Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Play
Create a gameTournamentSimultaneous exhibitions
Learn
Chess basicsPuzzlesPracticeCoordinatesStudyCoaches
Watch
Lichess TVCurrent gamesStreamersBroadcasts (beta)Video library
Community
PlayersTeamsForumQuestions & Answers
Tools
Analysis boardOpening explorerBoard editorImport gameAdvanced search
Sign in
Reconnecting
  1. Forum
  2. General Chess Discussion
  3. Carlsen Retains World Title After Tiebreak Massacre

Comments on lichess.org/blog/W_9D8hUAADAA4HuC/carlsen-retains-world-title-after-tiebreak-massacre

Rating gap between them is huge in fast time controls.

Gg. Great games were played, I loved watching. Amazing players, both of them.

GOAT.

This is the most shameful and the most miserable contractual match for the championship. It is unfortunate that the game was not interesting and the money began to solve all.

Like Hikaru said, a World Champion should be good in all the time controls, you cannot be good in only one and suck in all the other time controls, Magnus totally dominates all the time controls including bullet, a true World Champion.

In the press conference Magnus was asked what he thought about playing the tie breaks before the games begin. He said it felt artificial, but added that he thinks that rapid/blitz should probably start playing a bigger role in top level chess in general since there's more room for a player to show his strength.

No idea what the future holds, but I think the odds of the 2020 world championship retaining the same format are very close to 0. We have to consider that as relatively tepid as this match was, it's far better than it could have been. In particular imagine if Magnus had taken the same draw with black match strategy that Fabiano was going for.

Players playing for the top title should certainly play in whatever fashion they think will be most likely to end up with them being the victor. But it's also a practical reality that this sort of strategy of trying to kill off half the games is awful for spectators. And without spectators there are no sponsors. And without sponsors there is no professional top level chess. So the point of this is that rather than imploring the players to change, the more logical would be to change the format such that the optimal meta-strategy isn't so dreadful.

One could „tie-break“ every single game?

That'd actually be really interesting. And let the tie breaks be played before the actual game. So classical would still decide the outcome but every single game would be decisive.

It'd create a system where the player who won the tie breaks would be incentivized to draw the classical game, but the other player would have absolutely nothing to lose, other than rating, by going all out so it'd certainly be lively!

The huge increase in the number of games played would also enable the players to have a bit more meta back and forth on their preparation, fishing to check for any gaps in their prep or even just preparing multiple different ideas themselves.

Actually you could also avoid the incentive to play for a draw if you win the tiebreaks by creating a rule such that a win in the tiebreaks and a win in the classical portion is worth e.g. 1.5 points instead of just 1.