Carlsen Hangs on in Game 6

Ok so it is indeed half-moves. I thought depth 40 meant comprehensive search at depth 40, otherwise it is very easy to claim a depth 1000 analysis by just looking at only one possibility...
Thank you anyway.

Is there any chance for 6 more draws in classical, all draws in tie-breaks, including a draw in Armageddon? This would set up the new world record draw streak and take the world chess draw streak champion title from Anish Giri.

@Thedudefrom "In-fact it's fairly common in chess lingo"

That has nothing to do with it being worthless. That I said it's the most worthless term used in chess discussion is an acknowledgement that it is used in chess discussion. This is a truism irrelevant to my point.

"I've heard many grandmasters use terms like computer moves or inhuman while explaining one of their games."

It's still dumb as shit, because nobody can possible decide on what is a "human move" - it is undefinable and impossible to apply in any way that's not completely arbitrary.

That said, I'll admit the term is more meaningful coming from someone who is among the best players in the world, rather than some anonymous, low-rated nobody on the Internet. But the latter is primarily who I see using the term.

What on earth would qualify a person rated so poorly to decide what is a "human move" between two of the highest-rated players of all-time? How arrogant, and how embarrassing. Imagine admitting to thinking that makes sense!

I c your point. I agree, low rated players wouldn't know the difference. But there was a move in one of the world champion games that took like 20+ moves of calculation to figure out, and that was in a dynamic position, not a simple pawn push calculation. The two best human players didn't have a clue about it. So when a computer uses brute force calculation, basically finishing the game in 20-30 different ways to figure out the next move, that's inhuman.