use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
詳しくは検索FAQを参照
高度な検索: 投稿者や、subredditで……
121 人のユーザーが現在閲覧しています
Chess Spoiler format for problem answers etc., [Spoiler](#s "Ng5!")
Spoiler:
Do not post direct links to, or links to sites hosting, pirated content.
Do not post NSFW material.
Use the message the moderators link if your posts or comments don't appear, or for help with any administrative matters.
Please continue to give us your feedback and suggestions on how we can help make /r/chess better for everyone.
Carlsen lost to Hammer (self.chess)
larektundir が 7時間 前 投稿
Is this Carlsen's worst tournament since playing in super-tournaments?
[–]Mysterymason 26ポイント27ポイント28ポイント 6時間 前 (113子コメント)
Either that first loss affected him more than he let on or he has personal problems on his mind - there is no way he could have this bad a tournament without an external factor present. He absolutely crushed Shamkir, it's insane how differently he has played this tournament.
[–]AussieChessGuy 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 4時間 前 (0子コメント)
Probably new girlfriend...
[–]wastingmylife5evr 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (1子コメント)
Is there a video of the game or something?
[–]dctrip13 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間 前 (0子コメント)
Norway Chess 2015
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-74ポイント-73ポイント-72ポイント 6時間 前* (108子コメント)
Statistically, he was due for a bad tournament. The guy hasn't had one since he's been in the top 5, right?
Humans don't defeat the laws of physics or statistics.
It's funny the lack of education here. You are all arguing that chess events are independent of each other, while simultaneously arguing that Magnus was affected by the first round Topalov loss. Clearly, for humans, chess games aren't independent.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 56ポイント57ポイント58ポイント 6時間 前 (59子コメント)
You don't understand statistics
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-55ポイント-54ポイント-53ポイント 6時間 前 (58子コメント)
I understand statistics quite well. "Due" is just a layman term. Statstically, Magnus was going to have a bad tournament at some point. It's really not that hard to understand.
[–]tha_real_stabulous1700 chess.com std 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント 6時間 前 (15子コメント)
You called it a "law of statistics" that Carlsen would do poorly in this tournament because he doesn't normally do badly. Utter nonsense.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-44ポイント-43ポイント-42ポイント 6時間 前 (14子コメント)
That is correct. All athletes, statistically, will perform significantly worse in some events than others.
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 5時間 前 (13子コメント)
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with the argument you've presented.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-41ポイント-40ポイント-39ポイント 5時間 前 (12子コメント)
It absolutely does.
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 5時間 前 (11子コメント)
I don't see how it does. Please explain your reasoning.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-51ポイント-50ポイント-49ポイント 5時間 前 (10子コメント)
Chess games of a given player are not independent of previous games. If they were, nobody would be arguing that Magnus was affected by his first round Topalov loss.
You're not very educated or bright. There isn't much point in explaining calculus to someone who can't understand addition.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 6時間 前 (39子コメント)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-33ポイント-32ポイント-31ポイント 6時間 前 (38子コメント)
That doesn't apply here. The definition of a "bad" performance is relative, i.e., not independent of previous events.
[–]Managore 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 6時間 前 (31子コメント)
he was due
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-25ポイント-24ポイント-23ポイント 6時間 前 (30子コメント)
Correct. The likely hood of flipping tails 20 times in a row is greater than the likelihood of flipping heads 25 times in a row.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 5時間 前 (19子コメント)
First off: It is likelihood.
Your statement is correct. However if you have a 90% probability to flip tails and had 9 tails in a row the probability for the next flip to be a tail will still be 90%.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-20ポイント-19ポイント-18ポイント 5時間 前 (18子コメント)
The likelihood of flipping 10 tails in a row is less than the likelihood of flipping 5 tails in a row.
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5時間 前 (8子コメント)
I don't see how this is relevant.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント 5時間 前 (7子コメント)
Chess games of a given player A are not disjoint from other games of player A.
If they did believe that they were independent, they wouldn't be arguing that Magnus was affected by his first round Topalov loss.
[–]HasLBGWPosts 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (0子コメント)
But the likelihood of flipping 25 heads given you've already flipped 24 is 50/50.
