Why is Carlsen criticized for poor preparation at World Chess Championship 2018?











up vote
26
down vote

favorite
4












As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?










share|improve this question









New contributor




JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    26
    down vote

    favorite
    4












    As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



    But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



    In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      26
      down vote

      favorite
      4









      up vote
      26
      down vote

      favorite
      4






      4





      As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



      But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



      In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



      But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



      In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?







      world-championship carlsen






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Herb Wolfe

      2,1391524




      2,1391524






      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 2 days ago









      JohnDoe

      13123




      13123




      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          24
          down vote













          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer























          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            yesterday






          • 2




            Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            yesterday


















          up vote
          13
          down vote













          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.














          • 10




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            yesterday






          • 7




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            yesterday






          • 2




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            yesterday




















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how ultra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            yesterday










          • Strongly disagree with the second comment, since Grischuk is also a super-GM so of course he knows how "ultra-dull chess can become".
            – Allure
            yesterday










          • I had for awhile thought computers were making chess boring , but AlphaZero, LeelaZero, etc. have been making it interesting again. A few years ago I thought was pretty clear that games would be drawn with perfect play, but now I'm not so sure, since there are many situations where a player would seem to be at a disadvantage but can, with perfect play, secure a win.
            – supercat
            11 hours ago










          • Grischuk has just asked/demanded for the next WC to be in Chess 960 because of too much preparation, contradicting his initial premise. We can safely conclude he is clueless.
            – fidetrainerNET
            8 hours ago


















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Let's not forget that Carlsen played the Sicilian in all his black games so far, and had no problems. It's a riskier choice than the 1.e4 e5 of his previous matches and he's making it work.



          Also playing all of 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.e4 is a riskier approach than sticking to one, and more exciting for the audience.



          Maybe he did have novelties, just not in the lines Caruana played. Chess is a draw, and Caruana did not choose those lines for nothing.






          share|improve this answer





















          • "Chess is a draw" - you don't know that.
            – orlp
            15 hours ago












          • You mean it's not mathematically proven. Other than that, the chance that it's not is infinitesimal.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • So how did we go from "the chance that it's not is infinitesimal" to claiming that it is? Also, what do you base this on?
            – orlp
            15 hours ago








          • 1




            I base it on the fact that the drawing margin in chess is quite large, that I've never heard a strong grandmaster disagree, that as opening theory develops it only finds more and more ways to get an equal position and hardly any advantage for either side anymore, that as our knowledge of chess grows the drawing percentage at top level also does. There are several statements in my answer that are far more controversial, but you're triggered by this one because it's the only one that could in theory be proven mathematically.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • @RemcoGerlich: In many positions, there will be a move which would certainly doom a player who cannot navigate the resulting situations perfectly, but where it at present impossible to say whether perfect play might yield a winning line. Human players, given a choice between such a move and one which leads much more easily to a draw, will tend to pick the latter, but some games with engines like Leela Zero are revealing that some moves which look like they would turn draws into losses can, with perfect follow-up play, produce wins.
            – supercat
            12 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "435"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23006%2fwhy-is-carlsen-criticized-for-poor-preparation-at-world-chess-championship-2018%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          24
          down vote













          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer























          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            yesterday






          • 2




            Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            yesterday















          up vote
          24
          down vote













          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer























          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            yesterday






          • 2




            Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            yesterday













          up vote
          24
          down vote










          up vote
          24
          down vote









          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer














          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered 2 days ago









          Brian Towers

          13.2k32061




          13.2k32061












          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            yesterday






          • 2




            Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            yesterday


















          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            yesterday






          • 2




            Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            yesterday
















          Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
          – A. N. Other
          yesterday




          Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
          – A. N. Other
          yesterday




          2




          2




          Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
          – itub
          yesterday




          Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
          – itub
          yesterday










          up vote
          13
          down vote













          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.














          • 10




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            yesterday






          • 7




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            yesterday






          • 2




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            yesterday

















          up vote
          13
          down vote













          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.














          • 10




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            yesterday






          • 7




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            yesterday






          • 2




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            yesterday















          up vote
          13
          down vote










          up vote
          13
          down vote









          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.







          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago





















          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 2 days ago









          CSPP

          2414




          2414




          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.








