4 ms·

He made a sacrifice and "conceded" one game to a draw in order to increase his chances of winning the championship via his superior rapid play. He lost the batt

He made a sacrifice and "conceded" one game to a draw in order to increase his chances of winning the championship via his superior rapid play. He lost the battle to win the war. That is complely playing to win.

gpm 8y ago
I dispute this on two points. He did not fully "win" the championship. Sure, they had to give the title to somebody, so it's him, but splitting half of the prize is not a complete win. Even if he had fully won, I don't view it as a sportsmanlike strategy to give up a game to put yourself in an advantageous position. That's why we have a rule against agreeing to a draw to early. That's why in hockey stopping trying to score and just passing the puck in circles at center is against the rules (delay of game) - even when it's the best way to win.
- FPGAhacker 8y ago
  Are you also against sacrificing a piece in a game to gain an advantage? How is this different? He played a sacrifice in the meta game to gain an advantage.
  - gpm 8y ago
    The difference is that: - This was part of the metagame. - This was agreeing to a "semi-draw" in the metagame when he did not need to.
- QuantumGood 8y ago
  > He did not fully "win" the championship The goal of most title holders is to increase their odds at retaining the title, in whatever way match rules allow. This goal made for some horrible championships generations ago under Soviet rules. I agree the rules should be "biased" toward rewarding maximum skill, not just maximizing winning odds. But as Caruana said “We work with the match that we have... If the powers that be want to change it, then we’ll work with something else.”
- enneff 8y ago
  I think you misunderstand how the prize money is allocated. They both got 400k for competing, and the winner would take 200k. Since they went to tiebreaks the winner only got 150k while the loser gets 50k. So in this sense Magnus didn’t really split much of the prize with Caruana.
  - gpm 8y ago
    They both get paid 400k for competing. That's payment, and maybe a prize for reaching the championship, but not a prize for the winner of the championship, so I ignore it. The winner gets 200k in prize money. In the case of a tie the winner gets 150k, the loser gets 50k. That is to say the winner gets 100k, and they split 100k, which is half the prize, which is what I said.
    - Retra 8y ago
      Perhaps Carlson was just being generous to his opponent then. Surely a nefarious deed.
    - enneff 8y ago
      My apologies, I misread your original comment. In any case, Carlsen said he wasn't aware of the prize money difference after reaching tie breakers, so it probably didn't factor into his decision making.
    - chasontherobot 8y ago
      > In the case of a tie the winner gets 150k, the loser gets 50k. this literally makes no sense. In a tie, there is no winner and no loser. There was a winner and loser in this case, so there was no tie. I don't know why you keep insisting there was.
      - gpm 8y ago
        Huh, that's why that comment is attracting downvotes... That has to be the least charitable reading ever. Do you seriously need me to spell out "In the case of a tie after the 12 games under the regular time constraints" while defending my math?
- monadgonad 8y ago
  Caring about prize money more than the title is not sportsmanlike, in my view.

gpm 8y ago

I dispute this on two points. He did not fully "win" the championship. Sure, they had to give the title to somebody, so it's him, but splitting half of the prize is not a complete win. Even if he had fully won, I don't view it as a sportsmanlike strategy to give up a game to put yourself in an advantageous position. That's why we have a rule against agreeing to a draw to early. That's why in hockey stopping trying to score and just passing the puck in circles at center is against the rules (delay of game) - even when it's the best way to win.

FPGAhacker 8y ago
Are you also against sacrificing a piece in a game to gain an advantage? How is this different? He played a sacrifice in the meta game to gain an advantage.
- gpm 8y ago
  The difference is that: - This was part of the metagame. - This was agreeing to a "semi-draw" in the metagame when he did not need to.
QuantumGood 8y ago
> He did not fully "win" the championship The goal of most title holders is to increase their odds at retaining the title, in whatever way match rules allow. This goal made for some horrible championships generations ago under Soviet rules. I agree the rules should be "biased" toward rewarding maximum skill, not just maximizing winning odds. But as Caruana said “We work with the match that we have... If the powers that be want to change it, then we’ll work with something else.”
enneff 8y ago
I think you misunderstand how the prize money is allocated. They both got 400k for competing, and the winner would take 200k. Since they went to tiebreaks the winner only got 150k while the loser gets 50k. So in this sense Magnus didn’t really split much of the prize with Caruana.
- gpm 8y ago
  They both get paid 400k for competing. That's payment, and maybe a prize for reaching the championship, but not a prize for the winner of the championship, so I ignore it. The winner gets 200k in prize money. In the case of a tie the winner gets 150k, the loser gets 50k. That is to say the winner gets 100k, and they split 100k, which is half the prize, which is what I said.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Perhaps Carlson was just being generous to his opponent then. Surely a nefarious deed.
  - enneff 8y ago
    My apologies, I misread your original comment. In any case, Carlsen said he wasn't aware of the prize money difference after reaching tie breakers, so it probably didn't factor into his decision making.
  - chasontherobot 8y ago
    > In the case of a tie the winner gets 150k, the loser gets 50k. this literally makes no sense. In a tie, there is no winner and no loser. There was a winner and loser in this case, so there was no tie. I don't know why you keep insisting there was.
    - gpm 8y ago
      Huh, that's why that comment is attracting downvotes... That has to be the least charitable reading ever. Do you seriously need me to spell out "In the case of a tie after the 12 games under the regular time constraints" while defending my math?
monadgonad 8y ago
Caring about prize money more than the title is not sportsmanlike, in my view.