[–]NPK5667 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間 前 (5子コメント)
Dude just stop. This is why u have no friends in real life.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 2時間 前 (4子コメント)
Well, being correct has gotten me lots of friends.
If games of chess for a given player are independent, then why did Carlsen's loss to Topalov affect him so much?
[–]NPK5667 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間 前 (0子コメント)
It didnt.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (1子コメント)
No one claims that. We are talking tournament to tournament....
[–]yaschobob 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 43分 前 (0子コメント)
Mmmhmm. Games across a tournament are not independent either. That's why Anand had a mental problem, even by his own admission, when playing against Kasparov.
[–]ialsohaveadobro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 9分 前 (0子コメント)
Assuming it affected him, it affected him psychologically. That would alter the probabilities of each individual game's outcome on that basis, not because he was "due" for a bad tournament.
There is a name for why you're wrong. You are falling victim to the Gambler's Fallacy.
[–]JeremyG~1400 ♜ 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 42分 前 (0子コメント)
You're arguing for pretty much the gambler's fallacy. The chance of X happening doesn't increase if X doesn't happen.
[–]yawg6669 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント 6時間 前 (16子コメント)
There's no such thing as "due", I think you're misunderstanding statistics.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-34ポイント-33ポイント-32ポイント 6時間 前 (15子コメント)
[–]yawg6669 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 5時間 前 (2子コメント)
well, maybe you do, but when most people say "due" it means "roulette wheel was red the last 5 spins in a row, therefore black is DUE this next spin". Not true.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-33ポイント-32ポイント-31ポイント 5時間 前 (1子コメント)
That's not what we're talking about here. Clearly, nobody believes for a given player A, the performance in game g1 is completely independent of game g0. If they did believe that, they wouldn't be arguing that Magnus was affected by his first round Topalov loss.
For humans, chess and sporting events in general are not independent of previous events.
Idiot.
[–]voyetra8 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 4時間 前* (0子コメント)
I'm guessing you don't speak like this to people in real life.
[–]GosuMagic 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 6時間 前 (11子コメント)
Lol you must be one of those roulette players who bet on red after seeing black 10 times in a row because red is "due".
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-31ポイント-30ポイント-29ポイント 6時間 前 (10子コメント)
Well, you're an idiot. The likelihood of seeing 11 blacks in a row is less than the likelihood of seeing 10 blacks in a row. "In a row" clearly implies a dependence.
[–]yawg6669 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5時間 前 (4子コメント)
yes, 11 blacks in a row is less likely than 10 blacks in a row, HOWEVER, AFTER you have made 10 blacks in a row, you cannont claim that the next is MORE likely to be red, as that chance remains unchanged. essentially, you don't know where you stand on the probability curve of "X blacks in a row". You may be all the way out at 8 sigma and you're actually going to see 20 blacks in a row.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-26ポイント-25ポイント-24ポイント 5時間 前 (3子コメント)
That's not what I'm claiming.
If chess games for a given player were completely independent, none of you uneducated retards would be arguing that Magnus was affected by his first round loss to Topalov.
[–]yawg6669 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5時間 前 (2子コメント)
Ok. Well apparently your argument was ambiguous since you have multiple people arguing with you. Also, your ad hominem is irrelevant.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-19ポイント-18ポイント-17ポイント 4時間 前 (1子コメント)
It's not an ad hominem because I'm not using it to say this is why your argument is invalid. I am pointing out your shortcomings to show why you are incapable of understanding.
My argument isn't ambiguous either. Chess players try to be pedantic but fail to realize that they're probably uneducated and overall not that intelligent.
[–]GosuMagic 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 5時間 前 (4子コメント)
Thanks for proving you don't know statistics!
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-20ポイント-19ポイント-18ポイント 5時間 前 (3子コメント)
So, wait. You think flipping tails 10 times in a row is the SAME as flipping tails 100 times in a row?
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 5時間 前 (2子コメント)
No, he thinks that flipping tails after it coming up 10 times in a row is the same as flipping tails after it coming up 100 times in a row.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-25ポイント-24ポイント-23ポイント 5時間 前 (1子コメント)
[–]MeteosBoyfriend 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 5時間 前 (5子コメント)
Statistics doesn't work that way, you're falling for the gambler's fallacy.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17ポイント-16ポイント-15ポイント 5時間 前 (4子コメント)
Except roulette and chess are fundamentally different.
