Magnus Carlsen is an embarrassment

Doesn’t mean he is worse

How did this hurt fair play or competition? I actually came on these forums just to see the reaction.

Caruana was in a very bad position - Carlsen offering him a draw, from a paper perspective, actually made Caruana more competitive. Yes, Carlsen is the best rapid player in the world, but he's also the best classical player in the world. Caruana was RELIEVED when Carlsen offered the draw because his competitive chances, from a statistical point of view, just went up. And it certainly wasn't against fair play. Again, Carlsen had the advantage - he didn't do anything to make Caruana's odds go down, much less do so in an unfair or treacherous way.

To say that offering the draw was against the spirit of fair play when Caruana himself was eager to accept it is insulting to Caruana. Caruana himself believed that, as strong as Carlsen may be at rapid chess, Caruana liked his odds starting fresh playing Carlsen in rapid than trying to finish this classic game and not lose.

As far as it being anti-competitive - how on earth is it anti-competitve to give your opponent a break, but the price is he must now face you on your strongest field?

In the middle ages, this would be the equivalent of an army that is about to overpower an enemy they have under siege, offering to let their best champions fight each other in single combat to save the nasty battle ahead. Even if the attacker has the greatest single combat warrior of all time, it's still actually in the best interest of the city under attack to accept it. And perhaps the reason why the winning side is offering it is so he can get the sick and wounded in his army to help sooner. Not that he's really likely to be in trouble by continuing the steady siege, but it makes it easier for him, and provides the city under siege at least a possible chance of winning. Both sides have positives to gain.

And it actually was something akin to that. Magnus his head wasn't in the right frame of mind and he feared making a mistake that he wouldn't normally make. It doesn't mean that he WOULD make the mistake, but both Carlsen and Caruana liked their odds better by moving to the rapid game. That's what's called a "win-win".

But Carlsen reckoned even tired and not in his best mind, Caruana's style of play, which is based purely on calculation, wouldn't be able to keep up with his creativity. He was right, but it was indeed a gambit.

This 12th game draw was very much like a King's Gambit (and yes, I realize GMs rarely play that line) - give up an advantage for the hope of a bigger advantage (I didn't use the QG, even though it's seen at higher levels, because black legitimately can accept or reject). And, like black should when facing the KG, he accepted - to refuse is actually the bigger risk.

And to say Carlsen is a shame or embarrassment to chess is just laughable. He has been responsible for more growth in the game since Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. Supercomputers have made human play technically obsolete from a pure skill perspective. What makes chess still fun is the human element, and Carlsen's skill combined with his personality, approachable, and paradoxical self-deprecating arrogance have been a boon for chess.

And when you are playing for the WC, you're a fool to not use every advantage you can press within the rules. If you don't like that the WC was decided by rapid, then what needs to be addressed is how to deal with a drawn WC, not faulting a player for playing within the rules in a way that best suits him. That would be like saying Carlsen shouldn't have been allowed to play certain lines against Anand, that Carlsen had to beat Anand with his own style to truly be WC.

Carlsen gave up a board advantage for a format advantage, which Caruana (rightly in my opinion) believed was actually also a boon to him. Caruana plays by the odds and technical precision, which had him in a bad position. A fresh board was worth any change in format for his style of play.

The truth is, Caruana needed Carlsen to blunder in that 12th game, but since the odds already favored Carlsen, who is still the best classical player as well, Caruana knew Carlsen too was more likely too make a technical blunder in rapid than in this great position in classical. While the odds were that Caruana wouldn't be able to take advantage of any technical blunders and would probably make more of his own - he obviously would still be at a disadvantage. But in his mind, and I agree, a slightly less disadvantage. With a fresh board, Caruana could play for the win again, instead of just hoping Carlsen would mess up. By giving up a board advantage, Carlsen gained a format one. Both sides wanted it, which is why Carlsen offered it and Caruana accepted it. I personally say Bravo!

I think this is the bigger picture not too many people see. I dont blame the world champion for using any legal means necessary to win, that's certainly within his rights. I just think it might be short sighted. He may not care about sportsmanship or fans, some viewers may not care about sportsmanship or fans. But like you said, it's professional chess, without fans they wouldn't exist. And this tournament did everything it could, from organizers to the action of the players, to ensure there will be less viewers.

Big picture: Carlsen has brought in many times more viewers into chess than this tactic will cost. Also, longterm, I think this loses less viewers than losing Carlsen as the WC. Carlsen is a bigger draw for audiences than Caruana, and has much more to do with his personality than his skill. The fact that someone can be brilliant enough to be the WC but still entertaining to watch and listen outside the game I think retains more people than him playing it out he he happened to lose, but even that wasn't likely, as I said in my previous post.

Perhaps he was so sure of winning in rapid or blitz games - which proved true - he thought it was a better strategy than taking a chance in a game where he had an edge but not a sure win against a 2832 rated player who was clearly his equal at long-time-limit play.

Note that once Fischer gained a lead on Spassky, he began playing to draws in 7 straight games. He wasn't going to risk a loss to gain a win and only won game 21, and the world title, when Spassky blundered his sealed 41st move and resigned before the game resumed.

