Karjakin leads

Guys, Karjakin didn't win, Carlsen beat himself, i don't know why Carlsen is still trying to win, he should play slow and gage himself. I think we all know Karjakin is very smart and is playing for a draw, and this is really getting carlsen mad, if carlsen gets a hold on himself, he could very well win

Karjakin is doing what he has to do to win the title. His playing for a draw might a bit boring but it's working so far. I'm sure the numerous chess players in Russia are very pleased.

Of course Carlsen is famous for coming from behind. These last games will be interesting.

This match is kind of silly. Carlsen allowed a simple check-check-check perpetual. And Karjakin missed it! Then he allowed a slightly more complex version of the same tactic and Karjakin missed it again. After that Carlsen finally followed through on the numerous wins he's been creating in grinding endgames against Karjakin, but he's clearly not playing anywhere near his A game.

Reminds me of Euwe-Alekhine rematch game 16. You don't expect such basic tactical failure from both players on a match that's supposed to determine the world champion.

#61 Carlsen is still too young to be a real champion. Karjakin looks in front of him a man. Guys need at the time to marry.

@OhNoMyPants:

Well, it's actually not that simple.

As So pointed out in the Chessbase annotations, despite the engines correctly pointing out that white's objective best in that position is to concede the perpetual with Kg2, the alternate line with Kg1!? is only very slightly worse for white, and very unbalanced.

Further, black doesn't have any simple way to bail out of that line. Anything other than going to the 2 knights vs rook ending is losing for black, so sort of like with Qb3 in the other game, Nxf2+ is a natural move with a clear point, but some of the objectively "inferior" defenses were very complicated.

Having said all that, Nxf2+ was certainly better than d5...it's just not quite as simple to work out as everyone looking only at the top engine line realized, and it's not like Carlsen would even be giving up that much objectively.

The best the engines see for black with deep analysis in that ending is in the range of +0.05-+0.2. Carlsen would certainly be happy with an unbalanced ending like that instead of the perpetual given the match situation.

@a_pleasant_illusion It really was that simple, even according to the players. Carlsen felt he blundered and "the game was over" assessing the double knight ending as "black never loses" which Sergey seemed to agree with as well. Sergey for his part seems to have just missed most of the ideas and was rather wide eyed seeing the position again. He also completely dismissed a reporter on his way out of the game asking about the d5 position literally smirking that she would be interested in "that" move, further reinforcing the fact that he missed all these ideas.

Here is a video of them discussing the position as the press conference: youtu.be/8YHlLyiU8ps?t=232

Scoot back to the beginning to see a reporter asking Sergey about d5 and his response.

@OhNoMyPants:

I think you're misunderstanding what my "Well, it's actually not that simple." was referencing.

I'm not saying that Carlsen was better in that ending, or that he had the better winning chances. I'm saying that calculating out that line and assessing that ending is a lot less simple than just seeing the perpetual.

Sure, Karjakin might have missed all the ideas.

Sure, Carlsen might have calculated to and assessed the 2 knight vs rook ending as "black never loses".

That's still not at all the same as the position being Black forcing a "check-check-check perpetual" or missing a basic tactic (again, not saying that the players didn't miss some or all of the ideas, because they clearly did miss at least some; I'm just saying there's more to the position than the "Oh my god, a simple perpetual!" story indicates).

There was an alternate line that forced a complicated ending that had to be assessed.

You can certainly make the claim that black should not lose that ending, and that's quite reasonable, as black is somewhat better.

Seeing that white could either go for a perpetual check or for a complicated ending and assessing that black is somewhat better is still worlds apart from being able to force the perpetual.

Again, I'm not saying that Carlsen was better in that line, or even that he had good winning chances (although if a player as good as So with an engine to analyze the ending thinks the position is chaotic, I think Carlsen may have been underselling his chances in that ending).

I'm just saying the position is not as simple as the "Black had a perpetual" assessment that's getting bandied about so much; there's more to the story, because of the second line leading to the ending.

So now they are equal. Such torture is chess. :)

@ujcn : He's married actually and with one son.

I think this is just semantics. The players felt it was a perpetual, Svidler and other commentators (without engines) felt it was a perpetual. If humans of this caliber are immediately assessing the position as a perpetual and the game would have almost certainly ended in a perpetual then it's not unreasonable to call it a perpetual.

And on the second move where he also missed a combination with similar themes, but one that was more complex there were no outs even by engines. It would have been an immediate draw.