3 ms·

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 withou

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 4y ago
[deleted]
School-Cotton 4y 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 4y ago
  There's a reason the current format came about; lots of prima donna behavior from the world champions at the time.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  Carlsen is clearly better than his contemporaries, no doubts about it. But calling the GOAT is a stretch.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    Eh, like 2 others that could contend it. You might disagree, but its not a stretch.
  - ebiester 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
I am inclined to think that Karpov would have very likely defeated Fischer, and that Fischer was afraid of losing to him.
- bionsystem 4y ago
  Yes, it's hard to imagine Karpov losing this match.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

School-Cotton 4y 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 4y ago
There's a reason the current format came about; lots of prima donna behavior from the world champions at the time.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
Carlsen is clearly better than his contemporaries, no doubts about it. But calling the GOAT is a stretch.
- matsemann 4y ago
  Eh, like 2 others that could contend it. You might disagree, but its not a stretch.
- ebiester 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago

I am inclined to think that Karpov would have very likely defeated Fischer, and that Fischer was afraid of losing to him.

bionsystem 4y ago
Yes, it's hard to imagine Karpov losing this match.