Carlsen-Caruana Game 12











up vote
17
down vote

favorite
4












Any online search about the recent game 12 in Carlsen-Caruana's WCC is filled with the surprise caused by Carlsen offering a draw when in a (possibly?) winning position. It was announced on chess.com that




the top eight chess engines in the CCC will play a 2x-round-robin tournament starting after move 31 of the world chess championship game 12. The time control is rapid chess, 30 minutes plus five-second increment.




At the moment of writing this, I can see the tournament here. But I don't know enough about chess or at least how chess.com works to understand what's happening.



Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?










share|improve this question


















  • 3




    Click "view crosstable" I believe every pairing of computers plays the white side once and the black side once. So compare the results from the first column of each matchup to the second column of each matchup to determine whether white or black was better.
    – NoseKnowsAll
    Nov 29 at 5:15






  • 1




    I have played out the position with Stockfish 9 giving it plenty of time. I also tried various variants where the engine was flapping between move candidates. All attempted variations ended in a draw although the engine was 0.8-1.4 during the first ~20 continuation moves.
    – boot4life
    Nov 30 at 12:08















up vote
17
down vote

favorite
4












Any online search about the recent game 12 in Carlsen-Caruana's WCC is filled with the surprise caused by Carlsen offering a draw when in a (possibly?) winning position. It was announced on chess.com that




the top eight chess engines in the CCC will play a 2x-round-robin tournament starting after move 31 of the world chess championship game 12. The time control is rapid chess, 30 minutes plus five-second increment.




At the moment of writing this, I can see the tournament here. But I don't know enough about chess or at least how chess.com works to understand what's happening.



Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?










share|improve this question


















  • 3




    Click "view crosstable" I believe every pairing of computers plays the white side once and the black side once. So compare the results from the first column of each matchup to the second column of each matchup to determine whether white or black was better.
    – NoseKnowsAll
    Nov 29 at 5:15






  • 1




    I have played out the position with Stockfish 9 giving it plenty of time. I also tried various variants where the engine was flapping between move candidates. All attempted variations ended in a draw although the engine was 0.8-1.4 during the first ~20 continuation moves.
    – boot4life
    Nov 30 at 12:08













up vote
17
down vote

favorite
4









up vote
17
down vote

favorite
4






4





Any online search about the recent game 12 in Carlsen-Caruana's WCC is filled with the surprise caused by Carlsen offering a draw when in a (possibly?) winning position. It was announced on chess.com that




the top eight chess engines in the CCC will play a 2x-round-robin tournament starting after move 31 of the world chess championship game 12. The time control is rapid chess, 30 minutes plus five-second increment.




At the moment of writing this, I can see the tournament here. But I don't know enough about chess or at least how chess.com works to understand what's happening.



Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?










share|improve this question













Any online search about the recent game 12 in Carlsen-Caruana's WCC is filled with the surprise caused by Carlsen offering a draw when in a (possibly?) winning position. It was announced on chess.com that




the top eight chess engines in the CCC will play a 2x-round-robin tournament starting after move 31 of the world chess championship game 12. The time control is rapid chess, 30 minutes plus five-second increment.




At the moment of writing this, I can see the tournament here. But I don't know enough about chess or at least how chess.com works to understand what's happening.



Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?







world-championship computer-chess






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 29 at 5:01









Martin Argerami

25927




25927








  • 3




    Click "view crosstable" I believe every pairing of computers plays the white side once and the black side once. So compare the results from the first column of each matchup to the second column of each matchup to determine whether white or black was better.
    – NoseKnowsAll
    Nov 29 at 5:15






  • 1




    I have played out the position with Stockfish 9 giving it plenty of time. I also tried various variants where the engine was flapping between move candidates. All attempted variations ended in a draw although the engine was 0.8-1.4 during the first ~20 continuation moves.
    – boot4life
    Nov 30 at 12:08














  • 3




    Click "view crosstable" I believe every pairing of computers plays the white side once and the black side once. So compare the results from the first column of each matchup to the second column of each matchup to determine whether white or black was better.
    – NoseKnowsAll
    Nov 29 at 5:15






  • 1




    I have played out the position with Stockfish 9 giving it plenty of time. I also tried various variants where the engine was flapping between move candidates. All attempted variations ended in a draw although the engine was 0.8-1.4 during the first ~20 continuation moves.
    – boot4life
    Nov 30 at 12:08








3




3




Click "view crosstable" I believe every pairing of computers plays the white side once and the black side once. So compare the results from the first column of each matchup to the second column of each matchup to determine whether white or black was better.
– NoseKnowsAll
Nov 29 at 5:15




Click "view crosstable" I believe every pairing of computers plays the white side once and the black side once. So compare the results from the first column of each matchup to the second column of each matchup to determine whether white or black was better.
– NoseKnowsAll
Nov 29 at 5:15




1




1




I have played out the position with Stockfish 9 giving it plenty of time. I also tried various variants where the engine was flapping between move candidates. All attempted variations ended in a draw although the engine was 0.8-1.4 during the first ~20 continuation moves.
– boot4life
Nov 30 at 12:08




I have played out the position with Stockfish 9 giving it plenty of time. I also tried various variants where the engine was flapping between move candidates. All attempted variations ended in a draw although the engine was 0.8-1.4 during the first ~20 continuation moves.
– boot4life
Nov 30 at 12:08










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
20
down vote














Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's
decision was?




