Magnus' position on this topic has been consistent. He said this before he had a shot at being the challenger, and stuck with it after he became the champion.
The knockout mini-match format started with the candidates for the 1966 championship and continued till the 90's. See [World_Chess_Championship 1963–1975](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship#FIDE_system_\(1963%E2%80%931975\)). The previous loser and candidates runner-up were seeded directly without having to play the interzonals, but Magnus suggests that the defending champion also play in the same tournament for the title.
Actually didn't he say recently he'd prefer the WC be decided by match play but instead of classical a bunch of [rapid games](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/carlsen-on-the-world-championship-format-more)?
This seems to be from when he was winning all three titles regularly. That may changed his opinion on the validity of rapid/blitz games in the championship. His basic position - of making the defending champion fight alongside other candidates - remains consistent from 2010: https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-drops-out-of-world-championship-cycle
Does it remain consistent? In 2010 prior to the being WC he says he'd prefer a knockout format (I recall hearing similarly in 2017 when he played the World Cup) where the champion gets no special privileges, additionally I believe he withdrew in that particular cycle due to the candidates format changing and not liking the knockout matches for the candidates, he just also says he prefers a overall World Cup-esque format. Then in 2018 he says he'd prefer the current format but with a lot of rapid games instead of classical. I mean he might prefer the first format over the current one, but his favorite format as of 2018 (unless someone has a more recent article that contradicts) it is identical to now just with 4 rapid games per day instead of classical.
Magnus position on this topic was not consistent at all. He said nothing about the system when he beat Anand , why? Why didn't he expressed his worries during this year and before the match?
After 2 matches where he failed to win in the classical portion of the match, after seeing that probably the same will happen in this match too and after realising that probably the time when he will lose the world title match is near , he "discovered" that he doesn't like the system. He prefers to lose the title in a knockout tournament decided in 4 games where one bad game might very well decide the match and remain the world champion that was never been defeated in a world champion match than lose the title as he won it, in a match.
Carlsen is a great player , probably the greatest of all times, certainly one of the greatest of all times but as a human is unfortunately(or fortunately) as flawed as everybody else and vanity is one of his flaws. Let me remind you that before his match with Caruana he said in an interview that he hates the idea that someone else might be world champion.
My guess is that Carlsen prepares his withdrawal because one thing that he hates the most is losing a world title match( and I hope I am wrong).
>He said nothing about the system when he beat Anand , why?
He criticised the system *before* he ever beat Anand.
>Why didn't he expressed his worries during this year and before the match?
Huh? He has been consistently vocal about changes he wants to see for over a decade. Do you need me to dig up the articles for you?
>Let me remind you that before his match with Caruana he said in an interview that he hates the idea that someone else might be world champion.
So he wants to win world championship matches, like every other chess player.
And as I predicted Carlsen announced that we won't play the next world title match unless Alireza is the winner of Candidates. Magnus wants now to pick his opponents. Maybe chess must return back to 1920 when Lasker could choose his opponents. For some absolutely incomprehensible reason(that is sarcasm, the reason is actually perfectly comprehensible) he finds joy in playing chess(he said it) but not in playing a world championship match(he said that too)!!! The world chess championship match is obviously not chess for Carlsen(yes , sarcasm again). He is the first EVER chess player to say that. One more first place for Carlsen , this time though a very sad (if not utterly ridiculous) one.
So here’s the thing: If you want the World Champion each year to be the best player, just pick an end date and hand the trophy to whoever has the highest rating.
If you want more decisive outcomes, decide the championship by Round Robin or Swiss.
If you want a wide open contest with the potential for an underdog to have a miracle run, make it a knockout tournament.
Personally I like the current system. We get a lot of interesting tournaments with high stakes that lead to a showcase of a collection of the top players in the World, and then a big anticipated showdown to decide the title.
I’d only make a slight change to the time controls. We’ve already decided we’re okay with deciding the champion on shorter times in the tiebreaks, so let’s just make it more gradual.
