If Fabio is Co-World Champion in 2018, Then Karjakin was Co-World Champion in 2016

SeniorPatzer

My personal thoughts after people declaring (including Magnus) that Fabio should be considered Co-World-Champion because of a drawn 6-6 match in Classical time controls is that the same consideration should then be extended to Sergey Karjakin back in 2016.  Because he too had a tie-score after 12 games with Magnus.  

By eliminating the draw odds going to the Champion, you really are giving the Challenger one extra chance to dethrone the Champion.  As it is, and as it was, Magnus is the better Rapid/Blitz/Armageddon player than both Fabio and Sergey.  And in fact, Sergey arguably did better than Fabio.  One, he defeated Magnus in a classical WC game.  Two, he at least scored a point against Magnus in the Rapid Tiebreaks whereas Fabio didn't.

P.S.  I think new FIDE President Dvorkovich should change the WCC format.  There have been a number of suggestions on various websites, both on posts and on comment threads, and it's worth the time and energy and money to improve on the rules and format of the WCC.  The current method is deeply unsatisfactory.

knighttour2

The problem I have with saying that Sergey and Fabio are Magnus's equals in classical chess is that Magnus knew he had a great chance to win in the tiebreak and was willing to play for a 6-6.  He knew he didn't have to win in classical, so the question of whether he could have won had he needed to is unanswered.

I wouldn't mind a change to the format.  There have been a lot of ideas thrown around.  I like one I offered in another thread: if the match is tied 6-6 it goes to sudden death but the TC is still classical.  One game per day, alternating colors (toss for 1st white or champ gets it) no rest days, until somebody wins.  I know that it could lead to a match of unlimited duration, but I don't think it would carry on nearly as long as the K v K matches of the 80s. 

SeniorPatzer
knighttour2 wrote:

The problem I have with saying that Sergey and Fabio are Magnus's equals in classical chess is that Magnus knew he had a great chance to win in the tiebreak and was willing to play for a 6-6.  He knew he didn't have to win in classical, so the question of whether he could have won had he needed to is unanswered.

I wouldn't mind a change to the format.  There have been a lot of ideas thrown around.  I like one I offered in another thread: if the match is tied 6-6 it goes to sudden death but the TC is still classical.  One game per day, alternating colors (toss for 1st white or champ gets it) no rest days, until somebody wins.  I know that it could lead to a match of unlimited duration, but I don't think it would carry on nearly as long as the K v K matches of the 80s. 

 

I don't really want to call Fabio or Sergey Co-World Champions either.  They lost in a Rapid Tie-breaker.  And those were the rules that were set up.  My argument is that if folks are going to call Fabio Co-World Champion, then they need to say the same thing about Sergey in 2016 in order to be consistent.

 

If 2 marathoners tie at the end of the marathon, then should they have to run a 100 meter dash to determine who's the winner?  Totally different format, even though both formats involve running.

 

If 2 swimmers both tie at the end of a 3000 meter race, then should they have to swim a 50 meter race to determine who's the better swimmer?  Totally different format, even though both formats involve swimming.

 

Ditch the Rapid/Blitz/Armageddon Tiebreak System for a WCC match!

madratter7

Well I'm definitely with you about ditching rapid/blitz/armageddon as a tie break and said so early on in the match. It just didn't/doesn't sit well with me.

Personally, I would be fine with the idea that tie goes to the current champ.

I'm also fine with the idea of eliminating draw offers (as opposed to repetition, stalemate).

knighttour2

If you eliminate draw offers then the players will just repeat if they both want to draw.

ResurrectedSon

I agree with ditching the current tie-breaking system. There should be continuity with previous world champions. It also seems that the challenger should have a plus score to be dubbed the world champion as that is what it took "in the beginning." Perhaps a 12-game match is too short and should be extended to 16 or 20 games?

JohnHS

Also, there's this:

For all those saying "Fabi is co-champion".  No, he's not.  I don't care whether he 'should' be, or what would be preferable, or what you feel like.  He's not.  The rules are the rules.  And you disliking the rules really isn't relevant.  I doesn't matter what your opinion is; fact is, Magnus Carlsen is the World Chess Champion.  He won fair and square.  They both agreed to those rules.  Too bad, so sad.  Get over it.

Sorry for the rant, this is just getting slightly annoying.  happy.png

Good post, SeniorPatzer.  I agree.

BloatedChimp69
Hello homosexes
varelse1

Good point!

And as Karjakin technically never lost his co-championship title, he is now a Fischer, co-champion!

Akaripikapikari

at least in classical chess

fabelhaft

I wonder why no one ever called Gelfand or Topalov co-champions after the matches in 2012 and 2006 though. Or why Fedoseev isn't rapid co-champion after losing that blitz tiebreak to Anand...