I dont see much of a problem either. World chess championships are not big events. They are small events with small audiences. What happened in this tournament, in game 12 especially, ensures even smaller audiences because fewer and fewer people will want to see two humans play like computers for 12 (or 16 or 24 consecutive games). The real tournament was held after game 12. The game of chess isn't going anywhere, but as  times change it seems likely that the world chess championship will have to change a lot, or be content with becoming irrelevant.

In terms of games won against Carlsen, Karjakin did better. I don't know how many rating points he won 2 years ago, but he probably won more points from his wins as well.

Agreed. I would say that Carlsen is the best player in the world if he defended his title in REGULATION.

Yeah because Caruana shouldn't have to earn anything....

That is ridiculous.

Carlsen beat Anand in regulation in 2013, did he not?

If they drew all the games then clearly Carlsen should of been crowned world champion because Anand didn't destroy him by your line of thinking, right? I disagree.

They are seperated by 3 points!!! in classical chess according to the live ratings but Carlsen should of won 12-0 huh... Just to prove that he should retain the title.... I disagree.

What has Caruana even done to deserve the world championship? Qualify for the match? Retaining something and earning it are extremely different. As I said, ridiculous.

This is just more biased bullshit coming from people solely because they are butthurt that an american didn't win... Typical of spectators and a very double-edged sword because logic tends to get tossed out the window when you look at it as USA vs Norway instead of Carlsen vs Caruana.

He did defend it in regulation. It's the prerogative of the WC to keep the title until someone wrests it from him. Caruana had 12 games to do so, and failed 12x - and would have done well just to earn the draw that Carlsen freely gave him.

Again, you all think you're attacking Carlsen, but it's actually Caruana you're insulting. If this was such an unsportsmanlike and unfair move, Caruana wouldn't have accepted it - the only way you can say Carlsen "forced" him to take it would be to concede that Carlsen had played better in regulation in game 12 up that point, which would still reinforce Carlsen as WC.

You don't like that it ended in rapid instead of regulation. Fine. Push for a rule change - maybe after 12 games, it simply continues until one player wins the first match. That would force both players to play more aggressive, someone would blunder, and you'll get a regulation time winner.

But stop insulting Caruana by attacking Carlsen. Carlsen traded an guaranteed advantage in hand for a likely greater advantage - but not guaranteed - in the future. That's not dirty or unsportsmanlike, that's a gambit.

I don't think the format is terrible, but I do agree that classical chess should be decided by classical chess if possible. The problem is funding and everything else that goes with it. If the # of games was 20 and they had 20 draws, how many games are they going to fund after that before they call it quits? They have to decide those things before-hand and budget accordingly. FIDE (or whomever) basically is saying we agree to fund up to 12 games. That doesn't sound that bad until there are 12 draws. I think FIDE will take their chances on that happening again. It was a new record after all.

When was the last time that the contenders where 3 rating points away from each other?

Staples13 writes:

"This is a world championship match. We expect the participants to honor the tradition of competition and fair play, and for Carlsen to make a mockery of it today like he did is pathetic and an absolute travesty."

To expect chess players to honor and respect the spirit of the game, to respect their peers, players who are of the highest caliber and represent our sport -

Is too much to expect. After all trolls as the OP, seeking attention are a natural manifestation of the game. Young and ignorant of why they are playing the game. They participate for all the wrong reasons. To them, it is all about having something to prove. They won't be playing long, a couple of years at most. Honoring traditions of the game is too much to expect of angry newbies, but respecting the game and players is expected for all. The real disgrace is the OP's thread. Chess players can easily recognize the disrespect, but what of the community at large? Seeing these comments, misrepresenting the situation, can only lead to a negative view of chess. The thread is counter-productive. 

What a shame these posts are permitted by trolls seeking attention who have zero respect for our great pastime. Carlson and Caruana are professionals. If the OP dared to step into their space and make his claims face to face, I'd expect either one to deck the OP without hesitation.

This was BS and I really feel cheated. Changing the format is like if in the NBA Championship they tied all games and they decided to play a baseball game to determine the winner. Total BS. either play classical chess till one wins or award them a tie and share championships until next year.

Karjakin beat Carlsen in a classical game, something Caraunua failed to do. He also scored against Carlsen in the tie-breaks, something Caruana failed to do. Overall match score 9-7 to Carlsen. Caruana managed 9-6 against Carlsen.

Karjakin scored better against Carlsen in their WCC match.

But you sound like you have an axe to grind maybe?

Yes. The format leaves much to be desired. In fact, Carlson strongly disagrees with it.  He would like to see a more traditional one. 

But he did not create the format. He played within the rules to ensure retention of his title. 

Everyone seems to forget, previous matches went dozens of games - all draws by the WC and challenger. Making for shorter matches, the thought was more games in the match would result decisively. 

Wrong thinking.

How is it irrevelant? Carlsen won both matches in the tie-breaks. Does that make them irrelevant? And my point still stands: Karjakin scored higher than Carauna.

The champion clearly doesn't deserve to retain it if they can't beat the challenger and more than the challenger deserves to win it if they can't beat the champion.  It's just a match.  Who is the champion or the challenger going into it doesn't matter.  They should just have no winner and no champion if it's a draw!  Maybe then players would take more chances.