          • 10




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            yesterday






          • 7




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            yesterday






          • 2




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            yesterday
















          • 10




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            yesterday






          • 7




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            yesterday






          • 3




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            yesterday






          • 2




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            yesterday










          10




          10




          Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
          – David Richerby
          yesterday




          Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
          – David Richerby
          yesterday




          3




          3




          @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
          – Randy Minder
          yesterday




          @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
          – Randy Minder
          yesterday




          7




          7




          @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
          – David Richerby
          yesterday




          @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
          – David Richerby
          yesterday




          3




          3




          From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
          – CSPP
          yesterday




          From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
          – CSPP
          yesterday




          2




          2




          @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
          – fkraiem
          yesterday






          @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
          – fkraiem
          yesterday












          up vote
          3
          down vote













          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how ultra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            yesterday










          • Strongly disagree with the second comment, since Grischuk is also a super-GM so of course he knows how "ultra-dull chess can become".
            – Allure
            yesterday










          • I had for awhile thought computers were making chess boring , but AlphaZero, LeelaZero, etc. have been making it interesting again. A few years ago I thought was pretty clear that games would be drawn with perfect play, but now I'm not so sure, since there are many situations where a player would seem to be at a disadvantage but can, with perfect play, secure a win.
            – supercat
            11 hours ago










          • Grischuk has just asked/demanded for the next WC to be in Chess 960 because of too much preparation, contradicting his initial premise. We can safely conclude he is clueless.
            – fidetrainerNET
            8 hours ago















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how ultra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            yesterday










          • Strongly disagree with the second comment, since Grischuk is also a super-GM so of course he knows how "ultra-dull chess can become".
            – Allure
            yesterday










          • I had for awhile thought computers were making chess boring , but AlphaZero, LeelaZero, etc. have been making it interesting again. A few years ago I thought was pretty clear that games would be drawn with perfect play, but now I'm not so sure, since there are many situations where a player would seem to be at a disadvantage but can, with perfect play, secure a win.
            – supercat
            11 hours ago










          • Grischuk has just asked/demanded for the next WC to be in Chess 960 because of too much preparation, contradicting his initial premise. We can safely conclude he is clueless.
            – fidetrainerNET
            8 hours ago













          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how ultra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer














          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how ultra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 17 hours ago

























          answered yesterday









          fidetrainerNET

          585




          585








          • 1




            ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            yesterday










          • Strongly disagree with the second comment, since Grischuk is also a super-GM so of course he knows how "ultra-dull chess can become".
            – Allure
            yesterday










          • I had for awhile thought computers were making chess boring , but AlphaZero, LeelaZero, etc. have been making it interesting again. A few years ago I thought was pretty clear that games would be drawn with perfect play, but now I'm not so sure, since there are many situations where a player would seem to be at a disadvantage but can, with perfect play, secure a win.
            – supercat
            11 hours ago










          • Grischuk has just asked/demanded for the next WC to be in Chess 960 because of too much preparation, contradicting his initial premise. We can safely conclude he is clueless.
            – fidetrainerNET
            8 hours ago














          • 1




            ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            yesterday










          • Strongly disagree with the second comment, since Grischuk is also a super-GM so of course he knows how "ultra-dull chess can become".
            – Allure
            yesterday










          • I had for awhile thought computers were making chess boring , but AlphaZero, LeelaZero, etc. have been making it interesting again. A few years ago I thought was pretty clear that games would be drawn with perfect play, but now I'm not so sure, since there are many situations where a player would seem to be at a disadvantage but can, with perfect play, secure a win.
            – supercat
            11 hours ago










          • Grischuk has just asked/demanded for the next WC to be in Chess 960 because of too much preparation, contradicting his initial premise. We can safely conclude he is clueless.
            – fidetrainerNET
            8 hours ago








          1




          1




          ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
          – Peter Mortensen
          yesterday




          ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
          – Peter Mortensen
          yesterday












          Strongly disagree with the second comment, since Grischuk is also a super-GM so of course he knows how "ultra-dull chess can become".
          – Allure
          yesterday




          Strongly disagree with the second comment, since Grischuk is also a super-GM so of course he knows how "ultra-dull chess can become".
          – Allure
          yesterday












          I had for awhile thought computers were making chess boring , but AlphaZero, LeelaZero, etc. have been making it interesting again. A few years ago I thought was pretty clear that games would be drawn with perfect play, but now I'm not so sure, since there are many situations where a player would seem to be at a disadvantage but can, with perfect play, secure a win.
          – supercat
          11 hours ago




          I had for awhile thought computers were making chess boring , but AlphaZero, LeelaZero, etc. have been making it interesting again. A few years ago I thought was pretty clear that games would be drawn with perfect play, but now I'm not so sure, since there are many situations where a player would seem to be at a disadvantage but can, with perfect play, secure a win.
          – supercat
          11 hours ago












          Grischuk has just asked/demanded for the next WC to be in Chess 960 because of too much preparation, contradicting his initial premise. We can safely conclude he is clueless.
          – fidetrainerNET
          8 hours ago




          Grischuk has just asked/demanded for the next WC to be in Chess 960 because of too much preparation, contradicting his initial premise. We can safely conclude he is clueless.
          – fidetrainerNET
          8 hours ago










          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Let's not forget that Carlsen played the Sicilian in all his black games so far, and had no problems. It's a riskier choice than the 1.e4 e5 of his previous matches and he's making it work.



