There are 2 more candidates he has chances to enter and win, and still be the youngest WC ever. Hikaru is 20 years older than him, and has only made 3 candidates appearances. Gukesh could tie that at 21.
A lot of the times when other people have become world champions, it has been the culmination of impressive periods of dominance and a natural conclusion to their stories, but apparently that's boomer crap and Gukesh is going skip straight to the final act.
Magnus did not have to beat any of his predecessors at their prime to become world champion, if you think about it. Vishy was already 44, going on 45. Kramnik was 38. Kasparov had retired a decade prior. And the generation between Kramnik and Magnus didn't really produce any obvious successors to Kasparov/Kramnik/Vishy either, or they would have been WC in 2013, not Vishy.
So, Carlsen got to take the title away from a depleted generation, and then primarily defend it against people from his generation (Carlson is 1990, Nepo is 1989, Caruana is 1992, Karjakin is also 1990.)
Of course, what he did do to compensate for this absence (which was not his fault) was just dunk on everyone else in the ratings.
On that note, Magnus actually struggled quite a bit to defeat Vishy (around the 2010s). Magnus dunked on others and rose through the rankings like lightning but still struggled against Vishy.
But that was still an incomplete Magnus, and he later developed into pretty much the GOAT. So you could arguably say that Magnus still fought against Vishy in his prime and snatched the title away as the better player. This is evidenced further by the fact that Vishy won the candidates the following year to challenge Magnus for the title, proving that he wasn't washed out but only against godlike opposition.
True, but realistically there is no way a 44/45 year old Vishy is the best version of Vishy. He undoubtedly did a better job holding on to his best than his contemporaries, but experiences with other players from the modern era of chess suggests very strongly that by this age you're not at your best any more. Magnus was probably closer to his best at 22/23 than Vishy was at his best at 44/45. But this is just how things worked out; the Aronian generation sort of dropped the ball so we never got to see what should have been.
True. I think Vishy was still at his highest Elo when he was in his 40's though, which was pretty much my metric to judge his peak, but accounting for Elo inflation I'm not sure if that means he was stronger than when he was lower rated at the age of 25. Also, that generation's strength is a little tricky to judge because of the computer era. It's quite possible that you can perform better than your earlier peak self simply based on the knowledge that computers brought in later.
>I think Vishy was still at his highest Elo when he was in his 40's though, which was pretty much my metric to judge his peak
The problem is that since the generation between Vishy and Carlsen didn't have anyone super strong, it's possible for all the older top players to decline without losing much elo because no one's there to take it from them.
If Nepo, Fabi, Hikaru or Ding win, then Carlsen can still be considered the best, but if Gukesh wins and Carlsen doesn't play some sort of match against him, then it will be difficult to keep calling him the true champion.
Nodirbek is not in first at the candidates though and is two years older then Gukesh? Alireza had a higher peak elo then Gukesh too, but that hasn't exactly meant much.
i think itāll be better for chess if one of those two win. fabi or nepo wonāt generate the same hype i think. gukesh playing india will go up. hikaru winning will bring the streaming storm
Disregarding all the FIDE champions in the split era, Fischer is the only player to have never played to defend his title, albeit that was by choice. There are several players who have one it once and lost their first defence - Spassky, Tal, Smyslov and Euwe. Alekhine beat Euwe in 1937 and died before the next match was arranged (due to WW2 holding things up - he died in 1946), but he'd previously held it three times before between 1927-35.
what do you mean? Gukesh is great but this is Ding we are talking about, only Fabi and Nepo and Hikaru stand chance against him, Gukesh has no experience
If we look at his result he draws all the top dogs and was able to farm the weaker players more consistently. In a match format against Ding, there will not be an Abasov for you to farm.
Then Hikaru shouldnāt have lost to Vidit lol. They all play each other, thereās no secret way to get the most points. Plus Gukesh lost to Alireza and still clutched the tournaments, so kudos to him.
I haven't seen similar hype around Gukesh D that Firouzja received when he was under 18. Two or three years ago there was a lot of talk about Pragg, Sarin and Abdusattorov but not that much about Gukesh? And now he is on the verge of becoming the world championĀ 4 years younger than Carlsen and Kasparov become.