No. Consensus on Carlsen's play and decision has already been reached, I would suggest.



Psychologically Carlsen made it clear in the post match interview that his goal before this game was a draw to reach the rapid playoff where he thought (correctly) that he was strong favourite to win. Hence his play was aimed at taking no risks and inviting a draw at every opportunity. For instance, he offered to repeat moves around about move 14 or 15. In so far as he practically forced Caruana to accept the draw and then went on to win the playoff 3-0 his decision was a good one.



From a chess point of view the consensus is that a few moves earlier Carlsen had a winning advantage, say after white's 29. Re1, and that Carlsen made quiet moves rather than the aggressive moves he needed to make to win.



While the game was in progress a very powerful computer, sesse, was analysing the positions and showing its analysis and evaluations.



This computer tournament adds nothing to the judgement as to how good or bad Carlsen's decision was.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    20
    down vote














    Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?




    Not quite. As others have pointed out, Carlsen's decision was based on factors outside that one game. With a stronger position and a large time advantage, Carlsen most likely could have won game 12, but Caruana had just tied Carlsen in 11 consecutive games, several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage. Caruana showed he could go toe-to-toe with our Norwegian champion, and so attacking his position would not come without risks.



    Meanwhile, a draw effectively changed the championship to a 4-game Rapid tournament (then Blitz if that ended in a tie), where Carlsen is a heavy favorite. While Carlsen and Caruana are roughly equal in standard chess (2835 and 2832 respectively), Carlsen is much stronger at Rapid (2880 and 2789) and Blitz (2939 and 2767). Why extend a game in an even format when a draw moves to a format you're stronger in?



    Having said that, the Chess community was not happy at all to see that draw offered (source: I was unhappy). I'll concede it was a technically correct decision, but as someone who had been waiting 11 games for a win, seeing one materialize then simply vanish was frustrating. It left a lot of people asking "What would have happened if Carlsen hadn't offered that draw? How would the game have ended?", and that's the question these games are answering.



    In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.



    All in all, the tournament showed that Carlsen had a very good position. After 56 games, black finished with 27 wins, white finished with 3 wins, and there were 26 draws. That's a tremendous advantage. Any grandmaster would be ecstatic to hear that, for a chess engine, their position was only losing in 5% of games played.



    What's more, this tournament had given both sides equal time. That's not completely accurate, as Carlsen had a significant lead on time (though I've forgotten just how much). That implies these results are even too conservative, and that Carlsen may have had a larger lead.



    Having said that, humans and computers play in very different styles. Because it's winning for a computer doesn't guarantee it's winning for Carlsen (though he's practically a computer anyway), but it does show he had a strong opportunity to win it all in game 12.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thanks. Could you expand your last paragraph into what the consensus is on the position? It's not obvious to me, an outsider. Last time I checked there was roughly an equal number of draws than black wins, with a few white wins. To me that sounds "undecided", but maybe that's not how experts see it.
      – Martin Argerami
      Nov 29 at 15:13










    • @MartinArgerami Sure thing! Is that good?
      – Lord Farquaad
      Nov 29 at 15:23






    • 1




      Great answer. Answers both aspects of the question. In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.
      – Cyriac Antony
      Nov 30 at 9:36












    • several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage None of the analyses I've seen have borne out this statement. This was very consistently accurate chess.
      – Ben Steward
      Dec 2 at 6:14










    • @BenSteward Overall, it was very good chess, but both players missed opportunities. Game 1: "Position after 34.Nh2. Here Carlsen (black) would have had a winning position with 34...Qe5, infiltrating the queen side. Instead play continued 34...h5?! 35. Rf2 Qg1 36. Nf1 h4?! 37. Kd2? ". Game 3: "On move 15 Caruana suffered a 'blackout' and played Bd2, missing that Black does not have to exchange rooks. This lost all the White pressure". Sesse also saw a few leads suddenly vanish
      – Lord Farquaad
      Dec 3 at 14:05




















    up vote
    10
    down vote













    It will not show how good or bad Carlsen's decision was - humans play
    and assess differently from computers; there are positions that are extremely
    easy for computers, but terribly difficult for humans and vice versa.



    So a computer evaluation of ~+1 might not give any chance for a human win
    and in many cases a position with equal computer evaluation is an easy win
    for one side in a human game, most often difficult endgame defence, that
    computer never gets tired and plays perfectly and gets a draw, but human
    can't execute it with tablebase precision.



    I think Carlsen did Very OK, last game before tie-breaks, draw with
    black pieces - and he won the tie-break - that's the best proof that he
    was right :)






    share|improve this answer






























      up vote
      6
      down vote













      The classic game rating of Carlsen and Caruana is very close (3 points difference!). But rapid game rating is another story. The rating point difference is a whooping 100 points. Carlsen's strategy throughout this whole tournament was along these lines - beat me if you can in classic. If you don't, I will sweep you off in the rapid games. And he did exactly that. Sure, Caruana is a quality player; but playing under time pressure, not to mention pressure in playing for World Championshiop, is a totally different thing.



