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


"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.

stiggling wrote:
JohnHS wrote:

"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.


I can't even tell if you're trolling. You're either dumb on purpose or by accident, and I'm not interested in figuring out which it is.


Now that's the proper way to respond to a healthy exchange of ideas.

Person 1: Makes case for their position

Person 2: "... well, you're stupid."

Love it!


10 years ago I would have cared, and argued with you for pages and pages.


I guess I'll say that in your post #43 you say "this is a legalistic discussion"

My reply to that is: read the OP.

That's all I'll say. I'm unfollowing now, have a nice day tongue.png


I'm agreeing with the OP in principle.  My comment wasn't really about that.  But I enjoy discussions on many topics.  Have a good weekend!