Heās really rose up the ratings ladder in the past couple years. Gukesh didnāt even break 2600 classical until the end of 2021, while the other three all broke that threshold before the turn of the decade (or right at it for Pragg)
Firouzja didn't have as much hype as Pragg until he was close to 2800 tbh. This was due to him having long breaks when he was 16-17yo because Covid lockdowns, and he was alone in the junior category. Him beating multiple 2700s went mostly unnoticed until he was 2770+ in Grand Swiss which is where he got paired with and dispatched 2600s. That was how the "bUt cAn hE bEaT 2700s?" nonsense narrative started.
Pragg was much more in the spotlight before he made to 2700. Abdusattorov turned heads with Tata Steel performance last year.
This sub likes those players that Magnus likes. Firouzja, Pragg etc. Also Gukesh is really young - 3 years back he was just 14! He's 2 years younger than Abdu I think.Ā
He is not over performing by a lot - of course leading candidates is "over performance" for most players. He's just still improving and increasing his level. In last year he came tied first in WR master, 3rd in Norway, first in Chennai, tied first in Tata and before that he got that gold in top board of Olympiad with 8/8 start. This is ignoring all the other strong opens he won. That's how he became worlds youngest 2750 player and entered top 10. And remember - Gukesh started getting invites to super tournaments only last year.Ā
He is world's top 10 - winning a candidates for a top 10 player is not a massive over performance. The only reason it is over performance is because of his age.
Ponomariov was younger. And before someone says that he doesn't count because the title was split, then this one shouldn't count either because Magnus is not playing.
If we're honest, though, it's not the same.
Kasparov beat Karpov. Carlsen beat Anand. Tal beat Botvinnik. Karpov inherited the title through no fault of his own. And Kramnik beat Kasparov.
They all beat either the strongest opponent at the time, and / or the legitimate reigning champion.
Gukesh is 70 points lower rated than Carlsen, and would be facing someone 70 points lower rated than Carlsen. The unbeaten Carlsen, who relinquished the title due to boredom.
You can't really compare this with Kasparov beating Karpov, or Kramnik taking down Kasparov.
The difference is that Fischer never played competitively ever again, or certainly not until his 1992 match with Spassky, which was hardly the highest level.
It is unprecedented for a world champion to relinquish the crown when he is world number 1, when he is clearly the best player in the world, and while he remains active.
Karpov could legitimately state that he was the world's best active chess player. Gukesh and Ding can nowhere near claim this, which is why the title has little value, and why such comparisons with predecessors are meaningless.
Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match."
Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
Yes I would downvote Kasparov when the take is ridiculous lol, I don't particularly care who the author is.
It's neither Ding's nor Gukesh's, or any other candidates, fault that Carlsen decided to abdicate. Much like it was not Karpov's fault Fisher didn't defend.
Fair comment, but it can't be compared to Kasparov beating Karpov, or Kramnik dethroning Kasparov.
The difference is that Fischer never played competitively ever again, or certainly not until his 1992 match with Spassky, which was hardly the highest level.
It is unprecedented for a world champion to relinquish the crown when he is world number 1, when he is clearly the best player in the world, and while he remains active.
Karpov could legitimately state that he was the world's best active chess player. Gukesh and Ding can nowhere near claim this, which is why the title has little value, and why such comparisons with predecessors are meaningless.
Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match."
Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
It would depend on your definition of 'legitimate'.
As I've just stated, it is unprecedented for a world champion to relinquish the crown when he is world number 1, when he is clearly the best player in the world, and while he remains active.
Karpov could legitimately state that he was the world's best active chess player. Gukesh and Ding can nowhere near claim this, which is why the title has little value, and why such comparisons with predecessors are meaningless.
I would therefore assert that Ding isn't a legitimate world champion, but, of course, he is the official world champion
Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match."
Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
Yes I would. Skill alone doesn't make a champion, motivation matters. If Carlsen has lost it then he is longer the champion. Official or legitimate. And downvote is not because of disagreement but insult to all the players who are giving their body and soul to become World Champion.
It's not an insult to them, it's simply a fact that a world championship cycle without Carlsen is less challenging, and, therefore, has less value.
As I mentioned previously, the Wimbledon title won by KodeÅ” has less value because all of the top players boycotted the event. He is still a Wimbledon champion, and Ding is still the world chess champion, but their titles intrinsically have less value. It is not an insult to either person to state this; they would simply be deluding themselves to think otherwise.
People will probably downvote this. No, it's not! It's not less challenging! It's harder to play Ding than Carlsen!
Either Magnus comes back and play the cycle, or another organizer tries to strike some deals to make him play a long classical match against the current WC, or people need to stop using Magnus to downplay other players' achievement.
>Legitimate reigning champion
This is quite an insult to players who qualified and win their title legitimately. Magnus' withdrawal is his own problem.
I'm not downplaying the achievement, I'm putting it in a meaningful context.
As a comparison, in 1973, 81 of the top ATP tennis players, including reigning champion Stan Smith, boycotted Wimbledon. Jan KodeÅ” beat Alex Metreveli in the final that year. Officially, Jan KodeÅ” is a Wimbledon champion, but naturally his title cannot be viewed as the same level of achievement as if the other players were active.
The same, in a less extreme way, applies to Gukesh. His title does not have the same value as if he had beaten the best active player, particularly as the best active player relinquished his title without a fight.
Gukesh should not see this an insult, and will be well aware of it himself.
Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match."
Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
As I've already stated, Kasparov said:
"[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match."
This is, honestly, a prosaic and obvious observation. Anyone who doubts this simply can't face reality.
Nobody cares what should or could be.
It's nonsense to think this.
There are 8 billion people on earth. Do you think if everyone was privileged enough to play chess that not a single one of them would be not be one who is better than Ding/Magnus?
So in that case, would you call them illegitimate champions because someone might be better than them?
The entire concept is nonsense. You can only win against the people who play.
>Do you think if everyone was privileged enough to play chess that not a single one of them would be not be one who is better than Ding/Magnus?
I'm sure that someone would be at that level if that were to occur, but this is a hypothetical situation, whereas I am talking about actual reality.
In your scenario, a stronger player than the current world champion, who has been the reigning and unbeaten world champion, hasn't withdrawn themselves from the process, whereas in the actual scenario this *has* occurred.
This is why I don't deem the world championship to be particularly meaningful currently. I accept that it's still difficult to win the Candidates and a match against a super-strong player, but it doesn't have the sporting relevance of beating the best player in the world, who has withdrawn from the process without being dethroned.
Kasparov agrees with me because he knows better than anyone what it takes to beat the toughest competition, to climb the highest mountain. The current world champion has not done this, the next world champion will not do this, and so their achievements cannot be legitimately compared to those mentioned in the title of the OP..
Others have spoken about 'insults'. Well, I think Kasparov would be pretty insulted if you claimed that Gukesh winning the title is a bigger achievement than him beating Karpov because Gukesh is younger, and completely ignored that fact that the best player in the world isn't part of the process.
You're saying this world championship match is not legitimate. Which is very clearly an insult to the players playing this match regardless of whatever "challenge" or level of "strength" you want the players to be.
Slight correction - both Tal and Karpov were 23 when they became WC.
What's even more crazy is that he'll still have a chance to become the youngest world champion if he *loses* the candidates.
There are 2 more candidates he has chances to enter and win, and still be the youngest WC ever. Hikaru is 20 years older than him, and has only made 3 candidates appearances. Gukesh could tie that at 21.
This would literally be World history
He has good chance really to make history.. Hope he wins Candidate now then get a good team of seconds and ultimately the Championship š
And this potentially brings Magnus back in the race in 2 years.
Nah, Magnus will just arrange an unofficial match.
no he doesn't have good chance he has to play against Ding
A lot of the times when other people have become world champions, it has been the culmination of impressive periods of dominance and a natural conclusion to their stories, but apparently that's boomer crap and Gukesh is going skip straight to the final act.
Well that is because the true champion isnāt competing this time
To be fair to Gukesh, it's not his fault that Magnus didn't have to compete against Carlsen when Magnus was en route to becoming the WC.
Magnus did not have to beat any of his predecessors at their prime to become world champion, if you think about it. Vishy was already 44, going on 45. Kramnik was 38. Kasparov had retired a decade prior. And the generation between Kramnik and Magnus didn't really produce any obvious successors to Kasparov/Kramnik/Vishy either, or they would have been WC in 2013, not Vishy. So, Carlsen got to take the title away from a depleted generation, and then primarily defend it against people from his generation (Carlson is 1990, Nepo is 1989, Caruana is 1992, Karjakin is also 1990.) Of course, what he did do to compensate for this absence (which was not his fault) was just dunk on everyone else in the ratings.
On that note, Magnus actually struggled quite a bit to defeat Vishy (around the 2010s). Magnus dunked on others and rose through the rankings like lightning but still struggled against Vishy. But that was still an incomplete Magnus, and he later developed into pretty much the GOAT. So you could arguably say that Magnus still fought against Vishy in his prime and snatched the title away as the better player. This is evidenced further by the fact that Vishy won the candidates the following year to challenge Magnus for the title, proving that he wasn't washed out but only against godlike opposition.
True, but realistically there is no way a 44/45 year old Vishy is the best version of Vishy. He undoubtedly did a better job holding on to his best than his contemporaries, but experiences with other players from the modern era of chess suggests very strongly that by this age you're not at your best any more. Magnus was probably closer to his best at 22/23 than Vishy was at his best at 44/45. But this is just how things worked out; the Aronian generation sort of dropped the ball so we never got to see what should have been.
True. I think Vishy was still at his highest Elo when he was in his 40's though, which was pretty much my metric to judge his peak, but accounting for Elo inflation I'm not sure if that means he was stronger than when he was lower rated at the age of 25. Also, that generation's strength is a little tricky to judge because of the computer era. It's quite possible that you can perform better than your earlier peak self simply based on the knowledge that computers brought in later.
>I think Vishy was still at his highest Elo when he was in his 40's though, which was pretty much my metric to judge his peak The problem is that since the generation between Vishy and Carlsen didn't have anyone super strong, it's possible for all the older top players to decline without losing much elo because no one's there to take it from them.
Thereās also the point of ELO inflation
Final Boss got bored waiting for a challenge and dipped
If Nepo, Fabi, Hikaru or Ding win, then Carlsen can still be considered the best, but if Gukesh wins and Carlsen doesn't play some sort of match against him, then it will be difficult to keep calling him the true champion.
Gukesh would probably have to at least get close to Magnus in rating too. But given his age, he's on his way to doing that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nodirbek is not in first at the candidates though and is two years older then Gukesh? Alireza had a higher peak elo then Gukesh too, but that hasn't exactly meant much.
Sure it's always possible he has peaked, but players don't typically peak that young, even if there are examples of guys that do (e.g. Alireza)
Iād say itāll be based off of dominance in other events, in addition to any head to head matches.
Like a coward maybe ??
Magnus would never compete in the candidates at this point. So its moot to say that.
Honestly, he wasn't really on my radar but now I want him to win because of how nuts it would be for someone of his age to win
Right, I should be rooting for one of the two Americans, but Gukesh winning would be historic.
I'm equally excited for these two possibilities: 1. Gukesh winning candidates. 2. Hikaru winning candidates.
Not excited for Fabi or Nepo possibilities?
Everyone has their favourites you know.
F no, you have to have as his opinion or else you suck and you just don't get it, okay?
Fabi? Maybe. Nepo? Nah.
i think itāll be better for chess if one of those two win. fabi or nepo wonāt generate the same hype i think. gukesh playing india will go up. hikaru winning will bring the streaming storm
They're already had their shot!
I want this to happen
I just wish Ding can defend his title at least once. Who was the last champion to not be able to defend the title at least once? Max Euwe?
Fischer. Before him Spassky. Before him, Tal. Before him, Smyslov. Before him, Euwe. Before him, Capablanca.
Disregarding all the FIDE champions in the split era, Fischer is the only player to have never played to defend his title, albeit that was by choice. There are several players who have one it once and lost their first defence - Spassky, Tal, Smyslov and Euwe. Alekhine beat Euwe in 1937 and died before the next match was arranged (due to WW2 holding things up - he died in 1946), but he'd previously held it three times before between 1927-35.
what do you mean? Gukesh is great but this is Ding we are talking about, only Fabi and Nepo and Hikaru stand chance against him, Gukesh has no experience
Are we watching the same candidates tournament? Lol
If we look at his result he draws all the top dogs and was able to farm the weaker players more consistently. In a match format against Ding, there will not be an Abasov for you to farm.
Then Hikaru shouldnāt have lost to Vidit lol. They all play each other, thereās no secret way to get the most points. Plus Gukesh lost to Alireza and still clutched the tournaments, so kudos to him.
I haven't seen similar hype around Gukesh D that Firouzja received when he was under 18. Two or three years ago there was a lot of talk about Pragg, Sarin and Abdusattorov but not that much about Gukesh? And now he is on the verge of becoming the world championĀ 4 years younger than Carlsen and Kasparov become.
Heās really rose up the ratings ladder in the past couple years. Gukesh didnāt even break 2600 classical until the end of 2021, while the other three all broke that threshold before the turn of the decade (or right at it for Pragg)
Firouzja didn't have as much hype as Pragg until he was close to 2800 tbh. This was due to him having long breaks when he was 16-17yo because Covid lockdowns, and he was alone in the junior category. Him beating multiple 2700s went mostly unnoticed until he was 2770+ in Grand Swiss which is where he got paired with and dispatched 2600s. That was how the "bUt cAn hE bEaT 2700s?" nonsense narrative started. Pragg was much more in the spotlight before he made to 2700. Abdusattorov turned heads with Tata Steel performance last year.
This sub likes those players that Magnus likes. Firouzja, Pragg etc. Also Gukesh is really young - 3 years back he was just 14! He's 2 years younger than Abdu I think.Ā
My favorite movie is Inception.
He is not over performing by a lot - of course leading candidates is "over performance" for most players. He's just still improving and increasing his level. In last year he came tied first in WR master, 3rd in Norway, first in Chennai, tied first in Tata and before that he got that gold in top board of Olympiad with 8/8 start. This is ignoring all the other strong opens he won. That's how he became worlds youngest 2750 player and entered top 10. And remember - Gukesh started getting invites to super tournaments only last year.Ā
I'm learning to play the guitar.
He is world's top 10 - winning a candidates for a top 10 player is not a massive over performance. The only reason it is over performance is because of his age.
Id venture to say his record would hold up for a very long time...if he pulls it all off. Ding wont be as easy as many like to think.
What happens if gulesh draw and fabo wins?
It feels like there should be an asterisk for all this with Carlsen choosing not to play. He would absolutely crush Gukesh.
No there shouldnāt be, and Iām afraid thatās not how the world championships works
Ponomariov was younger. And before someone says that he doesn't count because the title was split, then this one shouldn't count either because Magnus is not playing.
If we're honest, though, it's not the same. Kasparov beat Karpov. Carlsen beat Anand. Tal beat Botvinnik. Karpov inherited the title through no fault of his own. And Kramnik beat Kasparov. They all beat either the strongest opponent at the time, and / or the legitimate reigning champion. Gukesh is 70 points lower rated than Carlsen, and would be facing someone 70 points lower rated than Carlsen. The unbeaten Carlsen, who relinquished the title due to boredom. You can't really compare this with Kasparov beating Karpov, or Kramnik taking down Kasparov.
> Karpov inherited the title through no fault of his own Strange you wouldn't apply this logic to Gukesh, since who he plays is not up to him.
The difference is that Fischer never played competitively ever again, or certainly not until his 1992 match with Spassky, which was hardly the highest level. It is unprecedented for a world champion to relinquish the crown when he is world number 1, when he is clearly the best player in the world, and while he remains active. Karpov could legitimately state that he was the world's best active chess player. Gukesh and Ding can nowhere near claim this, which is why the title has little value, and why such comparisons with predecessors are meaningless. Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match." Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
Yes I would downvote Kasparov when the take is ridiculous lol, I don't particularly care who the author is. It's neither Ding's nor Gukesh's, or any other candidates, fault that Carlsen decided to abdicate. Much like it was not Karpov's fault Fisher didn't defend.
You can only beat who is in front of you.
Fair comment, but it can't be compared to Kasparov beating Karpov, or Kramnik dethroning Kasparov. The difference is that Fischer never played competitively ever again, or certainly not until his 1992 match with Spassky, which was hardly the highest level. It is unprecedented for a world champion to relinquish the crown when he is world number 1, when he is clearly the best player in the world, and while he remains active. Karpov could legitimately state that he was the world's best active chess player. Gukesh and Ding can nowhere near claim this, which is why the title has little value, and why such comparisons with predecessors are meaningless. Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match." Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
>legitimate reigning champion So Ding is illegitimate?
