
Carlsen wins game 9, only needs 1 draw in 3 remaining games - pdknsk
http://chennai2013.fide.com/carlsen-extends-the-lead-as-anand-risked-it-all-in-game-9-of-fide-world-championship-match/
======
kadabra9
What's really scary about Carlsen is I don't think he's close to reaching his
full potential yet. He's rapidly approaching the level of dominance in elite
chess not seen since Fischer or Kasparov, and he's only 22. I can't think of
anyone in the next Candidate's Tournament that would be a serious threat to
take Carlsen's title, aside from maybe Kramnik.

I'm also really interested to see the impact Carlsen winning the World
Championship has on the game's popularity worldwide. He's a very marketable
champion, young with good looks and modelling contracts. Both of the former
champions, Kramnik and Anand, are obviously very popular in chess circles (and
Anand is immensely popular in India), but maintained generally lower profiles
in the media.

The next couple of years should be really interesting for chess. My hope as an
American is that Nakamura can eventually qualify for the Candidate's
Tournament and set up a dream title match down the road.

~~~
kzrdude
Allegedly Carlsen has said that he "didn't know anything about chess when I
became world #1", reflecting over the amount he had learned since then. I
don't understand what that can be, but I'm no chess player..

~~~
jrs99
it may mean he went from being a more calculating type of player(tactical),
which you can win many games with, to being a more positional type of player
(strategical) which takes a much greater understanding of the game.

~~~
klapinat0r
Would you mind to elaborate on what you mean by playing tactical vs.
strategical? (part of my yearly "now I'll get started with Chess again")

~~~
kadabra9
Tactics are often associated with winning material through a combination or
attack, so you could think of concepts such as trapping an opponents queen or
blundering a knight are more tactical in nature. Other ideas, like discovered
check, pins, decoys, etc are primarily tactical as well. Many lower level
games are decided by tactics simply because players are more apt to fall into
traps, not calculate properly, etc.

Strategic play is much more subtle, but becomes more important as you get
stronger. Strategic play generally involves more long term planning with the
goal of creating a lasting advantage for yourself. Some examples of strategic
concepts are creating more space for yourself (and at the same time
constricting your opponent), having a better pawn structure (e.g your
opponents pawns are isolated and vulnerable to attack), having your minor
pieces better positioned(e.g your bishops rake open diagonals while your
opponent's are trapped behind pawns)

~~~
prawn
Not particularly good at chess, but could the difference be likened to the
following:

    
    
      Tactics - winning pieces or losing fewer than your opponent
      Strategy - putting yourself in a position where the above is more likely to happen or be possible
    
    ?

------
trycatch
By the way, there is a very interesting tournament going on currently -- TCEC,
unofficial computer chess championship [1]. The main intrigue of the
tournament is the fight between Stockfish and Komodo. Houdini, dominating
engine in the last few years, already lost any chances to go into the
superfinal -- two very strong challengers, Komodo and Stockfish, in the last
few months were able to eat huge advantage of Houdini. The author of Komodo,
Don Dailey, is terminally ill, according to his wife he has just a few days to
live, so it's possible that he will not know if his engine will win or not.
It's really heartbreaking, he was very active in the chat of TCEC just a few
days ago, commenting games, discussing computer chess and so on. Stockfish is
an open-source engine that uses distributed testing framework, so anybody can
participate in its development donating CPU time [2]. Both engines are very
strong and have relatively equal strength.

[1] [http://tcec.chessdom.com/](http://tcec.chessdom.com/) [2]
[http://tests.stockfishchess.org/](http://tests.stockfishchess.org/)

~~~
hrjet
Wouldn't a match with an open-source engine be unfair? The competing close-
source engine could embed the opponents source inside it to predict the exact
moves that the opponent would make, thus gaining a speed advantage.

Even more interestingly, what would a match between two open-source engines
look like, if they both embedded each other?

~~~
cscheid
Eliezer Yudkowsky gave a talk at MIT recently that touched on this very
subject:

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/itp/meetup_talk_by_eliezer_yudkowsky...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/itp/meetup_talk_by_eliezer_yudkowsky_recursion_in/)

Some commentary by Scott Aaronson:

[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1558#comment-89317](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1558#comment-89317)

------
pdknsk
Skip to 13:47:30 when the commentators realise Anand made a huge blunder (and
resigns on the next move).

[http://chennai2013.fide.com/anand-carlsen-video-with-
comment...](http://chennai2013.fide.com/anand-carlsen-video-with-commentary/)

~~~
karpathy
The official commentary and analysis, imo, was not very good though.