          Also playing all of 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.e4 is a riskier approach than sticking to one, and more exciting for the audience.



          Maybe he did have novelties, just not in the lines Caruana played. Chess is a draw, and Caruana did not choose those lines for nothing.






          share|improve this answer





















          • "Chess is a draw" - you don't know that.
            – orlp
            15 hours ago












          • You mean it's not mathematically proven. Other than that, the chance that it's not is infinitesimal.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • So how did we go from "the chance that it's not is infinitesimal" to claiming that it is? Also, what do you base this on?
            – orlp
            15 hours ago








          • 1




            I base it on the fact that the drawing margin in chess is quite large, that I've never heard a strong grandmaster disagree, that as opening theory develops it only finds more and more ways to get an equal position and hardly any advantage for either side anymore, that as our knowledge of chess grows the drawing percentage at top level also does. There are several statements in my answer that are far more controversial, but you're triggered by this one because it's the only one that could in theory be proven mathematically.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • @RemcoGerlich: In many positions, there will be a move which would certainly doom a player who cannot navigate the resulting situations perfectly, but where it at present impossible to say whether perfect play might yield a winning line. Human players, given a choice between such a move and one which leads much more easily to a draw, will tend to pick the latter, but some games with engines like Leela Zero are revealing that some moves which look like they would turn draws into losses can, with perfect follow-up play, produce wins.
            – supercat
            12 hours ago















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Let's not forget that Carlsen played the Sicilian in all his black games so far, and had no problems. It's a riskier choice than the 1.e4 e5 of his previous matches and he's making it work.



          Also playing all of 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.e4 is a riskier approach than sticking to one, and more exciting for the audience.



          Maybe he did have novelties, just not in the lines Caruana played. Chess is a draw, and Caruana did not choose those lines for nothing.






          share|improve this answer





















          • "Chess is a draw" - you don't know that.
            – orlp
            15 hours ago












          • You mean it's not mathematically proven. Other than that, the chance that it's not is infinitesimal.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • So how did we go from "the chance that it's not is infinitesimal" to claiming that it is? Also, what do you base this on?
            – orlp
            15 hours ago








          • 1




            I base it on the fact that the drawing margin in chess is quite large, that I've never heard a strong grandmaster disagree, that as opening theory develops it only finds more and more ways to get an equal position and hardly any advantage for either side anymore, that as our knowledge of chess grows the drawing percentage at top level also does. There are several statements in my answer that are far more controversial, but you're triggered by this one because it's the only one that could in theory be proven mathematically.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • @RemcoGerlich: In many positions, there will be a move which would certainly doom a player who cannot navigate the resulting situations perfectly, but where it at present impossible to say whether perfect play might yield a winning line. Human players, given a choice between such a move and one which leads much more easily to a draw, will tend to pick the latter, but some games with engines like Leela Zero are revealing that some moves which look like they would turn draws into losses can, with perfect follow-up play, produce wins.
            – supercat
            12 hours ago













          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          Let's not forget that Carlsen played the Sicilian in all his black games so far, and had no problems. It's a riskier choice than the 1.e4 e5 of his previous matches and he's making it work.



          Also playing all of 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.e4 is a riskier approach than sticking to one, and more exciting for the audience.



          Maybe he did have novelties, just not in the lines Caruana played. Chess is a draw, and Caruana did not choose those lines for nothing.






          share|improve this answer












          Let's not forget that Carlsen played the Sicilian in all his black games so far, and had no problems. It's a riskier choice than the 1.e4 e5 of his previous matches and he's making it work.



          Also playing all of 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.e4 is a riskier approach than sticking to one, and more exciting for the audience.