Scottrf

But he’s not, so he’s not.

BonTheCat

I agree with scrapping the current system for tie-breaks, in favour of one game at a time longplay until someone wins.

Should that prove an insurmountable obstacle for organizers, I still think it's better to scrap the rapidplay and blitz tie-breaks altogether. Declare the defender and the challenger co-champions, but make sure they both 'lose' : Give them both a spot in the next Candidates Tournament, and let the winner and the runner-up from there play the next World Championship match (which may or may not be the same two players).

stiggling

Except Karjakin played worse, hadn't won any tournaments that year (that I recall) and was not in the top 10 before of after the match (he was briefly in the top 10 after winning the candidates IIRC).

Fabi played better, is rated higher, and preformed better against his peers.

stiggling
JohnHS wrote:

Also, there's this:

For all those saying "Fabi is co-champion".  No, he's not.  I don't care whether he 'should' be, or what would be preferable, or what you feel like.  He's not.  The rules are the rules.  And you disliking the rules really isn't relevant.  I doesn't matter what your opinion is; fact is, Magnus Carlsen is the World Chess Champion.  He won fair and square.  They both agreed to those rules.  Too bad, so sad.  Get over it.

Sorry for the rant, this is just getting slightly annoying. 

Good post, SeniorPatzer.  I agree.

Fixation on rules is childish. Rules don't govern reality, as in the actual strength of the chess players.

The point is it's pointless to call someone champion if they're not the best... which is why I was very happy Karjakin didn't win.

Anyway, Carlsen is #1 in every time control, and has been higher rated than Fabi for I assume their entire lives. That's why I'd say he's better, not some childish appeal to rules.

Sorry for the rant, this is just slightly annoying.

JamesAgadir
stiggling a écrit :
JohnHS wrote:

Also, there's this:

For all those saying "Fabi is co-champion".  No, he's not.  I don't care whether he 'should' be, or what would be preferable, or what you feel like.  He's not.  The rules are the rules.  And you disliking the rules really isn't relevant.  I doesn't matter what your opinion is; fact is, Magnus Carlsen is the World Chess Champion.  He won fair and square.  They both agreed to those rules.  Too bad, so sad.  Get over it.

Sorry for the rant, this is just getting slightly annoying. 

Good post, SeniorPatzer.  I agree.

Fixation on rules is childish. Rules don't govern reality, as in the actual strength of the chess players.

The point is it's pointless to call someone champion if they're not the best... which is why I was very happy Karjakin didn't win.

Anyway, Carlsen is #1 in every time control, and has been higher rated than Fabi for I assume their entire lives. That's why I'd say he's better, not some childish appeal to rules.

Sorry for the rant, this is just slightly annoying.

''Rules don't govern reality'' Have you heard of physics.

Any I dissagree. For instance in the world cup if a team dominates all it's games then loses in the finals they aren't world champion, even if the other team was rubbish the whole tournament and scrapped through each games on penaltys.

A set of rules were accepted by both players to decided who is world champion. Somebody won based on those rules, that makes him world champion. Weither you like it or not.

stiggling
JamesAgadir wrote:
 

''Rules don't govern reality''

Have you heard of physics.

null

stiggling

Anyway, I think 12 games is long enough, I think the time control could be shortened somewhat, and I think rapid playoffs are fine.

I also think this match was was best one in ~10 years at least, and in general I seem to disagree with just about everyone on everything related to this topic.

DamonevicSmithlov

I like the idea of extending the match if it's tied at 6 with the same time control BUT with both players getting a chance at each color. So it becomes a 14 game match, then a 16 and so on. It won't last forever. Somebody will score a win and hold a draw in the other game

BonTheCat

Isn't it fairly obvious that the rules in this particular case, and the previous match also, influenced the play of at least one of the competitors? (In the Carlsen-Karjakin match, I'd say it definitely influenced both.) I don't fault Carlsen for doing it, he didn't anything that was against the rules. I fault the rules/format for making his match tactics possible. Would he have offered a draw in game 12 at that point knowing that two more longplay games (to follow DamenovicSmithlov's suggestion) would await him? Not on your nelly.

The point is that 12 games is a short match, which both Carlsen and Caruana have pointed out afterwards. You can go into such a match at that level consistently aiming for a draw, in the hope that your opponent somewhere along the line makes a mistake. Three of the last five matches have been drawn, with a total of four decisive games and 32 draws. I think that clearly shows that we need a system where you can't aim for a tie-break which may or may not favour one of the two players (or inspire the weaker player to take his chances in the more random rapidplay and blitz). The tie-break should just be more of the same.