My personal view is 12 games are too short. More games are required - after all it is the WC. The event is scheduled for every two years.
In the event of a tie score - The champion retains the title. Rapid/blitz playoff should not determine the winner. The onus is placed on the challenger to take away the title.
LMAO. The above post shouts about "Logic" and begins with "what if a 1200 could draw Magnus".
Hee haw. Never underestimate the stupidity of chess players !
w
My personal view is 12 games are too short. More games are required - after all it is the WC. The event is scheduled for every two years.
In the event of a tie score - The champion retains the title. Rapid/blitz playoff should not determine the winner. The onus is placed on the challenger to take away the title.
I agree 100%
This - which means it seems like both people who are upset by Magnus' draw offer and those that don't have a problem agree that, no matter how you slice it, Carlsen maintains his title.
I don't have an issue with people saying that it should be decided without rapid - in fact I agree with that. I don't have a problem with people thinking Carlsen isn't the greatest player of all time - imo, comparing people of different lifetimes is a vain, but fun, debate.
But accusing Carlsen of being underhanded is just flat wrong and assumes Caruana was an idiot for taking the draw. He knew his odds of being Carlsen in rapid were incredibly low. He believed his odds of winning the position he was in at that moment of game 12 were even worse.
If that game plays out, 99% chance that Carlsen either wins outright or they play until the draw is inevitable, in which case they still play rapid and Carlsen still wins in the same fashion.
The problem is with the setup, not how either player handled it.
I personally agree with the above posts - but one, possible, caveat. Since the WC matches are held every two years, if the set ends in a draw, the challenger may, at the same time he is still working on qualifying again for the regularly scheduled championship, play another set for the title during the off year - either the same amount of games or a smaller set.
That somewhat balances the WC prerogative to keep the title with a draw extra motivation to not draw, hopefully playing for the outright win, which is much preferred to everyone's tastes.
Y'all talking smack?
The problem isn't the players, it's the format. It encourages what happened. Yes, Carlsen traded one advantage for another, while Caruana traded one disadvantage for another (and lived to fight another day). They were both perfectly entitled to act the way they did.
Simply put 12 match games is too short in almost any event at this level. Gelfand was rated #20 in the world when he drew with Anand (#4), and having tie breakers in a different format gives both players something to aim for, and that arguably makes the match even shorter since it encourages risk aversion towards the end if the match is even.
Abolish the tie-breaks and declare the title shared in the event of a 6-6 draw, but leave the title defender's chair vacant for the next WC match, and let both start over in the Candidates Tournament. I don't have a problem with draws, neither in individual games, nor for the overall title, but I see no reason to unduly encouraging it.
People keep saying 12 games is too few. 12 games is 12 games. If it's not enough to decide people should just go home. No-one wants to see 24 draws instead of 12.
People keep saying 12 games is too few. 12 games is 12 games. If it's not enough to decide people should just go home. No-one wants to see 24 draws instead of 12.
According to Tal, in his 1960 match book, he said that “[24 draws] can only happen on paper, of course”
Tal lived in a different era. He didn't have opponents fully prepped up with computer analysed lines.
Everyone is all for sportsmanship and honour etc. when it involves someone else having to have those attributes.
Everyone is all for sportsmanship and honour etc. when it involves someone else having to have those attributes.
True, but I don't think there was anything unsporting or dishonorable for either player here, and I wasn't a party to the event to begin with.
The guy is GREAT!.....Period! Deal with it!
Magnus is great, but the system isn't.
Agreed,but it's certainly not his fault....Imagine how much time he's put into chess....He has my admiration.
Magnus is great, but the system isn't.
Not the great part but I agree with everything in that sentence.
Magnus is a great player who obviously knows what he is capable of.
Kasparov and Karpov had about 1/3 of decisive games in their matches - in fact the majority of the fourteen 24-game matches played between 1951 and 1990 had nearly 50% decisive games or more.
There's no doubt that twelve games is short at this level (that was Lasker's view back in 1910 when he played Schlechter), and that very fact encourages a certain caution from the start. It's not just a matter of players now being so much more well-prepared (I think Carlsen is perfect testament to the opposite, that you can avoid the well-trodden paths and live and thrive). But if a player is determined to avoid risk, it's very difficult to crack their defences (to quote former world championship candidate GM Henrique Mecking: 'The difficulty doesn't lie in achieving a draw. I can still do that against almost anyone. The difficulty lies in trying to win, because it inherently involves a certain amount of risk.'). Furthermore, you don't have that many games with each colour to probe openings, which makes preparation even easier, because it's quite simply too risky to hope to spring anything by way of an opening surprise on your opponent (like Fischer's Alekhine Defence against Spassky). You play it safe.
Karjakin? … a substantially inferior player to Carlsen and Carlsen didn't defeat him.
Karjakin actually did better against Carlsen than Carauna did...
I'm sure you know how to read numbers. Go check some rating list.
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.
Yeah, and in terms of games lost to Carlsen, Caruana did better.
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?
I don't care what either player did in faster time control/tie breakers. It's irrelevant. This was a world chess championship for standard time controls; a critical point you obviously fail to comprehend. Karjakin is a former world blitz chess champion. Caruana is notoriously weaker when the game speeds up. He isn't a top rapid player or top blitz player. He is, however, at least the 2nd best chess player in the world at standard time controls.
You can't claim that Karjakin did better because he won a game. Just like someone else can't claim that Caruana did better because he didn't lose a game. A drawn match is a drawn match, another point that seems over your head.
The fact is Carlsen is world chess champion and the tie breakers shouldn't have taken place. The challenger should have to beat the world chess champion to become the world chess champion. Is this fair? Seriously, who wants to have that debate? If Caruana had become world chess champion by winning on tie breakers, hypothetically, he would have been a lesser champion than previous champions. The elimination of draw odds denigrates the world chess championship title.
This whole thread is more about the legacy of Carlsen, which doesn't extend beyond him achieving the highest elo rating ever, winning a controversial world chess championship candidates tournament, that by traditional rules Kramnik should have won, and defeating a washed up Anand - who shouldn't have been world chess champion anyway. Kudos to Anand for defending his title against Topalov, but Gelfand wasn't a legitimate challenger and neither player were even in the top 5 at the moment. So due to mess that we call FIDE, Carlsen got to defeat an illegitimate champion and draw two short matches against two challengers he should have defeated … oh yes, let's call him the greatest chess player ever!
(sarcasm intended)
"The opponent should have to beat the world champion to become world champion" wtf that makes no sense. With that logic, a 1200 could draw Magnus and it wouldn't matter. With that logic, all he would have to do is win once to stay world champion?? So if a 1000 draws a 2000, it would count as a lose what. the. heck. Nothing you said makes any common sense. The world championship match is ONE set of 12 games, it doesn't matter if Magnus was a 10 time champ, Carauna had 2 dicks, or the sun blew up yesterday, if he gets all draw, IT'S A TIE, end of story.