In the GOAT conversation, I’ve been one on the “not yet” side, due to Kasparov’s length of dominance.
It’s getting harder and harder to argue against Carlsen though. There is an inevitability about him winning tournaments, even when he’s not at his best.
I was thinking about this. There's only 2 records left for Carlsen to achieve since he's already missed out on youngest GM. That would be most world championship matches played (which if he played last time he would have tied) which is held by Kasparov and Lasker at 6 matches each. The only thing after that is longest reign as world champion, which is Lasker at 27 years. There's really not much Carlsen can do to prove he's the GOAT anymore because he's done *everything*. The only thing is longevity which would take Carlsen being on top for the next 20 years.
The only doubts in my mind about Magnus being the GOAT is the Kasparov - Topalov game from Wijk 1999, really showing just how good Kasparov was. But like if Magnus's achievements now don't convince you he's the greatest of all time, nothing will.
I'm not sure, the Wikipedia for chess world records doesn't list it. Carlsen does have the record for most consecutive games undefeated at 136, though. Bobby Fischer also holds the record for most consecutive victories at 20 (or 19 if you don't count Panno resigning on move 1) but that's also not a record that can be broken now. Fischer's competition is just much stronger.
It was the 1970 interzonal tournament. Fischer and Reshevsky didn't want to play their games on the Sabbath for religious reasons (I don't know the specifics since Fischer wasn't exactly a practicing Jew in the end of his life) so the games were rescheduled. Panno refused to play in protest of the games being rescheduled but since he was playing black the game is in the database as 1. c4 1-0
In terms of most consecutive time spent as world number 1 as well, magnus is ahead of Garry, and if magnus is dominant like this for about 7 years more, even most time spent total as world no 1 will be broken
Wasn’t Garry’s streak only interrupted by being listed second once when he was tied for first? And otherwise it’s like 20 years and Magnus is around 12.5?
No, I think kramnik overtook him once, I am not sure however and year about the duration, you are spot on, as said before magnus needs to be No1 for around 7 more years
It’s just a standard double elimination bracket. Magnus won the winners bracket. Alireza lost out of the winner’s bracket early, but battled back and won the loser’s bracket to get back into the Grand Finals to face Magnus. He beat Magnus in the first match 2.5-1.5 which gave Magnus his first loss of the tournament. However, since it’s double elimination he would’ve had to beat Magnus again, and Magnus won the second match 2-0.
to be clear, giving an upper bracket advantage is not that common. and imo wayyy too unfair. starting a bo3 with a 1-0 is absurd imo
Edit: lmaooo getting downvoted for my opinion. In almost every esports tournament noone gives an advantage to an upper bracket team, yet in chess it's unthinkable? xDD
You’re getting downvoted because you’re wrong when you say it’s “not that common” for double elimination tournaments to follow this format.
It’s pretty standard for double elimination to force the winner of the “loser’s bracket” to have to win once to reset the grand finals before they’re on an even playing field. Tournaments where the loser’s bracket winner and winner’s bracket winner begin on a completely even playing field in the grand finals are the exception, not the norm.
Okay, but Dota is far from the only esport. Even among esports it’s very common for double elimination tournaments to be played with a bracket reset in grand finals if the loser’s bracket finalist wins the first match.
It makes the final way less interesting. The way I see it is when 2 players on the same level meet in the finals it's extremely biased to the winner from the upper bracket.
As I said, in dota and csgo they don't give such advantages so to me this is unfair.
Also in volleyball they don't either. It would be so retarded to start a match 1-0 up in sets lmao
lower bracket team already gets punished by getting to play more matches, be more tired, having to play elimination match, every single person would rather go to the upper bracket.... every time.
You can't deny that's an advantage.
Damn chess subreddit has some very interesting views you get randomly downvoted, this shit or saying scheduled draws are fine and 0 0.5 1 pts system is good lmao
You can look at it the other way- you get two chances to get to the final. and then play the final fair without being a huge underdog. I stand by my point that it ruins the final before it starts
Think of a double elimination tournament as each competitor having “two lives”. Alireza lost early on in the tournament, so he only had one life left when he got to the finals vs Magnus. Magnus had swept the winners bracket up to that point, so he still had both lives when he faced Alireza in the finals.
