Latest Updates:
Poll
Poll closed Question: Who will win the 2016 World Championship?
bars   pie
*** This poll has now closed ***


Magnus +3    
  7 (11.5%)
Sergey +3    
  0 (0.0%)
Magnus +1-3 (regulation)    
  44 (72.1%)
Sergey +1-3 (regulation)    
  4 (6.6%)
Tie. Magnus wins the tiebreak    
  4 (6.6%)
Tie. Sergey wins the tiebreak    
  2 (3.3%)
The match goes unfinished...    
  0 (0.0%)




Total votes: 61
« Created by: Smyslov_Fan on: 11/08/16 at 08:35:54 »
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) 2016 World Championship Match (Read 53222 times)
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2873
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #178 - 12/07/16 at 20:29:08
Post Tools
RoleyPoley wrote on 12/07/16 at 09:35:09:
To some degree he did.

However, if we say that Magnus won this event without being at his best, which many commentators stated throughout the match, where does that leave Karjakin's performance?


Pretty good, considering the match was a draw.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
chk
God Member
*****
Offline


a pawn is a pawn

Posts: 1063
Location: Athens
Joined: 10/26/06
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #177 - 12/07/16 at 15:14:16
Post Tools
Within this whole discussion re psychology and/or luck, I think there may be another element at play; not touched by anyone so far:

Carlsen, as a clear favourite before the match, could have felt more psychological pressure to prove that he was the better player. This could be an additional explanation why mostly Carlsen was creating and Karjakin was the one reacting.

Of course other plausible explanations include better opening prep or simply playing the better chess, or individual style or match strategy.

But my point really is that this could have been a very difficult match for Carlsen and most people dismiss this by stating that he was not playing his best chess or that he was a bit relaxed. On the contrary, I think he was under stress.
  

"I play honestly and I play to win. If I lose, I take my medicine." - Bobby
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 525
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #176 - 12/07/16 at 09:35:09
Post Tools
Gerry1970 wrote on 12/06/16 at 10:25:13:
What I took from the "unlucky" comment was that Karjakin came quite close to pulling off an upset. No one else has come that close to Carlsen in a Wch match. He played much better than people expected him to.



To some degree he did.

However, if we say that Magnus won this event without being at his best, which many commentators stated throughout the match, where does that leave Karjakin's performance?
  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2873
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #175 - 12/06/16 at 14:05:50
Post Tools
Yes, I tend to agree with all the recent posts. Sensible stuff!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gerry1970
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 482
Joined: 02/01/06
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #174 - 12/06/16 at 10:25:13
Post Tools
What I took from the "unlucky" comment was that Karjakin came quite close to pulling off an upset. No one else has come that close to Carlsen in a Wch match. He played much better than people expected him to.

His clock management though in the Rapids seemed very poor I must say.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 460
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #173 - 12/06/16 at 09:36:30
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/06/16 at 01:12:56:
This conversation over luck strikes me as very strange, one of those internet conversations that spiral uncomfortably into some little epicycle of logic.

It seems entirely reasonable to me to say, in a conversational way, that Karjakin was lucky or unlucky, Carlsen was lucky or unlucky. It's a rough but natural way of expressing a variety of impressions.

In a more formal sense, a chess player is always dependent on a certain amount of luck, since non-tablebase entities do not have complete information; it is for them, as Botvinnik wrote, a typical inexact problem. Isn't it?

And in still another sense the chess player bears total responsibility for the outcome--just like a general in war. As Bill Russell replied when Wilt Chamberlain stated that the Lakers had outplayed the Celtics despite the game's outcome, "it seems to me that's why they keep score."

If you mix these and other similar ways of looking at the matter together, you get an argument that goes in circles.

I resemble that comment! Smiley

I mostly wanted to say that if you not playing well is not unlucky, then you not playing well is not unlucky. Surely we can agree on that Smiley (ie if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander)

Then I went on to suggest a simple (approximate) way to cut through this Gordian knot, i.e., that there is no luck in chess, if you play better than your opponent, then nobody is lucky/unlucky.