      So, Carlsen has no need to risk anything; (yet, it was Caruana who looked more happy after draw was agreed in game 12. This is quite understandable since Carlsen had the advantage in the game.)






      share|improve this answer



















      • 8




        This does not provide an answer to OP's actual question about the purpose of 2x round robin tournament of top 8 chess engines (starting from move 31 of game 12) being organized by chess.com
        – RedBaron
        Nov 29 at 11:35




















      up vote
      2
      down vote













      As Lord Farquaad points out, the tournament will only show how good Carlsen's position was, not how good his decision was. That said, his position was pretty damned good, if the computers can be believed: so far 49 games have been played, and the score is 23 Black wins to 3 White wins, with 23 draws.






      share|improve this answer





















      • and this means Carlsen made damn good decision because he knew his chances in speed chess are much higher than in position where even comp has lost 3 games with black ... for human to make mistake is much more easy ...
        – Drako
        Dec 3 at 7:20




















      up vote
      2
      down vote













      The engine tournament is absolutely pointless. Engines don't make mistakes and they are far better at pushing in advantageous positions. Even then black still managed to lose games.



      Carlsen's decision was absolutely the right one for the highest probability of holding the title. Realistically in a GM game black probably had around a 20% chance of winning and a 10% chance of losing at best. Instead he goes for the tiebreakers where he as a 75%+ chance of winning that with his elo advantage.






      share|improve this answer





















      • Engines do make mistakes, or else they wouldn't lose (just draw).
        – Jossie Calderon
        Dec 2 at 18:52











      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23057%2fcarlsen-caruana-game-12%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      20
      down vote














      Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's
      decision was?




      No. Consensus on Carlsen's play and decision has already been reached, I would suggest.



      Psychologically Carlsen made it clear in the post match interview that his goal before this game was a draw to reach the rapid playoff where he thought (correctly) that he was strong favourite to win. Hence his play was aimed at taking no risks and inviting a draw at every opportunity. For instance, he offered to repeat moves around about move 14 or 15. In so far as he practically forced Caruana to accept the draw and then went on to win the playoff 3-0 his decision was a good one.



      From a chess point of view the consensus is that a few moves earlier Carlsen had a winning advantage, say after white's 29. Re1, and that Carlsen made quiet moves rather than the aggressive moves he needed to make to win.



      While the game was in progress a very powerful computer, sesse, was analysing the positions and showing its analysis and evaluations.



      This computer tournament adds nothing to the judgement as to how good or bad Carlsen's decision was.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        20
        down vote














        Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's
        decision was?




        No. Consensus on Carlsen's play and decision has already been reached, I would suggest.



        Psychologically Carlsen made it clear in the post match interview that his goal before this game was a draw to reach the rapid playoff where he thought (correctly) that he was strong favourite to win. Hence his play was aimed at taking no risks and inviting a draw at every opportunity. For instance, he offered to repeat moves around about move 14 or 15. In so far as he practically forced Caruana to accept the draw and then went on to win the playoff 3-0 his decision was a good one.



        From a chess point of view the consensus is that a few moves earlier Carlsen had a winning advantage, say after white's 29. Re1, and that Carlsen made quiet moves rather than the aggressive moves he needed to make to win.



        While the game was in progress a very powerful computer, sesse, was analysing the positions and showing its analysis and evaluations.



        This computer tournament adds nothing to the judgement as to how good or bad Carlsen's decision was.






        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          20
          down vote










          up vote
          20
          down vote










          Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's
          decision was?




          No. Consensus on Carlsen's play and decision has already been reached, I would suggest.



          Psychologically Carlsen made it clear in the post match interview that his goal before this game was a draw to reach the rapid playoff where he thought (correctly) that he was strong favourite to win. Hence his play was aimed at taking no risks and inviting a draw at every opportunity. For instance, he offered to repeat moves around about move 14 or 15. In so far as he practically forced Caruana to accept the draw and then went on to win the playoff 3-0 his decision was a good one.



          From a chess point of view the consensus is that a few moves earlier Carlsen had a winning advantage, say after white's 29. Re1, and that Carlsen made quiet moves rather than the aggressive moves he needed to make to win.



          While the game was in progress a very powerful computer, sesse, was analysing the positions and showing its analysis and evaluations.



          This computer tournament adds nothing to the judgement as to how good or bad Carlsen's decision was.






          share|improve this answer













          Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's
          decision was?




          No. Consensus on Carlsen's play and decision has already been reached, I would suggest.



          Psychologically Carlsen made it clear in the post match interview that his goal before this game was a draw to reach the rapid playoff where he thought (correctly) that he was strong favourite to win. Hence his play was aimed at taking no risks and inviting a draw at every opportunity. For instance, he offered to repeat moves around about move 14 or 15. In so far as he practically forced Caruana to accept the draw and then went on to win the playoff 3-0 his decision was a good one.



          From a chess point of view the consensus is that a few moves earlier Carlsen had a winning advantage, say after white's 29. Re1, and that Carlsen made quiet moves rather than the aggressive moves he needed to make to win.



          While the game was in progress a very powerful computer, sesse, was analysing the positions and showing its analysis and evaluations.



          This computer tournament adds nothing to the judgement as to how good or bad Carlsen's decision was.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 29 at 12:12









          Brian Towers

          13.9k32563




          13.9k32563






















              up vote
              20
              down vote














              Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?




              Not quite. As others have pointed out, Carlsen's decision was based on factors outside that one game. With a stronger position and a large time advantage, Carlsen most likely could have won game 12, but Caruana had just tied Carlsen in 11 consecutive games, several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage. Caruana showed he could go toe-to-toe with our Norwegian champion, and so attacking his position would not come without risks.



