Why is Carlsen criticized for poor preparation at World Chess Championship 2018?











up vote
15
down vote

favorite
2












As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?










share|improve this question









New contributor




JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    15
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



    But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



    In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      15
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      15
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



      But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



      In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      As of 2018-11-24, 11 games have been drawn at the World Chess Championship (WCC) 2018. A lot of commentators (in particular Alexander Grischuk) have attacked Carlsen for poor preparation.



      But ... 11 games have been drawn. It's not like Carlsen is losing. If it's true that he is not well-prepared, what does that say about Caruana's inability to take advantage of that and win? Should he not be criticized for not being able to win against a supposedly ill-prepared player?



      In fact, if Carlsen can manage to win this WCC without preparing too much, that's a ... success, isn't it?







      world-championship carlsen






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Herb Wolfe

      2,1391524




      2,1391524






      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked yesterday









      JohnDoe

      763




      763




      New contributor




      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      JohnDoe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          10
          down vote













          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer























          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            13 hours ago










          • Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            13 hours ago


















          up vote
          9
          down vote













          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.














          • 5




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            15 hours ago










          • @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            9 hours ago






          • 1




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            4 hours ago




















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how utra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer























          • ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            7 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "435"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23006%2fwhy-is-carlsen-criticized-for-poor-preparation-at-world-chess-championship-2018%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          10
          down vote













          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer























          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            13 hours ago










          • Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            13 hours ago















          up vote
          10
          down vote













          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer























          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            13 hours ago










          • Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            13 hours ago













          up vote
          10
          down vote










          up vote
          10
          down vote









          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.






          share|improve this answer














          Carlsen is being criticized for his preparation with white, particularly e4. He knows that Caruana is going to play the Petrof yet nevertheless Caruana equalizes effortlessly. Carlsen appears to have no new ideas in this opening. Since there is no more important competition he could be saving novelties for it tells us he has no novelties. No novelties = poor preparation. If he doesn't have an answer to this he shouldn't play 1. e4



          Note that we have seen novelties from Caruana, not necessarily good ones. As black in one game he played Rd8 in a Queen's Gambit looking to provoke the reply Nd2 from Carlsen. That looked like it would be a strong response from Carlsen but he chickened out and played a much more drawish move suggesting that he believed Caruana had some big improvement planned.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 16 hours ago

























          answered yesterday









          Brian Towers

          13k32061




          13k32061












          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            13 hours ago










          • Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            13 hours ago


















          • Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
            – A. N. Other
            13 hours ago










          • Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
            – itub
            13 hours ago
















          Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
          – A. N. Other
          13 hours ago




          Perhaps people expected a little more effort in trying to get an advantage from the opening when playing the White pieces from Carlsen. Just to mention one game, I found the Nd3 Petroff with the early exchange of Queens a bit disappointing... But the matches between Kasparov and Karpov, when every game with White was the opportunity to play the big novelties, are long gone. It think that the way top level chess is played currently is very different than 30 years or so ago.
          – A. N. Other
          13 hours ago












          Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
          – itub
          13 hours ago




          Novelties or not, Karpov and Kasparov still managed to draw 17 times in a row in 1984! A total of 40 draws out of 48 rounds.
          – itub
          13 hours ago










          up vote
          9
          down vote













          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.














          • 5




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            15 hours ago










          • @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            9 hours ago






          • 1




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            4 hours ago

















          up vote
          9
          down vote













          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.














          • 5




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            15 hours ago










          • @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            9 hours ago






          • 1




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            4 hours ago















          up vote
          9
          down vote










          up vote
          9
          down vote









          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          Carlsen is criticized because he's in a defense position (he's defending his title, and doesn't need to win all games), and people want to see crazy games with new things, as simple as that.



          While I must admit that this kind of games are pretty boring, we cannot "hate" on him for having poor preparation. He's not there to entertain people.







          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday





















          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered yesterday









          CSPP

          1913




          1913




          New contributor




          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          CSPP is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.








          • 5




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            15 hours ago










          • @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            9 hours ago






          • 1




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            4 hours ago
















          • 5




            Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
            – David Richerby
            15 hours ago










          • @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
            – Randy Minder
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
            – CSPP
            9 hours ago






          • 1




            @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
            – fkraiem
            4 hours ago










          5




          5




          Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
          – David Richerby
          15 hours ago




          Ultimately, he is there to entertain people. Professional sport exists only because people are entertained by it and are prepared to pay for that entertainment (and, in the context of chess, because sponsors are prepared to pay to have their name written beside that entertainment). Of course, in the short term, all professionals have little choice but to focus on "getting the job done." However, in the long term, if people don't find that job entertaining enough, it will cease to exist. (I'm not proposing that this is in any danger of happening soon.)
          – David Richerby
          15 hours ago












          @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
          – Randy Minder
          14 hours ago




          @DavidRicherby - If Carlsen and Caruana are both there to entertain and winning is secondary, then the prize money should be split equally because it's not really about winning or losing. Since the prize money is not split evenly, winning does matter and Carlsen needs to do whatever he feels necessary to win, not entertain.
          – Randy Minder
          14 hours ago




          3




          3




          @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
          – David Richerby
          11 hours ago




          @RandyMinder You seem to have completely missed my point. "Doing whatever he feels necessary to win" is exactly the short-term focus on "getting the job done" that I mentioned. Question for you: what is the point of professional chess? Why are we prepared to pay people large sums of money to shuffle little pieces of wood around on a bigger piece of wood? I'm pretty sure it's not because we think they'll find a cure for cancer, for example.
          – David Richerby
          11 hours ago




          2




          2




          From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
          – CSPP
          9 hours ago




          From a marketing standpoint, then yes I agree on your point. But I'm sure players are not playing thinking about doing their best just to keep the sponsors happy. They are just playing to win and have fun
          – CSPP
          9 hours ago




          1




          1




          @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
          – fkraiem
          4 hours ago






          @PeterMortensen Yes, he can: if it goes to Armageddon and he gets Black.
          – fkraiem
          4 hours ago












          up vote
          1
          down vote













          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how utra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer























          • ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            7 hours ago















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how utra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer























          • ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            7 hours ago













          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how utra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.






          share|improve this answer














          The question is best answered by World Champions, and I don't think any of them said such a thing, but it may be the confluence of two factors.



          First, and obviously, it is much more important for Carlsen to avoid being on the receiving end of ultra-sharp preparation like http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1877986. If the price to pay is entering no sharp lines of his own, then he is more than willing to pay it, since he is probably the best at quiet, dull play, or at least he was!



          Second, commentators like Grischuk may not have realized how utra-dull chess can become with the current computers, even compared to the preparation Grischuk was doing 4-8 years ago. In the first game, Magnus was his scary self from Carlsen-Karjakin, with every move computer-approved and slowly shifting the balance in his favor. Even the Nd3 Petrov was an attempt to catch Fabi out, as it only draws if you know the method. Fabi thought for a few minutes probably just to mess with us or even play with his food, and played the equalizer ..Nc6. Fabi tried the Magnus recipe with b4 in the Rossolimo in game 5, and Magnus knew the equalizer.



          The guys are prepared! It's just that they are prepared to play as little chess as possible. Perhaps there will be more exciting prep in a longer match, but it is hard to undo the computer damage, unless you are prepared to prepare 10x harder than what was the norm 10 years ago.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 11 hours ago









          Andrew T.

          1135




          1135










          answered 13 hours ago









          fidetrainerNET

          384




          384












          • ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            7 hours ago


















          • ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
            – Peter Mortensen
            7 hours ago
















          ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
          – Peter Mortensen
          7 hours ago




          ("utra-dull""ultra-dull")
          – Peter Mortensen
          7 hours ago










          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          JohnDoe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23006%2fwhy-is-carlsen-criticized-for-poor-preparation-at-world-chess-championship-2018%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

          Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

          Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)