chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Magnus Carlsen vs Fabiano Caruana
Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018), London ENG, rd 6, Nov-16
Russian Game: Karklins-Martinovsky Variation (C42)  ·  1/2-1/2

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games 107 more Carlsen/Caruana games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: The Olga viewer allows you to get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" link on the lower right.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 20 OF 21 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<MissScarlett> How many draws would be needed to make a 0.1 change?>

An infinite number. By definition, Elo ratings are rounded to the nearest integer before being updated. Given the closeness of their pre-match ratings, a draw would not change their rating by more than the 0.5 needed to round it to the next integer.

The ratings shown in https://2700chess.com/ rounded (presumably) to 0.1 Elo rating points are "interesting" but technically not correct.

<How many draws to bring them level? At this rate, several hundred.>

No, they will never be level. See above.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<safuna> Well, Caruana's TPR is several points better than Carlsen's so far.>

Yes, it's equal to his pre-match rating (2832) plus their rating difference (+3) = 2835. That was Caruana's TPR after the first draw and, as long they keep drawing, that's the way it will remain.

Conversely, Carlsen's pre-match rating (2835) plus their rating difference (-3) = 2832. And that will also remain constant as long as they keep drawing.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  nok: <a 194 centimeter giant named T8, reached speeds of 37.3 kilometers per hour.>

Leave John Connor's ancestors alone already.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi Olavi,

Interesting.

I would like to add a weaker player might have stumbled on the 68.Bh4 idea because he does not have a head full of positions the above average G.M. has because building up these positions there is also pile of junk and preconceived rules of thumb/guidelines in there as well.

(Let's bring Lasker back and remind us of what he said in his later years about spending 30 years trying [apparently successfully] to forget most of what he has read and learned.)

But I don't quite believe a weaker player would have seen the 68.Bh4 and visualise the coming winning position.

And yet when I have done this experiment.


click for larger view

Place two White Rooks and a Knight, nothing else, on the board so Black is in checkmate.

Weaker player get it sometimes before the stronger players. Some very good players give up.

The reason they toil is because they have never seen it before so have no position to recall. A weak player does not think like that (yet) as they have not yet learned (or been handicapped by) how to chess think.(sic)

I'm casting no blame on Caruana for missing that lengthy win. Even if he missed a bog standard mate in two and only saw and played a harder mate in 4 it would be understandable.

There is not only a game of chess going out there it's a battle of wills, a clash of styles, both know one mistake and the match is over. The pressure is tremendous. Apart from one game (all is forgiven for that one) this match, for us, is enthralling.

***

Nov-17-18  cehertan: 68...Bh4!! Is a stunning computer move. Caruana kicking himself but pleased to be the aggressor as black the whole game. Magnus’ 3.nd3 was creative, I wonder who pioneered it, but Fabio was more than up to the challenge. May be the most balanced wc match in recent memory. Karjakin also played him excellently but I don’t think there was the sense that K. might actually be the best player.
Nov-17-18  Olavi: That Loyd position is one simple test - I've tried it myself on people -, but the good old Soviets knew about it also via normal OTB positions. I remember an article by Boris Zlotnik, and here it is, he writes (NIC 7/1991) that when a very normal looking position requires a very unusual solution, then, people with very high intelligence outside of chess are more likely to find it than real top players. He also makes the point that those players are not so good at controlling their emotions. (Of course he is comparing 2350 with 2600 players as they were at the time.)
Nov-17-18  cehertan: Ps the earlier comment that 68..bh4 is “clearly better...” is absurd. It is clearly losing until you understand the tactical point 69.h6 Nf3 70.h7 Ne5+ 71.kh5 Kg7 and wins. It’s clearly better because the tactics work, thereby enabling black to make progress. A tough point to find but Caruana should have seen it and won. Great to see good stiff competition.
Nov-17-18  Justin796: Caruana is a newb and Magnus stopped being exciting 4 years ago...id like to see Tal versus Maxim Lachier Lagrave
Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<starry2013> With engines it really depends what level you are using the engine at, some sites have stockfish but not at much depth.>

It also depends on which engine you are using and other factors. Other engine of comparable playing strength as defined by ratings, such as Houdini and Komodo, don't reach Stockfish's search depth in a similar amount of time. But, because their ratings are similar, their playing strength is also similar, and you can have a greater confidence in Houdini's and Komodo's evaluations than Stockfish's evaluations at the same search depth.

Also consider that the move rankings that the engines specify are based on the <relative> evaluations that engines calculate between 2 moves. This is because of the pair-wise evaluation comparisons that all these engines use when doing their minimax-based selection of their principal variation. You could multiply each engine's evaluation by an arbitrary constant > 0 or add an arbitrary constant to each engine's evaluation and it will still rank the moves the same way. Whether Stockfish evaluates two moves at [+0.12] and [+0.11], [+1.20] and [+1.10], or [+12.00] and [+11.00] doesn't matter, it will always pick the first of the two moves as being better than the second since their relationship is the same in the <relative> sense.