              Meanwhile, a draw effectively changed the championship to a 4-game Rapid tournament (then Blitz if that ended in a tie), where Carlsen is a heavy favorite. While Carlsen and Caruana are roughly equal in standard chess (2835 and 2832 respectively), Carlsen is much stronger at Rapid (2880 and 2789) and Blitz (2939 and 2767). Why extend a game in an even format when a draw moves to a format you're stronger in?



              Having said that, the Chess community was not happy at all to see that draw offered (source: I was unhappy). I'll concede it was a technically correct decision, but as someone who had been waiting 11 games for a win, seeing one materialize then simply vanish was frustrating. It left a lot of people asking "What would have happened if Carlsen hadn't offered that draw? How would the game have ended?", and that's the question these games are answering.



              In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.



              All in all, the tournament showed that Carlsen had a very good position. After 56 games, black finished with 27 wins, white finished with 3 wins, and there were 26 draws. That's a tremendous advantage. Any grandmaster would be ecstatic to hear that, for a chess engine, their position was only losing in 5% of games played.



              What's more, this tournament had given both sides equal time. That's not completely accurate, as Carlsen had a significant lead on time (though I've forgotten just how much). That implies these results are even too conservative, and that Carlsen may have had a larger lead.



              Having said that, humans and computers play in very different styles. Because it's winning for a computer doesn't guarantee it's winning for Carlsen (though he's practically a computer anyway), but it does show he had a strong opportunity to win it all in game 12.






              share|improve this answer























              • Thanks. Could you expand your last paragraph into what the consensus is on the position? It's not obvious to me, an outsider. Last time I checked there was roughly an equal number of draws than black wins, with a few white wins. To me that sounds "undecided", but maybe that's not how experts see it.
                – Martin Argerami
                Nov 29 at 15:13










              • @MartinArgerami Sure thing! Is that good?
                – Lord Farquaad
                Nov 29 at 15:23






              • 1




                Great answer. Answers both aspects of the question. In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.
                – Cyriac Antony
                Nov 30 at 9:36












              • several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage None of the analyses I've seen have borne out this statement. This was very consistently accurate chess.
                – Ben Steward
                Dec 2 at 6:14










              • @BenSteward Overall, it was very good chess, but both players missed opportunities. Game 1: "Position after 34.Nh2. Here Carlsen (black) would have had a winning position with 34...Qe5, infiltrating the queen side. Instead play continued 34...h5?! 35. Rf2 Qg1 36. Nf1 h4?! 37. Kd2? ". Game 3: "On move 15 Caruana suffered a 'blackout' and played Bd2, missing that Black does not have to exchange rooks. This lost all the White pressure". Sesse also saw a few leads suddenly vanish
                – Lord Farquaad
                Dec 3 at 14:05

















              up vote
              20
              down vote














              Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?




              Not quite. As others have pointed out, Carlsen's decision was based on factors outside that one game. With a stronger position and a large time advantage, Carlsen most likely could have won game 12, but Caruana had just tied Carlsen in 11 consecutive games, several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage. Caruana showed he could go toe-to-toe with our Norwegian champion, and so attacking his position would not come without risks.



              Meanwhile, a draw effectively changed the championship to a 4-game Rapid tournament (then Blitz if that ended in a tie), where Carlsen is a heavy favorite. While Carlsen and Caruana are roughly equal in standard chess (2835 and 2832 respectively), Carlsen is much stronger at Rapid (2880 and 2789) and Blitz (2939 and 2767). Why extend a game in an even format when a draw moves to a format you're stronger in?



              Having said that, the Chess community was not happy at all to see that draw offered (source: I was unhappy). I'll concede it was a technically correct decision, but as someone who had been waiting 11 games for a win, seeing one materialize then simply vanish was frustrating. It left a lot of people asking "What would have happened if Carlsen hadn't offered that draw? How would the game have ended?", and that's the question these games are answering.



              In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.



              All in all, the tournament showed that Carlsen had a very good position. After 56 games, black finished with 27 wins, white finished with 3 wins, and there were 26 draws. That's a tremendous advantage. Any grandmaster would be ecstatic to hear that, for a chess engine, their position was only losing in 5% of games played.



              What's more, this tournament had given both sides equal time. That's not completely accurate, as Carlsen had a significant lead on time (though I've forgotten just how much). That implies these results are even too conservative, and that Carlsen may have had a larger lead.



              Having said that, humans and computers play in very different styles. Because it's winning for a computer doesn't guarantee it's winning for Carlsen (though he's practically a computer anyway), but it does show he had a strong opportunity to win it all in game 12.






              share|improve this answer























              • Thanks. Could you expand your last paragraph into what the consensus is on the position? It's not obvious to me, an outsider. Last time I checked there was roughly an equal number of draws than black wins, with a few white wins. To me that sounds "undecided", but maybe that's not how experts see it.
                – Martin Argerami
                Nov 29 at 15:13










              • @MartinArgerami Sure thing! Is that good?
                – Lord Farquaad
                Nov 29 at 15:23






              • 1




                Great answer. Answers both aspects of the question. In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.
                – Cyriac Antony
                Nov 30 at 9:36












              • several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage None of the analyses I've seen have borne out this statement. This was very consistently accurate chess.
                – Ben Steward
                Dec 2 at 6:14










              • @BenSteward Overall, it was very good chess, but both players missed opportunities. Game 1: "Position after 34.Nh2. Here Carlsen (black) would have had a winning position with 34...Qe5, infiltrating the queen side. Instead play continued 34...h5?! 35. Rf2 Qg1 36. Nf1 h4?! 37. Kd2? ". Game 3: "On move 15 Caruana suffered a 'blackout' and played Bd2, missing that Black does not have to exchange rooks. This lost all the White pressure". Sesse also saw a few leads suddenly vanish
                – Lord Farquaad
                Dec 3 at 14:05















              up vote
              20
              down vote










              up vote
              20
              down vote










              Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?




              Not quite. As others have pointed out, Carlsen's decision was based on factors outside that one game. With a stronger position and a large time advantage, Carlsen most likely could have won game 12, but Caruana had just tied Carlsen in 11 consecutive games, several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage. Caruana showed he could go toe-to-toe with our Norwegian champion, and so attacking his position would not come without risks.



              Meanwhile, a draw effectively changed the championship to a 4-game Rapid tournament (then Blitz if that ended in a tie), where Carlsen is a heavy favorite. While Carlsen and Caruana are roughly equal in standard chess (2835 and 2832 respectively), Carlsen is much stronger at Rapid (2880 and 2789) and Blitz (2939 and 2767). Why extend a game in an even format when a draw moves to a format you're stronger in?



              Having said that, the Chess community was not happy at all to see that draw offered (source: I was unhappy). I'll concede it was a technically correct decision, but as someone who had been waiting 11 games for a win, seeing one materialize then simply vanish was frustrating. It left a lot of people asking "What would have happened if Carlsen hadn't offered that draw? How would the game have ended?", and that's the question these games are answering.



              In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.



              All in all, the tournament showed that Carlsen had a very good position. After 56 games, black finished with 27 wins, white finished with 3 wins, and there were 26 draws. That's a tremendous advantage. Any grandmaster would be ecstatic to hear that, for a chess engine, their position was only losing in 5% of games played.



              What's more, this tournament had given both sides equal time. That's not completely accurate, as Carlsen had a significant lead on time (though I've forgotten just how much). That implies these results are even too conservative, and that Carlsen may have had a larger lead.



              Having said that, humans and computers play in very different styles. Because it's winning for a computer doesn't guarantee it's winning for Carlsen (though he's practically a computer anyway), but it does show he had a strong opportunity to win it all in game 12.






              share|improve this answer















              Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?




              Not quite. As others have pointed out, Carlsen's decision was based on factors outside that one game. With a stronger position and a large time advantage, Carlsen most likely could have won game 12, but Caruana had just tied Carlsen in 11 consecutive games, several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage. Caruana showed he could go toe-to-toe with our Norwegian champion, and so attacking his position would not come without risks.



              Meanwhile, a draw effectively changed the championship to a 4-game Rapid tournament (then Blitz if that ended in a tie), where Carlsen is a heavy favorite. While Carlsen and Caruana are roughly equal in standard chess (2835 and 2832 respectively), Carlsen is much stronger at Rapid (2880 and 2789) and Blitz (2939 and 2767). Why extend a game in an even format when a draw moves to a format you're stronger in?



              Having said that, the Chess community was not happy at all to see that draw offered (source: I was unhappy). I'll concede it was a technically correct decision, but as someone who had been waiting 11 games for a win, seeing one materialize then simply vanish was frustrating. It left a lot of people asking "What would have happened if Carlsen hadn't offered that draw? How would the game have ended?", and that's the question these games are answering.



              In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.



              All in all, the tournament showed that Carlsen had a very good position. After 56 games, black finished with 27 wins, white finished with 3 wins, and there were 26 draws. That's a tremendous advantage. Any grandmaster would be ecstatic to hear that, for a chess engine, their position was only losing in 5% of games played.



              What's more, this tournament had given both sides equal time. That's not completely accurate, as Carlsen had a significant lead on time (though I've forgotten just how much). That implies these results are even too conservative, and that Carlsen may have had a larger lead.



              Having said that, humans and computers play in very different styles. Because it's winning for a computer doesn't guarantee it's winning for Carlsen (though he's practically a computer anyway), but it does show he had a strong opportunity to win it all in game 12.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Dec 6 at 21:48

























              answered Nov 29 at 14:33









              Lord Farquaad

              5009




              5009












              • Thanks. Could you expand your last paragraph into what the consensus is on the position? It's not obvious to me, an outsider. Last time I checked there was roughly an equal number of draws than black wins, with a few white wins. To me that sounds "undecided", but maybe that's not how experts see it.
                – Martin Argerami
                Nov 29 at 15:13










              • @MartinArgerami Sure thing! Is that good?
                – Lord Farquaad
                Nov 29 at 15:23






              • 1




                Great answer. Answers both aspects of the question. In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.
                – Cyriac Antony
                Nov 30 at 9:36












              • several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage None of the analyses I've seen have borne out this statement. This was very consistently accurate chess.
                – Ben Steward
                Dec 2 at 6:14










              • @BenSteward Overall, it was very good chess, but both players missed opportunities. Game 1: "Position after 34.Nh2. Here Carlsen (black) would have had a winning position with 34...Qe5, infiltrating the queen side. Instead play continued 34...h5?! 35. Rf2 Qg1 36. Nf1 h4?! 37. Kd2? ". Game 3: "On move 15 Caruana suffered a 'blackout' and played Bd2, missing that Black does not have to exchange rooks. This lost all the White pressure". Sesse also saw a few leads suddenly vanish
                – Lord Farquaad
                Dec 3 at 14:05




















              • Thanks. Could you expand your last paragraph into what the consensus is on the position? It's not obvious to me, an outsider. Last time I checked there was roughly an equal number of draws than black wins, with a few white wins. To me that sounds "undecided", but maybe that's not how experts see it.
                – Martin Argerami
                Nov 29 at 15:13










              • @MartinArgerami Sure thing! Is that good?
                – Lord Farquaad
                Nov 29 at 15:23






              • 1




                Great answer. Answers both aspects of the question. In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.
                – Cyriac Antony
                Nov 30 at 9:36












              • several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage None of the analyses I've seen have borne out this statement. This was very consistently accurate chess.
                – Ben Steward
                Dec 2 at 6:14










              • @BenSteward Overall, it was very good chess, but both players missed opportunities. Game 1: "Position after 34.Nh2. Here Carlsen (black) would have had a winning position with 34...Qe5, infiltrating the queen side. Instead play continued 34...h5?! 35. Rf2 Qg1 36. Nf1 h4?! 37. Kd2? ". Game 3: "On move 15 Caruana suffered a 'blackout' and played Bd2, missing that Black does not have to exchange rooks. This lost all the White pressure". Sesse also saw a few leads suddenly vanish
                – Lord Farquaad
                Dec 3 at 14:05


















              Thanks. Could you expand your last paragraph into what the consensus is on the position? It's not obvious to me, an outsider. Last time I checked there was roughly an equal number of draws than black wins, with a few white wins. To me that sounds "undecided", but maybe that's not how experts see it.
              – Martin Argerami
              Nov 29 at 15:13




              Thanks. Could you expand your last paragraph into what the consensus is on the position? It's not obvious to me, an outsider. Last time I checked there was roughly an equal number of draws than black wins, with a few white wins. To me that sounds "undecided", but maybe that's not how experts see it.
              – Martin Argerami
              Nov 29 at 15:13












              @MartinArgerami Sure thing! Is that good?
              – Lord Farquaad
              Nov 29 at 15:23




              @MartinArgerami Sure thing! Is that good?
              – Lord Farquaad
              Nov 29 at 15:23




              1




              1




              Great answer. Answers both aspects of the question. In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.
              – Cyriac Antony
              Nov 30 at 9:36






              Great answer. Answers both aspects of the question. In other words, the tournament isn't leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was. It's leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's position was.
              – Cyriac Antony
              Nov 30 at 9:36














              several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage None of the analyses I've seen have borne out this statement. This was very consistently accurate chess.
              – Ben Steward
              Dec 2 at 6:14




              several of which had each player blunder away a significant advantage None of the analyses I've seen have borne out this statement. This was very consistently accurate chess.
              – Ben Steward
              Dec 2 at 6:14












              @BenSteward Overall, it was very good chess, but both players missed opportunities. Game 1: "Position after 34.Nh2. Here Carlsen (black) would have had a winning position with 34...Qe5, infiltrating the queen side. Instead play continued 34...h5?! 35. Rf2 Qg1 36. Nf1 h4?! 37. Kd2? ". Game 3: "On move 15 Caruana suffered a 'blackout' and played Bd2, missing that Black does not have to exchange rooks. This lost all the White pressure". Sesse also saw a few leads suddenly vanish
              – Lord Farquaad
              Dec 3 at 14:05






              @BenSteward Overall, it was very good chess, but both players missed opportunities. Game 1: "Position after 34.Nh2. Here Carlsen (black) would have had a winning position with 34...Qe5, infiltrating the queen side. Instead play continued 34...h5?! 35. Rf2 Qg1 36. Nf1 h4?! 37. Kd2? ". Game 3: "On move 15 Caruana suffered a 'blackout' and played Bd2, missing that Black does not have to exchange rooks. This lost all the White pressure". Sesse also saw a few leads suddenly vanish
              – Lord Farquaad
              Dec 3 at 14:05












              up vote
              10
              down vote













              It will not show how good or bad Carlsen's decision was - humans play
              and assess differently from computers; there are positions that are extremely
              easy for computers, but terribly difficult for humans and vice versa.



              So a computer evaluation of ~+1 might not give any chance for a human win
              and in many cases a position with equal computer evaluation is an easy win
              for one side in a human game, most often difficult endgame defence, that
              computer never gets tired and plays perfectly and gets a draw, but human
              can't execute it with tablebase precision.



              I think Carlsen did Very OK, last game before tie-breaks, draw with
              black pieces - and he won the tie-break - that's the best proof that he
              was right :)






              share|improve this answer



























                up vote
                10
                down vote













                It will not show how good or bad Carlsen's decision was - humans play
                and assess differently from computers; there are positions that are extremely
                easy for computers, but terribly difficult for humans and vice versa.



                So a computer evaluation of ~+1 might not give any chance for a human win
                and in many cases a position with equal computer evaluation is an easy win
                for one side in a human game, most often difficult endgame defence, that
                computer never gets tired and plays perfectly and gets a draw, but human
                can't execute it with tablebase precision.



                I think Carlsen did Very OK, last game before tie-breaks, draw with
                black pieces - and he won the tie-break - that's the best proof that he
                was right :)






                share|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  10
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  10
                  down vote









                  It will not show how good or bad Carlsen's decision was - humans play
                  and assess differently from computers; there are positions that are extremely
                  easy for computers, but terribly difficult for humans and vice versa.



                  So a computer evaluation of ~+1 might not give any chance for a human win
                  and in many cases a position with equal computer evaluation is an easy win
                  for one side in a human game, most often difficult endgame defence, that
                  computer never gets tired and plays perfectly and gets a draw, but human
                  can't execute it with tablebase precision.



                  I think Carlsen did Very OK, last game before tie-breaks, draw with
                  black pieces - and he won the tie-break - that's the best proof that he
                  was right :)






                  share|improve this answer














                  It will not show how good or bad Carlsen's decision was - humans play
                  and assess differently from computers; there are positions that are extremely
                  easy for computers, but terribly difficult for humans and vice versa.



                  So a computer evaluation of ~+1 might not give any chance for a human win
                  and in many cases a position with equal computer evaluation is an easy win
                  for one side in a human game, most often difficult endgame defence, that
                  computer never gets tired and plays perfectly and gets a draw, but human
                  can't execute it with tablebase precision.



                  I think Carlsen did Very OK, last game before tie-breaks, draw with
                  black pieces - and he won the tie-break - that's the best proof that he
                  was right :)







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 30 at 7:45

























                  answered Nov 29 at 7:37









                  Drako

                  3748




                  3748






















                      up vote
                      6
                      down vote













                      The classic game rating of Carlsen and Caruana is very close (3 points difference!). But rapid game rating is another story. The rating point difference is a whooping 100 points. Carlsen's strategy throughout this whole tournament was along these lines - beat me if you can in classic. If you don't, I will sweep you off in the rapid games. And he did exactly that. Sure, Caruana is a quality player; but playing under time pressure, not to mention pressure in playing for World Championshiop, is a totally different thing.



                      So, Carlsen has no need to risk anything; (yet, it was Caruana who looked more happy after draw was agreed in game 12. This is quite understandable since Carlsen had the advantage in the game.)






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 8




                        This does not provide an answer to OP's actual question about the purpose of 2x round robin tournament of top 8 chess engines (starting from move 31 of game 12) being organized by chess.com
                        – RedBaron
                        Nov 29 at 11:35

















                      up vote
                      6
                      down vote













                      The classic game rating of Carlsen and Caruana is very close (3 points difference!). But rapid game rating is another story. The rating point difference is a whooping 100 points. Carlsen's strategy throughout this whole tournament was along these lines - beat me if you can in classic. If you don't, I will sweep you off in the rapid games. And he did exactly that. Sure, Caruana is a quality player; but playing under time pressure, not to mention pressure in playing for World Championshiop, is a totally different thing.



                      So, Carlsen has no need to risk anything; (yet, it was Caruana who looked more happy after draw was agreed in game 12. This is quite understandable since Carlsen had the advantage in the game.)






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 8




                        This does not provide an answer to OP's actual question about the purpose of 2x round robin tournament of top 8 chess engines (starting from move 31 of game 12) being organized by chess.com
                        – RedBaron
                        Nov 29 at 11:35















                      up vote
                      6
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      6
                      down vote









                      The classic game rating of Carlsen and Caruana is very close (3 points difference!). But rapid game rating is another story. The rating point difference is a whooping 100 points. Carlsen's strategy throughout this whole tournament was along these lines - beat me if you can in classic. If you don't, I will sweep you off in the rapid games. And he did exactly that. Sure, Caruana is a quality player; but playing under time pressure, not to mention pressure in playing for World Championshiop, is a totally different thing.



                      So, Carlsen has no need to risk anything; (yet, it was Caruana who looked more happy after draw was agreed in game 12. This is quite understandable since Carlsen had the advantage in the game.)






                      share|improve this answer














                      The classic game rating of Carlsen and Caruana is very close (3 points difference!). But rapid game rating is another story. The rating point difference is a whooping 100 points. Carlsen's strategy throughout this whole tournament was along these lines - beat me if you can in classic. If you don't, I will sweep you off in the rapid games. And he did exactly that. Sure, Caruana is a quality player; but playing under time pressure, not to mention pressure in playing for World Championshiop, is a totally different thing.



                      So, Carlsen has no need to risk anything; (yet, it was Caruana who looked more happy after draw was agreed in game 12. This is quite understandable since Carlsen had the advantage in the game.)







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Nov 29 at 9:18









                      Glorfindel

                      12.7k43559




                      12.7k43559










                      answered Nov 29 at 9:06









                      Cyriac Antony

                      614




                      614








                      • 8




                        This does not provide an answer to OP's actual question about the purpose of 2x round robin tournament of top 8 chess engines (starting from move 31 of game 12) being organized by chess.com
                        – RedBaron
                        Nov 29 at 11:35
















                      • 8




                        This does not provide an answer to OP's actual question about the purpose of 2x round robin tournament of top 8 chess engines (starting from move 31 of game 12) being organized by chess.com
                        – RedBaron
                        Nov 29 at 11:35










                      8




                      8




                      This does not provide an answer to OP's actual question about the purpose of 2x round robin tournament of top 8 chess engines (starting from move 31 of game 12) being organized by chess.com
                      – RedBaron
                      Nov 29 at 11:35






                      This does not provide an answer to OP's actual question about the purpose of 2x round robin tournament of top 8 chess engines (starting from move 31 of game 12) being organized by chess.com
                      – RedBaron
                      Nov 29 at 11:35












                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      As Lord Farquaad points out, the tournament will only show how good Carlsen's position was, not how good his decision was. That said, his position was pretty damned good, if the computers can be believed: so far 49 games have been played, and the score is 23 Black wins to 3 White wins, with 23 draws.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • and this means Carlsen made damn good decision because he knew his chances in speed chess are much higher than in position where even comp has lost 3 games with black ... for human to make mistake is much more easy ...
                        – Drako
                        Dec 3 at 7:20

















                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      As Lord Farquaad points out, the tournament will only show how good Carlsen's position was, not how good his decision was. That said, his position was pretty damned good, if the computers can be believed: so far 49 games have been played, and the score is 23 Black wins to 3 White wins, with 23 draws.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • and this means Carlsen made damn good decision because he knew his chances in speed chess are much higher than in position where even comp has lost 3 games with black ... for human to make mistake is much more easy ...
                        – Drako
                        Dec 3 at 7:20















                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote









                      As Lord Farquaad points out, the tournament will only show how good Carlsen's position was, not how good his decision was. That said, his position was pretty damned good, if the computers can be believed: so far 49 games have been played, and the score is 23 Black wins to 3 White wins, with 23 draws.






                      share|improve this answer












                      As Lord Farquaad points out, the tournament will only show how good Carlsen's position was, not how good his decision was. That said, his position was pretty damned good, if the computers can be believed: so far 49 games have been played, and the score is 23 Black wins to 3 White wins, with 23 draws.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 29 at 15:15









                      TonyK

                      21114




                      21114












                      • and this means Carlsen made damn good decision because he knew his chances in speed chess are much higher than in position where even comp has lost 3 games with black ... for human to make mistake is much more easy ...
                        – Drako
                        Dec 3 at 7:20




















                      • and this means Carlsen made damn good decision because he knew his chances in speed chess are much higher than in position where even comp has lost 3 games with black ... for human to make mistake is much more easy ...
                        – Drako
                        Dec 3 at 7:20


















                      and this means Carlsen made damn good decision because he knew his chances in speed chess are much higher than in position where even comp has lost 3 games with black ... for human to make mistake is much more easy ...
                      – Drako
                      Dec 3 at 7:20






                      and this means Carlsen made damn good decision because he knew his chances in speed chess are much higher than in position where even comp has lost 3 games with black ... for human to make mistake is much more easy ...
                      – Drako
                      Dec 3 at 7:20












                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      The engine tournament is absolutely pointless. Engines don't make mistakes and they are far better at pushing in advantageous positions. Even then black still managed to lose games.



                      Carlsen's decision was absolutely the right one for the highest probability of holding the title. Realistically in a GM game black probably had around a 20% chance of winning and a 10% chance of losing at best. Instead he goes for the tiebreakers where he as a 75%+ chance of winning that with his elo advantage.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • Engines do make mistakes, or else they wouldn't lose (just draw).
                        – Jossie Calderon
                        Dec 2 at 18:52















                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      The engine tournament is absolutely pointless. Engines don't make mistakes and they are far better at pushing in advantageous positions. Even then black still managed to lose games.



                      Carlsen's decision was absolutely the right one for the highest probability of holding the title. Realistically in a GM game black probably had around a 20% chance of winning and a 10% chance of losing at best. Instead he goes for the tiebreakers where he as a 75%+ chance of winning that with his elo advantage.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • Engines do make mistakes, or else they wouldn't lose (just draw).
                        – Jossie Calderon
                        Dec 2 at 18:52













                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote









                      The engine tournament is absolutely pointless. Engines don't make mistakes and they are far better at pushing in advantageous positions. Even then black still managed to lose games.



                      Carlsen's decision was absolutely the right one for the highest probability of holding the title. Realistically in a GM game black probably had around a 20% chance of winning and a 10% chance of losing at best. Instead he goes for the tiebreakers where he as a 75%+ chance of winning that with his elo advantage.






                      share|improve this answer












                      The engine tournament is absolutely pointless. Engines don't make mistakes and they are far better at pushing in advantageous positions. Even then black still managed to lose games.



                      Carlsen's decision was absolutely the right one for the highest probability of holding the title. Realistically in a GM game black probably had around a 20% chance of winning and a 10% chance of losing at best. Instead he goes for the tiebreakers where he as a 75%+ chance of winning that with his elo advantage.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 29 at 19:44









                      Matthew Liu

                      685146




                      685146












                      • Engines do make mistakes, or else they wouldn't lose (just draw).
                        – Jossie Calderon
                        Dec 2 at 18:52


















                      • Engines do make mistakes, or else they wouldn't lose (just draw).
                        – Jossie Calderon
                        Dec 2 at 18:52
















                      Engines do make mistakes, or else they wouldn't lose (just draw).
                      – Jossie Calderon
                      Dec 2 at 18:52




                      Engines do make mistakes, or else they wouldn't lose (just draw).
                      – Jossie Calderon
                      Dec 2 at 18:52


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23057%2fcarlsen-caruana-game-12%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