Right here. (HT: Ervin M.) Two quick remarks, in passing. First, it would be nice if chess writers would take a pass on remarks like this:
The live event has an atmosphere unlike any other sport contest, because almost all of the spectators divide their attention between the game and computers — in their phones or on the video monitors around the venue — that could beat the two players. Only Mr. Carlsen and Mr. Karjakin rely on unaugmented human intelligence.
Yes, well...it has been almost 20 years since Deeper Blue beat Kasparov, so can we stop pretending that the superiority of chess engines is either new or interesting? Also, neither Carlsen nor Karjakin is relying on "unaugmented human intelligence" for the first 15-20 moves (give or take). In fact, their reliance on technology at that point in the game is far deeper than that of any of the spectators. Still further, spectators benefit from technology in other games and sports too: in poker viewers are treated to objective probabilities, while in baseball fans (and managers) can drown in a sea of statistics. The way that information interacts with the participants is different in all these events, but chess is not an outlier when it comes to the influence of computer-based information and assistance.
Second, the piece closes with a strange quotation from Carlsen about the tiebreak: “I think it’s 50-50. Either I win or he wins.” Perhaps he was just being a little careless in his speech by equating two possible outcomes with a figure that suggests that the outcomes were equally likely, but if not it's either a little bit of gamesmanship or a compliment to Karjakin. With Karjakin having played so effectively thus far, it's probably more of the latter than the former, though I still believe that Carlsen in his heart of hearts thinks he's the favorite.