The play in the first two match games was exciting and original. To categorize them as "just two more draws" is a superficial, beginner's mistake.
They said the same BS during the Caruana match.
If you evaluate the quality of play and interest of a game based on whether the game is a win or a draw, fool's mate suddenly becomes more interesting than Gligoric v. Fischer (Bled, 1961, 1/2-1/2).
lol... if karjakin was "barely" a top 10 player then maybe all the real and better challengers should have won the candidates tournament?
That's not a question, no need for a question mark.
Tournaments are a bit of a lottery. Your final placement depends both on your performance and the performance of others. For example in Carlsen's 2013 Candidates Tournament it was a bit annoying how Ivanchuk played solidly against Carlsen, but played the freaking Budapest gambit against Aronian and lost, (after which Aronian was a half point behind Carlsen with 2 rounds to go).
Anyway, soon enough Karjakin dropped out of the top 10 where he's stayed ever since. So obviously he would not have been a real world champion.
still gave magnus more of a fight than caruana
The play in the first two match games was exciting and original. To categorize them as "just two more draws" is a superficial, beginner's mistake.
"exciting"... seems to me as if people have not watched post match conference. Magnus admitted that he missed something and his exchange sack was forced. He wasn't looking to make it "interesting". Don't hold your nerves for the remaining games for that to happen.
Game 1 was a snoozefest so idk why u say it was so exciting
I mean Carlsen was down an exchange and a pawn in the second game for some compensation. Even if that wasn't a plan, this game was very exciting. In my opinion Carlsen is taking more risks than Nepo at the moment with his play.
In the first game, pawn sacrifice was safe and he had some initiative for a pawn. His play in the second game could've cost him the loss. If he wanted the draw, he could've exchanged the knights when he had the chance, and settle for a slightly worse position, but well within his capabilities to hold it.
I am not sure what should he do for people to admit that he is not really playing for 14 draws, at least not for now.
As for rapid play off, I am against it by the way, but who asks me anyway. 
Is it possible for us to have classical games as they are now, but instead of a play off as it is now, to then play something like 2 60|30 games per day until someone wins?
If I remember correctly, everything longer than 60|0 is officially a classical game, so you could let them decide their title with shorter classical games if everything is even.
Is this even possible regulations wise?
#29
"Not great for those who like crazy tactical stuff"
There is much crazy tactical stuff in the analysis.
3 exciting games so far. 3 draws. Near perfect play.
Game 2 Ian should have won, but he is human too.
”Magnus never pushed in any game in that match”
I’ve seen stuff like this stated so many times that it’s funny. Carlsen played very hard for the win in the first game against Caruana and missed several wins. The conclusion is that since he didn’t win that game he didn’t try to win it. The same thing against Karjakin, where he missed some wins, and in one game even overpressed so he lost a game where Karjakin would have taken the draw at any point during the previous 50 moves. Then it’s another thing that it isn’t easy to win games just by wanting and trying to win them. Not at this level, against opponents that prepared for months.
Now, if all games have been pre-agreed to be drawn, why not rather pre-agree all the games to be decisive? I think the players would have more to gain by playing lots of decisive games. Then it ’s another thing that they can’t gain anything by pre-agreeing the classical games, since the match has to be decided after those games anyway. So I don’t see the point really.
Ben Finegold was saying the other day that someone had a crazy but interesting idea of playing the rapid tiebreak BEFORE the classical games, so that the loser knows that they need to take some risks to fight for a win in at least one of the games.
I agree that could make the contest more exciting.
- Best of 12 classical games (each game allowing up to 7 hours of play)
- Tiebreak: Best of 12 rapid-classical games (60 minutes+30 sec increment) - two games per day
If even after these 24 games there is a tie and the champion wins fewer than 6 games throughout the whole match, then the champion will officially retain his title but will have to play in the next Candidates Tournament to qualify for the next title match.
I guess the chances that the original poster might be right increase every game now
Ofcourse. I gave the exact reason why. Everything happens for a reason and there is a reason why candidates or any tournament in general have way more results than world championship matches these days and that's because to become a classical world champion you need to grind blitz / rapid.
14 draws are guaranteed unless nepo pushes too hard and loses.
I mean Carlsen was down an exchange and a pawn in the second game for some compensation. Even if that wasn't a plan, this game was very exciting. In my opinion Carlsen is taking more risks than Nepo at the moment with his play.
In the first game, pawn sacrifice was safe and he had some initiative for a pawn. His play in the second game could've cost him the loss. If he wanted the draw, he could've exchanged the knights when he had the chance, and settle for a slightly worse position, but well within his capabilities to hold it.
I am not sure what should he do for people to admit that he is not really playing for 14 draws, at least not for now.
As for rapid play off, I am against it by the way, but who asks me anyway.
Carlsen has been playing for draws since the karjakin match. Carlsen knows he doesn't need to win and that's why he is playing to draw and just waiting for nepo to make a big mistake. It has to be a game losing blunder for carlsen to ever push the advantage home.
The play in the first two match games was exciting and original. To categorize them as "just two more draws" is a superficial, beginner's mistake.
They said the same BS during the Caruana match.
3 draws happened, 11 more to go... keep on defending this horrible tie break rule and WCC will forever be a drawfest. If that's what u enjoy then sure but not sure if people in general would like the world champion being decided based on his ability to play 5 min chess
The play in the first two match games was exciting and original. To categorize them as "just two more draws" is a superficial, beginner's mistake.
They said the same BS during the Caruana match.