I was watching this feed live to see the players, but for audio I was over at
[http://www.twitch.tv/chessnetwork](http://www.twitch.tv/chessnetwork) . Jerry
from chessnetwork did a wonderful job of breaking it all down as it was
happening. In general, his Chess YouTube channel over here
[http://www.youtube.com/chessnetwork](http://www.youtube.com/chessnetwork) is
awesome.

~~~
robryan
Yeah second this, Jerry is pretty amazing and makes the game pretty accessible
for those like me with only a passing interest in chess.

------
simfoo
If you're interested in the match go watch Jerry on his channel on Youtube
[0]. He's uploaded some great videos so far. He also livestreams the games on
Twitch btw.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork/videos)

~~~
ZirconCode
Second, was about to post this. This guy is amazing. Entertaining and easy to
follow, even for beginning players.

------
po
During the press questioning the computer they were using froze up a bit and
Anand became frustrated and rattled through his thinking out loud instead.

The commentator then asks Anand something along the lines of "did you think
through all of these complications?" and his response was a curt "no, I was
thinking of what to eat tonight."

"Yeah… so, do we have questions to the players?"

oof... such high stakes and he just missed the move. Really gotta feel for
him.

~~~
auctiontheory
_his response was a curt "no, I was thinking of what to eat tonight."_

I was up at 5am to watch that. Embarrassing. Other great players (e.g.
Kramnik) have lost tough matches with a lot more class.

~~~
deletes
Wait, so he wasn't being sarcastic? I wouldn't think someone at that level
would be so insecure.

~~~
CurtMonash
Look into any history of Bobby Fischer. He was batshit crazy.

------
S4M
Anand's last move was a _huge_ mistake. I am pretty sure it's because of the
tension, because even I (fide rating 1900+) wouldn't have made it.

~~~
greyman
Yes, it was. But anyway, even after the correct Bf1, there isn't a mating
attack, and the game would probably lead to draw, which isn't good enough for
Anand. So he spent almost all his time to find some decisive attack, but there
probably just wasn't one to be found.

------
auctiontheory
Carlsen is the best/only hope for chess to clean up its act (reinventing FIDE
and the Candidates process), and market itself to the broader Western public,
much as poker has been marketed. Keeping my fingers crossed.

~~~
anExcitedBeast
As a chess player and fan, this will never happen. Poker can be very fun to
watch, even for people who don't know how it's played. Chess is often boring
to watch, even for people who do know how it's played. Can it's profile be
increased? Absolutely. Will it ever compare to the television success of
poker? I doubt it, but that's OK.

~~~
maaaats
I feel the other way: Poker is boring to watch, too much luck/randomness when
watching. Fun to play, though.

I'm not really a chess player, but I've watched all the matches this
Championship, and all my friends (not chessplayers as well) are watching. It
helps that we are Norwegian, though. And that may be the point: A western
player will bring back the popularity in the west.

~~~
jonathansizz
If you're thinking of tournament poker, than I can see what you're saying. Try
watching some deep-stacked cash games sometime though; this is the most high-
level and interesting poker to watch (and also the most instructive).

------
cdelsolar
Reminds me a bit of this guy's dominance:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Richards_(Scrabble)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Richards_\(Scrabble\))

Winning 4 national championships in a row is one of the most amazingly
dominant feats in anything, especially given a game that has a significant
luck factor.

A top tournament player in a Scrabble Facebook group just said this about him:

"I'm pretty sure what he's doing is not capable by most human brains tbh, he
plays better than any computer with seemingly a very small amount of tilt. You
will never be as good as him, no matter how hard you try. Makes the game
pointless (said this a million times b4). As a sidenote, his existence in
scrabble is terrible for the game"

~~~
zem
it's a shame ganesh asirvatham dropped out of the scrabble scene; he was a
very impressive player, and the popular pick at the time for most likely to
challenge nigel's dominance.

