@Toadofsky How would you organize it differently?
I would eliminate everything other than classical games, and play a total of 14 games. In the event of a tie, there is no champion.
How long was Lasker the World Chess Champion ?
27 years !
He was the King of Pragmatic Play, and there is nothing wrong with Carlsen taking a page from Lasker's play book.
Might it also have been genius for Carlsen to make a quick draw and get more time to rest up for the gruelling speed games ahead ?
Having no world champion. It seems to me lite that would be a final nail in the coffin for chess. But I can see the advantages of it you probably had in mind. It would force them to play for wins. How about something a little less drastic, in the event of a tie the current world champion retains his title? There is so much to be gained in terms of publicity and awareness by actually having a world champion that not having one seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The draws are all a conspiracy between Maggi and Fabi to promote their new book Our 12 Memorable Draws.
Karpov quite recently contented that today's super GM's just don't fully understand (Dvoretsky-style) endgames quite as fully as the Top players of yesteryear - like himself and Kasparov and many others before. Hard to disagree after the first Rapid game. Very simplistic single-move miss by Fabi here, on move 37. Maybe because of no more adjourned endgames in this more machine-based era.
Unfortunately, Karpov never comments on live WC matches. Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Nakamura, Grischuk (haha), Svidler, Gelfand, Aronian, Nepo, Giri all do though.
Utterly complex first Rapid game, with the real decision from Magnus to simplify with Be6+, instead of Rxd4. Completely drawn endgame though, you'd feel, barring missing the intermezzo check on e7. Quite stunning that Fabi could miss this tiny but winning move. Game seemed quite dead at this point.
Lots of Chess still to come today!!
The world championship might need more games. 12 seems to make the players believe one loss will decide the entire match and thus they play not to lose.
Another take would be to change the score system to resemble soccer 0-1-3 for loss win draw.
That being said I find it strange that people dislike a draw offer. The opponent is in no way forced to accept.
I looked at the game and I have no idea how MC should win the end position. Of course I'm a fairly weak player, but how many base their opinion on their own thinking?
I was saying this before the tie breaks were played, in Jerry's YouTube comments: Why _wouldn't_ Carlsen do this? He's an incredibly strong player on short time controls, so why not just play conservatively, get draws, and dominate in the tie breaks?
I ended up being correct too. I saw no cowardice. I saw playing the rules. I saw exactly what I do in any video game - win the easiest way possible, even if it's boring.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.