5 ms·

I'd rather have the best current player in there. I thought this WCC was rather pointless.

by ttyyzz 3y ago

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  > 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.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    There's a reason the current format came about; lots of prima donna behavior from the world champions at the time.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    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.
- matsemann 3y ago
  > 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).
  - jyscao 3y ago
    Carlsen is clearly better than his contemporaries, no doubts about it. But calling the GOAT is a stretch.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      Eh, like 2 others that could contend it. You might disagree, but its not a stretch.
    - ebiester 3y ago
      Are you saying that he isn't even in the conversation, or that it's too hard to push him past Kasparov, Fischer, and Capablanca relative to his peers? (I can't reasonably put Morphy in this conversation, and I'm not sure anyone else has an argument.)
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        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 :)
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  I am inclined to think that Karpov would have very likely defeated Fischer, and that Fischer was afraid of losing to him.
  - bionsystem 3y ago
    Yes, it's hard to imagine Karpov losing this match.
ycombinete 3y ago
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…
somenameforme 3y ago
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.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Magnus plays WC for draws to eliminate risk, because he knows he is much better at rapid. He was still unbeatable.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    Yes. This is the meta strategy. Nepo was also doing this when he was a point ahead.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  > This event showed who the strongest match player in the world is, and as of today - that is Ding Liren. The problem with the current WCC is that it’s very much up for debate, and this is like, your opinion. I don’t think Ding Liren is a better player than Magnus Carlsen. The current title is mostly symbolic. It means “the second best player in the world”.
  - 3y ago
specproc 3y ago
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/game-6/h7a3P5YF https://lichess.org/broadcast/world-chess-championship-2021/...
bee_rider 3y ago
The chess engines don’t show up either, it seems the competition is fine with only mortals engaging in it.

I'd rather have the best current player in there. I thought this WCC was rather pointless.

by ttyyzz 3y ago

I'd rather have the best current player in there. I thought this WCC was rather pointless.

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.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
School-Cotton 3y ago
> 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.
- kelipso 3y ago
  There's a reason the current format came about; lots of prima donna behavior from the world champions at the time.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  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.
matsemann 3y ago
> 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).
- jyscao 3y ago
  Carlsen is clearly better than his contemporaries, no doubts about it. But calling the GOAT is a stretch.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    Eh, like 2 others that could contend it. You might disagree, but its not a stretch.
  - ebiester 3y ago
    Are you saying that he isn't even in the conversation, or that it's too hard to push him past Kasparov, Fischer, and Capablanca relative to his peers? (I can't reasonably put Morphy in this conversation, and I'm not sure anyone else has an argument.)
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
      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 :)
Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
I am inclined to think that Karpov would have very likely defeated Fischer, and that Fischer was afraid of losing to him.
- bionsystem 3y ago
  Yes, it's hard to imagine Karpov losing this match.

ycombinete 3y ago

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…

somenameforme 3y ago

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.

hgsgm 3y ago
Magnus plays WC for draws to eliminate risk, because he knows he is much better at rapid. He was still unbeatable.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  Yes. This is the meta strategy. Nepo was also doing this when he was a point ahead.
sgjohnson 3y ago
> This event showed who the strongest match player in the world is, and as of today - that is Ding Liren. The problem with the current WCC is that it’s very much up for debate, and this is like, your opinion. I don’t think Ding Liren is a better player than Magnus Carlsen. The current title is mostly symbolic. It means “the second best player in the world”.
- 3y ago

specproc 3y ago

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/game-6/h7a3P5YF https://lichess.org/broadcast/world-chess-championship-2021/...

bee_rider 3y ago

The chess engines don’t show up either, it seems the competition is fine with only mortals engaging in it.