In chess, past games affect you. That's why everyone's arguing that Magnus was affected by his first round loss to Topalov.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 4時間 前 (3子コメント)
What you are saying has nothing to do with your initial quote: "Statistically, he was due for a bad tournament. The guy hasn't had one since he's been in the top 5, right? Humans don't defeat the laws of physics or statistics."
Of course if someone loses the first game he will likely have a worse tournament compared from the initial probability.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント 2時間 前 (2子コメント)
What you are saying has nothing to do with your initial quote:
Yes it does. You know what has nothing to do with my initial statement? Roulette or gambling.
All people who brought up those anecdotes to try to disprove me should have their accounts banned. You've effectively just agreed with me.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間 前 (1子コメント)
You were the one that brought up coin flipping http://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/3b3dz7/carlsen_lost_to_hammer/csii4kq
[–]yaschobob 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1分 前 (0子コメント)
No. Coin flipping is just an example of "gambler's dilemma." Any example of Gambler's dilemma can be used; they're all replaceable. Anyone who brings up gambler's dilemma takes ownership of all exemplars of it.
[–]pantaloonsofJUSTICErated 2800 at being a scrub 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 4時間 前 (2子コメント)
Look up the gambler's fallacy. You are experiencing it.
[–]yaschobob -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 2時間 前 (1子コメント)
Nope. You just don't understand that chess games are not disjoint for a given player. If they were, there would be no way that Magnus was affected by his first round loss to Topalov.
[–]pantaloonsofJUSTICErated 2800 at being a scrub 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間 前 (0子コメント)
There's a reason no one agrees with you. And that's not what disjoint means, moron.
[–]TotesMessenger 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
[–]JPZ__ 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間 前 (0子コメント)
Actually his Elo rating would suggest that he's not at all "due" for a bad tournament
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 5時間 前* (19子コメント)
Give the dude a break.
Gambler's fallacy is when you suspect that something like a fair coin is due for tails because there have been several heads in a row. Each flip of a coin is statistically independent. The same is not remotely true of playing in chess tournaments or matches. Statistically, Carlsen was due for a bad tournament because you have to account for the psychology associated with the pressure of maintaining a streak, as well as the pressure of playing at home. It would be like if you're playing on a Roulette table where you're betting on black and each time you win, one black is removed. Pressure accumulates such that streaks are inherently difficult to maintain in literally any field of human competition.
*love this is getting downvoted. I am a data scientist. I literally do statistics for a living.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 4時間 前 (8子コメント)
I think it's good that you are trying to defend the guy. However look at his initial statement. It is exactly gambler's fallacy. His reasonings for the higher chances of Magnus having a bad tournament were solely based on Magnus not having a bad tournament for a while. The psychologic reasoning came later and has nothing to do with the initial discussion. You being a data scientist doesn't make you right, I'm in a similar field.
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3時間 前* (7子コメント)
If his reasoning is as you say it is, it's incorrect. I'm a big fan of the charity principle, however, and assume he meant what he's explaining he meant, namely, that streaks in any human competition are inherently non-independent so saying someone is "due" for a loss makes sense considering psychological factors.
Me being a data scientist doesn't make me right, but neither does people throwing out "gambler's fallacy." He clarified what he meant, so give the guy a break. the internet is negative place and we should try our best to make it at least marginally kinder.
Edit: reading the dude's other posts, he seems preeeeettty rude. So downvote away.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間 前 (1子コメント)
Yeah just read his other posts, I will not be charitable with him :)
He just doesn't want to admit he's wrong and seeked for a way out. Look at all the posts about coin tosses from him.
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 1時間 前 (0子コメント)
Jesus, I regret defending him.
[–]GosuMagic 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (2子コメント)
You cannot factor in an uncontrolled variable like "psychology". You can go the opposite way and say due to "psychological factors" Carlsen is due to win all his games in the future. This line of reasoning can't be calculated so psychology can't be dependent on the future outcome of his games.