          Maybe he did have novelties, just not in the lines Caruana played. Chess is a draw, and Caruana did not choose those lines for nothing.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 17 hours ago









          RemcoGerlich

          13.2k3962




          13.2k3962












          • "Chess is a draw" - you don't know that.
            – orlp
            15 hours ago












          • You mean it's not mathematically proven. Other than that, the chance that it's not is infinitesimal.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • So how did we go from "the chance that it's not is infinitesimal" to claiming that it is? Also, what do you base this on?
            – orlp
            15 hours ago








          • 1




            I base it on the fact that the drawing margin in chess is quite large, that I've never heard a strong grandmaster disagree, that as opening theory develops it only finds more and more ways to get an equal position and hardly any advantage for either side anymore, that as our knowledge of chess grows the drawing percentage at top level also does. There are several statements in my answer that are far more controversial, but you're triggered by this one because it's the only one that could in theory be proven mathematically.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • @RemcoGerlich: In many positions, there will be a move which would certainly doom a player who cannot navigate the resulting situations perfectly, but where it at present impossible to say whether perfect play might yield a winning line. Human players, given a choice between such a move and one which leads much more easily to a draw, will tend to pick the latter, but some games with engines like Leela Zero are revealing that some moves which look like they would turn draws into losses can, with perfect follow-up play, produce wins.
            – supercat
            12 hours ago


















          • "Chess is a draw" - you don't know that.
            – orlp
            15 hours ago












          • You mean it's not mathematically proven. Other than that, the chance that it's not is infinitesimal.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • So how did we go from "the chance that it's not is infinitesimal" to claiming that it is? Also, what do you base this on?
            – orlp
            15 hours ago








          • 1




            I base it on the fact that the drawing margin in chess is quite large, that I've never heard a strong grandmaster disagree, that as opening theory develops it only finds more and more ways to get an equal position and hardly any advantage for either side anymore, that as our knowledge of chess grows the drawing percentage at top level also does. There are several statements in my answer that are far more controversial, but you're triggered by this one because it's the only one that could in theory be proven mathematically.
            – RemcoGerlich
            15 hours ago










          • @RemcoGerlich: In many positions, there will be a move which would certainly doom a player who cannot navigate the resulting situations perfectly, but where it at present impossible to say whether perfect play might yield a winning line. Human players, given a choice between such a move and one which leads much more easily to a draw, will tend to pick the latter, but some games with engines like Leela Zero are revealing that some moves which look like they would turn draws into losses can, with perfect follow-up play, produce wins.
            – supercat
            12 hours ago
















          "Chess is a draw" - you don't know that.
          – orlp
          15 hours ago






          "Chess is a draw" - you don't know that.
          – orlp
          15 hours ago














          You mean it's not mathematically proven. Other than that, the chance that it's not is infinitesimal.
          – RemcoGerlich
          15 hours ago




          You mean it's not mathematically proven. Other than that, the chance that it's not is infinitesimal.
          – RemcoGerlich
          15 hours ago












          So how did we go from "the chance that it's not is infinitesimal" to claiming that it is? Also, what do you base this on?
          – orlp
          15 hours ago






          So how did we go from "the chance that it's not is infinitesimal" to claiming that it is? Also, what do you base this on?
          – orlp
          15 hours ago






          1




          1




          I base it on the fact that the drawing margin in chess is quite large, that I've never heard a strong grandmaster disagree, that as opening theory develops it only finds more and more ways to get an equal position and hardly any advantage for either side anymore, that as our knowledge of chess grows the drawing percentage at top level also does. There are several statements in my answer that are far more controversial, but you're triggered by this one because it's the only one that could in theory be proven mathematically.
          – RemcoGerlich
          15 hours ago




          I base it on the fact that the drawing margin in chess is quite large, that I've never heard a strong grandmaster disagree, that as opening theory develops it only finds more and more ways to get an equal position and hardly any advantage for either side anymore, that as our knowledge of chess grows the drawing percentage at top level also does. There are several statements in my answer that are far more controversial, but you're triggered by this one because it's the only one that could in theory be proven mathematically.
          – RemcoGerlich
          15 hours ago












          @RemcoGerlich: In many positions, there will be a move which would certainly doom a player who cannot navigate the resulting situations perfectly, but where it at present impossible to say whether perfect play might yield a winning line. Human players, given a choice between such a move and one which leads much more easily to a draw, will tend to pick the latter, but some games with engines like Leela Zero are revealing that some moves which look like they would turn draws into losses can, with perfect follow-up play, produce wins.
          – supercat
          12 hours ago




          @RemcoGerlich: In many positions, there will be a move which would certainly doom a player who cannot navigate the resulting situations perfectly, but where it at present impossible to say whether perfect play might yield a winning line. Human players, given a choice between such a move and one which leads much more easily to a draw, will tend to pick the latter, but some games with engines like Leela Zero are revealing that some moves which look like they would turn draws into losses can, with perfect follow-up play, produce wins.
          – supercat
          12 hours ago










          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23006%2fwhy-is-carlsen-criticized-for-poor-preparation-at-world-chess-championship-2018%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Ellipse (mathématiques)

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          Mont Emei