In practice the evaluations are not that far off in the <absolute> sense. But each engine's evaluation function is different and those of commercial engines are considered trade secrets and not divulged. Stockfish's evaluations tend to be higher than Houdini's and Komodo's, so don't interpret a relatively high Stockfish evaluation at a higher search depth as necessarily being more accurate in the <absolute> sense than a lower evaluation by Houdini or Komodo at a lower search depth.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Richard Taylor> computer cant FEEL. It doesn't know why it is even winning.>

Congratulations on starting to be computerized with Komodo. As Dante Alighieri said in his Divine Comedy, "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

True, a computer can't feel, at least not yet, unless you attach the appropriate sensors to it. However, I'm not sure whether the computer being able to feel or not feel would significantly change its playing ability.

But if the computer "thinks" it's winning, it knows <exactly> why it is. It's evaluation function is typically implemented as a linear combination of weights and factors. The factors are typically things like material, king safety, space control, pawn structure, etc. And the weights represent the relative importance of the factors.

Some of the evaluation functions are adaptive. For example, Stockfish uses a different set of weights for the middlegame or the endgame based on the number of pieces remaining on the board, and the weights start out using middlegame values and are gradually changed towards their endgame values as the number of pieces is reduced.

Whether a dump of the evaluation function's parameters and their weights would be intelligible to you or me is doubtful . I have theorized that it would be very useful for learning purposes if you could query an engine and let it display in human-understandable terms the weights and factors that went into the evaluation so we could see why the engine "thinks" that the position is a win for one side. Expert systems used to be able to do this when queried; they would not only tell you their results but the rules that they used to arrive at the result.

But this would require additions to the engines, the GUIs, and the WCI protocol. And I doubt that this would happen since I don't see the benefit they would provide to the engine's developers since they probably already have a similar feature implemented for debugging and fine tuning efforts.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<jphamlore> Your child will be taught how to think positionally projecting <backward> from winning positions in the future and being guided to plan how to tactically achieve them from the present.>

Interesting that you say that. Capablanca was quoted as saying that he first tried to imagine a future winning position that could be reasonably achieved from the current position in the particular game he was playing and then figure out how to get to that position from where he was.

So I theorized that you had sufficient computer resourses (speed, storage) you could have a database of winning positions (or at least cannonical winning positions) and then compute some "distance" or "comparison measure" between them and your current positiion and select which of those winning positions your current position was most similar to. Then, using retrograde analysis like they use in tablebase generators, determine the moves to get you from where you were to where you would like to be.

And you needn't try to get from where you were to a winning position in one step. You could consider getting to the position that would most improve your current position and then select the next position to aim for. Gradually you would get to a winning position. This is analogous to an airplane getting from point A to point B by heading towards intermediate waypoints selected because they provide advantages in terms of fuel economy, tail winds, evading adverse weather, etc.

Just remember all this when you see an unbeatable chess engine marketed as "AK2050" or something like that.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<nilefurth78> I don't know what you're smoking but this is utter and complete nonsense. Welcome to my ignore list.>

Your first post on <chessgames.com>, at least under this user name, and you're already putting people on your ignore list? I hope you realize that there is a finite numbers of users that you can have in your ignore list and the number is not very large. At this rate you will soon have to stop and determine which users annoy you the most and make room for others.

Don't bother telling me that you're putting me on your ignore list, I already expect that. I also expect to have a permanent place in it and I commend you for your good judgment.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> AylerKupp will enjoy answering him.>

No, TL;DR. I did think that he had envisioned an incredibly smart and wise child, clearly a future grandmaster-level endgame player, and that any father would be immensely proud of him/her. But then I thought that father might begin to wonder where his child inherited that incredible intelligence and, failing to find evidence of such talent in himself or his spouse, might then <really> begin to wonder where those high-intelligence genes came from. Then I stopped thinking about it, fearful of the pox that would descend on myself and my progeny if I were to put those thoughts on a post.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<nok> Whatz the childz rating and drawing percentage in matches?>

A very good question. As soon as someone lets me know I will elaborate my answer above using Bayes' Theorem.

Nov-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Place two White Rooks and a Knight, nothing else, on the board so Black is in checkmate. Weaker player get it sometimes before the stronger players. Some very good players give up.>

Thanks!!! First evidence I've ever seen that in reality I'm a very good player!

Nov-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  An Englishman: Good Evening: <Sally Simpson>, found four solutions; do any others exist? Curious about one thing. Let's throw in a White King at h1. Take a look at any of the four solutions. Could they have arisen by legal moves? If yes, what are they?
Nov-18-18  scormus: <Sally Simpson> Fun puzzle! I can see why a strong player might have more difficulty than a weak player. Oh well, I just have to accept I'm a rubbish player :(
Nov-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi Englishman,

When showing this to a reasonable player who is struggling a wee bit add the reason why they have not set it up instantly shows the importance of pattern recognition.

