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

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 

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!

I don't think the wording was co-champion by Magnus...lol. He would never say that. Magnus Carlsen  said that there is nothing to choose from between them. That Fabiano is the strongest opponent he has played and at this point, has as much right as he does, to call him the best player in the world. He never mentioned co-champion or any of that. 

part of the problem here is that 12 games may not be enough. the WCC of the padt had 24 games. it allows the player a little abikity to take chances as each game does not count so heavy.

Classical Chess should prevail, the format changed to 12 games, after which if its tied they play till the first one wins a game at the regular time controls. Then they would quit fooling around early on and play to win when the opportunity presented itself.

Their are two problems:

1) the budget, people don't want to sponsor really long world championship matches. Their is a major problem of lack of sponsorship that you can see quite clearly when looking at the sponsors of world rapid and blitz championships. (this also applies to post #51)

2)If they won't take risks early on because 12 games is too short to catch up then why would they in the games that are all or nothing? They would just play even more passive chess because taking risks has a higher chance of backfiring then working out.

Good !

1) Attracting sponsorship is a problem in chess full stop. The format makes very little difference. Look at one of Magnus Carlsen's main sponsors, Arctic Securities. You would have thought it could have helped the Norwegian national team in the Olympiads and European Team Championships - the extra cost for AS would be infinitisemal (less than $15,000 per competition probably) - but nope. Zilch. For them it's more important to organize Carlsen simuls with their own employees in the Nordic countries, and let high-profile people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Trent Alexander-Arnold (of Liverpool F.C.), professor of economics Ken Rogoff etc. play exhibition games with him. Rogoff is an old GM, of course, which means it will actually be a proper game, but why the others? How do they lift the profile of chess? Does anyone outside the world of chess, if that, actually remember this a week later? I strongly doubt it. It probably helps Arctic Securities appear even brainier, but will its connection with chess survive Carlsen's retirement? The chances are slim to none. We're not talking Nike moving into soccer and ice-hockey here.
2) Would Carlsen have offered a draw in game 12 had he been faced with the prospect of playing another game longplay game by way of a tie-breaker? No. He would have grabbed the chance to decide the match then and there.

The defending champion should get the draw odds. If you can't beat the world champion, then you don't deserve to be a champion. That's as simple as that.

Both Karjakin and Fabiano failed to beat Carlsen, so they are not Co-World Champions, they are challengers who lost. 

hello!