5 ms·

nepo at candidates was in my opinion favored to beat magnus...he dominated the candidates harder than anyone else has in the history of the candidate matches -

by toolz 4y ago

nepo at candidates was in my opinion favored to beat magnus...he dominated the candidates harder than anyone else has in the history of the candidate matches - and it was not an easy pool of candidates, either. Sure, there were a lot of sloppy games, but only a couple vs nepo - with one of them being after the 1st place spot had been guaranteed. If nepo plays like he did in the candidates, I would not be so quick to favor magnus.

tzs 4y ago
> nepo at candidates was in my opinion favored to beat magnus...he dominated the candidates harder than anyone else has in the history of the candidate matches - and it was not an easy pool of candidates, either. What about Fischer? The format was a little different then, but here was his route to the Championship. 1. Won the Interzonal tournament 18.5/23 (+15-1=7). The top 8 from the Interzonal then played a knockout series of matches using a bracket system. 2. In his quarter-final match of that he beat Taimanov 6-0. 3. In his semi-final match against Larsen he also won 6-0. 4. In his final match against former world champion Tigran Petrosian, he won 6.5-2.5 (+5-1=3). In the 21 games total that his candidates matches lasted, he won 17 games, lost 1, and drew 3. If we include the Interzonal it is 32 wins, 2 loses, 10 draws. In the combined Interzonal and knockout matches he had a streak of 20 consecutive wins against the world's top players. And then in the Championship against Spassky he won 12.5-8.5 (+7-3=11) (and one of those loses was a forfeit when he skipped the game over some complaint about the playing conditions). Nepo's performance in this Candidates was pretty dominating, but doesn't come anywhere near Fischer's level of dominance.
- toolz 4y ago
  You make a very strong argument, but if you take fischers score vs the top 8 in the interzonal and double it, fischer would've had 10/14 to nepos 9.5/14, which given it was just 1 game vs the top 8 and given the ELO spread was vastly more spread than current candidates games(easily fischer had 100+ more ELO than the other top 7 opponents) I think it's fair to say you could say nepo was more dominant when compared to the interzonal granted it becomes more clear that fischer dominated in the quarterfinals forward, but it still is worht pointing out that his opponents weren't nearly as strong as nepo's opponents, relatively speaking I imagine nepo's score would've been MUCH stronger if he was playing 100-200 ELO points weaker opponents all candidates. Instead nepo had 3 opponents with higher ELO and his weakest opponents ELO was only 19 points lower than his own... in summary, I think you're correct and I was wrong, but I'm not so sure it's quite so clear-cut when you factor in other variables
  - jollygoodshow 4y ago
    I think your argument here actually favours Fischer's dominance. ELO metrics don't matter as were talking about the best players of the respective eras
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  > And then in the Championship against Spassky he won 12.5-8.5 (+7-3=11) TBH in that match Fischer started his shenanigans about demanding all sorts of things which most likely unbalanced Spassky - who was known to be somewhat lazy - so with all the political pressure and mind games he likely decided that he doesn't care enough. The match was actually not that top-level chess as it is presented in chess mythology. Reshevsky [1] said the following things about it: "True, there were several excellent games, but the match as a whole was disappointing. It was marked by blunders by both players. The blunders committed by Spassky were incredible. In two games, for example, Spassky overlooked a one-move combination. In the first, he was compelled to resign immediately, and, in the other, he threw away all chances for a win. Fischer was also not in his best form. He made errors in a number of games." ... and he is also very critical of how Spassky was prepareding for the match. So a well-prepared Karpov would likely have been able to dethrone Bobby, and I think Fischer knew it, and it played a big part in why he had forfeited the defence. [1]: http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/collections/The%20Fischer-Spassky%20Games.pdf http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/collections/The%20Fischer-...
mda 4y ago
Well Magnus destroyed Nepo in the previous match, I don't see a reason why Nepo would be favorite this time. I think his chess and mental fortitude in general is inferior to Magnus. Personally I am not interested in this championship match at all.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  Magnus didn't destroy Nepo, he was the first to win a game. At the level of chess in the first 6 games catching up after a loss is difficult, and Ian likely decided not to fight too hard. Also he said he overprepared for the match and was to burned out. A fresh match with a new score could be very interesting.
  - mda 4y ago
    7.5 - 3.5 is pretty much definition of total destruction. Bouncing back from defeat is part of the game (See Carlsen Karjakin match).
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      After the first five games it was 2.5 - 2.5. Whatever happened to Ian after the first loss does not indicate the level of the play he is capable of, and does not even in the slightest predict what would happen in the rematch. I understand that Magnus glory hunting fans are everywhere and they love to pretend that once he had someone beaten, he'll repeat the feat with certainty, but have some more sense than that. More than one world champion has won the crown not on his first attempt, including one of the all-time greats, Kasparov.

by toolz 4y ago

tzs 4y ago

> nepo at candidates was in my opinion favored to beat magnus...he dominated the candidates harder than anyone else has in the history of the candidate matches - and it was not an easy pool of candidates, either. What about Fischer? The format was a little different then, but here was his route to the Championship. 1. Won the Interzonal tournament 18.5/23 (+15-1=7). The top 8 from the Interzonal then played a knockout series of matches using a bracket system. 2. In his quarter-final match of that he beat Taimanov 6-0. 3. In his semi-final match against Larsen he also won 6-0. 4. In his final match against former world champion Tigran Petrosian, he won 6.5-2.5 (+5-1=3). In the 21 games total that his candidates matches lasted, he won 17 games, lost 1, and drew 3. If we include the Interzonal it is 32 wins, 2 loses, 10 draws. In the combined Interzonal and knockout matches he had a streak of 20 consecutive wins against the world's top players. And then in the Championship against Spassky he won 12.5-8.5 (+7-3=11) (and one of those loses was a forfeit when he skipped the game over some complaint about the playing conditions). Nepo's performance in this Candidates was pretty dominating, but doesn't come anywhere near Fischer's level of dominance.

toolz 4y ago
You make a very strong argument, but if you take fischers score vs the top 8 in the interzonal and double it, fischer would've had 10/14 to nepos 9.5/14, which given it was just 1 game vs the top 8 and given the ELO spread was vastly more spread than current candidates games(easily fischer had 100+ more ELO than the other top 7 opponents) I think it's fair to say you could say nepo was more dominant when compared to the interzonal granted it becomes more clear that fischer dominated in the quarterfinals forward, but it still is worht pointing out that his opponents weren't nearly as strong as nepo's opponents, relatively speaking I imagine nepo's score would've been MUCH stronger if he was playing 100-200 ELO points weaker opponents all candidates. Instead nepo had 3 opponents with higher ELO and his weakest opponents ELO was only 19 points lower than his own... in summary, I think you're correct and I was wrong, but I'm not so sure it's quite so clear-cut when you factor in other variables
- jollygoodshow 4y ago
  I think your argument here actually favours Fischer's dominance. ELO metrics don't matter as were talking about the best players of the respective eras
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
> And then in the Championship against Spassky he won 12.5-8.5 (+7-3=11) TBH in that match Fischer started his shenanigans about demanding all sorts of things which most likely unbalanced Spassky - who was known to be somewhat lazy - so with all the political pressure and mind games he likely decided that he doesn't care enough. The match was actually not that top-level chess as it is presented in chess mythology. Reshevsky [1] said the following things about it: "True, there were several excellent games, but the match as a whole was disappointing. It was marked by blunders by both players. The blunders committed by Spassky were incredible. In two games, for example, Spassky overlooked a one-move combination. In the first, he was compelled to resign immediately, and, in the other, he threw away all chances for a win. Fischer was also not in his best form. He made errors in a number of games." ... and he is also very critical of how Spassky was prepareding for the match. So a well-prepared Karpov would likely have been able to dethrone Bobby, and I think Fischer knew it, and it played a big part in why he had forfeited the defence. [1]: http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/collections/The%20Fischer-Spassky%20Games.pdf http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/collections/The%20Fischer-...

mda 4y ago

Well Magnus destroyed Nepo in the previous match, I don't see a reason why Nepo would be favorite this time. I think his chess and mental fortitude in general is inferior to Magnus. Personally I am not interested in this championship match at all.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
Magnus didn't destroy Nepo, he was the first to win a game. At the level of chess in the first 6 games catching up after a loss is difficult, and Ian likely decided not to fight too hard. Also he said he overprepared for the match and was to burned out. A fresh match with a new score could be very interesting.
- mda 4y ago
  7.5 - 3.5 is pretty much definition of total destruction. Bouncing back from defeat is part of the game (See Carlsen Karjakin match).
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    After the first five games it was 2.5 - 2.5. Whatever happened to Ian after the first loss does not indicate the level of the play he is capable of, and does not even in the slightest predict what would happen in the rematch. I understand that Magnus glory hunting fans are everywhere and they love to pretend that once he had someone beaten, he'll repeat the feat with certainty, but have some more sense than that. More than one world champion has won the crown not on his first attempt, including one of the all-time greats, Kasparov.