Carlsen Supplies New Evidence That Chess Is A Draw With No Mistakes

Carlsen, great player that he is, has given more evidence that chess is a draw when played with no errors.

He is showing that it is just about impossible to win with the Ruy Lopez against the Berlin Defense. This is assuming neither side makes a mistake of course. 

His defense with the Berlin has the very top players thinking and saying that you cannot win with 1. e4 as Black can just play into the Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez.

One could try the Ponziani but I have posted a drawing line myself.  

Most top players are not afraid of say the Kings Gambit or alternative moves to 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3.

Also, in Centaur Chess it seems like the Petroff Defense [1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nf6] leads also to a draw with best play.

So, if we may  have eliminated 1. e4 as a winning try for White we have made progress in gathering evidence that chess is a draw per best play by both sides. 

Also the draws of this match are a little more evidence as he only games not drawn had at least one mistake by Anand.

Scotch? Or is it drawn too?

I wonder what weapon would Kramnik have next year when playing against Carlsen. 

That still leaves 1. d4.

Sorry, Scotch is also a draw.  In the next World Championship there will not be many games with the 1. e4 opening.

Yes, this leaves 1. d4  and 1. c4 and some others which have not been analyzed down to a draw.  [they are draws but the analysis is not sufficient to prove those moves are draws]

drawing one game against anand = new evidence 1.e4 is a draw. 

#logic

Of course there is a lot more to it than your quote.

We all feel with best play the game should be a draw, but this is technically not certain. The problem is, if you exchange into an endgame that can be held from the opening, the complications are limited. If you actually play the middle game and then transpose into the endgame, you can see you have some 33 to 50% extra complications. (Since the middle game is a difficult part of the game.)

The lesson should be: If you want to play for the win, do not play ''endgame openings.'' Play semi closed or closed openings instead to get the most of play. This will not give you a ''forced'' win in the end, but it does give you ample chances.

I don't feel that. I am a believer that with perfect play, white wins. Luckily it will take many more years of computer advancements before we know for sure.

The good thing about chess is nobody is intellegent enough to memorize all lines of chess, therefore it will never be a perfectly solved game.

Yeah, that's where pen and paper comes in

It's impossible to say that Carlsen played with no errors. If he played against modern computers Carlsen would lose badly.

arkledale

If you think Carlsen made an error in the relevant games then point it out?

But regardless of this, all signs point to 1. e4 being a move hard to win with if  you are playing against  a supergrandmaster who wants to draw.

Of course chess is a draw at the highest level, but I don't think Carlsen's play proves that necessarily. The move Bf1 which has become a fad in recent years is a bad move that propogates drawish play. Trust me when I say that one of the strongest players that ever played chess shares my opinion.

@ OP

A little known player Robert Fischer referred to it as such. If this method results in more wins, then it must be used and the game cannot go back. But is there any proof that games were previously more aggressive and now more passive?

Chess with best play is a draw.

Chess with the best play is boring.

Draws are boring.

I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating the same wrong statement over and over again. Are you hoping that if you say it enough times it will somehow become true? Carlsen makes mistakes in every game though I am not strong enough to identify them. Leave Houdini running for ten years and it will find that many of Carlsen's moves are suboptimal. Evidence that is necessary but not sufficient is not enough to prove a theorem. This is very basic maths that any high school student should be well versed in.

arkledale

I didn't get that impression from the commentators and analysis of the games.  The overall conclusion seemed to be more that there were plenty of opportunities to play dynamically (rather than a forced draw) but Anand (and Carlsen) just didn't take any of them.  The fact that the games were a draw was more a product of the players than of the openings.  Just a thought.

What about the Italian Game? Black can't force a transposition into the Berlin Defense after 3.Bc4. 3...Nf6 is just the Two Knights' Defense, and I don't think I have personally ever drawn a TKD game.

It really depends on your definition of "error"  I am using the definition of an "error" as a move which would change the outcome of the game [unfavorably] if both sides make best moves after the "error"

I do not define a suboptimal move as an error if it does not change the result of the game.  It is quite possible that Carlsen played some suboptimal moves.  But how do you define "suboptimal"

Also this forum is not trying to prove chess is a draw--it is only pointing out circumstantial evidence-not proof.