If Magnus wins tiebreaks, will people forgive and forget G12 Draw?

Yes sir.  I did not like Magnus's draw offer in Game 12, but I certainly and willingly applaud Magnus's match strategy to steer the match towards the Rapids Tiebreak system where he thought he had an overwhelming advantage, and convincingly proved it.

I don't mind tactical or strategic preponderance, that's forever a seesaw in the history of chess, and I enjoy all sorts of battles and I have zero problem with draws. However, what I do mind is the way that the World Championship is organized. Already back in 1910, Lasker voiced the opinion that 10 match games was way too short (his match with Schlechter was originally scheduled for 30 games, but insufficient interest reduced the contest to a mere 10 games), and 12 games is only marginally better. That said, and given that there hardly any tournaments these days longer than 13 (single round-robin) or 14 rounds (double round-robin), I think we're stuck with it, unless we want to scrap the match format. This means that we have to find a way around the issue of a player going for the tie-breaks a couple of games from the end. Carlsen did this in his last two games in this match, and in the last game against Karjakin in 2016. Clearly perfectly within rules, but hardly in the spirit of the game.

I can only see two solutions: 1) Continue one longplay game at a time, drawing lots for colours each time. Hard luck if you get the black pieces three times in a row or something, but at least you wouldn't be tempted to offer a draw early in a clearly favourable position in the last game of the match. 2) Share the title in the event of a 6:6 tie, but leave the defender's chair vacant for the next match and give the two combatants a place in the next Candidates Tournament (and let the winner and runner up of the Candidates play the next WC match).

I just saw the following comment on a chessbase thread:

"Consider that Carlsen did not win the candidates tournament in 2013. He "won" the tiebreak over Kramnik. Then he goes on to defeat an opponent twice his age in 2013 and 2014, but is unable to defeat in classical chess opponents his own age in 2016 and 2018. Drawn world championship matches in classical chess do not demonstrate dominance or superiority.

So who is the "greatest of all time" in classical chess?"

------------

I was not aware that Magnus won the 2013 Candidates tournament on a Tiebreak formula.  That's kinda sucky.  Not Magnus's fault obviously.  But why not set up a mini-classical chess match between the players who tied for 1st?  I know the organizers don't like it, but geez, a tie-breaker formula to determine the WCC challenger?  That just reeks.  

I think Magnus is a great World Chess Champion, no doubt about it.  But at this moment, he's not the greatest of all time.  After all, everyone knows that each and every patzer's opinion counts twice that of titled players.  ;-)

he just won

Leaving the Greatest of All Time debate aside, Anand had the same problem when he faced Boris Gelfand in 2012. Anand was #4 in the world, Gelfand #20. Twelve games is a very short match, and it makes it dangerous to push too hard in the first place. Having tie-breakers in another format runs the risk of favouring one over the other (I was stunned today at how easily Carlsen polished off Caruana in the rapidplay), giving one player even more reason to adopt a safety first policy. It must in some way be made unfavourable or disadvantageous to aim for a drawn match.

For me, the most important thing is the aesthetic pleasure I derive form chess. Whether Carlsen of Caruana wins is not so relevant (" I already kn ow one horse is going to end before the other"!).

In that regard, the match was as expected. Flat. Technical chess, which, for the younger generation, raised by computers, is quite good. For me, I go back to Nezhmetdinov, or even Adorjan!

Has anyone bothered to point out just how well Magnus played in the tie-breaks? The level of his play was VERY close to the level he played in the first twelve games of the match, and the first twelve games were played at the highest level in history (according to Kenneth Regan, a professional statistician). 

Congratulations to Magnus on an incredible accomplishment! 

And again, for the record, I was disappointed by his early draw offer in game 12. 

Yes, heartiest congratulations to Magnus for playing so well.  And congratulations to Fabio for playing at such a very high level as well.

I will suffer from post WCC traumatic syndrome.  I am going to miss the anticipation and excitement of following the moves of each game as they happen.  Many people think 12 draws in a row is boring, but I found the tension and drama of each game to be quite fun and exciting to follow.

Well said, @SeniorPatzer!

I don't think this is the last time we'll see Fabi in the World Championship.

I'd be inclined to agree, but there are a lot of other very good grandmasters out there, and the opportunity to be the next one to challenge Carlsen will be hotly contested.

Agree with you both, SmyslovFan and SeniorPatzer. Magnus played very well, no doubt about it, as did Fabianio. Still, that darned format ... [mumble-mumble-mumble ... grumble-grumble-grumble]

This match which is supposed to be the pinnacle of all chess competitions come to think of it, just does not exude the same kind of quality or "classicality" of the chess games of old, before computers came along.

And it is like everything else these days. Like inflation has gone up, so money keeps losing value, and although people earn more these days, the value has diminished significantly.

Same goes for technology and just about everything else in the world today. We may make better gadgets now, but they all have planned obsolence inbuilt into them. And the saying goes, "they don't make things like they used to". Everything has deteriorated IMO. While technology keeps going up.

So even chess is not spared. Both the players are booked up and Carlsen made a cold calculative decision to win the Title (and the ca$h) with the least effort expanded, at least for the last few games.

For all the chess fans - who cares....

If finally tiebreaks is the only mode to design a Chess world champion, selection of the last two finalists is not adapted. A lot of players are better than Carlsen in rapid game and more better again than Caruana !!!The rule should be like this: If both players are not able to win after the 12 games then all candidates needs to re enter the game and then fight using a rapid chess tournament. 

The problem is that Carlsen knows that there is a rapid tiebreak after the classical portion if it finishes level and he knows that he is the best rapid/blitz player in the world and he knows that faster games are more likely to be decisive.  This affects his match strategy in the classical.  Carlsen can play for a draw because he essentially has draw odds.  It's harder to push yourself for a win when you don't have to win.  It's also unnecessary to push for a win when a draw will suffice.

Botvinnik also drew two title matches and retained based on the policy of the time of the champ retaining in a tie and it doesn't seem to have affected his legacy as the greatest player of his own (relatively short) era.

Excuse me?  "A lot of players are better than Carlsen in rapid game..."?  Are you crazy, deeply unintelligent, high, or what?  There's no (human) player better than Magnus in Rapids, let alone "a lot of players."  

I have no problem with the Champion having draw odds and retaining his title after a 24 game match and it's tied 12-12.  To be the Champ, you have to beat the Champ.  If you can't get to 12.5 before the Champion, then you don't deserve to be the new Champion.  

I know Bobby Fischer objected to this, but I think the large majority of the knowledgeable chess community will over-ride Bobby on this one.   Well, at least the Chess Fans who object to having the Normal (Classical) Chess Championship decided by Rapid/Blitz/Armageddon Tiebreaks.   Which actually give the Challenger an extra chance to win the title when he couldn't win it during the Classical portion.

Carlsen joins Steinitz and Lasker as the only three players in history to win all of their first 4 WCC matches.

If Carlsen wins next time, he will be the only one to go 5-0.

The World Chess Championship is just that, it's the Chess championship, as determined by match play. Carlsen won every single World Chess championship match he's played in. It's not the world "classical time control championship", it's the world chess championship. 

The problem isn't Magnus, and it's not the tie-break system. The problem is that the tie breaks come far too soon. There should be 18-24 games in a match, not only 12. 

There is no World Champion since WWII who won four straight World Championship matches until Carlsen. Granted, the tie-break system is relatively new, but it's still an incredible accomplishment that shouldn't be minimized. 

Again, Carlsen didn't win the "classical time control chess championship", he won the World CHESS Championship, as determined by match play. 

Here's a link to FIDE's rules, which clarify the situation:

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regulations_match_2018.pdf