Honestly, I think this is just fine. We know Carlsen is the best [1], but as someone who's been casually following for a while now, I found this series of games far more fun to watch. It's great for the game.
A new challenger will appear over time, Carlsen will come out of retirement. We're just part way through a nice big story arc. I'm happy to enjoy entertaining chess.
[1] A friend and I were going over some classics whilst watching the game yesterday. Carlsen was just leagues ahead, such a gorgeous and brutal game. It's like he's wielding nunchaku at the end. https://lichess.org/broadcast/world-chess-championship-2021/...
What are they supposed to do, not have a world championship?
It's happened before when Fischer refused to defend the title. And yet Karpov got the title without having beaten Fischer, who he probably wouldn't have beaten in a match even if Fischer was nutty bananas at the time. But at least he had played a match to win the candidates tournament at the time.
This time around, Ian hadn't won a match, and so the match made sense to me, because the world championship is decided by match, not tournament.
> What are they supposed to do, not have a world championship?
Perhaps change the format. Carlsen stepped down, because it's too much preparation year after year. And with him being the GOAT, everyone was always preparing defensively and hoping for a blunder, making it somewhat "boring" games (quotes, as in draws doesn't have to be boring).
But doing that when Carlsen announced his forfeit after the candidates would be silly. If there's a time to change the format, it's now before the next cycle begins, not in the middle of the previous cycle.
Carlsen was pretty clear on this all along. He said there was a _slight_ chance of him changing his mind if Firouzja won the Candidates, which he was nowhere near doing. The announcement after the Candidates was just the final confirmation. Everybody playing knew very well that the second spot would give them a very real shot at playing the WCC, Ding and Nakamura included.
That's true. But Carlsen still leaving the possibility meant it was always going to be a match in this cycle. So if Carlsen forfeiting should have consequences for the way the cycle is structured it should be now, after the match, not instead of it
Btw, are you in any way responsible for analysis.sesse.net? I've been using it every day!
I don't think Carlsen demanded changing the cycle, so indeed. (Well, he voiced opinions ten years ago, but this time around, there were no negotiations AFAIK. Just him plain stating he wasn't likely to show up.)
a.s.n is my site, yes. I haven't been following this match as closely as the previous ones, so it's been a bit delayed some days (and I haven't bothered dealing with some bugs in the source PGN, so the clocks have been off at times).
Not sure about GP, but he's definitely in the conversation for me though I think Fischer and probably Kasparov would be slightly ahead of him.
I would happily have Morphy in the conversation too, because he was so far ahead it's simply mind-boggling. He made his opponents, often the strongest players of the time besides him, look like idiots.
If we're judging only by strength relative to contemporaries, I think Morphy would take it.
If we judge only by absolute strength Carlsen at his peak is probably it. For some mix of the two, all the ones mentioned are potentially valid picks, and I'd include Lasker in that group as well.
Tal probably would've been if he was a lot healthier, but he doesn't make the list in an unfair world, though I'd be amiss not to at least mention my favourite historical player :)
> What are they supposed to do, not have a world championship?
Yes, that’s a reasonable proposal. Title matches don’t have to happen on a fixed schedule like the Super Bowl, and in the past, they didn’t. They were ad-hoc and happened whenever a worthy contender raised enough prize money to challenge the current champion, who had a lot of leeway in negotiating the format and venue.
That's not a reasonable proposal. Carlsen made his announcement after the candidates tournament was completed. So what, they just tell the players "hey that title you were playing for? Never mind, because Magnus can't be arsed."
Carlsen could either defend his title, or give it up. He chose to give it up. He didn't choose to keep it indefinitely or demand an opponent of his liking. Even he's not that unsporting.
This isn't the early 20th century anymore when world champions dodged challengers until one they knew they could beat appeared, and hasn't been for a long time.
Long World Championship matches and normal tournaments are two very different beasts. Kramnik [convincingly] defeated Kasparov for the world championship in 2000, yet Kasparov was still the indisputably strongest tournament player in the world, and would remain so for the entirety of Kramnik's 6 year reign. Magnus' recent title defenses, except against Ian, have not been convincing. And against Ian, he was largely gifted games after Ian lost one good game and then went on monkey tilt. In the 2 world championship matches prior, Magnus had a grand score of +1 =22 -1. Magnus is dominant in regular tournaments, but that level of dominance has not carried over into his world championship matches.
I think he simply wanted to go out undefeated. The only opponent Magnus was willing to defend his title against is Alireza, the 4th in the world behind Magnus, Ian, and Ding. But he is by far the least experienced. He has 0 classical match experience against top players, is 20 years old, and also has tilt issues. Throw in the pressure of a World Championship match and he would almost certainly have been the easiest opponent for Magnus.
This event showed who the strongest match player in the world is, and as of today - that is Ding Liren.
He was undefeated for 10 years and you're rationalizing that he somehow isn't the best player because some other guy once lost in this format? And his undefeated streak over 10 years wasn't convincing enough for you?
That "some other guy" was the undefeated world champion for 15 years, the world #1 player for 21 years, and more. He was much more dominant than even Magnus. Yet it was a similar story for him where his match dominance ended well before his tournament dominance did. Even after losing the world championship title, he would remain world #1 for about 6 more years.
Maintaining dominance against a peer (and their team) who spend the better part of a year doing nothing but preparing for you, is very different than maintaining it in the relatively far more casual environment of tournaments. And there's a big ego trap here. Quitting is easy, especially when you're on top. Continuing to fight until the day you fall is hard, and requires immense character.
You have to consider match vs tournament play. The two are really very different. In tournaments you're playing a small number of games against a large number of different opponents, of often dramatically different skill levels. The large number of players also often also all but guarantees that some of the players will be off form, and easy pickings for the rest of the crowd. It's a really fun and interesting dynamic but very different than match play.
For the world championship players spend the better part of a year, generally with a large team of other world class players, intensely preparing to play games against only a single player, studying their games, and finally unleashing absolutely everything they've discovered. And then there's a constant metagame knowing each game you play one day will be deeply studied by your opponent and his team, and he will come back fully prepared the next day.
Carlsen gave up his title because he no longer wanted to put the massive amounts of work in that are required to maintain it. Would he be the best match player if he started putting this work in again? Maybe? But he's chosen not to do that.
I genuinely think Ding could beat Magnus is the WCC 14 game format. Magnus does better on tournaments but 14 games against the same player is a different beast and while Magnus has performed well in the past he has also shown plenty of weaknesses in the format.
As Magnus noted in his reasons for stepping down from the match, your first sentence is entirely correct. The 1v1 format of the world championship makes it largely a battle of opponent-specific prep. For a round robin, players generally play their strongest lines and prepare for their opponents' likely responses. For the championship, each player is trying to prepare surprises for the other, and it's largely a battle of who can get their opponent out of prep most effectively without sacrificing advantage, and how effectively you play when out of prep.
I felt the same way at first, but I’ve come to realise that a huge part of being a world champ is getting to the table. For whatever reason Magnus couldn’t do it this time around.
I know it’s not 1:1, but how many times did Kasparov face Karpov in a world championship match? I think it was 4 in total…