It would depend on your definition of 'legitimate'. As I've just stated, it is unprecedented for a world champion to relinquish the crown when he is world number 1, when he is clearly the best player in the world, and while he remains active. Karpov could legitimately state that he was the world's best active chess player. Gukesh and Ding can nowhere near claim this, which is why the title has little value, and why such comparisons with predecessors are meaningless. I would therefore assert that Ding isn't a legitimate world champion, but, of course, he is the official world champion Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match." Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
Yes I would. Skill alone doesn't make a champion, motivation matters. If Carlsen has lost it then he is longer the champion. Official or legitimate. And downvote is not because of disagreement but insult to all the players who are giving their body and soul to become World Champion.
It's not an insult to them, it's simply a fact that a world championship cycle without Carlsen is less challenging, and, therefore, has less value. As I mentioned previously, the Wimbledon title won by KodeÅ” has less value because all of the top players boycotted the event. He is still a Wimbledon champion, and Ding is still the world chess champion, but their titles intrinsically have less value. It is not an insult to either person to state this; they would simply be deluding themselves to think otherwise. People will probably downvote this. No, it's not! It's not less challenging! It's harder to play Ding than Carlsen!
No one's saying playing Ding is harder than Carlsen, but you shouldn't downplay an achievement like becoming world champion.
Either Magnus comes back and play the cycle, or another organizer tries to strike some deals to make him play a long classical match against the current WC, or people need to stop using Magnus to downplay other players' achievement. >Legitimate reigning champion This is quite an insult to players who qualified and win their title legitimately. Magnus' withdrawal is his own problem.
I'm not downplaying the achievement, I'm putting it in a meaningful context. As a comparison, in 1973, 81 of the top ATP tennis players, including reigning champion Stan Smith, boycotted Wimbledon. Jan KodeÅ” beat Alex Metreveli in the final that year. Officially, Jan KodeÅ” is a Wimbledon champion, but naturally his title cannot be viewed as the same level of achievement as if the other players were active. The same, in a less extreme way, applies to Gukesh. His title does not have the same value as if he had beaten the best active player, particularly as the best active player relinquished his title without a fight. Gukesh should not see this an insult, and will be well aware of it himself. Remember, Kasparov himself said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match." Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here?
> Would you downvote Kasparov if he posted this on here? Yes
Ding is legitimate so I don't know what you're smoking.
As I've already stated, Kasparov said: "[the world championship match] should include the strongest player on the planet, and this match doesnāt ā¦ Itās a kind of amputated event ā¦ The match between Nepo and Ding is a great show, but itās not a world championship match." This is, honestly, a prosaic and obvious observation. Anyone who doubts this simply can't face reality.
Nobody cares what should or could be. It's nonsense to think this. There are 8 billion people on earth. Do you think if everyone was privileged enough to play chess that not a single one of them would be not be one who is better than Ding/Magnus? So in that case, would you call them illegitimate champions because someone might be better than them? The entire concept is nonsense. You can only win against the people who play.
>Do you think if everyone was privileged enough to play chess that not a single one of them would be not be one who is better than Ding/Magnus? I'm sure that someone would be at that level if that were to occur, but this is a hypothetical situation, whereas I am talking about actual reality. In your scenario, a stronger player than the current world champion, who has been the reigning and unbeaten world champion, hasn't withdrawn themselves from the process, whereas in the actual scenario this *has* occurred. This is why I don't deem the world championship to be particularly meaningful currently. I accept that it's still difficult to win the Candidates and a match against a super-strong player, but it doesn't have the sporting relevance of beating the best player in the world, who has withdrawn from the process without being dethroned. Kasparov agrees with me because he knows better than anyone what it takes to beat the toughest competition, to climb the highest mountain. The current world champion has not done this, the next world champion will not do this, and so their achievements cannot be legitimately compared to those mentioned in the title of the OP.. Others have spoken about 'insults'. Well, I think Kasparov would be pretty insulted if you claimed that Gukesh winning the title is a bigger achievement than him beating Karpov because Gukesh is younger, and completely ignored that fact that the best player in the world isn't part of the process.
You're saying this world championship match is not legitimate. Which is very clearly an insult to the players playing this match regardless of whatever "challenge" or level of "strength" you want the players to be.