(internet sophistry begins here, feel free to ignore) Of course there are very many different ways luck can be formulated in chess. What if we had a way of surely knowing that this bishop sacrifice has (taking "everything" into account) a 75% chance of a win and a 25% chance of losing while you can just trade everything down to an obvious draw? Other things (tournament situation etc) being equal, you should sac it and if you lost, you would have a good case to make that you were "unlucky." {Of course, others might say that your initial numbers were in fact wrong, in fact it was 10-90 the other way, and so on.} I think Kasparov had a Google talk where he was talking about this. Just because things go wrong, we shouldn't necessarily "find who is responsible." Maybe the wrong thing that happened was just the way things were meant to be; we built a system that works more often than not, not the perfect system.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AJZ
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 104
Joined: 03/19/15
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #172 - 12/06/16 at 09:03:55
Post Tools
For those not entirely sure about psychological aspect of the match, including Karjakin's strategy I was talking about, check a psychologist view on the subject:
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/a-psychologist-analyses-carlsen-karjakin

Fragments:
"Karjakin, however, demonstrated that he'd come well-prepared to the World Championship and knew perfectly what he had to do: to defend as no-one else in the world can, so that the pressure of failing to win would begin to weigh on Magnus."

"Game 8. Magnus provoked Sergey on various occasions, attempting to get the game onto "his" territory, but the Russian kept implacably following his own strategy."

"3.      Following a strategy. This is the final ability that we'd like to stress with Karjakin, since he remained faithful to the strategy adopted by himself and his team and in no circumstances deviated from it. They managed to grasp the ways in which they could triumph in the match, both on account of Karjakin's potential and the possible weakness of Magnus. That ability to set out a plan and follow it, without getting distracted by other factors, is truly noteworthy, and came very close to unsettling the World Champion enough to achieve victory."

"It may turn out that emotional and mental control is one area in which Magnus can still improve."

"Karjakin, in turn, demonstrated a certain lack of ambition in some moments of the match, when he could have made the World Champion suffer more. It's possible that in the near future this match might be repeated, and in that case Sergey will have to play with more energy in key moments in order to be able to get the better of his opponent."

I fully agree with the Author.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1012
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #171 - 12/06/16 at 01:12:56
Post Tools
This conversation over luck strikes me as very strange, one of those internet conversations that spiral uncomfortably into some little epicycle of logic.

It seems entirely reasonable to me to say, in a conversational way, that Karjakin was lucky or unlucky, Carlsen was lucky or unlucky. It's a rough but natural way of expressing a variety of impressions.

In a more formal sense, a chess player is always dependent on a certain amount of luck, since non-tablebase entities do not have complete information; it is for them, as Botvinnik wrote, a typical inexact problem. Isn't it?

And in still another sense the chess player bears total responsibility for the outcome--just like a general in war. As Bill Russell replied when Wilt Chamberlain stated that the Lakers had outplayed the Celtics despite the game's outcome, "it seems to me that's why they keep score."

If you mix these and other similar ways of looking at the matter together, you get an argument that goes in circles.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2873
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #170 - 12/06/16 at 00:45:58
Post Tools
ErictheRed wrote on 12/05/16 at 23:17:42:
That doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion; most seem to think that Carlsen played the best chess throughout.


We must have been following different streams. Are you including rapid? I am talking about the main match.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2425
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #169 - 12/05/16 at 23:17:42
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 12/05/16 at 19:25:29:
In general you are bang on. My point is that Karjakin played the best chess...


That doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion; most seem to think that Carlsen played the best chess throughout.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2873
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #168 - 12/05/16 at 19:25:29
Post Tools
gwnn wrote on 12/04/16 at 23:18:17:
Didn't you just say that Carlsen was lucky that Karjakin didn't convert in game 9?

"The game he won he allowed Black a forced draw after about 15 moves. That was a critical moment of the whole match. Karjakin for whatever reason uncharecteristically didnt see it, or simply trusted Carlsen too much."

