
Armageddon Looms over World Chess Champs after Carlsen’s Shocking Decision - mindgam3
https://deadspin.com/armageddon-looms-over-the-world-chess-championship-afte-1830671246
======
scrooched_moose
If anyone doesn't know, "Armageddon" is a type of chess game that guarantees a
victor; it's not just a click-bait title. It's the last tiebreaker after a
series of other Rapid and Blitz games. (all this is covered, just way at the
end of the article)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess#Armageddon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess#Armageddon)

fivethirtyeight has been covering the tournament and their rough calculation
gives it a 1:5000 chance of making it to the Armageddon game, based on
Carlesen's superior Rapid and Blitz rankings.

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-
decisi...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decision-has-
sent-the-world-chess-championship-to-overtime/)

~~~
gojomo
It might spice-up the whole match to have this final-someone's-gotta-win
tiebreaker _before_ other tiebreaker matches, and then hold the result "in
case it's needed". That'd be in the same spirit as this recommendation to have
Soccer penalty-kick shootouts before overtime.

[https://slate.com/culture/2016/06/how-to-fix-the-penalty-
sho...](https://slate.com/culture/2016/06/how-to-fix-the-penalty-shootout-
play-it-before-extra-time.html)

That is: you know who will win if all other tiebreakers draw, giving the side
which didn't earn this final-tiebreaker the knowledge they have to be more
aggressive, much earlier. (In the extreme, you could play this before every
other match.)

~~~
colmvp
It still irks me that something as rare and prestigious as the World Cup (and
Olympic Hockey) can get decided by shootouts. I mean, I get it, football has a
huge pitch and it'd probably be ridiculous to have guys exhausted, barely able
to jog at the 150th minute.

That said, one of the things I love about NHL playoff hockey is that without
compromise, it's first goal wins overtime, where players are willing to do
everything and anything to get that win. Block every shot, hustle when they're
exhausted... it's truly amazing. One of my favorite quotes about the quintuple
overtime game between the Penguins and Flyers in 2000:

> LeClair: After the third overtime … our locker room became a lot more loose.
> It was pretty comical in the locker room between guys searching for food,
> some guys getting IVs. It was a little bit of survival mode.

> Primeau: Usually on the road the team orders pizza for the locker room.
> There's pizza for the guys, power gels, power bars, they were really
> popular. The trunk of those was gone, the pizza was gone. Trainers are going
> up to concession stands to see if there's anything there. [The] coaches'
> popcorn was eaten.

~~~
mdnormy
You're talking about Golden Goal. Soccer already have that from as long as I
remember.

Then it was "downgraded" to Silver Goal. Only both to be abolished later on.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal)

Wiki mentioned "The golden goal and silver goal were widely perceived as
failed experiments" but I'm in the opposing camp. Golden Goal is freaking
exciting as a spectator.

~~~
Foobar8568
I remember a lot of bitching over the French national teams wining by the
Golden goal in 98 world cup and 2000 European one. And I had forgotten the old
term of sudden death.

~~~
brohee
It was only European cup. World Cup was a very clean 3-0.

~~~
Foobar8568
Vs Paraguay and Laurent Blanc goal in 1998. My original message wasn't clear,
I meant they won two games with golden goals,one during the world cup in 98,
and the other for the final in 2000. Basically France profit of the Golden
goals in two consecutive major competitions.

------
StanfordChess
Hi all, for those planning to watch tomorrow's rapid/blitz tiebreakers live,
Stanford Chess team will be livestreaming analysis and commentary at
[https://www.twitch.tv/stanfordchess](https://www.twitch.tv/stanfordchess) and
[https://lichess.org/@/StanfordChess](https://lichess.org/@/StanfordChess).

Our team captain is GM Daniel Naroditsky, one of the top blitz and bullet
players in the world, who regularly beats Magnus in the LiChess Titled Arena.
And our coach is NM Jordy Mont-Reynaud, a ~2350 bullet player who formerly
held the record for youngest master in the US.

We'll be responding to questions and comments from the chat for any HN members
who want more context on what's going on. Looking forward to an exciting
finale!

~~~
hardmath123
Can folks at Stanford come by and watch live? (This is the first I've heard of
the Stanford Chess Club…)

~~~
StanfordChess
NM Jordy Mont-Reynaud will be live streaming from the CoHo at 7am. All
Stanford students and affiliates are encouraged to join for commentary +
banter! Normally we have a room reserved at Tresidder Old Union, but we got a
bit of a late start on this so we're winging it for tomorrow.

Slack group open to Stanford students/alums/faculty:
[https://stanfordchess.slack.com](https://stanfordchess.slack.com)

FB page for general public:
[https://www.facebook.com/stanfordchessdotorg/](https://www.facebook.com/stanfordchessdotorg/)

~~~
StanfordChess
Sorry guys, wifi issues at CoHo prevented streaming. We are live now on
Twitch: www.twitch.tv/stanfordchess

------
jeffreyrogers
An alternative opinion for why Carlsen offered the game 12 draw:
[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/11/ga...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/11/game-12-draw.html)

~~~
rtkwe
Another is that Carlsen is very good at rapid (Carlsen 2880 vs Caruana 2789)
and blitz (2939 vs 2767) formats compared Caruana so it makes sense to just
take things to the tiebreakers where Carlsen has a significant advantage.

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-
decisi...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/carlsens-bizarre-decision-has-
sent-the-world-chess-championship-to-overtime/)

~~~
cjbprime
> So it actually is a draw! (sort of)

There's been a tournament of top engines playing out the position after the
draw -- I think black (Carlsen) won 11 games and white won 2 games, with the
rest draws. So this declaration of the lack of advantage just isn't true.

> just take things to the tiebreakers where Carlsen has a significant
> advantage.

But he had a significant advantage on the board, too. The question is the
magnitude of the advantages. Caruana has previously been a world blitz
champion too, so it seems unlikely that any advantage would be more than
60%-40% to Carlsen. Which seems smaller than the advantage we see from the
computer tournament results.

~~~
rtkwe
Just take a look at their relative rankings though. Caruana may have
previously been blitz champion but his current blitz elo is ~170 points lower
than Carlsen who iirc is the current blitz champion.

I'd like to see that same process repeated for all the other draws from the
points of highest advantage and right before the draw too if we're going to be
using it to evaluate the decision to draw. Not sure how closely the computer
tournament reflects the actual progression we've seen from Carlsen and Caruana
because if we just look at the pawn equivalent advantage game 12 wasn't the
best game that's been fought to a draw in this series. (I know that doesn't
take into account positional advantage but we don't have an easy number to sum
up that over all the games).

~~~
rurban
His current low blitz ELO ranking only says that he plays less blitz than
Carlsen. Possibly to catch up to Carlsen in the normal rankings, with playing
lots of normal tournaments. ELO is not measuring the potential, just the
rankings of wins and losses.

Caruana's potential is probably the same Carlsen. One should never
underestimate him.

~~~
rtkwe
Either way the 3-0 victory for Carlsen seems to support that he is better at
rapid than Caruana.

~~~
rurban
Yes, this was a slaughter fest. Saw it live

------
mlthoughts2018
The article moans about Carlsen’s Game 12 draw offer but it’s ridiculous. He
had a plan going in to play for a draw, and given how much of an advantage
there was (a modest advantage that by no means guaranteed a win, and which
would still be hard to spot by human players), he knew the risks in continuing
to play and appraised it to be more prudent to spend that risk budget in rapid
games where he has a superior record.

There is no drama in this at all, and it’s hardly bad for competitive chess.
This title matchhas produced exciting games and creativity, and yes also
blunders. It’s been fantastic to watch!

Carlsen stuck to his overall match plan. That’s all that happened. Now it’s up
to Caruana to prove he can hold his own in rapid games, and frankly he should
feel confident that he can given his overall performances across the 12
matches so far. Carlsen is the favorite for sure, but it looks to be a great
set of rapid games.

~~~
freyir
It's strategic, it's rational, and still it's disappointing. He was renown for
pressing forward against the odds and clinching unexpected victories. Mathias
Feist on Carlsen:

 _" There is an equal position on the board, and the opponent thinks: this is
dead drawn. I can play almost anything and there is nothing he can do. But
Magnus plays on, seeking complications, setting up threats. He is narrowing
the margin required to hold the draw. Soon his opponent is thinking: why is he
still playing – I can hold a draw with any of these three moves. Then: I can
hold with this move and with this move. And then: I still have one clear way
to hold a draw. And under the strain of constantly having to solve deep and
complex problems, more often than not the opponent will crack. Magnus wins not
because it was in the position, he wins because he is Magnus."_

~~~
mlthoughts2018
> “It's strategic, it's rational, and still it's disappointing.”

You’ve lost me there. I don’t see how disappoint is the conclusion. It seems
equivalent to suggesting the player should take risks or chances based on what
might stylistically please the audience as opposed to what might win the match
overall.

I’ve never understood spectators watching competitors and thinking, why won’t
they do what I want them to do instead of what they think is best for the
situation?

~~~
Barrin92
It's not just about pleasing the audience. Showing respect and appreciation
for the game itself is important to chess players, and to competitive sports
overall.

People who follow and participate in competitions passionately don't usually
just try to maximize their chances to win, they also want to deliver the best
effort they can.

Magnus Carlsen specifically was always respected for his fighting spirit. In
his championship game against Anand a few years ago he played out a
practically drawn endgame to a win through sheer tenacity, and he once managed
to win a game in St Louis where a draw that was offered to him would have won
him the tournament on the spot, but he declined and played it out.

This fighting aspect has always made him an especially great player (not just
for the game and the audience, but it has also put him above the competition).

~~~
mlthoughts2018
This reply borders on incoherent to me. What is best effort if not choosing
the course of action you deem gives you the best chance to win? Exhausting
yourself and risking a blunder in the final classical match just because other
people want to see the spectacle of it? That doesn’t seem like “effort” at
all.

Why do soccer players make back passes from offensive positions when tied 0-0?
You think the coach gives a shit at that point if the crowd wants someone to
give “effort” in a press, leaving exposed chances for a sudden counter-attack?
Sometimes playing the back pass is the right “best effort” to be made.

Same with an intentional kneel to run out the clock before halftime instead of
risking injury or a turnover on a last second play in American football. Or
intentionally walking a home run hitter in baseball if you think you stand a
great chance to strike out the next batter.

You seem to be conflating “best effort” with “intentionally disregard the
strategy you deem best because a riskier course of action would be more
appreciated by spectators.”

~~~
BurningFrog
Yes, OP is talking about being _respected_ by the chess world, not merely
_winning_ the title.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
Boy, after today’s results, whoever was defending the idea that Magnus should
have abandoned his match strategy to play out a minor advantage in Game 12
must be feeling pretty embarrassed over such a ridiculous point of view.

------
mindgam3
Reposting this from a comment thread below which mentions the chess.com "what
would have happened" computer playoff, as I think the HN community (who are
far more well versed in computer chess than I) would benefit from a better
understanding of how high-level competitive chess between humans actually
works.

tl;dr: In order to fully appreciate how bizarre Carlsen's draw offer was at
that moment, you need to take into account the time factor, which (to my
knowledge) the chess.com computer analysis ignores completely.

\---

The major problem with using the chess.com data is they don't take into
account the time factor. When Magnus offered, the draw, Fabi had exactly 15min
42sec time remaining to play the next 10 moves. That's less than 2 minutes per
move, versus Magnus having between 2x-3x that amount.

It is hard to understand just how significant of a handicap this is unless
you've ever played competitive chess at a national or international level. The
human mind starts to break down and freeze up when it is forced to make
critical decisions in limited time. This was already starting to happen in the
game leading up to the draw offer, as Caruana took more and more time as his
positioning was worsening.

The end result of this is one player being forced to make a rapid series of
moves in a "time scramble" while the other player has the luxury of checking
and rechecking his calculations. This gives the player with more time a
_massive_ advantage in practice. We're talking at least 100-200 rating points.

If chess.com wanted to do a fair analysis, they should have handicapped the
White computer with 3-4x less compute time. I guarantee the results would have
been significantly more favorable for Black then they already were.

~~~
dang
Please don't copy-paste comments in multiple places on HN. It's a fine
comment, but doing that strictly lowers the signal/noise ratio.

If you want us to move a comment to a better context, we're happy to help with
such requests at hn@ycombinator.com.

~~~
mindgam3
Got it. Sorry about that and thanks for the heads up. I didn’t realize it was
possible to move comments like that after the update window expires.

------
brownbat
If one preferred the tie break conditions and sought to actively play for
draws, how confidently could one force draws?

Could you force draws consistently with someone 100 points stronger than you?
200?

~~~
pk2200
You definitely can't _force_ a draw against a higher rated player, but you can
make one more likely by choosing quiet openings and simplifying in the
middlegame. But it's often tricky to pull this off. If you make too many
second-best moves in pursuit of simplification, you'll drift into a position
that's both simple and bad. :)

------
gregorymichael
tl;dr after 11 draws, Carlsen offered a draw from a superior position in the
final game to head into the short-format tiebreaks, where:

> he is ranked No. 1 in all three formats (classical, rapid, and blitz).
> Caruana is ranked 10th and 18th in rapid and blitz respectively.

Critics are appalled that he didn't fight for the win out of sense of honor. I
don't see how this is different than, for instance, fouling at the end of a
basketball game. Hard to blame a player for working within the rules to put
himself into a position where he feels he has a greater chance of keeping the
title.

"It's not the critic who counts...."

~~~
mindgam3
What I don’t understand is why Carlsen didn’t push for even a few more moves.
Fabi was running out time, it was low risk for him to probe a little more and
see if he could get something a little more decisive.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
Has it not occurred to anyone that maybe Carlsen is just bored?

It takes effort to tie 12 straight games between two world champions.

Additionally, it is not in Carlsen's best interest to finish the tournament.
During the tournament he is a super star. After the tournament he is just some
guy who has a chess trophy (i.e. most people in real life don't care).

Maybe he is just testing himself with some criteria that is harder than "just
winning... again"?

Maybe he just wants to prolong his time in the spotlight? Create some drama,
have people talk about the year where every game, including Armageddon, ended
in a draw!

~~~
williamscales
I heard a story (not sure if it's true) when I was a fencer. At one time in
fencing, there was a rule about inactivity. If you refused to fence, the
period ended and the next period started. There are three periods. If all
three periods ended this way, it went to a one point suddend death matchoff.
Well, one individual felt he liked to win with a lot of panache. As I heard
it, he would deliberately incur three inactivity penalties to send the match
to a one point sudden death where he would try to pull off a daring victory.
So I think there is precedent for the idea of really skilled competitors
thirsting for something more thrilling.

~~~
dbt00
This is actually somewhat common in epee competitions (i.e. I've seen it
multiple times in national level tournaments), because they are high variance
and defense is hugely advantaged. It's also a reasonable strategy because a
tournament can run up to 9 rounds of single elimination, so committing to this
strategy means you expend only 1 minute of effort per round, instead of 9.

------
rhacker
Is any of this being livestreamed anywhere? Specifically tomorrow's matches?
7am just seems so worth it after reading the exciting tie-breaks today.

~~~
jhalstead
Chess24 has had 3 top 25 GMs narrating together for the last few games.
Tomorrow's live stream is at
[https://youtu.be/HBvQ36SqgqM](https://youtu.be/HBvQ36SqgqM).

Note: If it wasn't clear, that stream will not literally be of Carlsen &
Caruana. It mirrors the current position in the game and has commentators
analyze it. I don't think a free livestream exists that shows Carlsen &
Caruana live, making the moves.

~~~
rhacker
If that's what I can get I'll take it. Thanks!

------
lazyant
In past World Chess Championships when they finished tied with points the
current champion retained the title, which I found disappointing
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987#1987_Championship_match)

~~~
ubernostrum
I believe Carlsen is on record as disliking the current format.

The way it works right now, the reigning champion does nothing until a
challenger has earned the right to face him by winning a candidates
tournament. Then the winner of the candidates tournament faces the reigning
champion in a match for the title. Carlsen, as I understand it, would prefer
that the champion take part in a tournament.

The women's championship (also played this month) does feature a tournament.
64 players were seeded, and played single-elimination two-game matches (with
rapid games as tiebreakers). The final two players then faced each other in a
four-game match (again with rapid games as potential tiebreakers). The final
did go to tiebreaks, and was won by defending and now repeat champion Ju
Wenjun.

~~~
slowmovintarget
What I don't understand is why there needs to be a separate women's
tournament. It's chess, not football.

Edit: I suppose that makes sense to encourage more women to play if that was
an issue. (I'm used to more casual clubs where membership requires only
interest and showing up.)

~~~
pilpulpitbull
We are a sexually dimorphic species. Physical differences between men and
women are not limited to muscle mass.

~~~
ctchocula
Citation needed.

In lieu of such data, a simpler explanation is that boys are more encouraged
to play chess from a young age than girls. This results in more teenage boys
playing chess, a deeper talent pool, and thus better top ranked players.

This is similar to what is seen in soccer. Even though China has much bigger
population than Holland by almost 100x, the number of Chinese kids playing
organized soccer is less than Holland by at least 10x.

~~~
pilpulpitbull
> Citation needed

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-
sig...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-
differences-brains-men-and-women)

> “[That previous study] finds no average difference in intelligence, but
> males were more variable than females,” Ritchie says. “This is why our
> finding that male participants’ brains were, in most measures, more variable
> than female participants’ brains is so interesting. It fits with a lot of
> other evidence that seems to point toward males being more variable
> physically and mentally.”

So if you’re looking for outliers (such as a chess prodigee), you are more
likely to find them in the male population than in the female population.

Your explanation is not simpler by any stretch, it just spares you some
cognitive dissonance.

~~~
ubernostrum
Chess prodigies tend to be... the nice word is "encouraged" by their
parents/teachers.

Which naturally raises the question of whether they can be manufactured. And,
regardless of how you may feel about the ethics of testing that
experimentally, László Polgár tested it in order to explore his idea that
"geniuses are made, not born". The result of his experiment:

* Oldest daughter Susan (Zsuzsanna) achieved Grandmaster at age 22. Peak rating 2577.

* Middle daughter Sofia (Zsófia) achieved International Master, peak rating 2505.

* Youngest daughter Judit achieved Grandmaster at age 15 years 4 months, at the time youngest person ever to do so. Peak rating 2735, ranked #8 (not "women's #8", worldwide #8).

------
bradvl
Off topic but interesting: he's also rather good at Fantasy Football/Soccer.

His team is currently sitting at 1,341st in the world out of nearly 6,000,000
teams!

[https://fantasy.premierleague.com/a/team/1224174/event/13](https://fantasy.premierleague.com/a/team/1224174/event/13)

------
michalu
For those who haven't watched the game you can see some nice analysis on
Agadmator's channel which I enjoy the most, here is the last 12th game:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOJNO8BRx_U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOJNO8BRx_U)

------
deepnotderp
I don't understand the people saying that Carlsen was wrong for drawing there.
Two engines (leela as carlsen, stockfish as caruana) playing it went to a draw

~~~
freyir
Leela is an inferior chess engine, and Leela and Stockfish were given equal
time. In the human match, Carlsen and Caruana are closely matched and Carlsen
had a significant clock advantage.

The engines are playing out the position here:
[https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-
championship](https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship)

~~~
Santosh83
Why do you say Leela is an inferior engine? Genuinely curious. Is it just a
matter of the neural net not up to speed (and thus a matter of time before
Leela is on par with Stockfish), or something else that will always handicap
it?

~~~
freyir
I should say, it's _presently_ inferior. It has repeatedly placed behind
Stockfish in recent TCEC and CCCC tournaments. I imagine it will surpass
Stockfish at some point.

------
hpbd
>usually decreeing that a true winner would at all times play in the manner of
a big tough macho caveman who has no need for nuance and no time for thought

Sounds like this was written by someone with a grudge.

------
sys_64738
Kasparov is the greatest of them all, imo.

