[HN Gopher] Fide World Chess Championship Decided in Rapid Tiebr...
___________________________________________________________________
Fide World Chess Championship Decided in Rapid Tiebreaks
Author : Qqqwxs
Score : 210 points
Date : 2023-04-30 13:20 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (chess24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (chess24.com)
| univalent wrote:
| Congrats to Ding but brutal for Nepo. Had a winning position in
| game 12, and rushed that move in game 14 when Rc3? would have
| been winning. Winning the candidates tournament twice is such a
| huge feat, not sure if he can win again to challenge.
| ricochet11 wrote:
| A stunning end. those last minutes everyone had assumed it was a
| draw and Ding had the courage to keep pushing.
| perihelions wrote:
| The main commentator stream was (reasonably) blindsided by Rg6,
| with comedic timing.
|
| Sachdev: "Rg6 is not a move that you'd consider here, right?
| It's the only move that I feel with black keeps the game going,
| but it looks more like a losing move than a winning attempt."
|
| Caruana: "If Rg6 is not better for white [Nepomniachtchi], I'd
| be shocked"
|
| Ding: [plays Rg6]
|
| https://youtu.be/cSxNZix1Xwc?t=16087
| somenameforme wrote:
| I do wonder if Fabiano Caruana (the commentator in question,
| world #7) is going to have some introspection following these
| events, because that pattern occurred several times during
| his commentary. He came up with endless (and completely
| valid) ways for both players to 'kill'/simplify/draw the
| games at various points, but the players chose far more
| ambitious routes ultimately culminating in the final game
| where it decided the world championship.
|
| For some context here, Fabiano played a world championship
| match against Magnus Carlsen. Every single classical game was
| drawn, and he then lost 0-3 in the tiebreaks. Fabiano plays
| relatively weaker in faster time controls, whereas Magnus is
| also the strongest rapid player in the world by a fairly wide
| margin.
| srge wrote:
| I agree as a spectator that draws are boring. However
| strategically it probably makes sense to draw ambiguous
| games and only push for a win when you have a certain
| advantage.
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| Fabi's 4th in the world in Blitz, dude can play fast.
|
| Carlsen is just a beast.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Their match was played in November 2018. Here are the
| classical [1] and rapid [2] rating lists from that time.
| Fabiano was 12 points behind Magnus in classical, and 91
| points behind him in rapid. It's all going to be
| relative. Obviously Fabiano is _extremely_ good at all
| forms of chess, but all top players (in any sport) are
| going to have relative strengths /weaknesses when
| compared against each other.
|
| [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20181003104802/http://r
| atings.fi...
|
| [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20181009092541/https://
| ratings.f...
| hgsgm wrote:
| Classics is an extremely impractical format for ratings,
| because the games are so long so players can't play many
| games.
|
| It's like Heisenberg Uncertainty.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Yet my impression is that the rapid list is volatile and
| often not reflecting the reality, the classical rating is
| better in tune with actual strength
| jstx1 wrote:
| The number of games does influece the stability of the
| ratings but the result is the opposite - classical
| ratings are more reliable because there are regular
| organised events while there are very few serious blitz
| and rapid events. Most top players only play the rapid
| and blitz World Championship, no other events in these
| time controls.
| fraggle222 wrote:
| I think Fabi is licking his chops thinking he can now
| finally be a world champion since Carlsen is out and Ding
| maybe won't be too hard to best. He predicted lots of lines
| in the match or saw better ones from his commentator chair
| (granted the eval bar helps a lot). But you are right he
| will have to take some risks probably.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| He must first defeat Nepo in the candidates.
| hibikir wrote:
| The weird thing is that, if you look for stylistic
| differences in super-grandmasters, Fabiano is one of the
| most combative in tournament play. In any random day, he is
| far less drawish than Ding himself, or Anish Giri, the
| commentator earlier in the match. It's not that Fabiano was
| too passive: It's that the two players in this tournament
| took unreasonable risks with black.
|
| If you look at the Fabiano/Carlsen matches, what you see is
| that both players know Carlsen is the better calculator,
| but that Fabiano is going to have better prep almost every
| single time. He is one of the best theoreticians alive. So
| what did he play? Give absolutely nothing Carlsen could
| grab on to when playing black, yet the scariest possible
| theoretical openings as white, sometimes still being in-
| book for 5-10 moves over Carlsen. When Fabi was white, he
| had plenty of ambition and plenty of chances, but the
| calculation wasn't quite good enough, as Carlsen's worst
| moves were never significant, visible blunders.
