drawsen - drawuana 3 -3
960 4 tiebreaker!
960 4 tiebreaker!
Great game. Caruana missed a forced win, but very difficult to find. Carlsen missed a win in game 1. So far 6 games, 6 draws and 6 times black having the upper hand.
If Caruana had found *that* win, FIDE would have been forced to mark him as a cheater.
I saw a commentary about this game where the title was:
Chess World Rattled As Someone Nearly Wins Game
That had me laughing so hard... !
Here's the link: fivethirtyeight.com/features/chess-world-rattled-as-someone-nearly-wins-game/
Chess World Rattled As Someone Nearly Wins Game
That had me laughing so hard... !
Here's the link: fivethirtyeight.com/features/chess-world-rattled-as-someone-nearly-wins-game/
@tpr Forced win? I'm guessing you mean after 67. Kg6? Was that from Sesse? I'm curious now, I'd like to see that. My guess is that it was the result of an insanely high-depth search.
@mCoombes314
There are multiple analysis showing why 68...Bh4 wins. But the win was first found by Sasse during the game, and was brought up by GM Ian Rogers during the press conference.
After some further investigation done by grandmasters (such as Daniel King, Ian Rogers, Svidler), they have come to the conclusion that the winning line eventually leads to zugzwang for white, which will result in a B+N mate. However, multiple inhuman move (such as 70...Ng1, where black voluntarily traps his own Knight) have to be found.
you can read further analysis and commentary on here.
www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/9xrzgp/carlsen_caruana_game_6_why_68bh4_wins/.
There are multiple analysis showing why 68...Bh4 wins. But the win was first found by Sasse during the game, and was brought up by GM Ian Rogers during the press conference.
After some further investigation done by grandmasters (such as Daniel King, Ian Rogers, Svidler), they have come to the conclusion that the winning line eventually leads to zugzwang for white, which will result in a B+N mate. However, multiple inhuman move (such as 70...Ng1, where black voluntarily traps his own Knight) have to be found.
you can read further analysis and commentary on here.
www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/9xrzgp/carlsen_caruana_game_6_why_68bh4_wins/.
That is confusing yet beautiful at the same time.... it has some rather counter-intuitive moves though, probably why a human wouldn't be able to find it, that and SF has to get into 80+ depth (running SF on the Lichess analysis board). Every time something like this comes up, I am amazed how a simple set of rules can yield something as vast and complex as chess. The same human brain that understands the rules has little hope of understanding what those rules can create (positions like these). Just amazing.
"inhuman move"
The most nonsensical term ever used in chess discussion!
As if no human ever could or has seen a sacrifice that you personally couldn't see. The idea of somebody with your rating (or my own) thinking they are arbiters of how all humans play chess is absolutely hilarious. Actually, the idea of anyone at all claiming that is funny, but it's especially funny when the person making the claim surely couldn't even analyze their own games in any meaningful way without computer assistance.
It would have been crazy if he had seen that sequence of moves. But he might have seen the right move because of some sort of instinct that you personally could never in a million years relate to. It's hardly worth criticism that he didn't, but nor is it outside the realm of possibility. A player much, much, MUCH better than you finding a move that you aren't able to see is not proof that they are not human. Please, tell me more of your definitive knowledge of how the very best chess players in the world view the game.
Why is it not enough to simply say it was an amazing, hard-to-find move, instead of making up unprovable, logically inconsistent nonsense?
The most nonsensical term ever used in chess discussion!
As if no human ever could or has seen a sacrifice that you personally couldn't see. The idea of somebody with your rating (or my own) thinking they are arbiters of how all humans play chess is absolutely hilarious. Actually, the idea of anyone at all claiming that is funny, but it's especially funny when the person making the claim surely couldn't even analyze their own games in any meaningful way without computer assistance.
It would have been crazy if he had seen that sequence of moves. But he might have seen the right move because of some sort of instinct that you personally could never in a million years relate to. It's hardly worth criticism that he didn't, but nor is it outside the realm of possibility. A player much, much, MUCH better than you finding a move that you aren't able to see is not proof that they are not human. Please, tell me more of your definitive knowledge of how the very best chess players in the world view the game.
Why is it not enough to simply say it was an amazing, hard-to-find move, instead of making up unprovable, logically inconsistent nonsense?
Both were tired and short of time. Otherwise they would have found it, that is Caruana would have found it, but Carlsen would have avoided it. There is nothing inhuman about it. Even I, humble chess player, thought while watching: "is not Carlsen imprisoning his own king there?". Of course I did not see the right checkmating sequence. I guess without fatigue and time shortage both should have seen it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.