Chess thread

[Tal]

The famous American statistician Nate Silver did a bit of analysis ahead of the WC match http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/magnus-carlsen-world-chess-championship/

His argument is "The more likely draws are, the better Carlsen’s chances to defend his crown", as Carlsen is perceived to be the stronger player.

This is just plain wrong, isn't it? The more draws, the better chance the weaker player has. Fewer draws favours the stronger player.

Thanks for speaking up Trav, that was my first thought aswell.

His line of reasoning looks to be that more draws decreases the variance, and that a lower variance route suits the stronger player.

I know next to nothing about chess, but surely Silver is right.

If you are heads up in poker with a stronger player than you, the best tactic is to try and play big pots and increase variance. Push draws strongly, and hero call more often.

So wide open, high variance chess games must favour the under dog surely?

The high variance could be drawing eight games and playing the match over four decisive games.

Carlsen doesn't want wild games; he wants quiet games that look dead and he can test Anand's technique over brutal, grinding hours. That is HIS lowest variance line.

[MintTrav]

The famous American statistician Nate Silver did a bit of analysis ahead of the WC match http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/magnus-carlsen-world-chess-championship/

His argument is "The more likely draws are, the better Carlsen’s chances to defend his crown", as Carlsen is perceived to be the stronger player.

This is just plain wrong, isn't it? The more draws, the better chance the weaker player has. Fewer draws favours the stronger player.

Thanks for speaking up Trav, that was my first thought aswell.

His line of reasoning looks to be that more draws decreases the variance, and that a lower variance route suits the stronger player.

I know next to nothing about chess, but surely Silver is right.

If you are heads up in poker with a stronger player than you, the best tactic is to try and play big pots and increase variance. Push draws strongly, and hero call more often.

So wide open, high variance chess games must favour the under dog surely?

The high variance could be drawing eight games and playing the match over four decisive games.

Carlsen doesn't want wild games; he wants quiet games that look dead and he can test Anand's technique over brutal, grinding hours. That is HIS lowest variance line.

Exactly. The likelihood of a win for the weaker player increases if the match is reduced to fewer positive results as they could just happen to snatch a win in those, whereas, if there are lots of wins, variance reduces and the stronger play should come out on top. It's the same reason that there are more so-called shock results in low-scoring sports like soccer than in high-scoring ones like rugby or cricket.

[The Camel]

The famous American statistician Nate Silver did a bit of analysis ahead of the WC match http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/magnus-carlsen-world-chess-championship/

His argument is "The more likely draws are, the better Carlsen’s chances to defend his crown", as Carlsen is perceived to be the stronger player.

This is just plain wrong, isn't it? The more draws, the better chance the weaker player has. Fewer draws favours the stronger player.

Thanks for speaking up Trav, that was my first thought aswell.

His line of reasoning looks to be that more draws decreases the variance, and that a lower variance route suits the stronger player.

I know next to nothing about chess, but surely Silver is right.

If you are heads up in poker with a stronger player than you, the best tactic is to try and play big pots and increase variance. Push draws strongly, and hero call more often.

So wide open, high variance chess games must favour the under dog surely?

The high variance could be drawing eight games and playing the match over four decisive games.

Carlsen doesn't want wild games; he wants quiet games that look dead and he can test Anand's technique over brutal, grinding hours. That is HIS lowest variance line.

Exactly. The likelihood of a win for the weaker player increases if the match is reduced to fewer positive results as they could just happen to snatch a win in those, whereas, if there are lots of wins, variance reduces and the stronger play should come out on top. It's the same reason that there are more so-called shock results in low-scoring sports like soccer than in high-scoring ones like rugby or cricket.

This is definitely wrong.

A 33/1 shot has 3% chance (discounting over round) of winning whatever sport you are talking about.

There aren't more shocks in football than rugby or cricket.

[Tal]

The real problem with what I said is it's nigh on impossible at this level to control the way the game goes. Take snooker. You can play very low risk snooker, where you pot anything where you're 90% or more to knock it in and then play safe. That's fine and you can stodge the game up and make it very difficult for your opponent to get into a rhythm.

In chess, if you play a Catalan as white (one of the stodgiest set ups with white), your opponent can find ways to be eke out edges, because anything suboptimal can be punished and, mathematically, the aggressive move is often better (because the computer plays perfectly). If you attack, the standard of opponent means you will rarely scare them and will find yourself getting picked off. Again, anything less than optimal gives your opponent an edge in the course of a match.

[The Baron]

Enjoyed that

[Tal]

Enjoyed that

Cracking game. More of those, please.

[MintTrav]

Svidler was really good. And the girl was good at saying 'yes' every 20 seconds in agreement.

[Tal]

Svidler was really good. And the girl was good at saying 'yes' every 20 seconds in agreement.

TBF, he's one of the few guys in the world who knows what's going on

[Tal]

[MintTrav]

The famous American statistician Nate Silver did a bit of analysis ahead of the WC match http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/magnus-carlsen-world-chess-championship/

His argument is "The more likely draws are, the better Carlsen’s chances to defend his crown", as Carlsen is perceived to be the stronger player.

This is just plain wrong, isn't it? The more draws, the better chance the weaker player has. Fewer draws favours the stronger player.

Thanks for speaking up Trav, that was my first thought aswell.

His line of reasoning looks to be that more draws decreases the variance, and that a lower variance route suits the stronger player.

I know next to nothing about chess, but surely Silver is right.

If you are heads up in poker with a stronger player than you, the best tactic is to try and play big pots and increase variance. Push draws strongly, and hero call more often.

So wide open, high variance chess games must favour the under dog surely?

The high variance could be drawing eight games and playing the match over four decisive games.

Carlsen doesn't want wild games; he wants quiet games that look dead and he can test Anand's technique over brutal, grinding hours. That is HIS lowest variance line.

Exactly. The likelihood of a win for the weaker player increases if the match is reduced to fewer positive results as they could just happen to snatch a win in those, whereas, if there are lots of wins, variance reduces and the stronger play should come out on top. It's the same reason that there are more so-called shock results in low-scoring sports like soccer than in high-scoring ones like rugby or cricket.

This is definitely wrong.

A 33/1 shot has 3% chance (discounting over round) of winning whatever sport you are talking about.

There aren't more shocks in football than rugby or cricket.

I believe there are. A sport in which a single score can be enough to win is always more likely to produce upsets than one in which numerous scores are required.

Teams in the relegation area of the Premier League have had innumerable wins against the top four teams over the years. How often do you reckon that happens in the rugby leagues? I agree with your example of two teams in different sports, who are on the same odds, having the same chance of winning. However, other things being equal, the bottom team of a football league should be at shorter odds against the top team than the bottom team of a rugby league playing against their top team.

[The Camel]

The famous American statistician Nate Silver did a bit of analysis ahead of the WC match http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/magnus-carlsen-world-chess-championship/

His argument is "The more likely draws are, the better Carlsen’s chances to defend his crown", as Carlsen is perceived to be the stronger player.

This is just plain wrong, isn't it? The more draws, the better chance the weaker player has. Fewer draws favours the stronger player.

Thanks for speaking up Trav, that was my first thought aswell.

His line of reasoning looks to be that more draws decreases the variance, and that a lower variance route suits the stronger player.

I know next to nothing about chess, but surely Silver is right.

If you are heads up in poker with a stronger player than you, the best tactic is to try and play big pots and increase variance. Push draws strongly, and hero call more often.

So wide open, high variance chess games must favour the under dog surely?

The high variance could be drawing eight games and playing the match over four decisive games.

Carlsen doesn't want wild games; he wants quiet games that look dead and he can test Anand's technique over brutal, grinding hours. That is HIS lowest variance line.

Exactly. The likelihood of a win for the weaker player increases if the match is reduced to fewer positive results as they could just happen to snatch a win in those, whereas, if there are lots of wins, variance reduces and the stronger play should come out on top. It's the same reason that there are more so-called shock results in low-scoring sports like soccer than in high-scoring ones like rugby or cricket.

This is definitely wrong.

A 33/1 shot has 3% chance (discounting over round) of winning whatever sport you are talking about.

There aren't more shocks in football than rugby or cricket.

I believe there are. A sport in which a single score can be enough to win is always more likely to produce upsets than one in which numerous scores are required.

Teams in the relegation area of the Premier League have had innumerable wins against the top four teams over the years. How often do you reckon that happens in the rugby leagues? I agree with your example of two teams in different sports, who are on the same odds, having the same chance of winning. However, other things being equal, the bottom team of a football league should be at shorter odds against the top team than the bottom team of a rugby league playing against their top team.

So it isn't a shock when Burnley beat Chelsea then, is it?

They have a much bigger % chance than a rugby team in the same spot.

[Tal]

Well, we're underway!

Anand wants complicated positions, unusual opening lines and tricky middlegames. Carlsen wants seemingly level endgames with little apparent play that he can fight for ab nauseam. So, they both got their wish!

We knew Anand would play 1.d4 because Carlsen would likely get into quiet positions with ease if he played 1.e4. We didn't expect Carlsen would play the Grünfeld Defence, which is largely considered the sharpest response to pawn to queen four. A statement of intent? Has to be. A gamble, though. Anand made his point in response, though, taking the Norwegian out of his preparation almost immediately. Carlsen fell behind on the clock badly, as he tried to work the position out, while his opponent was still in the darker reaches of his theory.

Carlsen survived, though, and found himself in familiar territory: an endgame with near-symmetrical pawn structure. Anand looked to have possible problems, but he held firm and Carlsen said afterwards he didn't think there was a win there.

So, we move on to round two and we'll see today what Carlsen has prepared as white.

Report, analysis and videos:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/world-championship-01-first-fight-first-draw

[Tal]

[tikay]

Tal,

You correctly predicted Anand's opening move yesterday, what do you think will Carlsen start with today, & why?

[Tal]

Tal,

You correctly predicted Anand's opening move yesterday, what do you think will Carlsen start with today, & why?

Carlsen tends to prefer 1.d4 and I can't see him wanting to get into the more complicated variations that come from 1.e4. He has been known to play 1.c4, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if he played that today.

In poker terms:

d4 >>>>> c4 >>>>> e4.

He's already surprised us once, though