Then add there are actually 8 solutions. (the Rooks can swap over). The King being off the board is a clue.

***

Nov-18-18  Ceri: <Sally Simpson>

I stared at the board for a couple of minutes, then went shopping. I solved it subconsciously while driving home.

Lateral thinking...

Nov-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <colinb8: <Richard Taylor> From Tom Stoppard's 2015 play "The Hard Problem": Challenging the arrogant Amal (Parth Thakerar) who says computers play chess undistinguishably from humans she [the main character who is a psychologist] asks “Can you make a computer that minds losing?“

https://theatrecat.com/2015/01/28/t...

Thanks for that link. I have read a couple of Stoppard plays. He is good.

Nov-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <AylerKupp: <<Richard Taylor> computer cant FEEL. It doesn't know why it is even winning.> Congratulations on starting to be computerized with Komodo. As Dante Alighieri said in his Divine Comedy, "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

True, a computer can't feel, at least not yet, unless you attach the appropriate sensors to it. However, I'm not sure whether the computer being able to feel or not feel would significantly change its playing ability.

But if the computer "thinks" it's winning, it knows <exactly> why it is. It's evaluation function is typically implemented as a linear combination of weights and factors...>

The question is if it feels or senses or has Being or Heidegger's Dasein.

You talk like a computer! It is really now a philosophic question of the basic human predicament. Say we could all win all our games or draw (we have now, all of us, become unable to ever lose). That is we were all fitted with perfect computer brains. Various difficulties arise...

We are approaching Dante's Hell. I have read Dante Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso about 3 times in different translations. I feel for Uggolino...By the way Dante puts the Mohammed in Hell as he was considered a 'schismatic'. I wonder if there has been a (one of those things) declared against Dante and his book or readers of thereof by the official Moslem theorists whoever they are?

Komodo I got for free from (or via) a New Zealand chess player who had a computer company. He developed Tarrasch which is a kind of data base. Associated with it I downloaded Komodo.

On my steam driven computer it's a bit slow but every time I go to buy another part for a new 'I Robot' another bill appears in my letter box! So the problem is that I just get a whole lot of moves. It works well in the endgame.

I have used it for preparation my game on here against...forget, the Black player essayed a Scandinavian, was preparation for 12 moves when I immediately went wrong (from a position that was de facto winning for me): the game was still o.k. and I won with a checkmate. I also used to prepare for certain players with it.

But I think I lost games playing what seemed via the computer the 'best' moves. Now it is often better to try something "crazy" or whatever as a human opponent mostly misses all the things a computer would "see". So sometimes it is good to ignore computers and play your own game shall we say and I see that the top level GMs do that even changing their moves OTB. In fact I did that once when I had prepared against one opponent, a young player who was very strong, but played a slightly dubious line of the French against my White Tarrasch.

Also at age 69 I drew with NZ's strongest active player (nearly beat him in the melee) with an opening I knew nothing about. Later that year I surprised him with a Polugaevsky. Because I forgot the strongest move (computer and also that recommended by Nunn) he (Ben Hague) forgot also ... he knew the line had a sacrifice for White but made the wrong one and I gained a winning position but then failed to back myself later on.

It's all fun and games!

Nov-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Here's the game with prepared moves against Komodo. Just before the end I knew he had better moves but I suspected he would take the rook!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-...

This is my (not dull) draw with Ben Hague at the Asian-Pacific Zonal:

B Hague vs R Taylor, 2017

Nov-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: <Ceri> Driving is often exactly the laboratory I need for my problem solving. Often the solution to (mostly non chess) problems is bleeding obvious somewhere along the lane. I've often suspected it's because I'm not in a problem solving mode at the time.
Nov-18-18  Ceri: My lad just solved it 4 minutes and he is about Q odds worse than I am.
Nov-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: About 2 minutes. Guessing that rates a Rook worse than Ceri.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 21)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 20 OF 21 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Ironclad Fortress
from The Carlsen Chronicles Part I - Wonderboy by MoonlitKnight
Russian Game: Karklins-Martinovsky 4.Nd3 (C42) 1/2-1/2 Qless MG
from f3 B & C taught Fredthebear how to ski by fredthebear
Russian Game: Karklins-Martinovsky 4.Nd3 (C42) 1/2-1/2 Qless MG
from Knights Add Spice C Makes Fredthebear Sneeze by fredthebear
Chess Network Videos: Part 3
by Penguincw
Game 6
from Carlsen in World Championships: the 2018 match by alexmagnus
Carlsen's Unbeaten Streak
by Penguincw
cheerios6969's favorite games
by cheerios6969
4.Nd3
from 98_C42f_Russian Game (all but 4.Nxf7!?) by whiteshark
48th World Championship: Game 6
from My favorite game from each World Championship by rcs784
early QxQ in a rare Russian line
from 50_Queenless middlegames by whiteshark

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC