **obviously** I am not claiming it to me my own, right?>

Well, how should I know? You sounded like you were going to play an OTB continuation, not a "Let me slam you with my computer program" challenge...

<So, now your claim, which was originally billed as an "obvious draw", has been reduced to "a draw if played out the way we played it". Worse and worse. You really should have stopped defending this ridiculous position some time ago.>

Well, the line that was analyzed WAS an obvious draw. The video is only 3 minutes. Maybe I'll learn how to slow down time so we can do every line and variation on the planet. It will be a 17 hour lesson with Lombardy (knowing how he analyzes these sorts of things).

<Then you must have a weak engine or slow computer. My engine found winning moves in seconds.>

I guess Houdini is weak. Though he seems to have escaped many a handcuffed situation.

<You just make things up now and attribute them to Lombardy.>

Actually these statements come from Lombardy's book and from video I filmed of him. You can purchase his book here if you'd like: http://williamlombardychess.com/boo...

<In the line we played it leads to an obvious draw.>

<No it doesn't. At about 2:45 in your video, after 38.Rb1, Lombardy suggested black play <38...Qf2?> which actually gives white the win: <29.Qxf2 Rxf2 30.e5!>

Worse and worse. All you've accomplished is to trade one blunder for another.>

I'm guessing 30. e5 is a move you found as you fumbled with your burrito?

The end of our line where the Queens are traded IS an obvious draw.

You're claiming that this line is useless because 30. e5! wins. Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean Carlsen would find it with a "pocket-Stockfish" (flapping in his pocket).

He couldn't win the Game 3 endgame (and he was up a Knight).

You guys worship these people too much. They're human and make mistakes. That's the point. Perhaps another point is that people who worship computers make bad critics. Fortune cookie insight. Chow down!

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <chessfilmmaker>

<I'm guessing 30. e5 is a move you found as you fumbled with your burrito?

The end of our line where the Queens are traded IS an obvious draw.

You're claiming that this line is useless because 30. e5! wins. Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean Carlsen would find it with a "pocket-Stockfish" (flapping in his pocket).>

Three crazy statements in a row.

But my bad. I really need to stop trying to reason with people the moment they start exhibiting insanity...

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 159)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 159 OF 159 ·  Later Kibitzing>
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 login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle 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.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies