World chess championship 2013,disaster or miracle?

[Monsterboy]

the ultraprecise play by Carlsen would have saved his day, even if Anand hadn't made that truly spectacular, miraculous blunder.

You think so?
i think if that last blunder was avoided Anand would have won..

Congratulations to Carlsen and his fans who followed the match ,this was a struggle between 'youth' and 'experience' ,which 'experience' lost!

 

[arildno]

You think so?
i think if that last blunder was avoided Anand would have won..

Not according to Houdini, Carlsen and Anand.
All three saw how Black can save himself, getting an unclear situation with a slight black advantage. (The key is that Carlsen sacrifices his queen at h5, and with his own g-pawn removed, Bf5 saves the day)
See, for example, the embedded analysis here:
http://chessbomb.com/site/

Click on the pawn promotion move in the lower right window; then double click on the -0.47 variation in the lower left window, and see the magnificent, practically forced development Houdini recommends.

(Carlsen himself thought 35. Re5 would be White's best continuation; Houdini disagrees, and suggests 35. Rf5 instead)

 

[fluidistic]

I agree with arildno that Carlsen would have saved his day (I could even add "easily") if Anand had played 28.Bf1 instead of Nf1.
But according to stockfish (dev version, so stronger than houdini 3) the evaluation would have been 0.00, a "dead draw" if Anand had not blundered. So it's not like black was truly better either. I mean it's debatable.
Details, Eval of SF:

info [b]depth 37[/b] seldepth 61 score [b]cp 0[/b] nodes 436948360 nps 999742 time 437061 multipv 1 pv g2f1 b1d1 f4h4 d1h5 g3h5 g6h5 h4h5 c8f5 g5g6 f5g6 h5g5 e8f6 e5f6 d8f6 g5d5 f6f3 d5c5 f3c3 h6f4 c3e1 c5c4 f8d8 c4c1 e1e4 f4e4 g6e4 c1c4 f7f5 g1f2 g8f7 f2e3 d8a8 c4c3 f7f6 f1d3 e4d3 e3d3 a8a1 c3c8 a1h1 c8f8 f6e6 f8e8 e6d6 e8f8 h1d1 d3e3 d6e6 f8d8
info nodes 436948360 time 437061

, the first few moves of the pv are exactly the same as Houdini 3 taken out from the website.

 

[Monsterboy]

Not according to Houdini, Carlsen and Anand.
All three saw how Black can save himself, getting an unclear situation with a slight black advantage. (The key is that Carlsen sacrifices his queen at h5, and with his own g-pawn removed, Bf5 saves the day)
See, for example, the embedded analysis here:
http://chessbomb.com/site/

Click on the pawn promotion move in the lower right window; then double click on the -0.47 variation in the lower left window, and see the magnificent, practically forced development Houdini recommends.

(Carlsen himself thought 35. Re5 would be White's best continuation; Houdini disagrees, and suggests 35. Rf5 instead)

Oh great! so it's not Anand's fault that he lost ,this guy is a computer!

 

[Monsterboy]

I would like to see a match between Carlsen and Deep blue ,maybe this time, man can beat the machine!

 

[arildno]

What's the point in competing with outdated software??
There is no point in competing with current programs like Stockfish and Houdini, either.

 

[Caveat]

^*World champion outdated software.

Only way someone is beating a computer on that level at chess is by pulling out it's power chord.

 

[arildno]

Why should a world champion in chess be regarded as "outdated software" any more than say an athlete can't compete against a car?

 

[Caveat]

@arildno

The way you worded your question is strange no offense (or maybe I don't get it)

Humans excel at abstract, lateral thinking (imo) whereas with linear and systematic problems, computers and AI outpace and outsmart the best of us (as the Chessmaster computers/software proves)

So are you saying that the computer to a human is like a car to a sprinter? idk imho the game is different, you can't really compare the two

Besides Kasparov won overall against Deep Blue

 

[Chronos]

Modern chess engines are very strong. I suspect the best of them would defeat Carlsen right now. I believe they are already close to making chess obsolete. Personally, I think that is unfortunate.

 

[PeroK]

The human against computer competition is always going to be artificial. Not least because the computer needs no sleep, food or rest between matches. A computer could play a 12-game
world championship match back-to-back with no rest.

