............Disappointed

Carlsen plays risky chess, but still gets draws.
Looking forward to another tense game today.

Pri kraju meča obojica će definitivno igrati na sigurno, a imam utisak da bi prije Jan riskirao malo više ne znam zašto. Obe partije su bile zanimljive što mi je drago, u prvoj Magnus igrao rijetki potez na5, žrtvujući pješaka za lovca jer je Jan htio izbjeći Maršalov napad i vrlo brzo smo imali novu partiju, a ne onu klasičnu sa 15 poteza teorije i visokom šansom za remi. U drugoj su obojica igrala šta inače ne igraju i opet ušli u neku nepoznatu teritoriju relativno brzo igrajući ne tako česte poteze. Ako nastave ovako definitivno ćemo imati zanimljivih partija bez obzira bio to remi ili poraz/pobjeda. I zanimljivo mi je to što je u obe partije crni bio taj koji je većinom igrao za pobjedu, dok je bijeli tražio način da izbalansira nazad, iako važi mišljenje da bijeli igra za pobjedu, a crni je zadovoljan remijem na tom nivou. Imam osjećaj da su se obojica bolje spremili sa crnim figurama. Ako i poslije 14 partija bude remi, mislim da u rapid formatu Magnus ima prednost u odnosu na Jana, ali opet to ništa ne znači.

Chess sure is easy when when you have an engine running...

#31
Caruana even missed a forced checkmate against Carlsen.
You cannot win a game of chess unless your opponent makes a mistake. If you then make a mistake as well then it is still a draw.

Now, it has not been proven yet that the starting position is a draw, is it? Who knows, that perfect play from both sides will lead Black to a repeated zugzwang?

Lots of true things with overwhelming evidence haven't been proven.

Chess being a draw with perfect play is one of them.

And that, indirectly means, you can win chess if your opponent doesn't make a mistake, until chess is yet to be proven to be a draw by perfect play.

Yes, at least it was an interesting game to match

#36
Magnus took huge risks. Nepo probably could have won both games.

No. There is a concept, "burden of  prove". If you wanna say something that seems unnatural , you have to give prove or example. If you fail to give any, then the natural thing will be accepted as true for time being. Same as null hypothesis. As it seems more natural and there is example that if both sides play correctly, it would be a draw, it will be consider true for time being and if you want to change this believe , you have to prove it, not by saying the previous concept is not ptoved

Pa trebalo bi da bude tako, da Jan vise rizikuje, no za sada mi ne deluje tako. Meni se cini da je u obe partije do sad vise rizikovao Magnus. U prvoj doduse je imao skoro punu kompenzaciju i igrao na aktivnost. U drugoj, mislim da se i preracunao, zato je crni igrao na pobedu. U prvoj je kao crni isto igrao za pobedu, ali je u sustini to doslo iz zrtve pesaka i poenta je bila da li moze beli da sad brani pesaka vise ili ce crni da dokaze egal (ili da pobedi ako se beli ne bude lepo branio). Prva je bila da kazem sigurniji remi od druge.

Giri je u sustini najbolje rekao nesto tipa: Beli uvek pokusava da ima prednost, ali ako crni igra dobre poteze, u nekom momentu se izjednaci pozicija. Beli u sustini vise ima mentalnu prednost nego bilo sta drugo.

Well, prove that it is, indeed, unnatural, as your claim.

I am saying that all games will be drawn with perfect gameplay, I am not saying  it is false, but  rather saying as it is natural , you will be true for time being and you can't say it false, and if you want to, then you have to prove

No, lol, it doesn't mean that

Sure, but the reasonable line of attack is something like:

"when a proof doesn't exist you can't assume something is true just because there is a lot of evidence for it. Sometimes it's the case the something which appears to be true, isn't true."

Then I'd say something like:

"I agree but for practical purposes we act as if it were true, which is reasonable."

And then we could quibble about what it means to be reasonable or practical or epistemology in general. Crap like that.

But we can't "go on forever" if his argument is as ridiculous as what he said... which was equivalent to "you haven't proven X, therefore it is the case that Y is true" which doesn't make any sense.

"They" meaning the person, yes.

"They" meaning me and him, no, because I'll just stop replying

I am saying that I believe not all games will be drawn with perfect play. I am not saying it is false, but rather saying as it is natural. You have to prove that my claim above is innatural, since it is innatural for a single individual to criticize another person's opinion of "innatural" if the individual itself does not prove that the other person's opinion is "innatural".

Slažem se, trebalo bi da bude tako da Jan više rizikuje i da trenutno to Magnus jedino čini. Tek je treća partija i još uvijek je rano da se situacija procijeni tačno, ali na osnovu prethodne dvije se to definitivno može vidjeti. Mislim da je razlog za to upravo i da Magnus izgubi zbog te svoje rizičnije igre, još uvijek bi imao na pretek vremena i prilika da opet izjednači meč, a najviše šanse ima za pobjedu igrajući tako. Dok je kod Jana obrnuto i on ne teži trenutno toliko da rizikuje jer u slučaju poraza imao bi veći pritisak, a Magnus bi se vratio igranju na sigurno i znatno mu otežao povratak na staro. Kako vrijeme bude proticalo vjerovatno ćemo vidjeti zamjenu tih njihovih uloga. Barem ja to tako gledam, a vrlo lahko mogu biti u krivu. Isto je tako zanimljivo to što Magnus s nekakvom lahkoćom dobije bolju poziciju unatoč činjenici da zaostaje materijalno, i u prvoj i u drugoj partiji. -1 kada ima pješaka manje i preokret iz tri 'boda' Janove prednosti (konj za topa i pješaka) u pješaka više.

Sad je recimo Giri rekao slicno tome, tj. da Magnus izgleda jedini ima volje da rizikuje i smatra da ce interesantnije partije biti kada on ima bele figure.