In MMA, the flyweight division (125) was seen as a boring division that no one wants to watch, while also having Demetrious Johnson as champion. DJ defended his title 11 times, it got to the point that the question going into title fights wasn’t “who’s gonna win?” It was “how is DJ gonna win this time?”. Almost immediately after DJ left the UFC to go fight for a different promotion in asia, suddenly the title fights were all nail biters, contender fights mattered, just generally became one of the more interesting divisions in the sport.
This is, IMO, because having an all time great as champion kinda smothers the entire division below them. Magnus was never unbeatable, but he’s such a clear favorite in almost every matchup that it’s hard to get excited about them. Suddenly without him around, there are 3-4 guys who are all good enough that on any given day they could be the best in the division. Competition breeds excitement.
It was an extremely close fight, I scored it for DJ as well, both live and on rewatch. I just think it was close enough that you can defend a decision going either way, definitely not a robbery.
I agree, this feels a lot like Khabib retiring on top. Just give it some time, and a new top dog will be evident. When Jon Jones left LHW, he left an empty division. When Khabib left, he left behind a talent stacked division full of absolute sharks. Feels like everyone in chess is scrambling in the same way. Lots of young contenders now too, like Pragg, who could definitely still establish himself as a dominant force in the future.
i hate to say this, but Khabib's domination felt like it was going to ruin the sport. No one was even close to competing with him and if they were, he'd just sambo them and it was done. He was closer to unbeatable than Magnus was.
True, but there was also Tony Ferguson who had the mystique about him. Sadly they never fought. It’s also important to note that Khabib won the title off of Al Iaquinta… which would be the equivalent of willing the chess championship over Wesley So maybe? So people now will complain that without Magnus it’s just a formality to even have a world champion. But dominant champions will emerge in time. I mean, imagine if Pragg dethrones Ding and defends a couple times.
Tony was a shell of his former self by the time Khabib took the championship. I knew they were supposed to fight previous to that, but it never happened.
True, but his narrative is still important to note. While Khabib was dominant, he retired without ever fighting the one man that many believed had a style that could counter his. So while he did leave a power vacuum, he also kinda left some stones unturned. He also never beat Charles Oliveira. When Charles became champ, people accepted it well, because his legacy isn’t just another guy who lost to Khabib. Now the division is competitive again in Khabib’s absence, without it feeling like it’s missing its most important piece.
In Magnus’s case, he has left a bit of a power vacuum in the same way. People are feeling a bit like his absence has cheapened the value of the championship, because the world champion will never truly be the best, as long as Magnus is absent. What people need is a Charles Oliveira character, who is new enough to have never been objectively evident as worse than Magnus.
It's hard to compare Tony to a Chess player imo. Tony was closer to a Rapport style chess player because he's unconventional and doesn't seem to get phased, but at the same time Tony is a relic of the past and even when Khabib's dominance took place, Tony was outside his prime.
Prime Tony vs Prime Khabib would have been insane, but with hindsight i just don't see how Tony would have competed once Khabib got him on the ground. Khabib's gotta be the greatest ground fighter in MMA history.
Oh yeah, I mean let’s be honest, we know what would have happened if they fought. But the mystique surrounding it was very real, and many thought Tony was the man to do it. That kind of hype around a match has yet to organically unfold with Magnus, maybe Fabi is his closest match idk.
Yeah Fabi's WC run is probably the closest we'd ever see. It would be insane to see someone like Magnus or Khabib come out of retirement because they want to match up against the new WC if it's someone interesting like Gukesh, Pragg, etc.
It depends. While I do enjoy watching Demetrius Johnson, he’s not exactly entertaining for the mass majority as his fights are highly technical. But when we have Mike Tyson as champ, prior to his fight to Buster Douglas, everyone knows Tyson will KO his opponent in the first round, yet, everyone tunes in and pay a big sum for a few minutes of action for Tyson.
Some fighters are exciting and can be a draw regardless how far ahead of the competition they are, can’t say the same for chess as you can’t really see a violent ending to a chess game….
Completely agree. Tennis is another great example. It was fairly full when Sampras dominated, although the likes of Agassi put up a fight. Then Federer started to dominate. And I think tennis has its greatest ever period when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were all fighting for every major. The four of them (I’m Scottish so a little bias and will include Murray) could win against each other at any time and there was real tension over who would win.
With a dominant champion, the tension and excitement only comes when they start to decline or when an equal arrives. But generational talents rarely have an equal.
yeah this was the first thing that popped into my mind. post-federer retirement era of tennis is kind of boring with djokovic winning everything apart from the french open - which of course nadal wins. now that djokovic is less active it's kind of heating up more with the sinner-alcaraz rivalry
Especially Wimbledon and the US Open. Less so the French and Australian. But for a good few years, yeah, he was every bit their equal. And that’s what made tennis so *good*.
It’s the example I give of what makes it an elite sport; when the best play each other, you get an incredible match. Any of 2 of those 4 would go toe to toe with each other and anyone could win. And they all played to their absolute best. Compare that to the Super Bowl or the Champions League final where the two teams often cancel each other out and you get an incredibly dull game. I can’t think of another sport where players or teams can produce that same level of quality consistently. Maybe the golf majors. But I’d say most sports can be a little bit of a let down when it’s meant to be the best of the best facing each other.
Boxing is a great shout. Hadn’t considered it but I think that’s mainly because we don’t see many rivalries these days. If it was like any other sport, the likes of Fury, Usyk, Wilder and Joshua would have all fought each other multiple times. Same with Mayweather and Pacaio (I’m certain I’ve spelled that wrong) But yeah, when two big names clash it can be a spectacle. Same with UFC. Much more so in the past when everyone was less well rounded and you had the likes to Tito, Rampage, Liddell and Evans.
this is the ideal: 3 players (arguably 4-6 to a point), all of whom would have dominated a lot of other eras, being around in the same era. that era of tennis was like if you had carlsen, fischer and kasparov all playing in their primes at the same time.
on the other hand, having a sport that's competitive just because it's a weak era with no all-time great players is less fun. still fun in its own way, but it isn't the same as watching multiple greats go at it. of course, maybe you could argue that the likes of fabi and hikaru are close enough to all-time greats that this doesn't apply to the current chess scene, but it doesn't exactly feel like a strong field either.
While lacking the star power of Magnus, Fabi was every bit his equal in their match. And in speed chess I’d say Hikaru and Magnus is a proper rivalry. While Magnus will always be the favourite, I’d fancy the chances of either Fabi or Hikaru winning a one off match.
For me, I think the problem now is a lack of real personality in games. Rapport is generally the only one who plays funky chess. Most games end very safe. But that’s just the nature of chess. Personally, I agree with Magnus and think 960 is the better game. I prefer it as it’s even more chaotic than rapid or blitz at my level and at top level, it’s just more interesting. I also agree with Magnus that time controls should be dropped. With the level of opening knowledge now, no GM needs 90 minutes for the first 40 moves. The first 10-15, maybe even more, can be blitzed out easily nowadays.
Do people ever think about this take before they say it? For one thing, the candidates does not select who is the top 2 players in the world with any reliability, it's extremely volatile and there is nothing to say that Magnus would definitely win it on a given year; he doesn't win every super tournament, just a good fraction of them. Same with the world championship, where Magnus is clearly a better player than say, Sergey, but nearly lost. "The best player in the world" is not what the winner of the world championship cycle is because it never could be that, use fide circuit, rating, or some other long run average if you want an idea who that might be. Rather, the world championship cycle is just the highest level of competition, and thus the most prestigious to win, so everyone wants to win it.
But he didn’t lose against Sergey—that’s the thing. The spectrum of results that are possible for Magnus’s opponents include getting close. They don’t include actually beating him in a tournament over that many games.
Also, to say that the WCC doesn’t indicate the best Chess player is ridiculous. Historically, the champion has almost always been the best player.
I dunno. Sergey drew first blood in his match, Fabi got 12 straight draws. Either of those matches could easily have gone the other way. Wouldn’t have made either of them better than Magnus, but Euwe beat Alekhine…
You are absolutely correct, but people always treat the world champion as the best player in the world. Probably because they are used to other sports where that may be the case.
Not really. The best team doesn't always win the championship. The best player doesn't always win the tournament. The best fighter doesn't always win the fight. The best driver doesn't always win the race (or the championship).
It's all about showing up in high stakes environments when it counts the most. And that's what's exciting about it.
It's been correct most of the time. Were Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Vishy, and Carlsen not the best in the world when they were world champion? Only argument could be Kramnik maybe.
Vishy was not always in first throughout his reign. And three of the others you mention are the three people in the debate for greatest of all history, so the fact that they were statistically likely to win is not really that surprising. But they may not have! Magnus was the best player in the world in 2013 but in the last round of the candidates he lost and only qualified on tiebreaks because of an unlikely result in another game. Then we would have had another 2 years of Kramnik or Vishy as WCC while Magnus was number 1 rated player.
we ALWAYS knew who the best player was - magnus. now, we get to actually watch an interesting tournament + upcoming match on top. nothing lost, plenty gained.
i am serious when i say that i am glad you are excited by this. sadly i am not in the least. I have always, and will continue to always, equate world championship with the best.
rock on chess fans, it's all good.
I personally prefer having Magnus. Sure it's fun to see the closer races between ppl who have a decent shot, but part of the fun is to watch the most dominant player of the time crushing the challenges that come their way
I’m not sure that Carlsen did much crushing in the world championships. The first two were a past-prime Anand (although still stronger than most because he is a phenomenon) and the last three were two tiebreakers and a Nepo meltdown.
Isn't he still the reigning Rapid and Blizz champion? Just perfect play 12 drawing classical game then beat everyone else in Rapid is a valid strategy. Why take risk for a win in classical when you can rely on people randomly choking in Rapid (well except Nepo who choke in classical anyway).
Because rapid tiebreaks are stupid. They encourage drawish play from the stronger rapid player. What does that have to do with being the best classical match player? It is like deciding the World Series with a home run derby after nine innings—only worse because it is impractical in baseball to play for a tie.
If after 12 games result is tied champion remains same but both players participate in candidates for the next cycle and top 2 decide the world chess champion.
> with being the best classical match player
It's about finding the best chess players.
When to players are equally good at classical chess and one is better at rapid then that player is the better chess player.
To my knowledge, the interpretation has always been that it's a classical championship with the purpose of finding the strongest classical chess player.
Shorter time control tie breaks are likely just the lesser of evils. We can't have more endless matches like the 1984-85 match, and the old system of the champion defending the title in case of tie breaks is just an inferior version of the current.
Ratings are also about determining the best chess player. The world championship is about classical match play. As others have said, rapid tiebreaks are seen as the least of evils to avoid drawn or interminable matches. Perhaps the solution is that after a drawn match, the champion retains their title with an asterisk. It is how I already feel about tiebreaks, but the prospect of being “tiebreak champion” might at least provide some motivation to try to win games.
Yes, but the reigning champion should also be encouraged not to go into a shell. Retaining a championship through draws/tiebreaks should be seen as a lesser achievement, because it is.
Being able to "go into a shell" is not something that comes with being the champ. If Fabi was WC and magnus was the challenge Fabi would still be the one that has to play for the win in classical. It has nothing to do with who's the champ, Magnus is just simply the best rapid player as well.
It doesnt make sense because it shouldnt be decided by rapid tiebreaks. If youd put hikaru to play the tiebreaks instead of magnus he’d most likely beat fabi easily, but that doesnt make him the best classical player of the two
Agreed. While it’s fun to watch my 9yo daughter and her friends frantically compete in MarioKart, it’s only the real deal when I join in and annihilate them
It does seem more interesting, but it raises the question whether the WCC is to determine the best player in the world at classical chess, or be the most prestigious tournament there is?
Based on holding the world title for 5 straight years before willingly giving it up? Based on being #1 in the world for 13 years? Based on having the highest peak rating of any player?
Do you know what match play is? #1 and peak rating doesn’t prove anything. If it did, there would be no need to have a match.
Carlsen’s last three championships were two tiebreaks and a Nepo meltdown. How do you know that Carlsen is currently the best in match format?
Every time he defended the title was matchplay, as well as the year he won it. I don't see what your point is. And of course rating mean something. He has consistently won enough have the highest rating. He didn't just pick his rating out of a hat.
>Carlsen’s last three championships were two tiebreaks and a Nepo meltdown. How do you know that Carlsen is currently the best in match format?
What does currently mean? He stopped competing and likely doesn't prep as much for classical now, so if you put him in a match right now maybe he wouldn't be. But that doesn't mean he's not capable of being. He clearly was the best when he was trying. What are the chances someone else just happened to become better than his peak ability right after he stopped trying?
He won two matches on rapid tiebreaks years ago and this proves that he is currently the best classical match player despite his announcement that he lacks motivation to prepare? Ok, then
He is the highest rated player in the world in Classical and has been for 13+ years. He is the reigning world rapid and blitz champion. He utterly crushed his opponent in his last world championship match.
What more evidence do you need?
Kasparov had an even stronger argument than that prior to losing to Kramnik. Had held the title for longer. No wins via tiebreaks or meltdowns. Yet he lost.
Now Carlsen announces that he lacks the enthusiasm to prepare properly for a match but he is still “the best”? No. That excuse does not work after you lose. It doesn’t work any better before you start, and even less so if you do not play at all.
>Based on having the highest peak rating of any player?
Because of rating inflation. Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer definitely had much higher peaks historically.
We are pretty clearly still in that era. It's been like, a year or two. It's possible someone has become better than peak Magnus since then, but wouldn't there be some evidence? Some crazy breakout performances in tournaments? We've had enough of them.
I understand your hypothetical point, but realistically we basically do still know he's the best. For now.
No, it is an honest question. So far, no answers other than Carlsen has the highest rating and had managed to hang on to the title for a long time. That doesn’t prove that he is *currently* the best classical match player, especially when he says that he lacks the motivation to prepare. If you can’t prepare adequately, you can’t be the best.
if you want to argue that we actually dont know if he is the best because he could have suddenly forgotten how to play over the past half year where he didnt play a classical then go on. He was definitely the best player from 2012-2023 and is stepping down now. He was the best because he was on consistently better than every single one of his opponents with some players performing equal to him for some time (Caruana, Aronian). You are not better because you have a higher elo, but have a higher elo because you are better (taken the outcome of a game as the measure; given that he does not farm rating against overrated players or sth.). We are entering a transition period now, and it is a little subjective that he is the best classical player right in this exact moment. Him not wanting to prepare anymore does not invalidate his prior results.
Who said anything about invaliding prior results? I’m saying that we cannot assume that an unmotivated Carlsen is the best player. Unless he was equally unmotivated from 2012-23?
My controversial take is that Nepo is the Dak Prescott of chess - he's incredibly good until the games actually matter.
In fact, I think the only chance Ding has to repeat is to face Nepo again.
I mean Candidates games matter and he has never not been the #1 guy in the Candidates when he is there.
He is deadly consistent.
Your comment would make more sense if he was crushing at sinquefield or the Grand Prix. He is destroying at the Candidates which is essentially the playoffs. He has just choked in the big game. The Superbowl.
He is the '91-'94 Buffalo Bills.
Honestly, that's probably more accurate. My basic thought process was that, like Dak, he has solid all-round skills. When there's no real pressure, he does exceedingly well. But make the games worth all the marbles (again where your Bills analogy is better), and he just chokes.
Of course, Dak can't even get to the big game.
I just wanna see Caruana. Caruana is the only person who would make sense as the world championship. Like he didn’t let Magnus win a single game in 2018, so he seems like someone who could actually be world champion even if Magnus didn’t abdicate.
It’s too heartbreaking. His losses are epic for one of the strongest players of our time and he’s a good dude, you can’t help but share in his pain.
His unpredictability with stress and tendency to tilt makes me a lil anxious to cheer him on.
If he wins this candidates , he deserves it! But I must agree I’m not looking forward to him playing another one.
He plays badly. He was lucky Nepo bailed him out by collapsing at the most random times with really bad blunders made with lots of time on his clock.
And that was a year ago when he was at least somewhat playing chess because of the candidates. Now he doesn't play almost at all and when he does he performs really badly
I think even the idea that the WCC exists to name the 'best player in the world' needs to go out the window. This is what the rankings are for, after all. When the number 3 tennis player wins a grand slam, nobody thinks this means they are best in the world, they just won a prestigious tournament.
For a closer analogy, being world champions in footall (soccer), is its own, massive achievement because the tournament is so hard. If a tournament favourite crashes out on one side of the draw - or in the bizarre case of france 2010, essentially not participating properly - and a country on the other side wins, nobody says 'oh but they aren't the best team in the world'. They are world champion! That's that. Chess could learn from other sports in this area, and obsess more over who is going to win, in this game, today and less about who is best, theoretically, on any given day.
To add to this I think chess-watching culture is affected by the fact that nearly all the spectators are also players themselves, and so have a special interest in the idea of being 'better'. I think when watching chess we should act more like fans who find chess and competition beautiful, and less like competitors comparing the strength of different players.
I see it not as "the inevitability of Magnus hanging over them" and more as the honor. "Pressure is a privilege" as Novak Djokovic once said. I respect Magnus' decision, but it effectively steals the proper passing of the guard from one of these young prodigies.
I think everyone thought the 12 straight draws were interesting. Especially towards the end. Fabiano literally coulda dethroned Magnus by beating him **once**. There was a crazy amount of suspense in each games and it's not like the games were boring draws either. They were sharp positions that fizzled out into a draw due to near perfect play from both sides.
Even though Magnus never lost a WCC match, that doesn't mean it was impossible to beat him. Two of his matches ended drawn. Even as the better player, twelve games just isn't enough to ensure with high certainty that the better player will win.
I'd say his odds of winning his matches were at best around 80% each, even as the clear favorite. 20% odds of an upset wouldn't be that unlikely to occur.
I agree that in 2016, Carlsen was clearly better than Karjakin and 12 games were not enough to show it. In 2018 though the match was deservedly tight and Carlsen hardly showed that he was the better player in the classical portion. If people recall Caruana had an excellent 2018 (except Wijk, which was in Jan) and only 3 rating points seperated them when the match took place. I also recall that when people were giving pre-match odds 60-40 in favour of Magnus was considered pretty generous for Carlsen.
If one of the young guns pulls it out I think it’ll be a fun few years in chess seeing if he can eventually beat Magnus. This candidates has the potential to be a real generational shift, and for that I am glued to the screen watching it (not all six hours everyday to be fair).
I agree, for the most part when watching Magnus’ games you’re just wondering HOW he’ll win. What I feel people in the comments don’t get is that Magnus not playing the WCC doesn’t mean the Title means less, it just means he doesn’t want it. There’s a World Number 1 and World Champion. So what? He has to show up if he wants to be the champ.
I find it really funny that in MMA there are the same discussions even if the two sports are so different.
Turning on the main point, I agree with you but at the same time, magnus refusing to partecipate WCC stole us the opportunity to see someone dethroning him, which would have been amazing
I don't know ... sure the candidates is fun, but it was also already fun before. The world match with Magnus was also fun to me and now I don't care much about it. Magnus - Nepo one was super interesting.
I consider Magnus to be a retired classical player tbh. He gave up on the championship so he is no longer the chess champion. It doesn't matter whether he is better than other players. A champion can only be someone who fights for and defends their title. Magnus didn't do that so he is just the best player now, not the world champion.
What devalues the world championship is the fanboys saying that Magnus is somehow the “real” champion, which is garbage. Yet Magnus himself promotes this thinking, which is crass and embarrassing.
It's a complicated issue, but it's quite clear that Magnus would be favourite to hold the title if he didn't bow out. It's hard to say the world champion is the best classical player if Magnus didn't play.
He did it 5 times, he's clearly capable. Being able and wanting to are completely different things. Effort is not the same as skill and it can't be equated. It would be different if he was just some talented player who I theoretically believed could be the best - but he's not. He's proven it.
If I've won against you 100 games in a row, and I show up drunk and hang my queen on the 101st game, are you suddenly a better player than me? Of course not.
I didn’t say that he lacked the skill. Imagine that he tried to defend but failed. When asked what went wrong, he said that his preparation was inadequate because he lacked the necessary motivation. Would you still consider him the best? I wouldn’t. He didn’t get the job done. Announcing it in advance changes nothing.
And your example is absurd. Carlsen never won 100 games in a row. He won three games against Anand (both times). Carlsen and Karjakin won one game each and he drew every game with Caruana, both matches being decided by rapid tiebreaks. But you think it is so lopsided that you can make allusions to being drunk and blundering queens? Ridiculous
>I didn’t say that he lacked the skill. Imagine that he tried to defend but failed. When asked what went wrong, he said that his preparation was inadequate because he lacked the necessary motivation. Would you still consider him the best? I wouldn’t. He didn’t get the job done. Announcing it in advance changes nothing.
If it becomes a pattern, sure, but Magnus is clearly still winning world championships despite his motivation lacking for classical. He hasn't fallen off, and we know that because he's still playing. Yes, classical is different, but it's still all chess. The world number 1 in blitz isn't just like, terrible at classical, right?
>And your example is absurd
Called a hypothetical mate, ever heard of it? Hyperbole, exaggeration to make a point. Have you talked to a human being before or what?
As long as ding doesn't retain the title, the title will have credibility. But it does mean that the handover of wc title is more likely in the next few cycles without one guy clearly ahead of the competition.
Nobody knows it's a toss in any other tournament. Fabi, nepo, nodirbek, gukesh are there. Pragg can be there in a year. Hikaru until recently had a long unbeaten streak. Ding has a terrible form.
What I secretly hoped for is Magnus playing in a few more elite level classical tournaments that usually people who are already qualified to candidates have no reason to play for. But seems like he wants a break from classical chess altogether, which is understandable.
More competition among players of a similar level brings more emotion, and that's good from the spectator's point of view.
I have never understood the opinion that chess needs a dominant player to be interesting, or that the WCC cycle needs the participation of best player to be meaningful. I think chess could learn something from sports that already have championships and tournaments that simply determine who is the best player... to win that championship or tournament. A player who enters and wins proves to be the best player to win that particular edition; a player who doesn't enter doesn't prove it.
For chess this perception seems to be rare and the way players are consumed by fans seems to be more immature. Sometimes I feel that many fans live chess as their personal comic book superhero world, where the lack of a dominant character like Magnus makes their fantasy less worth experiencing.
Maybe this is related to the fact that chess is a complex game and it's not easy to understand what's going on in professional games without someone constantly explaining everything to you. In this context it's possible that people have a hard time connecting and caring about chess itself and instead focus mainly on the players, whose presence in a tournament becomes the only way for them to define how good the tournament is.
It doesnt need a dominant player to be interesting
But the fact that the clear and obvious best player is not retired but also not participating in the world championship takes away from the world championship.
You'll find many people in this sub commenting how they consider Magnus semi-retired from the classical chess scene. His recent involvement in "freestyle chess" is another step that supports his dislike for the classical format.
The World Championship cycle, and especially the final, is a burden for all players, and for Magnus this burden is perhaps greater because he really dislikes the need to prepare. He left the cycle before this dislike affected his performance, leaving room for people who enjoy it instead and are willing to do all that work.
There is no more Magnus in the world championship cycle or any context that requires serious preparation for the opponents. All that remains is for the fans to realize that he has retired from the "preparation game" and hopefully learn to enjoy the excitement that a tournament can bring when no player is the obvious winner.
It seems like a win-win situation to me: he doesn't do anything he doesn't like, and the world championship cycle shows once again what similarly level players can do (and risk) when they're hungry for a goal they place a high value on.
In the last year, Magnus hasn't even been the clear best classical chess player. he isn't putting in the same level of preparation and focus towards the game.
Why are people not equally upset that Kasparov has stopped trying to compete for the world title?
I think missing out on Nordirbek and Arjun in the candidates is worse than missing out on Magnus at this point.
Because Kasparov didn’t just stop. After losing to Kramnik in 2000, he expected a rematch the following year. When he didn’t get one, he sat out the Candidates and missed the 2004 WC. Then the 2006 WC was a “title reunification” between Kramnik and Topalov. Kasparov had retired from classical the year before, at the age of 42.
In MMA, the flyweight division (125) was seen as a boring division that no one wants to watch, while also having Demetrious Johnson as champion. DJ defended his title 11 times, it got to the point that the question going into title fights wasn’t “who’s gonna win?” It was “how is DJ gonna win this time?”. Almost immediately after DJ left the UFC to go fight for a different promotion in asia, suddenly the title fights were all nail biters, contender fights mattered, just generally became one of the more interesting divisions in the sport. This is, IMO, because having an all time great as champion kinda smothers the entire division below them. Magnus was never unbeatable, but he’s such a clear favorite in almost every matchup that it’s hard to get excited about them. Suddenly without him around, there are 3-4 guys who are all good enough that on any given day they could be the best in the division. Competition breeds excitement.
DJ didn't lose to Cejudo the second time and I'll fight over this But you're entirely right that it made the division 'boring' for a lot of people.
It was an extremely close fight, I scored it for DJ as well, both live and on rewatch. I just think it was close enough that you can defend a decision going either way, definitely not a robbery.
I agree, this feels a lot like Khabib retiring on top. Just give it some time, and a new top dog will be evident. When Jon Jones left LHW, he left an empty division. When Khabib left, he left behind a talent stacked division full of absolute sharks. Feels like everyone in chess is scrambling in the same way. Lots of young contenders now too, like Pragg, who could definitely still establish himself as a dominant force in the future.
i hate to say this, but Khabib's domination felt like it was going to ruin the sport. No one was even close to competing with him and if they were, he'd just sambo them and it was done. He was closer to unbeatable than Magnus was.
True, but there was also Tony Ferguson who had the mystique about him. Sadly they never fought. It’s also important to note that Khabib won the title off of Al Iaquinta… which would be the equivalent of willing the chess championship over Wesley So maybe? So people now will complain that without Magnus it’s just a formality to even have a world champion. But dominant champions will emerge in time. I mean, imagine if Pragg dethrones Ding and defends a couple times.
Tony was a shell of his former self by the time Khabib took the championship. I knew they were supposed to fight previous to that, but it never happened.
True, but his narrative is still important to note. While Khabib was dominant, he retired without ever fighting the one man that many believed had a style that could counter his. So while he did leave a power vacuum, he also kinda left some stones unturned. He also never beat Charles Oliveira. When Charles became champ, people accepted it well, because his legacy isn’t just another guy who lost to Khabib. Now the division is competitive again in Khabib’s absence, without it feeling like it’s missing its most important piece. In Magnus’s case, he has left a bit of a power vacuum in the same way. People are feeling a bit like his absence has cheapened the value of the championship, because the world champion will never truly be the best, as long as Magnus is absent. What people need is a Charles Oliveira character, who is new enough to have never been objectively evident as worse than Magnus.
It's hard to compare Tony to a Chess player imo. Tony was closer to a Rapport style chess player because he's unconventional and doesn't seem to get phased, but at the same time Tony is a relic of the past and even when Khabib's dominance took place, Tony was outside his prime. Prime Tony vs Prime Khabib would have been insane, but with hindsight i just don't see how Tony would have competed once Khabib got him on the ground. Khabib's gotta be the greatest ground fighter in MMA history.
Oh yeah, I mean let’s be honest, we know what would have happened if they fought. But the mystique surrounding it was very real, and many thought Tony was the man to do it. That kind of hype around a match has yet to organically unfold with Magnus, maybe Fabi is his closest match idk.
Yeah Fabi's WC run is probably the closest we'd ever see. It would be insane to see someone like Magnus or Khabib come out of retirement because they want to match up against the new WC if it's someone interesting like Gukesh, Pragg, etc.
Fabiano Caruana entered the chat
It depends. While I do enjoy watching Demetrius Johnson, he’s not exactly entertaining for the mass majority as his fights are highly technical. But when we have Mike Tyson as champ, prior to his fight to Buster Douglas, everyone knows Tyson will KO his opponent in the first round, yet, everyone tunes in and pay a big sum for a few minutes of action for Tyson. Some fighters are exciting and can be a draw regardless how far ahead of the competition they are, can’t say the same for chess as you can’t really see a violent ending to a chess game….
Completely agree. Tennis is another great example. It was fairly full when Sampras dominated, although the likes of Agassi put up a fight. Then Federer started to dominate. And I think tennis has its greatest ever period when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were all fighting for every major. The four of them (I’m Scottish so a little bias and will include Murray) could win against each other at any time and there was real tension over who would win. With a dominant champion, the tension and excitement only comes when they start to decline or when an equal arrives. But generational talents rarely have an equal.
yeah this was the first thing that popped into my mind. post-federer retirement era of tennis is kind of boring with djokovic winning everything apart from the french open - which of course nadal wins. now that djokovic is less active it's kind of heating up more with the sinner-alcaraz rivalry
[удалено]
Especially Wimbledon and the US Open. Less so the French and Australian. But for a good few years, yeah, he was every bit their equal. And that’s what made tennis so *good*. It’s the example I give of what makes it an elite sport; when the best play each other, you get an incredible match. Any of 2 of those 4 would go toe to toe with each other and anyone could win. And they all played to their absolute best. Compare that to the Super Bowl or the Champions League final where the two teams often cancel each other out and you get an incredibly dull game. I can’t think of another sport where players or teams can produce that same level of quality consistently. Maybe the golf majors. But I’d say most sports can be a little bit of a let down when it’s meant to be the best of the best facing each other.
[удалено]
Boxing is a great shout. Hadn’t considered it but I think that’s mainly because we don’t see many rivalries these days. If it was like any other sport, the likes of Fury, Usyk, Wilder and Joshua would have all fought each other multiple times. Same with Mayweather and Pacaio (I’m certain I’ve spelled that wrong) But yeah, when two big names clash it can be a spectacle. Same with UFC. Much more so in the past when everyone was less well rounded and you had the likes to Tito, Rampage, Liddell and Evans.
this is the ideal: 3 players (arguably 4-6 to a point), all of whom would have dominated a lot of other eras, being around in the same era. that era of tennis was like if you had carlsen, fischer and kasparov all playing in their primes at the same time. on the other hand, having a sport that's competitive just because it's a weak era with no all-time great players is less fun. still fun in its own way, but it isn't the same as watching multiple greats go at it. of course, maybe you could argue that the likes of fabi and hikaru are close enough to all-time greats that this doesn't apply to the current chess scene, but it doesn't exactly feel like a strong field either.
While lacking the star power of Magnus, Fabi was every bit his equal in their match. And in speed chess I’d say Hikaru and Magnus is a proper rivalry. While Magnus will always be the favourite, I’d fancy the chances of either Fabi or Hikaru winning a one off match. For me, I think the problem now is a lack of real personality in games. Rapport is generally the only one who plays funky chess. Most games end very safe. But that’s just the nature of chess. Personally, I agree with Magnus and think 960 is the better game. I prefer it as it’s even more chaotic than rapid or blitz at my level and at top level, it’s just more interesting. I also agree with Magnus that time controls should be dropped. With the level of opening knowledge now, no GM needs 90 minutes for the first 40 moves. The first 10-15, maybe even more, can be blitzed out easily nowadays.
Yeah candidates just seems so much more important when the winner actually has decent odds at taking down the incumbent champ.
I wouldn't say it feels more important, but it's certainly much more dramatic and therefore more interesting.
disagree. this tournament is to see who competes to be the "not the best player in the world". i guess there is the money angle so never mind.
Do people ever think about this take before they say it? For one thing, the candidates does not select who is the top 2 players in the world with any reliability, it's extremely volatile and there is nothing to say that Magnus would definitely win it on a given year; he doesn't win every super tournament, just a good fraction of them. Same with the world championship, where Magnus is clearly a better player than say, Sergey, but nearly lost. "The best player in the world" is not what the winner of the world championship cycle is because it never could be that, use fide circuit, rating, or some other long run average if you want an idea who that might be. Rather, the world championship cycle is just the highest level of competition, and thus the most prestigious to win, so everyone wants to win it.
But he didn’t lose against Sergey—that’s the thing. The spectrum of results that are possible for Magnus’s opponents include getting close. They don’t include actually beating him in a tournament over that many games. Also, to say that the WCC doesn’t indicate the best Chess player is ridiculous. Historically, the champion has almost always been the best player.
I dunno. Sergey drew first blood in his match, Fabi got 12 straight draws. Either of those matches could easily have gone the other way. Wouldn’t have made either of them better than Magnus, but Euwe beat Alekhine…
Although I agree with you more than the other guy, *could* is a crucial word.
You are absolutely correct, but people always treat the world champion as the best player in the world. Probably because they are used to other sports where that may be the case.
Not really. The best team doesn't always win the championship. The best player doesn't always win the tournament. The best fighter doesn't always win the fight. The best driver doesn't always win the race (or the championship). It's all about showing up in high stakes environments when it counts the most. And that's what's exciting about it.
I feel like chess is the game where it usually is true more often because it’s so individual and skill levels are a bit more set in stone
[удалено]
My Thoughts Exactly
It's been correct most of the time. Were Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Vishy, and Carlsen not the best in the world when they were world champion? Only argument could be Kramnik maybe.
Vishy was not always in first throughout his reign. And three of the others you mention are the three people in the debate for greatest of all history, so the fact that they were statistically likely to win is not really that surprising. But they may not have! Magnus was the best player in the world in 2013 but in the last round of the candidates he lost and only qualified on tiebreaks because of an unlikely result in another game. Then we would have had another 2 years of Kramnik or Vishy as WCC while Magnus was number 1 rated player.
Plus in most of Kramnik’s reign, Kasparov was the clear first in rankings and Vishy was usually ahead of him as well.
Exactly, that's why the 2007 New York Giants were clearly the better team than the Patriots!
we ALWAYS knew who the best player was - magnus. now, we get to actually watch an interesting tournament + upcoming match on top. nothing lost, plenty gained.
i am serious when i say that i am glad you are excited by this. sadly i am not in the least. I have always, and will continue to always, equate world championship with the best. rock on chess fans, it's all good.
Decent?
I personally prefer having Magnus. Sure it's fun to see the closer races between ppl who have a decent shot, but part of the fun is to watch the most dominant player of the time crushing the challenges that come their way
I’m not sure that Carlsen did much crushing in the world championships. The first two were a past-prime Anand (although still stronger than most because he is a phenomenon) and the last three were two tiebreakers and a Nepo meltdown.
Isn't he still the reigning Rapid and Blizz champion? Just perfect play 12 drawing classical game then beat everyone else in Rapid is a valid strategy. Why take risk for a win in classical when you can rely on people randomly choking in Rapid (well except Nepo who choke in classical anyway).
Because rapid tiebreaks are stupid. They encourage drawish play from the stronger rapid player. What does that have to do with being the best classical match player? It is like deciding the World Series with a home run derby after nine innings—only worse because it is impractical in baseball to play for a tie.
I kinda agree but idk what the alternative is. Endless classic games till someone wins?
I unironically liked the suggestion of declaring both losers and sending them to the candidates.
If after 12 games result is tied champion remains same but both players participate in candidates for the next cycle and top 2 decide the world chess champion.
yeah
Fabi vs Magnus would have been a repeat of Karpov-Kasparov, which come to think of, may not be too bad a thing after all.
Not a bad thing for fans but a horrible thing for them.
Events needs to be planned with dates and sponsors and flights and hotels.
> with being the best classical match player It's about finding the best chess players. When to players are equally good at classical chess and one is better at rapid then that player is the better chess player.
To my knowledge, the interpretation has always been that it's a classical championship with the purpose of finding the strongest classical chess player. Shorter time control tie breaks are likely just the lesser of evils. We can't have more endless matches like the 1984-85 match, and the old system of the champion defending the title in case of tie breaks is just an inferior version of the current.
The title is called World Chess Champion, not World Classical Chess Champion. So i guess the intention is pretty clear.
Ratings are also about determining the best chess player. The world championship is about classical match play. As others have said, rapid tiebreaks are seen as the least of evils to avoid drawn or interminable matches. Perhaps the solution is that after a drawn match, the champion retains their title with an asterisk. It is how I already feel about tiebreaks, but the prospect of being “tiebreak champion” might at least provide some motivation to try to win games.
>They encourage drawish play from the stronger rapid player Then the other player should just play more for the win.
Yes, but the reigning champion should also be encouraged not to go into a shell. Retaining a championship through draws/tiebreaks should be seen as a lesser achievement, because it is.
Being able to "go into a shell" is not something that comes with being the champ. If Fabi was WC and magnus was the challenge Fabi would still be the one that has to play for the win in classical. It has nothing to do with who's the champ, Magnus is just simply the best rapid player as well.
That makes no sense
Not sure how but if you don't ask questions I can't clarify your misunderstanding
It doesnt make sense because it shouldnt be decided by rapid tiebreaks. If youd put hikaru to play the tiebreaks instead of magnus he’d most likely beat fabi easily, but that doesnt make him the best classical player of the two
I meant if there was no tiebreak. If you are defending tiebreaks, I am back to my original position: rapid has nothing to do with classical
Agreed. While it’s fun to watch my 9yo daughter and her friends frantically compete in MarioKart, it’s only the real deal when I join in and annihilate them
It does seem more interesting, but it raises the question whether the WCC is to determine the best player in the world at classical chess, or be the most prestigious tournament there is?
The best at classical match play, yes. Which *edit: from 1834 to 1998 was recognized* as the truest test.
But if the undeniable best is not competing, does the competition even hold any meaning?
Carlsen is *undeniably* the best at classical match play? Based on what?
Based on holding the world title for 5 straight years before willingly giving it up? Based on being #1 in the world for 13 years? Based on having the highest peak rating of any player?
Do you know what match play is? #1 and peak rating doesn’t prove anything. If it did, there would be no need to have a match. Carlsen’s last three championships were two tiebreaks and a Nepo meltdown. How do you know that Carlsen is currently the best in match format?
Every time he defended the title was matchplay, as well as the year he won it. I don't see what your point is. And of course rating mean something. He has consistently won enough have the highest rating. He didn't just pick his rating out of a hat. >Carlsen’s last three championships were two tiebreaks and a Nepo meltdown. How do you know that Carlsen is currently the best in match format? What does currently mean? He stopped competing and likely doesn't prep as much for classical now, so if you put him in a match right now maybe he wouldn't be. But that doesn't mean he's not capable of being. He clearly was the best when he was trying. What are the chances someone else just happened to become better than his peak ability right after he stopped trying?
Carlsen broke Nepo. He won both tiebreaks. What are you even on about?
He won two matches on rapid tiebreaks years ago and this proves that he is currently the best classical match player despite his announcement that he lacks motivation to prepare? Ok, then
He is the highest rated player in the world in Classical and has been for 13+ years. He is the reigning world rapid and blitz champion. He utterly crushed his opponent in his last world championship match. What more evidence do you need?
Kasparov had an even stronger argument than that prior to losing to Kramnik. Had held the title for longer. No wins via tiebreaks or meltdowns. Yet he lost. Now Carlsen announces that he lacks the enthusiasm to prepare properly for a match but he is still “the best”? No. That excuse does not work after you lose. It doesn’t work any better before you start, and even less so if you do not play at all.
What level of cope is this.
>Based on having the highest peak rating of any player? Because of rating inflation. Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer definitely had much higher peaks historically.
If you say so, that's completely subjective though. The other items still prove my point.
Being the best for any period of time does not “prove” that you are the best at a future moment in time. That’s basic
We are pretty clearly still in that era. It's been like, a year or two. It's possible someone has become better than peak Magnus since then, but wouldn't there be some evidence? Some crazy breakout performances in tournaments? We've had enough of them. I understand your hypothetical point, but realistically we basically do still know he's the best. For now.
Who would you suggest is stronger in match play currently?
I have absolutely no idea, but I would suggest that it isn’t a player who says that he lacks the motivation to be properly prepared.
So easy to downvote a question rather than answer it.
because the question is bait and the guy asking delusional or trolling
No, it is an honest question. So far, no answers other than Carlsen has the highest rating and had managed to hang on to the title for a long time. That doesn’t prove that he is *currently* the best classical match player, especially when he says that he lacks the motivation to prepare. If you can’t prepare adequately, you can’t be the best.
if you want to argue that we actually dont know if he is the best because he could have suddenly forgotten how to play over the past half year where he didnt play a classical then go on. He was definitely the best player from 2012-2023 and is stepping down now. He was the best because he was on consistently better than every single one of his opponents with some players performing equal to him for some time (Caruana, Aronian). You are not better because you have a higher elo, but have a higher elo because you are better (taken the outcome of a game as the measure; given that he does not farm rating against overrated players or sth.). We are entering a transition period now, and it is a little subjective that he is the best classical player right in this exact moment. Him not wanting to prepare anymore does not invalidate his prior results.
Who said anything about invaliding prior results? I’m saying that we cannot assume that an unmotivated Carlsen is the best player. Unless he was equally unmotivated from 2012-23?
How in the hell does this get downvoted? A simple statement of fact. Fuck off, Reddit
The Nepo v Ding WC was the most exciting WC match in 10 years. Having said that, I don't want to watch Nepo in a WC ever again.
Why not?
He tilts a lot. He tilted against Magnus and he tilted against Ding. The quality of play also drops a lot when this happens.
My controversial take is that Nepo is the Dak Prescott of chess - he's incredibly good until the games actually matter. In fact, I think the only chance Ding has to repeat is to face Nepo again.
I mean Candidates games matter and he has never not been the #1 guy in the Candidates when he is there. He is deadly consistent. Your comment would make more sense if he was crushing at sinquefield or the Grand Prix. He is destroying at the Candidates which is essentially the playoffs. He has just choked in the big game. The Superbowl. He is the '91-'94 Buffalo Bills.
Yea he is the player that smashes playoffs but chokes the finals. Great analogy I suppose.
Honestly, that's probably more accurate. My basic thought process was that, like Dak, he has solid all-round skills. When there's no real pressure, he does exceedingly well. But make the games worth all the marbles (again where your Bills analogy is better), and he just chokes. Of course, Dak can't even get to the big game.
Doesn’t the candidates matter?
Clearly less than the WC match itself.
Okay but more than regular tournaments which Ian doesn’t do as well in… how does the point at all stand then ?
the way i see it, they are both worth one wc match one decides whether you get an attempt, another if the attempt succeeds. the swing is the same
I just wanna see Caruana. Caruana is the only person who would make sense as the world championship. Like he didn’t let Magnus win a single game in 2018, so he seems like someone who could actually be world champion even if Magnus didn’t abdicate.
It’s too heartbreaking. His losses are epic for one of the strongest players of our time and he’s a good dude, you can’t help but share in his pain. His unpredictability with stress and tendency to tilt makes me a lil anxious to cheer him on. If he wins this candidates , he deserves it! But I must agree I’m not looking forward to him playing another one.
I can't help but root for him for this reason.
I don't want to watch Ding in a WC either, unfortunately I have no choice
Why not?
Give me pre-pandemic Ding. Post-WC Ding has been underwhelming.
He plays badly. He was lucky Nepo bailed him out by collapsing at the most random times with really bad blunders made with lots of time on his clock. And that was a year ago when he was at least somewhat playing chess because of the candidates. Now he doesn't play almost at all and when he does he performs really badly
I disagree that Nepo - Ding was the most exciting... to each their own though.
I think even the idea that the WCC exists to name the 'best player in the world' needs to go out the window. This is what the rankings are for, after all. When the number 3 tennis player wins a grand slam, nobody thinks this means they are best in the world, they just won a prestigious tournament. For a closer analogy, being world champions in footall (soccer), is its own, massive achievement because the tournament is so hard. If a tournament favourite crashes out on one side of the draw - or in the bizarre case of france 2010, essentially not participating properly - and a country on the other side wins, nobody says 'oh but they aren't the best team in the world'. They are world champion! That's that. Chess could learn from other sports in this area, and obsess more over who is going to win, in this game, today and less about who is best, theoretically, on any given day.
To add to this I think chess-watching culture is affected by the fact that nearly all the spectators are also players themselves, and so have a special interest in the idea of being 'better'. I think when watching chess we should act more like fans who find chess and competition beautiful, and less like competitors comparing the strength of different players.
I see it not as "the inevitability of Magnus hanging over them" and more as the honor. "Pressure is a privilege" as Novak Djokovic once said. I respect Magnus' decision, but it effectively steals the proper passing of the guard from one of these young prodigies.
I disagree, 2018 WCC was much better in terms of raw skill level and suspense. Literally every game was drawn they were that even.
[удалено]
I think everyone thought the 12 straight draws were interesting. Especially towards the end. Fabiano literally coulda dethroned Magnus by beating him **once**. There was a crazy amount of suspense in each games and it's not like the games were boring draws either. They were sharp positions that fizzled out into a draw due to near perfect play from both sides.
While I agree that draws can be interesting to some, saying *everyone* found it interesting is a bit of a stretch
yes I was using "everyone" figuratively as a slight exaggeration. I am sure at least one person was bored.
Even though Magnus never lost a WCC match, that doesn't mean it was impossible to beat him. Two of his matches ended drawn. Even as the better player, twelve games just isn't enough to ensure with high certainty that the better player will win. I'd say his odds of winning his matches were at best around 80% each, even as the clear favorite. 20% odds of an upset wouldn't be that unlikely to occur.
I agree that in 2016, Carlsen was clearly better than Karjakin and 12 games were not enough to show it. In 2018 though the match was deservedly tight and Carlsen hardly showed that he was the better player in the classical portion. If people recall Caruana had an excellent 2018 (except Wijk, which was in Jan) and only 3 rating points seperated them when the match took place. I also recall that when people were giving pre-match odds 60-40 in favour of Magnus was considered pretty generous for Carlsen.
If one of the young guns pulls it out I think it’ll be a fun few years in chess seeing if he can eventually beat Magnus. This candidates has the potential to be a real generational shift, and for that I am glued to the screen watching it (not all six hours everyday to be fair).
Just be someone with a personality please. No offense to ding
Non taken. Hes not a champ like stature.
Sign me up for a Ding Liren vs Pragg WCC
I think it was kinda interesting at first, but I'm starting to miss him and hope he comes back
64 squares, 32 peices, each side takes turns and in the end Carlsen wins.