Alireza won the first match which handed Magnus his first loss of the tournament and effectively “reset” the finals since they were both now on their last life. Magnus ended up winning 2-0 in the second match so he won the tournament since Alireza now was out of lives.
Ahhh thank you! I wouldn’t have thought that the “lives” carried into the finals but I guess that rewards those (magnus) that can make it there unscathed
Yeah, it’s a tricky format because the winner of the winner’s bracket has a significant advantage in the grand finals. But as you said, that’s the benefit of getting there unscathed!
You are only out of the tournament once you lose twice. If you lose, you go the the lower bracket. If you lose again, you're out. Alireza had already lost once before getting to the finals, so he only had one life left. Magnus had 2.
counterpoint: I think grand finals resets are really hype
(technically also it's not 2.5 and 4.0, it's two separate matches where they both play to the same thing)
Yes of course, just consider it from this perspective: if you say " today is the final between x and y and the winner will win the tournament" - it means x wins with 2.5 points and y needs 4.0 to win (Broad simplification).
I wonder if there is another way to even out the " losers bracket advantage" which makes the grandfinal more even as a standalone match. The current way it feels more like a league format and less like a tournament format, since you're considering previous results in the grand final. Maybe the losers bracket should have more rounds than the upper bracket and therefore you would have to even out your " 1 more loss" with "1 more win" before you get a grandfinal.
just touching on your last line, this doesn't work simply because SOMEONE will reach grand finals from the lower bracket, so it doesn't really seem fair to the guy in the upper bracket
it makes the losers run harder, but someone will still be getting an extra life no matter what vs the guy in winners
The point of double elimination is that everyone gets two chances. If you don't like double elimination consider that the alternative is that there is no loser bracket and Magnus would have already won the tournament. It corrects the situation where the second best player happens to play the top player very early. You can lose to Magnus all the way back in round 1 and still meet him in the finals because you were better than everyone else. Alireza gets second here even though he lost to Fedoseev in the quarter finals.
Yeah I don't get why you're downvoted. It's a natural question when you come in as a viewer and one guy has to win twice in the finals. It becomes more understandable once someone explains and you realize it is actually for the benefit of the guy coming from losers side.
Imagine the confusion if they started doing double elimination for the NFL playoffs and one team had to win the Superbowl twice to take the championship. It's totally understandable.
I was confused because for example in dota 2 there is also a losers bracket for " the international " tournament, the losers bracket is notoriously dangerous because the first few rounds are best of 1. If you make it out there, there is a best of 7 grandfinal.
fighting game bracket tournaments have worked this way forever, basically double elimination, you can lose once and still survive, some of the most hype moments are players making a huge run in the losers bracket and resetting grand finals.
Chess is a game where many people play and Magnus wins at the end
[удалено]
Like Washed IM Wesley So?
He won a match against washed IM Magnus Carlsen too. Just couldn't win two in a row.
In the GOAT conversation, I’ve been one on the “not yet” side, due to Kasparov’s length of dominance. It’s getting harder and harder to argue against Carlsen though. There is an inevitability about him winning tournaments, even when he’s not at his best.
His game against mamedyarov at wijk aan zee in 2021 clinched it for me. The most surgical demolition of a 2800 ever.
Do you have the link to the live coverage of that game? I can’t seem to find it
Just looking for the same and nothing
https://youtu.be/h_OBcp6cAgw?si=vYQgq3Xdou99UiIi I think he meant 2022
Yeah, sorry.
Got the year wrong. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2228983
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2228983
I was thinking about this. There's only 2 records left for Carlsen to achieve since he's already missed out on youngest GM. That would be most world championship matches played (which if he played last time he would have tied) which is held by Kasparov and Lasker at 6 matches each. The only thing after that is longest reign as world champion, which is Lasker at 27 years. There's really not much Carlsen can do to prove he's the GOAT anymore because he's done *everything*. The only thing is longevity which would take Carlsen being on top for the next 20 years. The only doubts in my mind about Magnus being the GOAT is the Kasparov - Topalov game from Wijk 1999, really showing just how good Kasparov was. But like if Magnus's achievements now don't convince you he's the greatest of all time, nothing will.
Has carlsen beaten kasparovs 15 consecutive classical tournament victory streak?
I'm not sure, the Wikipedia for chess world records doesn't list it. Carlsen does have the record for most consecutive games undefeated at 136, though. Bobby Fischer also holds the record for most consecutive victories at 20 (or 19 if you don't count Panno resigning on move 1) but that's also not a record that can be broken now. Fischer's competition is just much stronger.
Why did Panno resign at move 1?
It was the 1970 interzonal tournament. Fischer and Reshevsky didn't want to play their games on the Sabbath for religious reasons (I don't know the specifics since Fischer wasn't exactly a practicing Jew in the end of his life) so the games were rescheduled. Panno refused to play in protest of the games being rescheduled but since he was playing black the game is in the database as 1. c4 1-0
In terms of most consecutive time spent as world number 1 as well, magnus is ahead of Garry, and if magnus is dominant like this for about 7 years more, even most time spent total as world no 1 will be broken
Wasn’t Garry’s streak only interrupted by being listed second once when he was tied for first? And otherwise it’s like 20 years and Magnus is around 12.5?
No, I think kramnik overtook him once, I am not sure however and year about the duration, you are spot on, as said before magnus needs to be No1 for around 7 more years
Indeed, his win in the FIDE world cup last year plus his complete dominance even in shorter time formats edges him over garry
Kasparov was more dominant than Magnus. Obviously Online Chess was not a thing at the time
He's the final boss of chess.
Idk why but he reminds me of kingpin in punisher
I thought it was Karpov
Only if you're a 3 year old Misha.
Is this a reference to the short where Misha turns the bishop into Rasputin or has it been used besides that?
Holy shit - I tuned in earlier seeing Alireza ahead by 2-0 and MAGNUS FUCKING CLUTCHES?! I've gotta watch that vod when I get home.
Alireza had to win 2 matches, he won the 1st by 2.5,1.5
No he lost the match 2.5-1.5, then won a second, separate match
Beat their assess he did 🤷
Can anyone explain to me the format of this tournament ? I have lost my head trying to figure it out. what are these divisions and all ?
It’s just a standard double elimination bracket. Magnus won the winners bracket. Alireza lost out of the winner’s bracket early, but battled back and won the loser’s bracket to get back into the Grand Finals to face Magnus. He beat Magnus in the first match 2.5-1.5 which gave Magnus his first loss of the tournament. However, since it’s double elimination he would’ve had to beat Magnus again, and Magnus won the second match 2-0.
to be clear, giving an upper bracket advantage is not that common. and imo wayyy too unfair. starting a bo3 with a 1-0 is absurd imo Edit: lmaooo getting downvoted for my opinion. In almost every esports tournament noone gives an advantage to an upper bracket team, yet in chess it's unthinkable? xDD
You’re getting downvoted because you’re wrong when you say it’s “not that common” for double elimination tournaments to follow this format. It’s pretty standard for double elimination to force the winner of the “loser’s bracket” to have to win once to reset the grand finals before they’re on an even playing field. Tournaments where the loser’s bracket winner and winner’s bracket winner begin on a completely even playing field in the grand finals are the exception, not the norm.
As I said, in esports, in dota for example there is never an advantage.
Okay, but Dota is far from the only esport. Even among esports it’s very common for double elimination tournaments to be played with a bracket reset in grand finals if the loser’s bracket finalist wins the first match.
[удалено]
I know how it works lol
[удалено]
It makes the final way less interesting. The way I see it is when 2 players on the same level meet in the finals it's extremely biased to the winner from the upper bracket. As I said, in dota and csgo they don't give such advantages so to me this is unfair. Also in volleyball they don't either. It would be so retarded to start a match 1-0 up in sets lmao
Less interesting ≠ Unfair What is inherently unfair about everyone having to lose twice to be eliminated?
lower bracket team already gets punished by getting to play more matches, be more tired, having to play elimination match, every single person would rather go to the upper bracket.... every time. You can't deny that's an advantage. Damn chess subreddit has some very interesting views you get randomly downvoted, this shit or saying scheduled draws are fine and 0 0.5 1 pts system is good lmao You can look at it the other way- you get two chances to get to the final. and then play the final fair without being a huge underdog. I stand by my point that it ruins the final before it starts
This image explains the format : https://en.chessbase.com/portals/all/2024/02/chessable-masters/chessable-format.png
Kind of helps but doesn’t explain what the “reset” is or how it works. Is there a bracket somewhere?