|
| The Fabiano of that championship would have won this year's
| championship with relative ease, just because he'd never
| lose with black, and would capitalize on blunders. The way
| he played really is the best chance he had.
|
| The wonderful spectacle of a match we just got only comes
| from two players that, inexplicably, kept trying to win
| with black, and fail. Good for us, but I suspect that for a
| top professional it's very hard to understand.
| iamshs wrote:
| Tania's commentary verges on annoying.
| gushie wrote:
| I'm guessing she was briefed to sensationalise everything
| to try and keep it exciting. It was too much for me, I
| mostly watched the much more calm chessnetwork stream
| instead
| roflyear wrote:
| [flagged]
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| Congrats champ!
| blackpill0w wrote:
| It should be noted that one of the reasons this WCC was exciting
| is because of Richard Rapport who helped Ding Liren with his
| preparation, he is well know for being creative with his
| openings, and his contributions were pretty obvious in games (we
| even saw a London System), specially that Ding is usually
| predictable.
| Bostonian wrote:
| Yes, but I still don't see the point of the 4.h3 novelty, which
| wastes a move. Ding lost that game badly.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Weirdly enough, the opening actually turned out okay for Ding
| there, but instead of plcing Nxc5 with a stable advantage he
| went for the double edged Nxf6 and he played poorly in that
| game.
|
| Ding had a really bad start though, he really wasn't himself,
| especially in the first two games. Not sitting at the board
| much which is very unlike him.
|
| I think if Nepo had played something more challenging in game
| 1 than the exhange variation he would've probably won the
| game and possibly been able to kill Ding off while he was
| still settling into the match.
| srge wrote:
| I was such an exciting match. It was hard seing Nepo blitz so
| many bad moves when he often had a comfortable time advantage.
|
| Edit: context
| [deleted]
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| Alternative replay: https://lichess.org/study/SkQqKSso
| SpacePortKnight wrote:
| Super stoked to see what the impact of this would be on the
| Chinese chess ecosystem and consequently on the chess world.
| Maybe China will host more chess events and in return we might
| see more prodigies coming out of China.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| This match was super exciting to follow, I would not have
| predicted this outcome even a few games ago. It really felt like
| in both the candidates and now here Ding just grinded things out,
| so props to his mental endurance.
|
| I hope they find better journalists to ask questions next around,
| they rightly got a lot of flack in this one.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| A lot of people (me included) thought this series was dire for
| Ding after watching him get crushed a few days ago by his
| opponent Nepo where Ding visibly froze and was in a state of
| total mental disarray after he couldn't decide on his move,
| wasted a ton of time, and ended up making a bad move anyways.
|
| Commenters said that this was Nepo's strength, even if he doesn't
| make the absolute greatest move he makes a good enough move
| relatively quickly compared to his competition and we saw the
| advantage of that play out.
|
| But ironically that game being successful for Nepo's fast style
| might've cost him the championship in the end as he tried to
| replicate the time pressure on Ding every game after to pretty
| poor results. He might've done better if he didn't get such a
| dramatic victory that game.
| [deleted]
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Think of the chess players as facing a gigantic search problem.
| They don't have time to search everything, so they have to use
| intuition to decide what lines to calculate. Their intuition is
| very good but not perfect. So sometimes you get in a situation
| where you have computed the wrong lines and see no solution.
| The solution might be obvious on another day where you randomly
| don't cull the right lines, and very hard to find on a day when
| you are culling the good lines.
|
| Ding when he froze was for whatever reason missing the good
| move, so felt he was lost, searching and searching for some
| solution. It seems crazy only because the engine is there
| telling us it is drawn. But the human is culling the lines that
| work for some misguided reason.
| lubujackson wrote:
| In that vein, when the cheating scandal happened a few months
| back Hikaru (a top 10 player) said the only information he
| would need to make a difference in a match is getting a buzz
| when the position is critical. Not which move to make, but
| when to spend time analyzing deeply.
|
| It is hard to over-emphasize how much high level chess is
| about time management.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| This is a good point. Ding's time management has actually been
| excellent in this match besides that one moment where he froze.
