Not at all, I don't argue for "winning at all costs" not in sports. But I do argue for winning in a fair game. And Carlsen won a fair game. Chess is a harmless

Not at all, I don't argue for "winning at all costs" not in sports. But I do argue for winning in a fair game. And Carlsen won a fair game. Chess is a harmless game so boxing would be a better example. Imagine a boxer that uses dirty tactics or uses PEDs ... that's "winning at all costs." But a boxer that has an elusive style that's considered boring by fans because fans like a lot of action ... I applaud this person if the style is superior in getting results. You can see my point is different fans appreciate different aspects of the game. I loved the way Carlsen took it to rapid. You didn't and I can understand why. In boxing I see the beauty in elusive tactical style of Mayweather, other want to see a slugfest. Because boxing places your health at risk I look down on that to be honest and I value a victory with minimum risk. I sympathise with your good intentions but you misrepresented my words. I never argued for "winning at all cost." I believe ability to win, regardless of how unimpressive (as long as it is ethical) is a virtue. I do not live in Bay Area nor the US, I wish you all well though :)