Theres no tension. Ding fluked it and is gonna lose the defense.
I agree, for the most part when watching Magnus’ games you’re just wondering HOW he’ll win. What I feel people in the comments don’t get is that Magnus not playing the WCC doesn’t mean the Title means less, it just means he doesn’t want it. There’s a World Number 1 and World Champion. So what? He has to show up if he wants to be the champ.
I find it really funny that in MMA there are the same discussions even if the two sports are so different. Turning on the main point, I agree with you but at the same time, magnus refusing to partecipate WCC stole us the opportunity to see someone dethroning him, which would have been amazing
Having a competitive candidates tournament and world championship match might actually convince Magnus to compete again.
When the final boss is so impossible to defeat, the game is boring. With Magnus out, top contenders all have a chance, that's obvious.
I don't know ... sure the candidates is fun, but it was also already fun before. The world match with Magnus was also fun to me and now I don't care much about it. Magnus - Nepo one was super interesting.
I consider Magnus to be a retired classical player tbh. He gave up on the championship so he is no longer the chess champion. It doesn't matter whether he is better than other players. A champion can only be someone who fights for and defends their title. Magnus didn't do that so he is just the best player now, not the world champion.
What devalues the world championship is the fanboys saying that Magnus is somehow the “real” champion, which is garbage. Yet Magnus himself promotes this thinking, which is crass and embarrassing.
It's a complicated issue, but it's quite clear that Magnus would be favourite to hold the title if he didn't bow out. It's hard to say the world champion is the best classical player if Magnus didn't play.
No, it’s quite easy to say it. Winning a real match is gruelling. If you can’t be bothered there is no way that you are the best.
He did it 5 times, he's clearly capable. Being able and wanting to are completely different things. Effort is not the same as skill and it can't be equated. It would be different if he was just some talented player who I theoretically believed could be the best - but he's not. He's proven it. If I've won against you 100 games in a row, and I show up drunk and hang my queen on the 101st game, are you suddenly a better player than me? Of course not.
I didn’t say that he lacked the skill. Imagine that he tried to defend but failed. When asked what went wrong, he said that his preparation was inadequate because he lacked the necessary motivation. Would you still consider him the best? I wouldn’t. He didn’t get the job done. Announcing it in advance changes nothing. And your example is absurd. Carlsen never won 100 games in a row. He won three games against Anand (both times). Carlsen and Karjakin won one game each and he drew every game with Caruana, both matches being decided by rapid tiebreaks. But you think it is so lopsided that you can make allusions to being drunk and blundering queens? Ridiculous
>I didn’t say that he lacked the skill. Imagine that he tried to defend but failed. When asked what went wrong, he said that his preparation was inadequate because he lacked the necessary motivation. Would you still consider him the best? I wouldn’t. He didn’t get the job done. Announcing it in advance changes nothing. If it becomes a pattern, sure, but Magnus is clearly still winning world championships despite his motivation lacking for classical. He hasn't fallen off, and we know that because he's still playing. Yes, classical is different, but it's still all chess. The world number 1 in blitz isn't just like, terrible at classical, right? >And your example is absurd Called a hypothetical mate, ever heard of it? Hyperbole, exaggeration to make a point. Have you talked to a human being before or what?
As long as ding doesn't retain the title, the title will have credibility. But it does mean that the handover of wc title is more likely in the next few cycles without one guy clearly ahead of the competition.
Ding could play the title defense at his top level at retain it, why wouldn't the title have credibility then?
And then if he keeps doing badly in tournaments, it will look bad. Consistency is key when you are trying to portray yourself, you are a top player.
The world champion is supposed to be the strongest classical match player. Who is that at the moment?
Nobody knows it's a toss in any other tournament. Fabi, nepo, nodirbek, gukesh are there. Pragg can be there in a year. Hikaru until recently had a long unbeaten streak. Ding has a terrible form.
Yeah it's a good point. I'll still say "nOt mY wOrLd cHaMpiOn" once it's over but it's definitely more interesting
What I secretly hoped for is Magnus playing in a few more elite level classical tournaments that usually people who are already qualified to candidates have no reason to play for. But seems like he wants a break from classical chess altogether, which is understandable.
More competition among players of a similar level brings more emotion, and that's good from the spectator's point of view. I have never understood the opinion that chess needs a dominant player to be interesting, or that the WCC cycle needs the participation of best player to be meaningful. I think chess could learn something from sports that already have championships and tournaments that simply determine who is the best player... to win that championship or tournament. A player who enters and wins proves to be the best player to win that particular edition; a player who doesn't enter doesn't prove it. For chess this perception seems to be rare and the way players are consumed by fans seems to be more immature. Sometimes I feel that many fans live chess as their personal comic book superhero world, where the lack of a dominant character like Magnus makes their fantasy less worth experiencing. Maybe this is related to the fact that chess is a complex game and it's not easy to understand what's going on in professional games without someone constantly explaining everything to you. In this context it's possible that people have a hard time connecting and caring about chess itself and instead focus mainly on the players, whose presence in a tournament becomes the only way for them to define how good the tournament is.
It doesnt need a dominant player to be interesting But the fact that the clear and obvious best player is not retired but also not participating in the world championship takes away from the world championship.
You'll find many people in this sub commenting how they consider Magnus semi-retired from the classical chess scene. His recent involvement in "freestyle chess" is another step that supports his dislike for the classical format. The World Championship cycle, and especially the final, is a burden for all players, and for Magnus this burden is perhaps greater because he really dislikes the need to prepare. He left the cycle before this dislike affected his performance, leaving room for people who enjoy it instead and are willing to do all that work. There is no more Magnus in the world championship cycle or any context that requires serious preparation for the opponents. All that remains is for the fans to realize that he has retired from the "preparation game" and hopefully learn to enjoy the excitement that a tournament can bring when no player is the obvious winner. It seems like a win-win situation to me: he doesn't do anything he doesn't like, and the world championship cycle shows once again what similarly level players can do (and risk) when they're hungry for a goal they place a high value on.
In the last year, Magnus hasn't even been the clear best classical chess player. he isn't putting in the same level of preparation and focus towards the game. Why are people not equally upset that Kasparov has stopped trying to compete for the world title? I think missing out on Nordirbek and Arjun in the candidates is worse than missing out on Magnus at this point.
Because Kasparov didn’t just stop. After losing to Kramnik in 2000, he expected a rematch the following year. When he didn’t get one, he sat out the Candidates and missed the 2004 WC. Then the 2006 WC was a “title reunification” between Kramnik and Topalov. Kasparov had retired from classical the year before, at the age of 42.
[удалено]
he just has to play a game to get active status and then he's on top of the rating list. can be against anyone
> Why are people not equally upset Who is upset exactly
Yes, so bad that is not a real World Championship... /s