| But that was literally one move. In most of the games he's just
| close to serious time pressure, but never gets there. He's just
| very fastidious about actually spending all his time.
|
| Ian definitely slowed down in the latter half of the match as
| well, but he still played too quickly in key positions.
| vikingerik wrote:
| The "Ding froze" assessment from game 7 was the fake-news media
| meme but wasn't the reality. He explained it after the fact. He
| knew what he was doing. He thought his position was lost, so he
| was calculating everything to look for a line to save a draw
| with perpetual checks / threefold repetition. He felt he had
| nothing to lose by expending all his time searching for that
| since he was going to lose anyway if he didn't find it. He was
| incorrect in evaluating his position as worse than it was
| (remember the players don't get the computer analysis numbers),
| but he wasn't incorrect in his time management stemming from
| that evaluation.
|
| The same went for Nepo's supposed "tilt" in the last WCC match
| against Carlsen, that was media exaggeration. He lost one game
| with one mistake, so then had to push into risky positions
| after that in hopes of catching up, since he had nothing more
| to lose in match terms. The big discrepancy in score for that
| match wasn't domination, it was an artifact of the meta-factor
| of playing for high variance.
| Bootvis wrote:
| c5 in game 9 by Nepo of the match against Carlsen was not a
| high variance play but just playing way below his level. All
| the commentators spotted it instantly.
| vikingerik wrote:
| That was the mistake I was talking about - but yeah I
| misremembered the sequence of events. Nepo was already down
| by a game then, the very long game 6. After game 9 he was
| pushing for high variance.
| hyperbovine wrote:
| You're not kidding.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7REwQ4dSOk
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| It's pretty much just an obvious blunder. And with 49
| minutes on his clock.
| specproc wrote:
| I dunno about variance in Nepo-Carlsen. Game six was brutal,
| a cat playing with its food. I think it's fair to say Carlsen
| outclasses Nepo.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| It was an incredibly long and incredibly precise game from
| both sides played by opponents of virtually equal skill.
| vikingerik wrote:
| Carlsen outclasses Nepo, yes. By a degree that is one or
| two mistakes across twelve full length games. Not to the
| degree of "tilt" or "meltdown" that the media coverage was
| trying to push.
| ourmandave wrote:
| Spoiler alert! =(
| new2yc wrote:
| [flagged]
| SpacePortKnight wrote:
| It was amazing to see Ding grow in confidence with each match.
| Kinda reminded me of Vegeta. I hope Ding will continue to grow
| and start dominating tournaments just like the previous champion,
| Magnus.
| lumb63 wrote:
| Does anyone have tips on how to watch chess? I got pretty into
| chess during lockdown. I read several books on the subject, was
| playing a few hours each day. I had friends who got into it as
| well, and they would watch the tournaments and high profile
| matches, but I couldn't enjoy them. I didn't feel like I
| understood the game enough, and the commentary sometimes went
| over my head/went by too quickly. Anyone been in the same
| situation?
| bionsystem wrote:
| Alright since everybody gives his favorite streamer / youtuber,
| I'll share mine : GM Ben Finegold. If you can support the dad
| jokes, he doesn't bore you with theory and often goes quickly
| to parts of the game where there is something to learn, whether
| you are casual or club-level. He has decades of teaching and
| coaching and has good pedagogy as a result.
|
| Particularly the candidates games (qualifier of this wcc match)
| are 10-20min long. He also uploads entire courses on his
| channel that he gives on stream or that he gave live in his
| current or previous club.
| xtreme wrote:
| Agadmator on YouTube makes excellent post-game analysis videos:
| https://www.youtube.com/@agadmator/videos
| fahadkhan wrote:
| I really enjoyed Giri and Caruana's commentary. I can't really
| understand chess at the WC level but listening to them explain
| it along side IMs shows that even IMs are in similar a
| position. Sure they understand more than I do but they miss
| most of the deeper or sutbler ideas.
| polytely wrote:
| I really liked Hikaru's recaps of the games [1] this
| tournament, prefer those to watching live because it feels for
| me like to actually enjoy live classical chess you need to pay
| full attention and the games are way too long for that, if I
| only pay a tiny bit attention I don't really get much out of
| it.