Karjakin mucked up so he lost. He isn't unlucky but rather worse at chess than the counterfactual Karjakin who would have seen the perpetual. I don't see what luck has to do with any of it. The same goes for Carlsen. He wasn't unlucky to lose 8. He made what he thought were calculated risks in pressing for a win and he clearly miscalculated. Not unlucky.


In general you are bang on. My point is that Karjakin played the best chess, as it happened it was only good enough for a 6-6 draw. That can easily happen.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 525
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #167 - 12/05/16 at 09:42:55
Post Tools
gwnn wrote on 12/04/16 at 23:18:17:
Didn't you just say that Carlsen was lucky that Karjakin didn't convert in game 9?

"The game he won he allowed Black a forced draw after about 15 moves. That was a critical moment of the whole match. Karjakin for whatever reason uncharecteristically didnt see it, or simply trusted Carlsen too much."

Karjakin mucked up so he lost. He isn't unlucky but rather worse at chess than the counterfactual Karjakin who would have seen the perpetual. I don't see what luck has to do with any of it. The same goes for Carlsen. He wasn't unlucky to lose 8. He made what he thought were calculated risks in pressing for a win and he clearly miscalculated. Not unlucky.


No-one plays perfect chess everymove, therefore as everyone will make weaker moves during the game, perhaps the element of luck comes into play with regards to when those moves are played?
  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 460
Joined: 03/21/11
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #166 - 12/04/16 at 23:18:17
Post Tools
Didn't you just say that Carlsen was lucky that Karjakin didn't convert in game 9?

"The game he won he allowed Black a forced draw after about 15 moves. That was a critical moment of the whole match. Karjakin for whatever reason uncharecteristically didnt see it, or simply trusted Carlsen too much."

Karjakin mucked up so he lost. He isn't unlucky but rather worse at chess than the counterfactual Karjakin who would have seen the perpetual. I don't see what luck has to do with any of it. The same goes for Carlsen. He wasn't unlucky to lose 8. He made what he thought were calculated risks in pressing for a win and he clearly miscalculated. Not unlucky.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2873
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #165 - 12/04/16 at 11:07:56
Post Tools
IsaVulpes wrote on 12/02/16 at 21:41:37:
So Karjakin got "lucky" that Carlsen overall didn't play his best, bonus "lucky" that he managed to weasel out in Games 3 and 4 rather than being down 1-3 before the match really started, bonus bonus "lucky" that despite losing almost every single opening battle nothing beyond that happened in the games, bonus bonus bonus "lucky" that Carlsen pushed too much for a win in a position that really didn't call for it, essentially serving him a win on a silver platter ..
.. But he was unlucky not to win the title, because he missed a forced draw in Game 10.

This is a strange interpretation of the proceedings in my eyes?

If anything IMO Karjakin got "lucky" to even land in the position that allowed him that match point in Game10 (and 9), but that too is of course a gross oversimplification of events and considerably downtalking his defensive effort in the games.


Thats a very strange analysis. We should judge the match on its merits. Saying Karjakin was lucky because Carlsen didnt play well is not really logical.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 257
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: 2016 World Championship Match
Reply #164 - 12/02/16 at 21:41:37
Post Tools
So Karjakin got "lucky" that Carlsen overall didn't play his best, bonus "lucky" that he managed to weasel out in Games 3 and 4 rather than being down 1-3 before the match really started, bonus bonus "lucky" that despite losing almost every single opening battle nothing beyond that happened in the games, bonus bonus bonus "lucky" that Carlsen pushed too much for a win in a position that really didn't call for it, essentially serving him a win on a silver platter ..
.. But he was unlucky not to win the title, because he missed a forced draw in Game 10.

This is a strange interpretation of the proceedings in my eyes?

If anything IMO Karjakin got "lucky" to even land in the position that allowed him that match point in Game10 (and 9), but that too is of course a gross oversimplification of events and considerably downtalking his defensive effort in the games.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo