.jpeg)
Chessable Masters Final: Carlsen clinches
7/4/2020 – Magnus Carlsen won the Chessable Masters online tournament by scoring a third consecutive straight-set victory in the final against Anish Giri. In Saturday’s second set of the deciding matchup, Carlsen got an impressive win in the first game, while Giri missed chances to tie the score in games 2, 3 and 4. This was the third event of the Magnus Carlsen Tour — and the second one that sees the world champion taking first place. Full report to follow shortly. | Photo: FIDE
Find the right combination! ChessBase 15 program + new Mega Database 2020 with 8 million games and more than 80,000 master analyses. Plus ChessBase Magazine (DVD + magazine) and CB Premium membership for 1 year!
Chessable Masters - Final
World Champion Magnus Carlsen and eleven more of the world's best chess players are competing in the Chessable Masters by chess24, the third event in the $1 million Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour, taking place from June 20 to July 5.
The 12 players will first be reduced to 8 in a four-day knockout stage split into two groups. The players play each other twice in rapid chess over 10 rounds. The time control is 15 minutes for all moves, with a 10-second increment from move 1.
Previous reports
- Preliminaries: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4
- Quarterfinals: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5
- Semifinals: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3
- Final: Day 1
Games
Commentary webcast
Commentary by Peter Svidler, Yasser Seirawan and Anna Rudolf
Format
The 12 participants are divided into two groups, A and B. The 12 players will first be reduced to 8 in a 4-day knockout stage split into two groups. The players play each other twice in rapid chess over 10 rounds, with the top 4 then advancing to the knockout stage. The time control is 15 minutes for all moves, with a 10-second increment from move 1. No draw offers are allowed before move 40.
Group A - Final standings
| Rk. | Name | Rtg | Pts. | TB1 | ||
| 1 |
|
GM | Carlsen Magnus | 2881 | 6,0 | 1,0 |
| 2 |
|
GM | Artemiev Vladislav | 2769 | 6,0 | 1,0 |
| 3 |
|
GM | Nakamura Hikaru | 2829 | 5,0 | 2,5 |
| 4 |
|
GM | Grischuk Alexander | 2784 | 5,0 | 2,0 |
| 5 |
|
GM | Dubov Daniil | 2770 | 5,0 | 1,5 |
| 6 |
|
GM | Harikrishna Pentala | 2690 | 3,0 | 0,0 |
Group B - Final standings
| Rk. | Name | Rtg | Pts. | TB1 | ||
| 1 |
|
GM | Giri Anish | 2731 | 6,0 | 0,0 |
| 2 |
|
GM | Ding Liren | 2836 | 5,5 | 1,5 |
| 3 |
|
GM | Nepomniachtchi Ian | 2778 | 5,5 | 0,5 |
| 4 |
|
GM | Caruana Fabiano | 2773 | 5,0 | 0,0 |
| 5 |
|
GM | Radjabov Teimour | 2758 | 4,5 | 0,0 |
| 6 |
|
GM | Vachier-Lagrave M. | 2860 | 3,5 | 0,0 |
Links
In the Blitz portion, Magnus had a disconnect on move 3 or 4...cost him about 2 min. That is NOT good in a 5 min game. There should be a rule to restart the games, from the disconnect position...no one can leave the board (to check theory possibly) when this happens so early. In truth, this may have hurt Giri more than Magnus...he did not seem to know what to do....but eventually played on...if you can call what he did 'playing'...played horribly and lost.
Classy move by Magnus.
However, the artificial sense of humor is getting better and better.
Looks like the computer textual AI has some ways to go...
Ding-Carlsen, after 4 Qxd2: 'Not much happened in this game'...
A few times so far the authors have said the score is 2.5-1.5 when it's actually 2.5-0.5.
I would like to see a match between A0 and Stockfish 11 (or Komodo 14) running on a supercomputer like Sesse at NTNU, the technical university in Trondheim, Norway.
Just look at the % of games a human player has played h4 (out of total games played by that human), for all players with a reasonable number of games, and compare it to Alphazero, only going up to the debut of Alphazero (since humans could have learned from A0 since then). If the % is highest in A0, then we can legitimately call h4 an A0 move.
This is a great learning show for someone like me who has been away from the game for 20 years. Well done.
I really don't understand this AlphaZero hype. In the AI world, AlphaZero has been a ground breaking achievement. However, the way Google and DeepMind presented the results was very dishonest. They played against an old and handicapped Stockfish in their private lab, with AlphaZero running on a very powerful computer.
The latest Stockfish is very likely stronger than AlphaZero. It is currently leading (24-22) against LCZero in the TCEC final. LCZero is based on machine learning techniques similar with the one implemented in AlphaZero.
I agree that AlphaZero played some very impressive games against a (handicapped) Stockfish. Unfortunately, equally impressive games played by Stockfish many times have been completely ignored. One example is game number 6 from the current TCEC final.
It has been said that AlphaZero learned to play like a human and it's play looks like the chess played by a human. What people don't understand is that Stockfish is more "human" than AlphaZero, in the sense that it is a result of 60-70 years of very hard work in the field of chess programming. On the other hand, AlphaZero is the result of "blind" learning on a supercomputer.
The latest Stockfish is very likely stronger than AlphaZero. It is currently leading (24-22) against LCZero in the TCEC final. LCZero is based on machine learning techniques similar with the one implemented in AlphaZero.
I agree that AlphaZero played some very impressive games against a (handicapped) Stockfish. Unfortunately, equally impressive games played by Stockfish many times have been completely ignored. One example is game number 6 from the current TCEC final.
It has been said that AlphaZero learned to play like a human and it's play looks like the chess played by a human. What people don't understand is that Stockfish is more "human" than AlphaZero, in the sense that it is a result of 60-70 years of very hard work in the field of chess programming. On the other hand, AlphaZero is the result of "blind" learning on a supercomputer.
Alpha Zero learned only from the rules of chess. But I agree we like the move because it is humanly understandable. The computer here plays the role of a minor god, who blesses the move so that we have faith in its value.
Anna Rudolph referring to the Dubov vs Artemiev game: 'and now comes the "alpha zero" move h4'...at least she followed up by saying 'of course, it's a well known theme'. Is it just me or do many commentators have an 'Alpha Zero Fetish'...seems to be just a hip new, "in" thing to refer to a4 or h4 as something we have "learned" from an engine. At least she, in contrast with others, correctly alludes to the fact that these are really just high class human moves as indeeds human's had these ideas in similiar, often quite positions, first...Larsen was particularly fond of pushing the a or h pawns...it would almost be more correct to say that Alpha Zero has" learned" this from humans...
1
