FIDE World Chess Championship thread

[carldaman]

It is astonishing that the match ended without Anand winning a single game. This has never happened before in a world championship, as far as I know.

I was a bit disappointed with the 12-game format - I hope in future FIDE will consider a somewhat longer match.

--Jon

Capablanca beat Lasker in 1921 without losing a single game.

[IGarcia]

It is astonishing that the match ended without Anand winning a single game. This has never happened before in a world championship, as far as I know.

Carlsen is a well deserved new WCC. He has demostrated long time ago he is the best. Still I was also looking for at least a win from Anand.

I was a bit disappointed with the 12-game format - I hope in future FIDE will consider a somewhat longer match.

--Jon

Sure, 18 or 24 games will be better.

[kgburcham]

Carlsen played at his level, with a stratospheric 2882 perf....

but actually 2200 if you factor in the blunders Carlsen made.
kgburcham

Humm.... You really don't like Human Chess Players.
Chess Programs had alien you

hello Rafael. good reply.
The top players in the sport are ok.
just that the program level today has exposed all of the 2800 blunders.
I am fascinated with Super GM 2800 blunders.
I check all of the 2800 games for blunders and have known this for several years. I am curious of other sports, what is comparable to the top chess players blunders, not sure. I know Tiger woods has had many blunders. I am amazed by how many positions in a game that a 2800 GM cannot see the best move.
what if we had a blunder limit per game or per match, 3 blunders and you are out. what if these 2800 players are deducted 50 elo points per blunder.
2800 blunders are very revealing showing how limited human chess players are.
over and over I see positions that the programs find that the 2800 players don't have a clue.
also the 2600 GM comments during this match were funny, they kept asking, "why that move", "what is going on" etc... funny.
Here is a Carlsen blunder in the last game by the worlds number one player.
before 43.Nd6
Carlsen could not see this move, +2.81++ 43.Nd2

[d] 8/1pk3p1/p3p2p/P1K2p2/2P1NP2/1P2n1PP/8/8 w - -

[michiguel]

It is astonishing that the match ended without Anand winning a single game. This has never happened before in a world championship, as far as I know.

I was a bit disappointed with the 12-game format - I hope in future FIDE will consider a somewhat longer match.

--Jon

Capablanca beat Lasker w/o any defeat, Kramnik to Kasparov, and Lasker did it too, but I do not remember to whom now, but he was the defending champ.

Very clear victory. MC played like a computer, not making blunders, and allowing Anand to self destruct. An extremely boring match, that will leave very little to remember, from the chess point of view.

Miguel

[kgburcham]

Carlsen played at his level, with a stratospheric 2882 perf....

but actually 2200 if you factor in the blunders Carlsen made.
kgburcham

No, Carlsen's 2800+ rating already factors in his mistakes.

Yes of course I am aware of that.
My point is, my opinion is, something is wrong with our system.
The blunders should carry an extra penalty as I state above in my last post.
kgburcham

[kgburcham]

It is astonishing that the match ended without Anand winning a single game. This has never happened before in a world championship, as far as I know.

I was a bit disappointed with the 12-game format - I hope in future FIDE will consider a somewhat longer match.

--Jon

Capablanca beat Lasker w/o any defeat, Kramnik to Kasparov, and Lasker did it too, but I do not remember to whom now, but he was the defending champ.
Very clear victory. MC played like a computer, not making blunders, and allowing Anand to self destruct. An extremely boring match, that will leave very little to remember, from the chess point of view.
Miguel

why do you think 43.Nd6 is not a blunder?
+2.81++ 43.Nd2

[d] 8/1pk3p1/p3p2p/P1K2p2/2P1NP2/1P2n1PP/8/8 w - -

[gordonr]

why do you think 43.Nd6 is not a blunder?
+2.81++ 43.Nd2

Could you give more analysis details? Can you give the full winning line and tell us which engine finds this quickly?

[ZirconiumX]

It is astonishing that the match ended without Anand winning a single game. This has never happened before in a world championship, as far as I know.

I was a bit disappointed with the 12-game format - I hope in future FIDE will consider a somewhat longer match.

--Jon

Capablanca beat Lasker w/o any defeat, Kramnik to Kasparov, and Lasker did it too, but I do not remember to whom now, but he was the defending champ.

Very clear victory. MC played like a computer, not making blunders, and allowing Anand to self destruct. An extremely boring match, that will leave very little to remember, from the chess point of view.

Miguel

This is what the computer chess scene has done to human chess. It obliterates anything less than perfection.

Matthew:out

[Uri Blass]

It is astonishing that the match ended without Anand winning a single game. This has never happened before in a world championship, as far as I know.

I was a bit disappointed with the 12-game format - I hope in future FIDE will consider a somewhat longer match.

--Jon

Capablanca beat Lasker w/o any defeat, Kramnik to Kasparov, and Lasker did it too, but I do not remember to whom now, but he was the defending champ.
Very clear victory. MC played like a computer, not making blunders, and allowing Anand to self destruct. An extremely boring match, that will leave very little to remember, from the chess point of view.
Miguel

why do you think 43.Nd6 is not a blunder?
+2.81++ 43.Nd2

[d] 8/1pk3p1/p3p2p/P1K2p2/2P1NP2/1P2n1PP/8/8 w - -

Maybe because
43.Nd6 is a typical move of players with rating above 3000

Houdini3 single cpu(tactical mode) with no tablebases that obviously has a rating above 3000 suggest the move Nd6 in your fen even after searching
more than 6,600,000,000 nodes

It considers the move 43.Nd2 at depth 28/59 for a long time so maybe it can find it in this iteration but it cannot search 6,600,000,000 nodes at tournament time control.

[JuLieN]

It is astonishing that the match ended without Anand winning a single game. This has never happened before in a world championship, as far as I know.

I was a bit disappointed with the 12-game format - I hope in future FIDE will consider a somewhat longer match.

--Jon

Capablanca beat Lasker w/o any defeat, Kramnik to Kasparov, and Lasker did it too, but I do not remember to whom now, but he was the defending champ.
Very clear victory. MC played like a computer, not making blunders, and allowing Anand to self destruct. An extremely boring match, that will leave very little to remember, from the chess point of view.
Miguel

why do you think 43.Nd6 is not a blunder?
+2.81++ 43.Nd2

[d] 8/1pk3p1/p3p2p/P1K2p2/2P1NP2/1P2n1PP/8/8 w - -

Maybe because
43.Nd6 is a typical move of players with rating above 3000

Houdini3 single cpu(tactical mode) with no tablebases that obviously has a rating above 3000 suggest the move Nd6 in your fen even after searching
more than 6,600,000,000 nodes

It considers the move 43.Nd2 at depth 28/59 for a long time so maybe it can find it in this iteration but it cannot search 6,600,000,000 nodes at tournament time control.

I have SF searching this position with 8 cores (for 8MNPS), and at depth 53 it gives Nd2 +2.90 (this score is constantly improving). I'll let it search more over the night and publish the results tomorrow.