he was also the highest-rated player in the world for a while, even though he
never actually won a world championship. check out his tournament record:
[[http://www.cross-
tables.com/results.php?p=6670][http://www.w...](http://www.cross-
tables.com/results.php?p=6670\]\[http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-
bin/most.cgi?name1=Ganesh%20Asirvatham\]).

note in particular that he had a 24-12 record against nigel across 13
tournaments: [http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-
bin/headmini.cgi?name1=Gan...](http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-
bin/headmini.cgi?name1=Ganesh%20Asirvatham&name2=Nigel%20Richards)

(anecdotally, as a 1700-rated player there are lots of people who can beat me
handily, but nigel and ganesh are the only two i've ever felt actually
intimidated by)

------
PhasmaFelis
I sometimes feel like I'm really missing out by not getting chess. It's such a
rich source of metaphor.

------
rikacomet
The worst part about that match is, Anand spent 50+ minute on one move, to
loose all the time advantage he had pushed carlsen into.

First I thought, it was to make Carlsen loose his nerve, but he lost his own
nerve, by moving Qe4, instead of slow push hh4. That was the turning point :(
He went from winning position to a clear loss.

Also, I don't get the point of resigning, on this level, it should be a fight
till the end, no matter how shameful.

~~~
peeters
I don't see anything wrong with resigning. First off, it acknowledges your
weak position, which saves you some face for at least knowing. Second, it is a
strong compliment on your opponent's skill, because only poor play from your
opponent would put you into a draw/win situation. This in turn is classy,
because it's saying "I want to win on my own merits, not on a mistake of my
opponent."

So honestly I think it makes everyone look good.

~~~
robrenaud
Fuck looks/face/perception. I don't care what you think about me. I just want
to win (within the rules, of course).

~~~
auctiontheory
Once you get a reputation for playing out positions more than a rook down, you
may have a harder time getting tournament invitations, sponsors,
collaborators, etc. If you're an amateur, soon even your friends won't want to
play you.

~~~
jrs99
If Carlsen started playing out all his games do you think he wouldn't be
invited into tournaments?

He'd be in the tournaments, it would just be a waste of time for him to play
out all the games, when he is certain to lose. instead, he resigns and relaxes
his mind and winds down before the next game.

~~~
auctiontheory
_If Carlsen started playing out all his games do you think he wouldn 't be
invited into tournaments?_

I think that if Carlsen had started out in life being a brat, he wouldn't have
got much support to get to where he is today. Besides, other players are not
Carlsen. E.g. Topalov seems to receive fewer invites than other comparable
players. Could it be because of his (and his manager's) abominable behavior
during two WC matches?

------
medell
My stupid marketing brain couldn't help but notice there is no mention of the
word "chess". Must stop keyword optimizing as I read...

------
Peroni
I'm an experienced poker player however I'm an absolute chess novice. Aside
from the obvious "just practice" advice, what are the best resources to fall
back on in terms of books, videos etc if I wanted to learn the game in
significant depth?

~~~
pytrin
I'd highly recommend "My System" by Aron Nimzowitsch. A deep dive into
positional play instead of specific tactics

[http://www.amazon.com/My-System-21st-Century-
Edition/dp/1880...](http://www.amazon.com/My-System-21st-Century-
Edition/dp/1880673851)

~~~
sireat
My System was my second chess book. I bought it in an underground book market
in a forest for 10 roubles when I was a 9 year old.

It is a great book and without it I would have struggled to reach FM, but it
is a little bit too advanced for a first book. I'd say it is a good 4th or 5th
book.

I'd say something like Lasker's manual of chess would be better suited as a
first book. Perhaps one of the other starter's volumes from Seirawan, et al
would fit the bill.

------
ibsathish
Clearly shows a paradigm shift with the new generation taking over. Anand is
around 44 years now and it's quite obvious that his mental reflexes would have
slowed down while Carlsen is just half his age.

Welcome Magnus, you are a prodigy. A real one.

~~~
Cherian
Do you think age has a lot to do in chess?

~~~
kamaal
Well I don't know much about chess, but I've read some chess history off late.
I think age should not be an issue.

But sometimes people go through rough times. It happens, people don't stay in
form and the added pressure of the event makes people more desperate and to
act in urgency. Big blunders happen in such situations. This isn't just
restricted to chess. In nearly walk of life this happens.

I know some very brilliant people who make silly mistakes during urgent
production issues.

We are humans after all. And we make mistakes.

