"people are complaining about him offering the draw. That’s why he’s been labelled an embarrassment in this thread"
Indeed, and in 500 other threads in dozens of other chess sites :-) Maybe a reality check is in order, this is the position and 25 ply engine assessment by Stockfish after the intended Qa3 if Caruana hadn't accepted the draw offer: Equal. -0.32. If Carlsen plays the best move.
I don't get the debate about game 12 at all. Carlsen had said already before the game that being black he wanted a draw in this situation. He wanted it with white in the last game against Karjakin in 2016, so why not be happy with it as black against a much stronger opponent? He got the better position (even if a top engine gave it as equal) and offered draw, knowing how much better he is in rapid.
Then afterwards people start giving 40 ply Sesse lines and suggest that a very messy b5 line somehow was supposed to be quite obvious, and calling Carlsen everything from disgraceful to disgusting and much worse than that. But he had no obligation to go for some quite complicated alternatives where one blunder would lose the title, just to entertain.
Carlsen has 5 wins and 2 draws in 7 title match rapid playoff games, and that after missing a win in one of them, against Karjakin. His decision to offer draw was boring to many, but maybe the best one for him, and not much to get upset about.
I agree with 16, 18, 20, or 24 classical games to determine the champion. Any are much better than the current system. Both Carlsen and Caruana agree on that point. A key point here being that rapidplay tiebreaks were added with the assumption that these would only be necessary in extreme cases and would rarely happen. Since half of the matches since this tradition's inception have gone to tie-breaks, the logic of introducing them failed. They were supposed to be "just in case" but if people head for them all the time, it's not really fair for the weaker rapidplay player. It demonstrates nothing about his supposedly inferior chess skill.
Just so. And not only that. The weaker player may have every reason to think that he would be able to take his chances in the rapid play. Shorter time controls, after all, are more likely to be more random.
I enjoyed this match, I thought most of the games were interesting, but the point is that Carlsen and Caruana drew 12 games in the classical chess, and then Carlsen won 3-0 in rapidplay - and rapidplay and blitz have their separate world championships. I don't fault Carlsen for his match tactics, I fault the system for making them possible, and that's a big difference. Clearly, the world's best players no longer have an appetite for the 24-game matches of old, and that's fine by me (although I think it's sad). However, it's deeply unsatisfactory that we've already had more drawn matches in this new format than there ever were in the old 24-game format (a total of three out of fourteen).
In short, the matches are too short to be properly conclusive, but having this type of tie-breaker only serves to make matters worse.
I agree with BonTheCat, and the solution is here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-solution-to-the-draw-problem-in-major-chess-events
Fischer was clearly #1 in the world for about 3 years (1970-1972). I don't think that qualifies him as being "the most dominant of all time".
Kasparov was clearly more dominant than Fischer.
No problem at all with how Magnus conducted himself during the match. He gave himself the best chance to win, and then did so!
Anyone who disagrees with his decision, just put yourself into his shoes. If you were the world champion of a game you would want to stay world champion for as long as you could. His chances of winning the tiebreaker would be a lot more than trying to win that game, or so he thought. His decision was to maximise chances of keeping the title.
No problem at all with how Magnus conducted himself during the match. He gave himself the best chance to win, and then did so!
Agree totally. The problem is the rules which allows the WC crown in classical chess to be decided in an Armageddon game (worst case scenario).
No problem at all with how Magnus conducted himself during the match. He gave himself the best chance to win, and then did so!
Agree totally. The problem is the rules which allows the WC crown in classical chess to be decided in an Armageddon game (worst case scenario).
Yes, but, what else can they do? Keep making them play and draw classical games indefinitely?
Maths, I have suggested a solution here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-solution-to-the-draw-problem-in-major-chess-events
Karjakin? … a substantially inferior player to Carlsen and Carlsen didn't defeat him.
Karjakin actually did better against Carlsen than Carauna did...
he has a bigger chance to win in rapid and blitz against fabiano then converting the position so really its just a good decision
"I can't agree that Karjakin did better. His goal was to try to draw every game. Caruana's wasn't. Karjakin only won a game because Carlsen overpressed and Karjakin clearly played to draw. Carlsen wasn't actually outplayed by Karjakin. Caruana got 3 winning positions and a +/- one. He just didn't win the great positions he got. That's unfortunate, but judging by how the games went, I think Caruana would have won a 24 game match by a point or two."
What you say is true, but it's the results that count at the end of the day, and based purely on results Karjakin DID do better than Carauna. We're not talking here about who had theoretical winning positions but about who won games.
I have decided to list the World champions in order of greatness.
1. Fischer- the most dominant player of all time
2. Kasparov- Dominant, inspiring, and decorated
3. Lasker- 30 year reign or something crazy
4. Karpov- Almost as good as Kasparov but not quite.
5. Tal- beautiful chess
6. Capablanca- Boring but solid
7 Steinitz- revolutionized the game
8. Kramnik- dethroned Kasparov
9. Spassky
10. Alekhine- he once had quadrupled pawns. This has been my goal since
11. Botvinnik- Who?
12. Anand
13. Euwe- no idea who this guy is
14. Smyslov
15. Petrosian- greatest defender of all time
16. Magnus Carlsen- the most undeserved world chess champio of all time
When i read "Botvinnik - Who?" my heart collapsed.
This is the most stupid list i've ever read.
Please don't do it anymore. Doing this ranking "in order of greatness" is completely meaningless. Each champion is son of its time.
"16. Magnus Carlsen- the most undeserved world chess champio of all time". Come on, you didn't understand nothing of this game...
The recent WCC can be summed up in one sentence.
Carlsen proved he was a better player at rapid (fast) chess than Caruana.
End of story.
If the true problem is with the format of the match, then that’s hardly Carlsen’s fault is it?
If the format is the problem then people should be complaining to the organisers, not insulting a player who played by the rules and did what gave him the best chance of winning.