Monday
Feb202012
Carlsen Clips
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 11:37PM Here's the main clip from this weekend's 60 Minutes show:
Next, some extra material. First, a clip where he allegedly explains how his mind works:
Here's Frederic Friedel of ChessBase fame offering some laudatory remarks about the youngster:
Finally, here's GM Danny King about chess as a brutal game:
Enjoy!
Reader Comments (6)
Hey Dennis,
Just curious your own opinion of the piece.
[DM: I don't think it does any harm to the prestige of chess, and in that sense it's good. However, it strikes me as pretty ill-informed. Carlsen has tremendous talent, but it's not as if he's inexplicable but players like Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, Aronian and Topalov (to give just the other members of the 2800 club) are somehow ordinary and their abilities perfectly understood. And it's not so much that it's insulting to them as it reflects an utter lack of understanding about learning and excellence.
The interviewer was also in raptures about Carlsen's 10-board blindfold simul. That's impressive, and I doubt that I could do it even if I started working on blindfold chess in a serious way. But a German FM recently played something like 46 blindfold games simultaneously! That's an incredible achievement, but it still doesn't put him in Carlsen's league as a chess player.
So I'd call it the television equivalent of empty calories.]
I agree Dennis. They tried to make it seem like he has an amazing memory because he was able to recognize one of the most famous position in chess history (The Immortal Game Anderssen Kiseritsky). If I didn't know about chess id have assumed this was just a random position. I also didn't like his answer to the question whether he would go crazy like Fischer. They didn't mention Kasparov had beaten Carlsen the previous game so a draw was enough to win the match.
[DM: Agree completely about the Immortal Game - it was a silly example. I'm also surprised by his reply to the Fischer question, though I wouldn't say I disliked his answer. It was a surprisingly honest and thoughtful response, but I wish - and you'd perhaps agree with this - that his honest and thoughtful response didn't suggest that being a great player had any kind of causal link to being psychologically disturbed.
One correction: Kasparov beat Carlsen ("like a child", in Magnus's famous words) in their second game, not the first.]
Danny King's segment was the best, but they didn't use it, did they? Too long, I guess. I have always assumed that the stronger you become as a chessplayer, the more often you see the right move immediately, If that's right, then Carlsen's explanation of how he thinks would be no different than that of most strong players. They see the right move and use some time to verify it.
What are your thoughts about chess being about deception. The whole board is laid out in front of us. I know where your pieces are and you know where all my pieces are. You just understand the relationship of the pieces better than I do.
[DM: In theory there's no deception in chess, because both players have "complete information" about what's on the board. In real life, however, it can and does play a role. Some examples:
My opponent is sacrificing material. Is it a bluff?
Is my opponent's new gambit in the opening something he has worked out with the computer or seen in analysis, or it is poor?
He looks confident at the board; is he?
He is moving quickly; does that mean he knows the opening down cold, or does he just want me to think that? Conversely, does my opponent's slow play in the opening mean he's out of his theoretical knowledge, or is he trying to sucker me into playing a risky variation to punish him, when in fact he knows it very well?
The examples can be multiplied without much difficulty. Chess isn't all about deception, but it is at times a part of the game.]
I liked the King segment a lot. The language that he was using in his urge to explain to a total amateur what serious chess is like shows that he gets it. Not that I'm surprised at that, but I like the evidence of depth in King's thinking about the game. Maybe I'll have to look into his videos. He reminded me a bit of Dr. Rush from Stargate Universe.
In practice, neither player has "complete information" if their brain does not take in the information. One thing is to formally speak of "complete information" "out there", but what's "out there" is irrelevant if the players can't take advantage of it.
[DM: An even minutely charitable or attentive reading of my comment should suffice to show that I didn't take "complete information" to imply that the players are omniscient in the context of the game. My point was just that while one could, purely in principle, calculate everything out to the end (something no one can do in the overwhelming majority of positions), that purely in-principle fact doesn't eliminate the psychological dimension from actual over the board play.
On a different topic, I don't think the brain takes in information, the mind does. (A debate for another day/week/month/etc.)]