~~~
kzrdude
Anand seems to have some frustrations. In an interview he lamented that he
reached GM at the age of 18, while the youngest have been able to do that at
12 or 13 (Magnus at 13). He's not content with being the world champion, he
wants to be the youngest, most talented, etc too. Can't have everything.

Since internet commentary is always interpreted with a negative tone, I'll
edit to add: Anand is a fascinating personality and very sympathetic. I hoped
he'd score 1 point today :-)

~~~
kamaal
>>he wants to be the youngest, most talented, etc too. Can't have everything.

As an Indian, and someone who practically looks at Anand as a role mode. I
would be disappointed if Anand really had that attitude.

Frankly speaking, I don't like the 'naturally talented' or 'natural genius' or
this whole belief that people are born with some skills that can't be matched
by other people. This isn't just about chess. This sort of thing manifests in
every other walk of life.

Most kids just resign to be incapable at math due to constant comparison with
other kids. Though I they would do far better if only they were motivated
enough to put more effort.

~~~
auctiontheory
_Frankly speaking, I don 't like the 'naturally talented' or 'natural genius'
or ..._

I think you will enjoy reading the book _Mindset_. It's for parents, and it
explores and expands on the very idea you have described ... which is the
opposite of how every Indian parent thinks, so the total addressable market
for the book is a big one!

------
jkarni
Pity. 27. Ne2 looked really fun. If 27...Bf5, 28. Nf4! b1=Q? 29. Rxb1 Bxb1
30.Nd5 +-. If 27...Qa5, 28. Nf4 also. Strangely, the move didn't get mentioned
in the Chessbase analysis, or the official commentary.

------
deletes
This is a video recording of the match with live commentary and analysis.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_NGSn1MoI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_NGSn1MoI)

------
jc123
Haven't paid attention for a while, but the reduction of games from the
classical best of 24 series, seems far too short. Anand had to take this risk
because there were only 4 games left and he needed to win 2 which is super
tough. Another 12 games would have been interesting. So if the next game is a
draw, which is highly likely, would the championship only have 10 games?
Classical championship should allow for more battles; there are other
tournaments where speed can be the focus.

------
denysonique
Hopefully Carlsen's becoming the FIDE World Champion will be loud in the media
and will bring back the popularity of chess into our times.

~~~
super_mario
Not very likely now that most of us have a computer in our pockets that can
beat each of these guys.

Chess will never be the same again.

~~~
TylerE
I don't buy that at all, no more so than the existence of motor vehicles have
made track and field events irrelevant. If anything, wide accessibility of
very strong computer engines only boosts the high-level game, as it enables
very deep analysis - opening theory has moved quite a bit in the last 20-30
years.

~~~
jrs99
track and field is largely irrelevant. Chess is pretty irrelevant, no matter
how much i love it. avant-garde Novels are also irrelevant.

What i mean is that a huge majority of gifted athletes will not be going into
track and field. The best athletes aren't pro runners. I'm not saying that
there aren't great runners who are athletes, just that soccer, and basketball
will be taking a lot of the talent away from track.

Same is true of chess. Best gameplayers are not deciding to go into chess. It
is a very minor game, like rugby. I would even think that Poker has more
strategic talent than Chess does.

~~~
oskarth
I am curious to see what you base this on. Sounds like a lot of hand-wavy
speculation to me. If you would have talked about Americans going for American
Football in college rather than say, Olympic Weightlifting, that would be a
different thing.

When exactly does someone like a Carlsen (Norway) or Anand (India), as
"gameplayers", choose to go into a different game than chess?

As an example, I used to play chess when I was younger. Plenty of people later
took up things like poker and starcraft, and a few became quite successful at
it. These people were generally not the best chess players, instead they were
more likely to be average / slightly above average (for being serious club
players) in chess.

------
Wingman4l7
This headline sorely needs a qualifier to explain what it's about -- even
something simple like "[chess]" would be sufficient.

------
novalis78
Magnus Carlsen plays like he invented the game.

------
xfax
If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend the 60 minutes segment on
it. Just Google it.