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (1子コメント)
Of course, but generally the psychological pressure of maintaining a streak is a function of how long that streak is. I once had a Duolingo streak that was 200 days long and was nearly driven to a panic attack every time I barely avoided missing a lesson. The same panic doesn't happen when my streak is only five days long.
I imagine for chess players it gets in their head the moment they realize they're in an unfavorable position, "my god, I shouldn't be losing to Hammer. I haven't lost to a player of his rating in forever. I need to win..." and so on.
[–]GosuMagic 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間 前 (0子コメント)
You cannot use psychological factors to say Carlsen is Due for a loss. It's very possible he can be due for a win. It could still go both ways. That's why it falls into the Gambler's fallacy.
[–]MeteosBoyfriend 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (1子コメント)
I know this is off track, but what is your job like? I'm a mathematics major myself and would probably get into something like this.
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間 前 (0子コメント)
It's a fun job. Contributing to Machine Learning (rather than just using it) is what I want to get into, but I don't have the background for it just yet. I was not a math major as an undergrad (Econ), so it's difficult to get the experience without grad school.
Last year, I did big data analysis for a couple of poverty-reduction projects in Nairobi, Kenya. It involved running regressions, and a lot of sanitizing data so it could be used in Stata. I also developed some neat algorithms to detect fraudulent survey entry. Now, I work for a big publication doing any data work needed to be done for journalists.
In the next ten years all the jobs will be in Data Science and Machine Learning, so it's good that you're interested in this stuff.
[–]voyetra8 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 4時間 前 (0子コメント)
Carlsen was due
I understand what you guys are saying, but you should really stop using the word "due".
[–]MeteosBoyfriend -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 4時間 前 (6子コメント)
My problem with his argument is that carlsen was due to lose solely because of previous tournament performances. I think that there is an argument to be made whether or not tournaments are independent/dependent, and I haven't seen any evidence to believe in dependency. That is why I brought up gambler's fallacy, but if there is evidence supporting that previous tournament results are somehow dependent, then I would be wrong.
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-14ポイント-13ポイント-12ポイント 4時間 前 (5子コメント)
I didn't say it was "solely due to previous tournaments." Reading comprehension.
Carlsen hasn't really had a bad tournament yet. Realistically speaking, he was bound to get one sooner or later. Carlsen's bad performance is purely based on the fact that an athlete's statistics are not 100% uniform and consistent for each performance. Nothing more, nothing less.
You dilettantes overstate your intelligence and importance. None of you are special, none of you are smart, none of you contribute to the world intellectually. You all (those disagreeing with me) work mundane jobs and live mundane, replaceable lives.
I however, was 100% correct with my initial statement and actually do contribute to the world intellectually. Based on your stupidity, explain to me why I shouldn't be allowed to wipe you off the face of the Earth. Who do you think you are to argue with me, given that you know absolutely nothing and have no intellectual contributions that anyone will ever care about?
Fuck you.
[–]perpetual_motionbxa1=N# 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
Saving this for future use.
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
haha you can't be serious right now
It's okay to be wrong sometimes my friend
[–]RyuChus 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (0子コメント)
You're the one trying to prove you're intelligence to a group of anonymous people. I fail to see how that is intelligent and contributes to the world at all. If you're so important, stop wasting your time arguing on Reddit.
[–]everybodysfriend 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (0子コメント)
I think you're my new favorite novelty account. This is an /r/iamverysmart -baiting novelty account...right?
[–]DatOnePortagee 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (0子コメント)
Haha you should take a break from the internet
[–]yaschobob -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 57分 前 (1子コメント)
THANK YOU!!!!!
THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!
They fail to realize that their own arguments that chess games are independent are defeated when they say "Carlsen was affected by his first round loss to Topalov."
It's nice to have another actual scientist in here with me. The rest of these people are dilettantes.
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 45分 前 (0子コメント)
You're an absolute goober.
[–]rreyv2. Ke2 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 6時間 前 (2子コメント)
Dropped to 2853. Still super high but this is the first time he has gone below Kasparov's 2856 in a long time.
