Hess "This feels like a novelty, we'll get verification on that..."

Rensch.. "We're getting confirmation in real time.. It may as well be a novelty; very few games in the database, so.. ; The last time Caruana played this position he played Nc3"

click for larger view

32. Re2 with a long endgame.

Instead of 9 Re1 Carlsen played 9 Qc2 and won in the game Carlsen vs Kramnik, 2011

18 Qa4 places the queen on the edge. The commentators as well as the computer evaluations suggested that the centralisation 18 Qe2 would have kept more advantage.

The commentators as well as computer evaluations indicated that 24 Be2 instead of 24 Bxf5 would have kept the advantage.

You mean 24 Bf1 (not e2) right? According to Chess24's computer he went from "White is much better" to "Equal" by playing 24.Bxf5.

Really? I thought he had to consult me first before laying his tournament strategi. What an insubordinate youngster he is!

Joke aside, I confess having a soft spot for the Latin proverb <fortis fortuna adiuvat> (fortune favours the bold). My memory goes back to Caruana's match with Carlsen in 2018. Caruana was the challenger, and he managed to draw 12 games with the champ. Fortune punished this lack of boldness by making his effort a sad defeat in the end result. His judgement of playing safe and secure failed him then. Lesson? Win another Candidates and repeat the 12 draws, now 14? Or realising it takes more from a challenger to avoid losses at any cost.

I can think of one argument to support the taking of risks: if Caruana was likely to lose the match unless he steered for uncertain positions what had he to lose?

On the other hand I am not sure that Caruana's strategy failed him in the match that he lost: It may have gained him the best result that he could gain. Carlsen was too strong for unreasonable risks to work. Boldness was necessary but if Caruana did exercise it without straying into undue boldness perhaps that was the best result he could expect.

If Carlsen was the higher rated player we can assume that the chances would favour him if both players chose the best strategy they could, but could they both in fact do so? If the best strategy for Caruana was to accept uncertainty with equal chances and the best strategy for Carlsen was to avoid uncertainty I am not sure that if Caruana were to choose uncertainty Carlsen would be able to avoid it. In fact if he were to try it he might lose.

Now suppose that both Caruana and Carlsen were to deliberately choose difficult positions where neither player could avoid mistakes would the chances still favour Carlsen? I don't know.

If Caruana had a choice between probable loss and uncertainly where his chances were not worse he would have nothing to lose then by choosing uncertainty.

One argument for this is one that applies to the match Carlsen - Anand World Championship Match (2014)

It was suggested indirectly by Kasparov.

Carlsen is strong in the ending, strong positionally, strong when choosing to attack, a very strong all round player, like a younger version of Kramnik, in fact.

This suggests regarding Carlsen as a younger version of Kramnik.

Against Kramnik Kasparov said that Anand had chosen the right way, to <kick sand in his opponent's face> by playing enterprisingly in Bonn.

This suggests that one way for Anand to win against Carlsen was to regard Carlsen as a younger version of Kramnik by playing less conservatively in the first few games at Chennai in 2013.

So we may think it possible that Caruana would have nothing to lose by accepting uncertainty with equal chances if the alternative were a likelihood of defeat.

To me this is most alined with my viewpoints:

<Against Kramnik Kasparov said that Anand had chosen the right way, to <kick sand in his opponent's face> by playing enterprisingly in Bonn.>

You are right, of course, that Carlsen is such a complete, such a strong opponent that neither Caruana's nor other present elite players' skills might suffice to beat him.

But that leaves a very meager hope for all candidates here. Like saying: "You may win these Candidates, but you are destined to lose WC match anyway.

Hardly motivating, and unfortunately none of them think that way. Not even Nepo who suffered a crushing defeat against Carlsen.

Nepo says (I think), "Now I know for real what I am up against, so now I can prepare much better to exploit his weaknesses and benefit from my advantages."

Larsen's devastating 0-6 vs. Fischer comes to my mind. Afterwards he said something like this in Danish "Skakbladet": "I could have obtained a draw in several games, but I was in the match to win, not to draw." Larsen was a true fighter - overly optimistic at times, yes, but who would prefer a match with 12 draws over a match with 6-6 or even +6 =1 vs. +5 -1 =1?