Ok, we're at it again. Even though it's been a few weeks since the drama began, we still don't know much. But remember, one thing that we do know for certain is that Hans Niemann has cheated before. I think that this is worth keeping in mind as we lambast Carlsen.
No one claimed that it was computer-perfect play and, of course, it should have been drawn - Carlsen is not perfect. But when you look at Hans' analysis of the game and his claims of preparation for a highly unusual Carlsen line, I think that it does look a bit dubious. I agree that evidence is key.
Well, it depends on what you count as evidence. Does computer perfect play count? How about just a few computer perfect moves at the right moments? It is a somewhat subtle issue.
The quoted text is quite misleading. Carlsen intends to continue to play chess full time. He just doesn't want to play the world championship match because he doesn't enjoy it.
This game was excellent. We all got to witness the best endgame player ever in action.
Dear Anant,
I am a young researcher at your own institution. One might think that online courses (such as those offered by edX) will make professors (at least those who teach) obsolete. What role do you see professors playing in the future of education? As someone on that career path, I am particularly interested in your views.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Stapleton
There is meant to be a "less than" in there: |1-x| is less than e.
For instance, one could take the perspective of analysis. In the real numbers, given a number such as 1 and some other number x, if |1-x| e for any positive real number e then 1 = x (think about this for awhile, if you haven't before, and you will probably believe it). The point here is that the sequence of numbers
6 Curses = 1 Hexahex
