Monsterboy said:
Yea... but looking at the first 4 draws it was as if Carlsen was not so much better than other people at the top and both dominated different phases of the games that were drawn, even the games won were narrow wins which should have theoretically ended in a draw like consciousness said . The 2nd loss i feel was the aftermath of the shock Anand got after first defeat.I didn't expect Anand to win but ,i just didn't expect 2 consecutive losses after the 2 good fighting draws. Anyway Anand's reign looks basically over.
I do not think the second loss was due to the first loss. The game was drawn up to move 60 where Anand blundered with Ra4. Instead of Ra4, b4 would have saved the boat. Anand did not even realize this after the game had finished though. He thought that he was lost at move 58 if I remember well (I am not 100% sure).
arildno said:
Rather nonsensical on your part.
the only humans capable of actually learning anything from supercomputers are..supergrandmasters.
Deep strategies dependening on the capacity of calculating hundreds of millions of moves will, precisely for that reason, be completely unattainable for any human being (but a supergrandmaster might learn a few subtleties from them)
I am sorry to have offended. Yes of course very few people can learn from such games. In fact I think many "weak" people can learn/memorize the moves that are just after the end of the opening, with the help of bots.
But it is very beautiful, at least for many people, to watch a game where a bot is down 2 pawns for 20 moves and then win. Or the game I linked, where white in the final position had 1 rook only and black had a queen a knight and white wins.
consciousness said:
Did you follow the games? Especially the the third one in which Carlsen admitted that he was "just trying to survive". Carlsen's astronomical rating isn't an accurate meter stick to gauge his performance against top ten players, it has become so high because he pushes on and beats 2600-2700 rated players when most players would be satisfied with a draw.
Engines make blunders too (otherwise all their games will be drawn). Also their matches lack any emotion or drama.
Yes I followed the games and you are right, in the third game Carlsen could have lost, especially if Anand had "punished" Carlsen's blunder(s) but he did not.
With respect to Carlsen's high rating, I haven't followed his games at all (nor the ones of other humans) but still, if he does win games that most other GM would be happy to draw, I believe he is really stronger than the other GM's. You can't just assume that the other GM's could beat the 2600-2700 rated guys as much as Carlsen do.
About engines, of course they make blunders. What is beautiful about the blunders is that generally they are small ones compared to humans and they get punished. Sometimes it produces masterpieces, especially when there is some huge material imbalance. And I do not agree, the games of engines can turn rather quite dramatic!