On the other hand, computers are allowed to play with a reference library of openings and whatever else on disk. You could argue that this is analogous to a human writing down opening theory and carrying it into the match. Opening theory is far less in the computer's memory than it is in the player's. It's allowed to look up anything it likes while it's playing, while a human is not.

Computers will put an end to competitive chess between humans no more than the bicycle put an end to the foot race!

 

[arildno]

Modern chess engines are very strong. I suspect the best of them would defeat Carlsen right now. I believe they are already close to making chess obsolete. Personally, I think that is unfortunate.

Why would it render chess obsolete??
Once we learn, and internalize, to the chagrin of our vanity, that our much-vaunted "thinking" is nothing more mysterious than processes of somewhat faulty calculations, that is, has no mysterious, otherworldly qualities like "The Soul", we can perfectly well accept that machines can outsmart us, and see that this is to our benefit, rather than threatening our marginalization.

 

[Borek]

Just because every chess program will beat me doesn't mean I can't play chess for a pleasure with similarly dumb opponent.

 

[AlephZero]

I suspect most people don't have any real idea how good professional human players are, let alone computers.

When I was at uni I got "addicted" to Go for a while. One of the uni club members was a Japanese guy who was training to become a professional Go player. His idea of a "gentle warm-up exercise" was to spend an hour playing simultaneous games with 15 or 20 club members, and then play through each game explaining all the mistakes that had been made. The explanations were usually given at a diiferent club meeting, several days after the games were played. And he never made any written notes.

(Note for non-go-players: games are usually of the order of 200 to 400 moves (more moves if the result is close). Playing simultaneous games, he was playing at an average speed of about one move per second, and complaining that his opponents were too slow!

He said it was better for memory training to do that against "average" players, because they made more irrational moves which meant there was more to remember!

 

[arildno]

I suspect most people don't have any real idea how good professional human players are, let alone computers.

The Norwegian newspaper VG made a small statistic on how many of Carlsen's and Anand's moves were among "the top 3" suggestions of Houdini.
Results: Carlsen: 88%, Anand: 84%
For picking the first priority, Carlsen was at 54%, Anand at 52%

While many of these choices are what we call either obvious, or even "forced", this statistic at least shows that "computer chess" isn't really THAT different from "human chess".

 

[arildno]

Speaking about computers, humans and chess, this article in Wall Street Journal is well worth a read:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702304337404579209980222399924

 

[Monsterboy]

Speaking about computers, humans and chess, this article in Wall Street Journal is well worth a read:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702304337404579209980222399924

Nice

 

[Monsterboy]

One year later ,the unexpected Carlsen-Anand rematch.

 

[lendav_rott]

I was hoping Carlsen would crush him

although chess is kind of boring now with the engines and whatnot. Not nearly as exciting as games from the 19th century and mid 20th century from Spassky, Fischer, Tal, Keres, Spielman etc

 

[Monsterboy]

although chess is kind of boring now with the engines and whatnot. Not nearly as exciting as games from the 19th century and mid 20th century from Spassky, Fischer, Tal, Keres, Spielman etc

Yea ,you are correct to some extent ,what GMs mostly do today is 'remember' what the engines would do (given their situation in the game) ,although engines have helped them get better.

I might be wrong ,i don't know to what extent they understand why the engines make such moves.

 

[lendav_rott]

Lots of discussions about whether chess is a science or an art. One of the best attacking players, Mihhail Tal, said that chess is an art. To him it really was, since he played with his opponents' heads, not caring whether his combinations were 100% foolproof, what he wanted was chaos. Then a player like Fischer, who played extremely positionally while showing off some great tactical skills, his play was very often very sound - there are some moves even the current engines couldn't understand. Nowadays, though, you can't really pinpoint that "something" about a player - sure they are all very talented, have extremely accute memories, but something is missing.

I always considered chess as an art, though, I like to play chess myself and while I do use engines, I mostly analyse games without them and try to understand moves from the human perspective - not to say I don't appreciate soundness in a position, but engine chess is not chess, sorry :(

 

[consciousness]

Anand orchestrated one of the best comebacks I have ever seen.
After being being totally demolished last year, he played the Candidates as if he were deaf to all the criticism he received. Respect!