[–]tha_real_stabulous1700 chess.com std 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 6時間 前 (1子コメント)
That's funny because it's also the first time in a while that we have someone besides Carlsen above Kasparov's current (inactive) rating of 2812. If he came back today, he'd be 4th in the world.
[–]rreyv2. Ke2 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 6時間 前* (0子コメント)
Unless Naka wins, in which case he'll be 5th. -EDIT- Naka just won.
Also Caruana and Levon were both above 2812 for a while in late 2014.
Carlsen has been above 2856 for more than 2 years now if my memory serves me right.
[–]perpetual_motionbxa1=N# 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 6時間 前 (1子コメント)
A terrible game too. Really just awful. I'd feel bad about some of those moves.
[–]bjh13ICC 1151 Standard 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 6時間 前 (0子コメント)
Hammer almost looked embarrassed to take the win.
[–]JJdante 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 6時間 前 (4子コメント)
You could almost say.. that Carlson got...hammered .!
[–]Rather_Dashing 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 2時間 前 (0子コメント)
MC got hammered
[–]BadugiChamp 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 3時間 前 (2子コメント)
boo
[–]SuddenlyILOVEBEARDS 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
-ya!
[–]CatBernd1500 blitz on lichess - for what it's worth 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
Are you saying boo, or boo-urns?
[–]WilSmithBlackMambazo1667 chess.com standard 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 6時間 前 (2子コメント)
How much of an advantage does Hammer being Carlsen's second give him? Does he pretty much have access to all of Magnus's preparation?
[–]Astrogat 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 5時間 前 (1子コメント)
They did prepare together for this tournament (finding some lines to play against the other guys) and they know each other very well, but I feel like that gives both of them the same advantage. Hammer actually though it gave Carlsen the bigger advantage since he knows all of Hammers bad sides, while all Hammer know is that Carlsen doesn't have any.
[–]tobiasvl 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 4時間 前 (0子コメント)
while all Hammer know is that Carlsen doesn't have any.
And yet...!
[–]NtnlBrotherhoodWk650 Bullet Chess.com! 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 6時間 前 (6子コメント)
What's a good verb to describe what just happened to Carlsen?
[–]rreyv2. Ke2 47ポイント48ポイント49ポイント 6時間 前 (1子コメント)
rekt
[–]TheLameloid 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間 前 (0子コメント)
rookt
[–]obvnotlupus 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間 前 (0子コメント)
HOMMOROD
[+]Vallosota スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 6時間 前 (0子コメント)
Deserved.
[–]GosuMagic -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 6時間 前 (0子コメント)
Destroyed
[–]gad-gadaunpositional player 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
I just came home not having access to the Internet since before the games started.
Wth happened in this game?
[–]wastingmylife5evr 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間 前 (1子コメント)
[–]larektundir[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間 前 (0子コメント)
https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/norway-chess-2015/9/1/1
[–]GosuMagic 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 6時間 前 (1子コメント)
Funny how Hammer beat Carlsen but it still eludes Naka.
[–]bonoboboy 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
I think that is Carlsen's only saving grace this tournament.
[–]Trollsauce27 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間 前 (0子コメント)
Good result.
[–]ScaryAtheist 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5時間 前 (4子コメント)
Carlsen played an awful game. His opening was rubbish, as commented by Topalov during the game, and towards the end he made so many mistakes (as did Hammer) the game looked like a blitz. The evaluation swung wildly between move 25 and 34.
As I said (and was duly downvoted) for in an earlier thread, Carlsen clearly wasn't his best after that first round loss. I believe he lost a bit of interest psychologically once it was clear he had no chance of a good tournament finish. I mean, towards the end today he just looked disinterested.
[–]obvnotlupus 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5時間 前 (2子コメント)
It's quite unlike him to suffer a blow that he can't recover from.
[–]ScaryAtheist -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 4時間 前 (1子コメント)
Yeah but for him a blow is usually being on 3.5/4 and losing game 5 to Caruana or something. Not being on 1.5 and last place halfway through his "own" tournament.
I don't know. Usually it's a combination of things, right. The early losses that set him back, a bit poorer form, perhaps a bit of psychological saturation after winning all tournaments so far this year ... maybe he has girl troubles for all we know. Sopiko refusing to ditch Giri for him? :P
[–]StarfleetAdmiral 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
Sopiko refusing to ditch Giri for him?
