FIDE World Championship - Magnus Carlsen vs Ian Nepomniactchi

@jenium. No. Incorrect. Kramnik proved that he was better than Kasparov in *that* match. In a different match, Kasparov would likely have beaten Kramnik. That match happened to be called the world championship match. The only reason that the match has more prestige is because everyone has agreed to call it a championship. In the abstract, it proves nothing more than winning Tata Steel or Wijk aan Zee or any other tournament or match. It's more important because we say it's more important but proves nothing about the underlying skill of the players generally.

If Carlsen can defend his title against Nepo this year, he is going to do anything in his power to not lose the title to Firouzja in the near future. The funny thing is Carlsen has a history of doing relatively poorly against players who are younger than him, and losing the world championship to Firouzja would also rob him of the "unofficial" world record of being the youngest chess champion.

Also, the Kasparov-Kramnik match was immediately thrown into illegitimacy because Kramnik had actually lost in the Candidates qualifiers to Shirov, who Kasparov personally insulted by refusing to play for the world title (giving phony arguments like it would hard to find sponsors given his lopsided career score against Shirov), and instead he handpicked his longtime "friend" Kramnik... well you know what they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Thanks for paraphrasing what I said. He indeed was the better player at that point. 

Nah, the important tournaments use equally long time controls, and the reason they're not much shorter is the purpose is to give the best players an opportunity to play their best against each other.

That's your assumption and an easy thing to say because there wasn't another match. Before the match Kasparov and the world assumed too that he would win. But Kramnik was one of the few players who was not intimidated and affected by Kasparov. So I don't think so. But speculations are irrelevant, what matters is that Kramnik did beat Kasparov in 2000.

@jenium - If you were to ask a statistician how to determine who the best player is, he or she would gather all the top players together, say 100, and have a year-long round robin tournament where each player played every other player about 30 time. 30 is a good number that minimizes the possibility of stochastic variable affecting the results. That would be an excellent way to determine who is the best.

Ask a promoter what the best way to have a world championship, they would say that you have one big tournament with as much hype as possible, and give the winner of that one tournament some bombastic title like "best chess player in the universe'.

Which system do we currently have, the one that the statistician would design to ensure that we know with the greatest amount of precision who the best player is, or the one that the promoter designed in order to make the most money and garner the most hype.

Kramnik won the second type of system. He was not the best player and nobody considers him the best player. He's just a dude that won the fanciest tournament.

I disagree. Being prepared, being able to focus, to control your nerves and to play your A-game when it matters the most, is part of the deal.

I think Carlsen also got lazy for a few years. Wasn't there an ~18 month period where he won only a single tournament? Something like that.

When everyone else isn't as good as you, and you know it, it's probably hard to give your best effort. If Firouzja becomes a challenger, he may be the first challenger Carlsen goes all out against (although Caruana was #2 and over 2800 during their match, Caruana was notoriously garbage at speed chess, which isn't true of Firouzja).

@llama47 (apropos of little...) Speaking of Caruana being garbage as speed chess, today he actually beat MVL in the Speed Chess Championship... the icing on the cake? He beat MVL down in the bullet section, and won the last two games of bullet to win. I know I was shocked. I think maybe he was taking the whole "you're garbage at speed chess" personally.

@Nikki: There is no best way to determine the best player. There are just different approaches, all having advantages and drawbacks. Apart from the fact that it is totally unpractical, in your 100 player round robin scenario the player who is best at beating the weaker opponents will win the tournament, without having to beat their top 10 rivals. We see it all the time at those round robins where it is all about beating the weak players. Is that really a better way to determine the champion than a match between the best 2 players? I doubt it.

Well, I did use the past tense, but I didn't know he did so well recently.

I've said before that the only reason Hikaru is "better" is because none of the other top 10 players take speed chess seriously. Similarly I always assumed if Caruana actually played a lot of speed chess he'd get to the same level as his peers.

I noticed before that you are very fast with absolute statements. I considered him the best player in 2000 which refutes your statement.

@jenium - saying there is no best way does not deny the fact that there are better and worse ways. Having a WCC to determine "best" is one of the worst ways.

And yes, I understand that it's impractical. That, of course, misses the point. I was comparing the best theoretical to the worst theoretical. The system we have now is closer the worst end than the best end. That was my point. Nitpicking about particulars doesn't change that.

And ugh... your saying that you consider him the best player is the exception that proves the rule. If I make the "absolute" statement that "birds fly" and you say "you're wrong! penguins don't fly!" you've proved nothing. The statement is still true. Not all claims imply universality. There are always exceptions to everything.

Umm... you need a better imagination if you can't imagine many worse systems.

For example, we could choose the world champion by lottery. Put all names in bucket (so to speak) and draw one at random.

Haha.  In fact the Candidates Quarterfinal Match between Smyslov and Hübner in 1983 was decided at the roulette table. So I think the current system isn't that bad...

If Nepo wins I think Alireza's chances for world champion will be shot down.

I don't think that is a proper analogy. If you don't believe me ask your logic 101 professor.

Anyway, was a pleasure 'fighting' with you. :-) Need to sleep now... 

@jenium - it's absolutely proper logic. If I say "everyone is eating at that new restaurant!" I'm not literally saying every single person is eating at that restaurant" I'm saying it's very popular. If I say to a child "birds fly" I'm not lying to him. When little Timmy asks "but what about penguins?" I say, "why little Timmy, that's what we call an exception!"

When I say "Nobody thinks Kramnik was the best player" I'm making a general claim in much the same way as "birds fly." I'm sure if after the match you asked all of the grandmasters in the world "Kramnik just won the world championship. Do you now consider him the best player in the world?" I'm fairly certain the prevailing opinion would be "why no, he played an excellent tournament, and he deserves to be champion, but I don't think he's actually the best player." Try going into Ben Finegold's stream and asking "do you think Kramnik was better than Kasparov because he beat him in 2000?" If he bothers to answer, he'll just roll his eyes and laugh at how dumb a question it was.

Have a good night's rest

Again, you keep using the word "tournament" in place of "match", which are two very different formats. Of course in a tournament you are competing against several players and the results of a game not involving you can ultimately decide what rank you finish, while in a match you are being tested repeatedly against the same opponent, so luck is much less of a factor.