|
| 1: https://youtu.be/lNzNgFy_P1g
| squirrel wrote:
| GM Daniel King explains games in an accessible and very
| insightful way on the PowerPlay Chess youtube channel.
| treme wrote:
| Highly recommend Chessnetwork vids
|
| https://youtube.com/@ChessNetwork
| saganus wrote:
| You can watch chess streamers like Gothan Chess and similar. It
| makes games more aproachable to some degree.
| binarymax wrote:
| The thing about watching chess that's different from other
| games, is that it's not obvious to inexperienced players when
| important things happen and why.
|
| The only way is to increase your skill level. I played for
| years before I could appreciate a live game played at the IM or
| GM level.
|
| At tournaments there's typically a watch room with a board and
| a proctor that tries different lines and variations on the
| position. If you didn't understand something then playing out
| the line would help understand the motivation.
|
| Not sure if there's a good proxy for that now, since honestly I
| haven't played much since the advent of chess AI started
| offering far better analysis than a kibbitz room. But maybe
| there's some software that can help with the explanation now.
|
| But practicing is the only way to understand it. So if youre
| interested, keep at it!
| xapata wrote:
| I think many games have important events that aren't obvious
| to inexperienced players/spectators. In football/soccer, for
| example, off-the-ball movement is very important, but usually
| ignored by inexperienced players.
| binarymax wrote:
| Yes, but the subtleties in games other than chess or go
| typically don't impact the game hours later.
|
| For example, understanding why the placement of a piece on
| move 12 can have serious repercussions on move 42 doesn't
| really translate to other games.
| xapata wrote:
| How about tactical choices like which players to put in
| which positions, who to guard whom or which zone, etc.?
| These choices are often made before the game and may only
| have effects towards the end, when the speed difference
| between two players becomes larger due to tired legs.
| ronnykylin wrote:
| Good to see human beings are still challenging themselves in
| chess after AlphaGo
| umanwizard wrote:
| AlphaGo plays go, not chess. Computers have crushed humans at
| chess for 20+ years.
| tinza123 wrote:
| By that logic 100m dashing should be abondoned after the
| invention of cars.
| jpgvm wrote:
| Ironically engines made the game better IMO.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Great match by Ding and Ian both, and I honestly think Ding
| deserves the win in the end.
|
| I think Ian got a bit too results oriented and pragmatic towards
| the end of the match, playing too imprecisely and quickly in key
| positions and always a little too happy with a draw. Ding was
| just playing chess.
|
| And as often happens in chess, this ended up being the decisive
| psychological factor. Ian, going for a repetition, And Ding says
| no, let's play. This seemed to shock Ian so much that he was
| unable to find the correct moves. Ding was ruthless and punished
| his mistakes, showcasing his superior calculation(at least in
| that moment) and concentration.
| Upvoter33 wrote:
| I wouldn't agree with the "deserves to win". If you look at the
| classical matches, probably Ian had the slight edge, and tbh,
| he could have wrapped up the entire thing in Game 13(I may not
| be remembering the exact game, but the one where he had a
| strong position but gave it away and lost, thus leading to a
| tie).
|
| And, honestly, in rapid, they were really really even. Even one
| better move at the end might have tied it up.
|
| I think the match showed that they were about equal, not that
| really anyone was better.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Well, yes he could have, but he didn't. And Ding simply
| played better than him and beat him in that game. And in the
| game before that he passed up chances to play for a win with
| white for an easy draw.
|
| That's why I think the final game became sort of a microcosm
| of the match as a whole. Ian's concentration slipped and he
| was thinking of making a draw, and the match situation, and
| not the position at hand, and when Ding rejected the draw he
| was too flabbergasted by it to handle the position whereas
| Ding just kept calculating.
|
| It was a very tight match, and both players would have
| deserved it had they won they tie break. But I think overall
| in decisive moments Ding was just a little bit more collected
| and concentrated, and that's why he ended up winning.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| It would be fair to say that it was the championship that
| Nepo lost, not the championship that Ding won. Game 12 was
| an insane blunder.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I think these are nothing but quibbles. In the end, the
| player who makes the least mistakes wins, and that was
| Ding. Ian had opportunities he didn't take, and so did
| Ding, but in the end Ding took more of his opportunities
| than Ian.
|
| In the end, if Ian deserved to win more than Ding, why
| did Ding win?
| [deleted]
| ycombinete wrote:
| Yes definitely. Ian must've been shifting into draw mode after
| the first repetition. Hard to adjust again with ~2 minutes on
| the clock.
|
| I think as well that Black had more viable moves as the
| position continued to develop; Ian on the other hand had to be
| very accurate.
|
| Brilliant from ding really. There's a reason he's about 100 Elo
| points stronger than Ian in Rapid.
| rgoulter wrote:
| In the final game, the commentators on the chess.com stream
| pointed out that Ian could have gone for a draw, but wanted
| to push on.
| ycombinete wrote:
| There were definitely moments in the game where they both
| had the option, but I am referring specifically to _46. ...
| Rg6_ [0] which occurs after two repetitions of the
| position, initiated by Ian.
|
| [0] https://lichess.org/broadcast/fide-world-chess-
| championship-...
| Bostonian wrote:
| I don't think Ding is quite at Carlsen's level, but maybe being
| World Champion will inspire him to get even better. I wish
| someone would sponsor an unofficial match between Ding and
| Carlsen. Only FIDE can organize an official match for the title.
| rvba wrote:
| Does the world championship use any detectors to check if
| participants arent cheating? Via some communication device,
| sounds, lights etc. that would tell moves taken from a computer
| or a set of helpers?
|
| Alternatively someone could put some device inside their body.
| Are the participants scanned somehow?
| notreallyauser wrote:
| There is security beforehand. Not seen specifics on this event,
| but metal detector arches have been part of it in other events.
|
| The playing hall is, I think, essentially closed after the
| start of the match.
| specproc wrote:
| It's been a brilliant tournament, absolutely fantastic to follow.
| Genuinely gripping, exciting stuff with incredible games and
| lines.
|
| Carlsen did us all a favour by stepping back. I don't think the
| rest of the pack are too far behind these two, we should be
| seeing a really dynamic, entertaining fight for the top spot over
| the coming years.
| ttyyzz wrote:
| I'd rather have the best current player in there. I thought
| this WCC was rather pointless.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| 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.
| matsemann wrote:
| > _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).
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| But doing that when Carlsen announced his forfeit _after_
| the candidates would be silly. If there 's a time to
| change the format, it's now before the next cycle begins,
| not in the middle of the previous cycle.
| Sesse__ wrote:
| Carlsen was pretty clear on this all along. He said there
| was a _slight_ chance of him changing his mind if
| Firouzja won the Candidates, which he was nowhere near
| doing. The announcement after the Candidates was just the
| final confirmation. Everybody playing knew very well that
| the second spot would give them a very real shot at
| playing the WCC, Ding and Nakamura included.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| That's true. But Carlsen still leaving the possibility
| meant it was always going to be a match in this cycle. So
| if Carlsen forfeiting should have consequences for the
| way the cycle is structured it should be now, after the
| match, not instead of it
|
| Btw, are you in any way responsible for
| analysis.sesse.net? I've been using it every day!
| jyscao wrote:
| Carlsen is clearly better than his contemporaries, no
| doubts about it. But calling the GOAT is a stretch.
| matsemann wrote:
| Eh, like 2 others that could contend it. You might
| disagree, but its not a _stretch_.
| ebiester wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 :)
| [deleted]
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I am inclined to think that Karpov would have very likely
| defeated Fischer, and that Fischer was afraid of losing to
| him.
| bionsystem wrote:
| Yes, it's hard to imagine Karpov losing this match.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| There's a reason the current format came about; lots of
| prima donna behavior from the world champions at the
| time.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| 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.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > 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".
| kelipso wrote:
| I genuinely think Ding could beat Magnus is the WCC 14
| game format. Magnus does better on tournaments but 14
| games against the same player is a different beast and
| while Magnus has performed well in the past he has also
| shown plenty of weaknesses in the format.
| somenameforme wrote:
| You have to consider match vs tournament play. The two
| are really very different. In tournaments you're playing
| a small number of games against a large number of
| different opponents, of often dramatically different
| skill levels. The large number of players also often also
| all but guarantees that some of the players will be off
| form, and easy pickings for the rest of the crowd. It's a
| really fun and interesting dynamic but very different
| than match play.
|
| For the world championship players spend the better part
| of a year, generally with a large team of other world
| class players, intensely preparing to play games against
| only a single player, studying their games, and finally
| unleashing absolutely everything they've discovered. And
| then there's a constant metagame knowing each game you
| play one day will be deeply studied by your opponent and
| his team, and he will come back fully prepared the next
| day.
|
| Carlsen gave up his title because he no longer wanted to
| put the massive amounts of work in that are required to
| maintain it. Would he be the best match player if he
| started putting this work in again? Maybe? But he's
| chosen not to do that.
| ohashi wrote:
| He was undefeated for 10 years and you're rationalizing
| that he somehow isn't the best player because some other
| guy once lost in this format? And his undefeated streak
| over 10 years wasn't convincing enough for you?
|
| That just... doesn't make sense.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Magnus plays WC for draws to eliminate risk, because he
| knows he is much better at rapid. He was still unbeatable.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| Yes. This is the meta strategy. Nepo was also doing this
| when he was a point ahead.
| specproc wrote:
| 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/...
| ycombinete wrote:
| 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...
| bee_rider wrote:
| The chess engines don't show up either, it seems the
| competition is fine with only mortals engaging in it.
| mellosouls wrote:
| Meanwhile, Magnus...
|
| https://youtube.com/shorts/mNiPUPRt89Q
| blackpill0w wrote:
| He tweeted 30s after Ian resigned though.
|
| Edit:
| https://nitter.net/MagnusCarlsen/status/1652663581542891531#...
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I watch the Botez sisters and even this kind of grosses me out.
| jyscao wrote:
| I find Botez sisters obnoxious tbh
| mellosouls wrote:
| They've been a massive positive for chess.
|
| People (especially young people) aren't being introduced to
| its excitement and beauty via Ding & Nepo playing
| loooooooong matches in championships like this.
|
| They may go on to watch the world championship after Botez
| have converted them though.
| ninepoints wrote:
| I'm sure they also abetted people losing their savings in
| FTX though.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Why? Looks like a few normal young people drinking and having
| fun, what is wrong with that?
| sdwr wrote:
| I only saw that few seconds, but there's clearly a painful
| sexual drama/tragedy going on.
|
| Note magnus's overly blank face, the sunglasses, the
| spirited (but joyless!) dancing.
| zpeti wrote:
| Seems like there's some major suppressed regret there for not
| taking part...
| trollied wrote:
| chess.com are still streaming if you want to see the analysis
| coverage: https://www.twitch.tv/chess
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Congratulations to both players for providing us with so many
| decisive and interesting games! Particular congratulations to
| Ding!
|
| I played in the US Chess Open in 1978, but I am not much of a
| player. I did write the shitty little Chess program that Apple
| distributed on the Apple II demo cassette tape.
|
| Off topic, but I 100% support Magnus's decision to do what he
| enjoys: playing in tournaments and not time spent preparing for
| world championship matches. Good for him understanding what is
| most important to him, and acting on it.
| hacym wrote:
| That decision is made a lot easier once you've been on top five
| times and no matter what happens in the championship you're not
| participating in, everyone knows you're still the GOAT.
| perihelions wrote:
| Here's the decisive tiebreaker to anyone who didn't watch it:
|
| https://youtu.be/cSxNZix1Xwc?t=12404 (3:26:44 - 4:38:10)
|
| https://lichess.org/broadcast/fide-world-chess-championship-...
| (just the moves)
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| It's absurd that the classical world chess champion is decided by
| rapid games.
|
| This keeps happening: 2012, 2016, 2018, 2023.
|
| For over a decade most of the classical world chess champions
| were decided by their ability to play rapid.
|
| It's time to reform FIDE. The world chess championship is
| languishing, barely getting any news attention or coverage. Just
| kill this failed format and play rapid. The games are much more
| engaging for viewers. We could maybe actually get people to watch
| chess!
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Nepo has brought it on himself, losing that dramatic 12th game
| while leading in the score with a an unbelievable blunder. Hope
| he comes back for the next title challenge.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Not just a blunder, but a blunder made too quickly when he had
| plenty of time. If Nepo won a third straight candidates (he's
| automatically qualified) that would be an extremely impressive
| achievement that would be a first in world history I believe.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I wonder if Carlsen will participate. I'm actually rather
| salty at him for forfeiting the title. If you are a chess
| champion, you have to defend the title until you lose, or
| die, whichever happens first. After he had refused to defend
| the title, it made the title of his successor automatically
| less worthy. That's bad.
| [deleted]
| throwawaysalome wrote:
| When you get older, you realize "world champion" is
| meaningless, and the adjudicating organizations are profit-
| driven, even if they're legally non-profit (the NFL being
| the most brazen example).
| hgsgm wrote:
| NFL was non profit because it istrade association that
| serve the (for-profit) teams. It's not a nefarious
| scheme. They changed it because their customers are
| vocally stupid.
| Scarblac wrote:
| FIDE doesn't make a profit. But the revenue they get from
| the match (about $1m) is a large part of their budget.
| blackpill0w wrote:
| I think I agree with you in that I am too feeling weird
| that Magnus decided to let go of his title, and unlike
| others like Bobby Fisher he is still playing chess.
| [deleted]
| mkagenius wrote:
| Forfeiting is almost like accepting the defeat, not in the
| ability kind of way but "i can't go through the torture
| anymore" way ..but yeah it's like you accepted the defeat,
| so it's okay to assume he lost.
| NhanH wrote:
| When the two greatest chess players of all time both have
| issues with FIDE regarding the world chess championship
| title, I think it's fair to give both of them the benefit
| of the doubt: FIDE is probably doing something wrong, in
| one way or another.
| oldstrangers wrote:
| Be mad at FIDE for failing to adapt the match format to
| something less ridiculous. For years Magnus advocated for
| changing both the World Championship Cycle and the format
| of the games (classical, rapid, blitz). FIDE did nothing,
| as expected.
|
| Currently the World Chess Championship is just a collection
| of very talented chess players spending months having
| supercomputers evaluate positions looking for the slightest
| imaginable edge.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Having watched Karpov/Kasparov battles as a child, I
| don't think that the match format is ridiculous. I'd only
| change the tiebreaks rule to use the same time control as
| the main event.
| oldstrangers wrote:
| Well yeah, the match format wasn't ridiculous in the 80s
| and 90s when it was still human prep vs human prep.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| So, now you have computers that show you the best moves,
| ok. But this knowledge still has to be squeezed into a
| human brain. So I don't see any problem with the match
| format. And even 'draw death' talks are laughable after
| latest candidates tournament and yours championship.
| mellosouls wrote:
| It definitely devalues the event and title - we all know
| that Magnus is the best in the world - but it (the world
| championship) is starting to look dusty and outdated in the
| world of streaming successes like Hikaru, ChessBrah, Botez,
| etc.
|
| Chess has moved on significantly since Magnus first became
| champion (partly due to the man himself).
|
| If Fide is struggling to move with it, there will be a
| limit to what it can ask of its dominant figure in the
| context of an event that requires huge investment in time,
| money and energy for participants.
| bananamerica wrote:
| I love Nepo but I truly believe he should forget about being
| World Champion anymore. I just can't see the poor dude
| suffering another time.
| davidguetta wrote:
| Thanks to the commentators to make the game accessible to us 1100
| elo ><.
|
| It's funny because at my level I thought it made 100% sense to
| decline draw and go Rg6. With two beautiful passed pawns and a
| bishop in the middle ding had a clear plan and very low risk (to
| me) to lose while Nepo had to do so many super accurate queen
| moves to defend... which seemed impossible (to me) in time
| pressure. It's basically (to me, again) the same problem than the
| super long game 6 in 2022 against carlsen.
| ninepoints wrote:
| It was only low risk in hindsight. Yes the two pawns looked
| good, but the black king wasn't exactly completely secure
| either.
| bionsystem wrote:
| Rg6 is an amazing decision (note that I didn't say it's the
| right one as clearly I wouldn't know). Think about it, after
| months of preparation and a couple weeks of playing long games,
| and getting so much pressure, he can take a draw with black and
| then play blitz. Nobody would have blame him for it.
|
| But he realized that he has some chance for pressure, and that
| Ian has spent his extra time on the clock. So he puts his
| gloves on for the last fight. Whether or not it is the right
| strategy, both in this particular game and regarding the
| situation of the match, it shows incredible courage and
| fighting spirit.
