Carlsen Hangs on in Game 6

People get overexcited because a computer spotted a 30-move win in an otherwise very dry game. True, that was the first winning "opportunity" for 5 consecutive games. What a shock! ;)

Will they eventually stop with their 0-risk policy or do they just wait for the blitz randomness?

@Chessty_McBiggins You're just spouting bullshit because you don't understand what the term means.

@Chessty_McBiggins lol McBiggins, Inhuman is definitely not a nonsensical term especially in chess. In-fact it's fairly common in chess lingo. I've heard many grandmasters use terms like computer moves or inhuman while explaining one of their games. Check out a few alpha zero games and you will understand. The funny part is the fact that you have a rating of 1400 to 1500 at max and you're saying this word is used by players that are so weak that they can't analyze their games. News flash, THAT YOU! Not trying to be mean. The stronger you get the more you realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. Analyzing your game with an engine is
not only one of the best ways but it's also one of the hardest ways. I really dislike when people use their rating to make an argument against people that have a lower rating. So please bro your a pup in the game of chess, at least get a bit stronger before you use that card.

@Chessty_McBiggins

I am of-course a pazter who can't play chess. and if "inhuman" is not the proper word to describe the situation, I apologize - I am not a native English speaker and my English is rusty, so please pardon my language. (FYI, I just want to convey that this is not possible for anyone to find the move - not in the sense of attacking anyone, claiming them morally oblige to find a chess move)

Here's my take: I think it's very safe to say that nobody found the move during the game, and I really doubt if anyone would find the move on their own. From what I've read, Svidler received the move during his broadcast (with sasha, because people are spamming "mate in 30" in the chatbox), but he was unable to figure out why it was winning (at that time, at least); Ian Rogers also ask about the move during the press conference, but Carlsen and Caruana seems to be puzzled and confused. And if they can't find it, I think it's pretty safe to say that this is a move nearly impossible to be found by human - let alone find with a time limit and in a regular game!

It might have been found if it was a puzzle, or in a post mortem, or in correspondence Chess. But not really in a regular game, let alone in the context of a WCC and with time trouble. But I could be wrong, and I hope I am wrong, though I highly doubt it.

By "inhuman" I mean a move with "reasoning" (not that really exists in computer thinking) which a human can't understand. If anyone can explain the winning sequence move by move WITHOUT using an engine, I would be very surprised. During the game, various other GMs were looking at it and saying that the position was a fortress which couldn't be breached. It's easy to shout "HE MISSED A WIN! WHAT A BLUNDER!!!" now that we've seen that a win is possible, but AT THE TIME, WITHOUT COMPUTER ANALYSIS (or with analysis which hadn't found the winning sequence yet), lots of people thought it was a draw. Are they weak and stupid as well? Erm, completely no. By this logic, Garry Kasparov is really bad at chess, because he lost to Deep Blue, a machine which by modern standards is probably nothing special.

@mCoombes314 #8
A simple set of laws of nature creates something as complex as the whole universe!

Kasparov: „The computer shows Black wins with 68..Bh4 here. But had Caruana played the incredible 69.Bd5 Ne2 70.Bf3 Ng1!! they would request metal detectors immediately! No human can willingly trap his own knight like that.“

In hindsight the checkmating sequence is easy to explain: black checkmates white like in the elemental KBN vs. K checkmate. The white king is on the corner of the color of the bishop. There is tempo play involved as white still has a bishop and the knight has to cross white squares to weave the checkmating net.

So apparently there was this forced checkmate in 30, but what I don't understand is that when running Stockfish with depth 40+ it does not detect it. Or is depth given in terms of half moves, in which case it should be ran at depth 60?

1) depth 40 = 40 ply = 20 moves

2) depth 40 does not mean all possibilities are calculated 40 ply deep: only the most appealing ones are.