I think they need to have more than 12 rounds if it ends in a tie. I understand the economics and the difficulty in the uncertainty of the length of the match. Back in the day, WCC matches were 24 games or longer.
to have the WCC decided by blitz chess after such a tough slower control format is a shame.
In my mind, Magnus did not demonstrate superiority over Fabby.
"Fixation on rules is childish". No. If we were having a discussion along the lines of "Who is the best Classical Chess player in the World?" then there's an argument to be made for 'both Fabi and Magnus'. However, World Chess Champion is an official Title; an official position. It is governed by rules. Presidential elections are the same way. You can say that one person is better for the job, or one person is more qualified, or should have won, but President is decided by the number of votes a candidate gets in the Electoral college. It's all about rules. The World Chess Champion may not be the best player in the World (see Topalov, Veselin). But you are the World Chess Champion is you won the World Chess Championship according to its rules. And you may make any argument you like for someone being better, or how it should be, but it doesn't matter. Like it or not, that's how the match is decided. @PardonMyBlunders comment is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
Yes, that's so obvious it should go without saying, and makes this topic unbearably dull to me.
It makes me wonder why I even post in these forums.
"But he played by the rule and won the match"
"Yes, that's right little Johnny, here's a gold star, you've done very will in kindergarten class today, you drank all your juice and only peed your pants twice!"
"Fixation on rules is childish". No. If we were having a discussion along the lines of "Who is the best Classical Chess player in the World?" then there's an argument to be made for 'both Fabi and Magnus'. However, World Chess Champion is an official Title; an official position. It is governed by rules. Presidential elections are the same way. You can say that one person is better for the job, or one person is more qualified, or should have won, but President is decided by the number of votes a candidate gets in the Electoral college. It's all about rules. The World Chess Champion may not be the best player in the World (see Topalov, Veselin). But you are the World Chess Champion is you won the World Chess Championship according to its rules. And you may make any argument you like for someone being better, or how it should be, but it doesn't matter. Like it or not, that's how the match is decided. @PardonMyBlunders comment is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
Yes, that's so obvious it should go without saying, and makes this topic unbearably dull to me.
It makes me wonder why I even post in these forums.
"But he played by the rule and won the match"
"Yes, that's right little Johnny, here's a gold star, you've done very will in kindergarten class today, you drank all your juice and only peed your pants twice!"
When you just ignore peoples argument and just insult people who disagree with you I think it's generally accepted you lost the argument.
Also is a fixation on rules really childish? Don't people follow more and more the rules the older they get? Isn't it refusing to accept defeat and blaming the rules what most people see as childish? It might be different where you live, but usually accepting defeat calmly and not making excuses is seen as mature.
Exactly, he ignored my argument.
Or rather, it was too complex for him to understand in the first place.
Which honestly makes me sad, because it's very simple.
And that's why I question whether I should post here.
If you can't understand that you're just as dumb.
FFS
Someone say something intelligent enough for me to be interested.
I'm bored. You're boring.
I did an answer to your comment step by step then chess.com reloaded and I lost it. But basiccally here's my reply:
FIDE ratings don't define the world champion. If not why bother doing a world championship? In any other sport people accept the winner even if they had to win in something like penalties. World champion doesn't mean best player at any one moment because their are two years in between world championships.
Also FIDE ratings are based on rules so you just have your own attachement to the rules in the form of accepting the top rated player as world champion. Rules are needed to keep emotions out of the way and to give a fair judgement on world champion and top current player (I am not a Magnus fan but I accept he's world champion because he wont he world championship)
Finally stop insulting people as boring or childish because you don't agree with them.
I agree that rules are useful, and that Carlsen is champion.
Then why do you describe attachement to rules as childish?
ask ur mom when you're 10 years older than you are right now.
I'm busy playing 3 minute game as we speak, lol.
legalism is annoyingly moronic, for example.
And you seem to have missed the point of this topic yet again by trying to simplify the debate to only what the rule are.
When adults do this it's embarassing, but if you'r a kid then that's ok, and I forgive you.
You're still boring though.
legalism is annoyingly moronic, for example.
And you seem to have missed the point of this topic yet again by trying to simplify the debate to only what the rule are.
When adults do this it's embarassing, but if you'r a kid then that's ok, and I forgive you.
You're still boring though.
The point of the topic is that people pick and choose when they want to accept the rules for the world chess championship and when they don't. You argued that being attached to rules is childish and now you agree that rules are usefull.
I am trying to see if their is a logic to this apparent contradiction. But you resort to more insults (''you're boring'').
I have no problem with Carlsen winning. He won, and he's the best player, which of course are two different things. The fact that they're two different things is my point to you.
My point to the OP is the Karjakin match was different because Karjakin was clearly the worse player during the classical portion which is unlike the Carlsen - Caruana match.
You argued that being attached to rules is childish and now you agree that rules are usefull.
Yes, those are both true. Rules are useful, and at the same time excessive adherence to them is dumb. Rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I wish I didn't have to spell this out.
Well I guess the point we disagree on is weither the world champion has to be the best player. I don't think that's how it works. And would suggest that if not why even bother with the world championship. But I guess you want to call world champion whoever stands atop the FIDE rating list. I guess for me that's the end of that. I'm going to unfollow the forum and forget it.
Although I am just going to throw this out there. Karjakin was way close to beating Magnus then Fabi was. After all he did go ahead.
"Karjakin was way close to beating Magnus then Fabi was. After all he did go ahead."
A fact for those to ponder. ;-)
He was closer to winning, true.
He also played worse than Fabi, and was not as good a challenger.
He almost won because Carlsen gifted him a game.
"Fixation on rules is childish". No. If we were having a discussion along the lines of "Who is the best Classical Chess player in the World?" then there's an argument to be made for 'both Fabi and Magnus'. However, World Chess Champion is an official Title; an official position. It is governed by rules. Presidential elections are the same way. You can say that one person is better for the job, or one person is more qualified, or should have won, but President is decided by the number of votes a candidate gets in the Electoral college. It's all about rules. The World Chess Champion may not be the best player in the World (see Topalov, Veselin). But you are the World Chess Champion is you won the World Chess Championship according to its rules. And you may make any argument you like for someone being better, or how it should be, but it doesn't matter. Like it or not, that's how the match is decided. @PardonMyBlunders comment is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
Yes, that's so obvious it should go without saying, and makes this topic unbearably dull to me.
It makes me wonder why I even post in these forums.
"But he played by the rule and won the match"
"Yes, that's right little Johnny, here's a gold star, you've done very will in kindergarten class today, you drank all your juice and only peed your pants twice!"
Such astonishing eloquence. I am in awe of your vastly superior intellect, sir.
In all seriousness, though, you are again missing the point. This is a legalistic discussion. That's the point. It's all about the rules. It's about an official position. So yes, I'm going to be legalistic in the same way I would be legalistic when debating whether or not someone won an election.
And of course that's not the only argument to be made in Magnus's favor. Perhaps there are better ones. But others have made them. I was merely pointing out a detail that seems to be missed sometimes.
Also, straw-manning and deliberately misquoting those you disagree with is not all that effective. Just a tip for future reference.
"Fixation on rules is childish". No. If we were having a discussion along the lines of "Who is the best Classical Chess player in the World?" then there's an argument to be made for 'both Fabi and Magnus'. However, World Chess Champion is an official Title; an official position. It is governed by rules. Presidential elections are the same way. You can say that one person is better for the job, or one person is more qualified, or should have won, but President is decided by the number of votes a candidate gets in the Electoral college. It's all about rules. The World Chess Champion may not be the best player in the World (see Topalov, Veselin). But you are the World Chess Champion is you won the World Chess Championship according to its rules. And you may make any argument you like for someone being better, or how it should be, but it doesn't matter. Like it or not, that's how the match is decided. @PardonMyBlunders comment is a prime example of what I'm talking about.