Did Carlsen blunder?

A 16 year old kid beat the King of Chess, in 17 moves?

Please tell me Carlsen just blundered. Even Alpha Zero can't beat Carlsen in 17!

Alpha Zero couldn't beat a 2 year old in 17 moves unless the 2 year old blundered.

Also AZ hasn't been the best engine for a few years now.

@IIama47 what is the best engine now?

The latest version of stockfish which I believe incorporates a NN. I don't know if they're still calling it stockfish or if people call it stockfish NNUE now.

In any case, the latest TCEC championship stockfish beat LCZero which was stronger than AlphaZero.

Well a game without blunder should just be a draw

Which is why there is such thing as puzzles,without blunders,there is no puzzles as there is no tactics

That's not true.

In a world where only perfect players exist, the only way to categorize them as perfect is to be aware of mistakes, and therefore of positions where winning tactics exist.

If every move is the best move how will there be tactics if both players see that if the opponent will make a tactical move if he play this

there will be no tactics as both player can prevent it

Even a perfect (drawn) game has tactics, and even if only perfect games existed winning tactics would exist.

Try thinking about this concept again in 10 years, when you're a little older.

You would understand what I mean when such a game is possible lol

Can you explain how will there be tactics if the opponent already see that you will be playing it 20 moves earlier?

he would try to prevent it of course,and you will do the same

anyways,such a game wouldn’t exist until a long,loooooong time later

Also , did you misunderstood what I mean by 100% accuracy?I do not mean 100% on chess com engine,but I mean 100% with best plays available in the game(if you don’t understand what this mean then don’t think that you know so much XD)

To paraphrase a line from the movie Good Will Hunting:
"I'm sorry you don't understand, I really am, because then I wouldn't have to sit here and watch you @$% it up."

Does it help with what we are talking about?

Who can say 🤷

I mean, you don't even understand what is meant by the word "tactic."

You seem to think all tactics lead to an advantage... you seem to be unable to imagine tactics that e.g. draw (much less tactics that are used as leverage for positional factors).

And even then, winning tactics are only avoided by noticing they exist, so even a perfect game would reveal winning tactics in the sidelines...

... there's a bare minimum needed to have a conversation, and you fail, so it's easier for me to give flippant responses.

So how would there be a drawing tactic if there isn’t a winning tactic that leads to one side advantage at first

I wonder what you mean

That's the understatement of the century.

If there is a perfect game,it should means that there will be no blunders mistakes or inaccuracy

but what create the tactic is a blunder mistake or inaccuracy

so if there is a perfect game,there will be no blunder mistake or inaccuracy

If you still don’t understand this I dunno what will make you understand

I'm sincerely uninterested in this conversation.

Perfect game or not, just plug the computer into both sides and watch.  It will draw a lot, but there WILL be wins and losses in the mix.   Part of this is due to coders being compelled to code the engines to randomize the openings amongst the top book openings in play.  It turns out some book lines are not equal for both sides with 50+ move lookahead computers at the helm.  Part of it is that 50+ move lookahead isnt always enough: sometimes the 51st move that they did not see is the one that kills them, but by then they already messed it up.  You see this all the time with lesser computer settings, it plays ok but drops a piece to a 4 move combo because it wasn't set up to see that far.   Its a little more interesting if you take away all book openings and let it crunch from the first move onward, but there are still wins and losses.  The draw % goes up, but how much depends on the engine. 

The theoretical perfect game does not exist.  The computers are good, but not quite there yet.  Perhaps it is always a draw.  Perhaps not.  We don't know, and its a pointless debate. 

Thanks for answering my question. The thread turned into a bash on Alphazero, which I didn't know lost its crown in chess engines. I don't follow all that, but remember AZ when it made its debut. It had only played itself before and when unleashed on the world ate Stockfish for lunch. That said it's nice to know Carlsen blundered, because hadn't lost a game in 3 years. Although kid saying "I could have played better" seemed inappropriate, considering what he had done. Maybe he is our next prodigy. On the other hand I suspect it was a fluke and just wanted some opinions from better players.

Chess is likely a game that draws on perfect play.

In order to win, your opponent has to blunder. Of course, a blunder for a GM would be a good move for us plebs.