You're going into dangerous territory right there.
[–]rwill128 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間 前 (0子コメント)
Carlsen seems to do his best to look disinterested in a lot of tournaments / public appearances that I've seen...
[–]Kuchendieb23 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間 前 (0子コメント)
I hope he picks it up again. It'd be sad to see such a great, young talent to rise and then fall so quickly.
π Rendered by PID 27312 on app-149 at 2015-06-26 00:25:31.234302+00:00 running 6fa0b4b country code: JP.
[–]Mysterymason 26ポイント27ポイント28ポイント (113子コメント)
[–]AussieChessGuy 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]wastingmylife5evr 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]dctrip13 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-74ポイント-73ポイント-72ポイント (108子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 56ポイント57ポイント58ポイント (59子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-55ポイント-54ポイント-53ポイント (58子コメント)
[–]tha_real_stabulous1700 chess.com std 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント (15子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-44ポイント-43ポイント-42ポイント (14子コメント)
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント (13子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-41ポイント-40ポイント-39ポイント (12子コメント)
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント (11子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-51ポイント-50ポイント-49ポイント (10子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (39子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-33ポイント-32ポイント-31ポイント (38子コメント)
[–]Managore 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント (31子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-25ポイント-24ポイント-23ポイント (30子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント (19子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-20ポイント-19ポイント-18ポイント (18子コメント)
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (8子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント (7子コメント)
[–]HasLBGWPosts 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]NPK5667 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (5子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]NPK5667 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]yaschobob 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]ialsohaveadobro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]JeremyG~1400 ♜ 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]yawg6669 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント (16子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-34ポイント-33ポイント-32ポイント (15子コメント)
[–]yawg6669 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント (2子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-33ポイント-32ポイント-31ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]voyetra8 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]GosuMagic 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント (11子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-31ポイント-30ポイント-29ポイント (10子コメント)
[–]yawg6669 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (4子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-26ポイント-25ポイント-24ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]yawg6669 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (2子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-19ポイント-18ポイント-17ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]GosuMagic 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント (4子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-20ポイント-19ポイント-18ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]edderiofer1400-ish. I think. 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント (2子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-25ポイント-24ポイント-23ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]MeteosBoyfriend 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント (5子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17ポイント-16ポイント-15ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント (3子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]yaschobob 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]pantaloonsofJUSTICErated 2800 at being a scrub 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]yaschobob -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]pantaloonsofJUSTICErated 2800 at being a scrub 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]TotesMessenger 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]JPZ__ 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (19子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (8子コメント)
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (7子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]GosuMagic 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]GosuMagic 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]MeteosBoyfriend 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]voyetra8 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]MeteosBoyfriend -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント (6子コメント)
[+]yaschobob スコアが基準値未満のコメント-14ポイント-13ポイント-12ポイント (5子コメント)
[–]perpetual_motionbxa1=N# 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]RyuChus 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]everybodysfriend 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]DatOnePortagee 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]yaschobob -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]rreyv2. Ke2 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]tha_real_stabulous1700 chess.com std 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]rreyv2. Ke2 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]perpetual_motionbxa1=N# 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]bjh13ICC 1151 Standard 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]JJdante 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]Rather_Dashing 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]BadugiChamp 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]SuddenlyILOVEBEARDS 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]CatBernd1500 blitz on lichess - for what it's worth 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]WilSmithBlackMambazo1667 chess.com standard 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]Astrogat 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]tobiasvl 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]NtnlBrotherhoodWk650 Bullet Chess.com! 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (6子コメント)
[–]rreyv2. Ke2 47ポイント48ポイント49ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]TheLameloid 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]obvnotlupus 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]Vallosota スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]GosuMagic -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]gad-gadaunpositional player 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]wastingmylife5evr 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]larektundir[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]GosuMagic 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]bonoboboy 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Trollsauce27 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]ScaryAtheist 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]obvnotlupus 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]ScaryAtheist -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]StarfleetAdmiral 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]rwill128 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Kuchendieb23 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)