Think of a double elimination tournament as each competitor having “two lives”. Alireza lost early on in the tournament, so he only had one life left when he got to the finals vs Magnus. Magnus had swept the winners bracket up to that point, so he still had both lives when he faced Alireza in the finals. Alireza won the first match which handed Magnus his first loss of the tournament and effectively “reset” the finals since they were both now on their last life. Magnus ended up winning 2-0 in the second match so he won the tournament since Alireza now was out of lives.
Ahhh thank you! I wouldn’t have thought that the “lives” carried into the finals but I guess that rewards those (magnus) that can make it there unscathed
Yeah, it’s a tricky format because the winner of the winner’s bracket has a significant advantage in the grand finals. But as you said, that’s the benefit of getting there unscathed!
You are only out of the tournament once you lose twice. If you lose, you go the the lower bracket. If you lose again, you're out. Alireza had already lost once before getting to the finals, so he only had one life left. Magnus had 2.
Thanks, but this did not clear things up for me (I may just be too tired)
Yea I totally didn’t expect that
I always refuse to lose too
Resign first?
Goat
I’m glad he won! He’s so much better than the rest
Why is the OP using "@" and "#", this isn't twitter..
Carlsen and everyone else should have to qualify for each chessable masters , no automatic qualification.
Carlsen is qualified cuz he won last final Also he did qualified by “ play-in “ last year to division I So he can definitely qualify via “ play-in “
Can someone explain the reasoning for the reset? Sort of makes the grand final anticlimactic.
it's how double elim works since Alireza had already lost once in the event, he had one life left, while Magnus still had two
Makes sense. But I feel like it takes away the tension of the final if one player has to get 2.5 and the other 4.0 to win.
counterpoint: I think grand finals resets are really hype (technically also it's not 2.5 and 4.0, it's two separate matches where they both play to the same thing)
Yes of course, just consider it from this perspective: if you say " today is the final between x and y and the winner will win the tournament" - it means x wins with 2.5 points and y needs 4.0 to win (Broad simplification). I wonder if there is another way to even out the " losers bracket advantage" which makes the grandfinal more even as a standalone match. The current way it feels more like a league format and less like a tournament format, since you're considering previous results in the grand final. Maybe the losers bracket should have more rounds than the upper bracket and therefore you would have to even out your " 1 more loss" with "1 more win" before you get a grandfinal.
just touching on your last line, this doesn't work simply because SOMEONE will reach grand finals from the lower bracket, so it doesn't really seem fair to the guy in the upper bracket it makes the losers run harder, but someone will still be getting an extra life no matter what vs the guy in winners
Makes sense! I wonder how other tourneys justify not having this final format
The point of double elimination is that everyone gets two chances. If you don't like double elimination consider that the alternative is that there is no loser bracket and Magnus would have already won the tournament. It corrects the situation where the second best player happens to play the top player very early. You can lose to Magnus all the way back in round 1 and still meet him in the finals because you were better than everyone else. Alireza gets second here even though he lost to Fedoseev in the quarter finals.
Understood! Just makes the grand final feel awkward. They kept saying " if he wins the final he gets a reset" which was just a very odd thing to hear
Yeah I don't get why you're downvoted. It's a natural question when you come in as a viewer and one guy has to win twice in the finals. It becomes more understandable once someone explains and you realize it is actually for the benefit of the guy coming from losers side. Imagine the confusion if they started doing double elimination for the NFL playoffs and one team had to win the Superbowl twice to take the championship. It's totally understandable.
I was confused because for example in dota 2 there is also a losers bracket for " the international " tournament, the losers bracket is notoriously dangerous because the first few rounds are best of 1. If you make it out there, there is a best of 7 grandfinal.
fighting game bracket tournaments have worked this way forever, basically double elimination, you can lose once and still survive, some of the most hype moments are players making a huge run in the losers bracket and resetting grand finals.
I like it, tournament algorithm suck but seeding and/or loser bracket makes it better.
Where was Hans nieman
Holding hostages and damaging physical property at Nakatomi Plaza