|
| Also earlier in the same game he canceled an attack realizing
| that he would be overextending and Ian has everything to
| defend. That is really really hard to do when you are attacking
| and had an advantage a couple moves ago, to just hold back like
| that.
| alexmolas wrote:
| I didn't expect Ding winning Nepo in the tiebreaks after watching
| him getting crushed by the pressure and time in previous games.
| Well played! The last game has been incredible. Watching the
| world cup being decided in less than 10 minutes was something I
| didn't expect.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| I'm really glad it was decided in rapid if it couldn't be in
| classical. The first three rapid games were of incredibly high
| quality, just as good as the best games in Classical in terms of
| accuracy and much more exciting than you'd think just hearing
| they were draws. The last game had its ups and downs but seemed
| to be a clear draw until the very end. Under time-pressure both
| players made some mistakes but there is no other way for a winner
| to emerge really.
| ycombinete wrote:
| As a middling player a draw in Rapid is quite an achievement.
| Playing that accurately in such a short time control is really
| so impressive. Especially given the pressure they were exerting
| on each other during those first three games!
| agubelu wrote:
| It was a very exciting WCC, but I feel like something should be
| done about the post-match press conferences. Many of the
| questions asked in the most prestigious chess tournament are not
| even remotely related to the games that were played, and
| sometimes plainly disrespectful towards the players.
|
| The first question right after a new World Champion has been
| crowned was about the weather.
| somenameforme wrote:
| It was also extremely odd to me that there was no Chinese press
| there. Ding's English is not excellent, and to not be able to
| catch his first moments in his native tongue seems to have been
| a major failing of the Chinese press.
| ginnungagap wrote:
| Ding was offered a translator but insisted on speaking
| English himself apparently!
|
| "He said he didn't need a translator since, "I feel very
| comfortable now," " from
| https://chess24.com/en/read/news/ding-liren-passes-acid-
| test...
| htag wrote:
| I've seen international competitions where the winner is
| interviewed by a reporter from their home country in their
| native language. It can often be a nice touch, and is very
| different from using a translator to speak to English
| speaking reports.
| kelipso wrote:
| Chess isn't really big in China. Maybe will get more popular
| with Ding now but I'm not holding my breath.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Chess is huge in China. The women's world champion and also
| number two are both Chinese.
|
| You are right that Chess is not as popular as Go in China.
| kelipso wrote:
| Chess is not nearly as popular as Chinese chess (xiangqi)
| either.
| [deleted]
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Hard to take the WCC seriously when everyone know Carlsen would
| have won and just find the whole thing too boring to take part.
| dkqmduems wrote:
| I suspect Magnus would disagree.
| kelipso wrote:
| Or he was scared of losing after spending months preparing.
| He'll say whatever makes him look good probably but who
| knows.
| apetrov wrote:
| don't hold your breath for that. Carlsen is 2853 and nobody
| else is above 2800 now.
| NhanH wrote:
| He first voiced his discontent with the format around 13-15
| years ago (he was #1 player by elo rating, but not yet the
| world champion), even skipping a cycle or two as protest.
| Afterward, he participated anyway and hold the title in
| fairly dominating fashion 10 years straight.
|
| Maybe we should take his words at face value and that he
| really is fed up with the thing.
| dlp211 wrote:
| To further solidify this, Magnus crushed Ian in the last
| WCC 7.5 to 3.5.
|
| I think most folks agree that Magnus is the best player
| in the world, but the WCC was far better with him not in
| it.
| riwsky wrote:
| Magnus OP, ruins meta. needs nerf in next patch devs PLZ
| jpgvm wrote:
| Considering how much happier he seems since he decided to
| forgo defending the title yeah, good chance he just
| doesn't want it or care about it anymore.
|
| IMO good for him. He won it all and now he is doing new
| things with his life.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| What a horrible comment
| rabite wrote:
| Ding is in fact the sole player that can make this not
| statement not true, as he is a candidate with a known
| positive score against Magnus. A couple WCCs ago Magnus said
| Ding was the only player that he wasn't sure he could win
| against -- but that he wouldn't make it, after a poor showing
| in the candidates at the time.
|
| Anyways, I don't know who would win in a Carlsen - Ding WCC.
| Nobody does. If the game statistics are to be believed, then
| Ding would.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Prior to previous championship match Nepo also had positive
| score vs Carlsen.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-30 23:01 UTC)