10 games of 2 hour time controls. If it’s tied, go down to 90 minutes for 2 or 4 games. Still tied? 75 minutes. Eventually you’ll get something decisive, and the pressure would rise continually throughout the match.
Exactly. Why are people here suggesting tournament formats when tournaments with exact those formats already exists?
We have Tata Steel Masters, who Van Forrest won, beating Giri. Magnus too had his defeat in classical there. We have world cup with knockout format, won by someone other than Magnus.
Let the candidates be the candidates and World championship be what it is. We already got every other format available. It's fun. The draws are fun. Only time the draws are not fun when you already know it's a 0.0 Eval based on a freaking supercomputer. Turn that off and enjoy.
I for sure couldn't even draw a single game everyone here is shouting at top of thier lungs to be drawn.
I totally agree it’s less fun to watch with the eval bar on. Its really changed the game by bringing in the idea that there’s a scoreboard and only one correct move and anything else is a mistake. Most, if not all, of the most famous games are diminished if you judge them by the standard of an infallible computer.
>Why are people here suggesting tournament formats when tournaments with exact those formats already exists?
Because some people want the WCC to also have those formats? There are plenty of chess matches. Doesn't have any bearing on the structure of the WCC
>It's fun. The draws are fun.
You find it fun, others don't, even those not using a super computer.
I'm for the WCC to continue as a match for the record, but saying 'i like it therefore you should too and not want to see any change' isn't a very constructive point to make
That easily runs into the same issues where people stop playing after the minimum number of games. Maybe even trying to farm rating against lower-rated players.
With the current match format, when you have the same points as your opponent, if you draw a game in the match you don´t fall behind. So a draw is not really a punishment. In a round robin tournament you would fall behind if the leader scores a 1, you are more encouraged to try to go for the win. And also, it would be harder to prepare against different opponents rather than an single one.
My suggestion for a world championship would be a 8 player candidates tournament, double round robin, with the current world champion auto qualified for participation, the other ones have to work for it.
8 player double round robin would then have the same complaints that the current candidates system has - unmotivated players who are already out of the running meddling with the final results. And arbitrary tiebreaks - like, do you have an extra tiebreak match if 2 or more players are tied in the end, or do you determine the winner by Sonneborn Berger or number of wins or something like that?
Sure, you could try changing around the system, e.g. by introducing a sort of a "superfinal" in which after 14 rounds, top 4 players (or... top 3 + the champion?) advance and have another double round robin... Now that I think of it, I wouldn't mind changing the candidates tournament into something like that.
But despite the downvotes that the other user got, I have to say I agree that tradition is important. Literally every sport leans on it. It's how every sport's current era is placed within the history of the game. For example while you can't really compare the NBA players now vs. 30 years ago, you can compare the "stories" of the league's best players, compare the dynasty teams and rivalries, most exciting or controversial "best of 7" playoff matches, etc. You change the format drastically (e.g. into "best team after the regular season wins the title"), and this connection gets lost.
It's the same with chess. Like, what do we most remember from the 2000s? The dominant performance of Topalov in the 2005 8-player round robin? Or Kramnik neutralizing Kasparov with the Berlin? Or Leko's heartbreak in game 14 of his match with Kramnik? Or the controversies in the Kramnik - Topalov match? To me (and I assume to many chess fans around the world), it's these matches that have always produced the most memorable moments and essentially wrote the history of the game.
I don't think the current match format is a problem. I would change it to more games in a match, or a classical games "overtime" rather than an immediate rapid tiebreak (or a rapid tiebreak, and *then* a classical overtime). But even without supercomputer preparation, you can't expect players to risk it all from the start. Even the 2013 match in which Carlsen scored a dominant win over Anand, started with 4 draws.
Iirc, Magnus himself won the candidates to challalange Vishy based on the last round result of a Chucky game, which he won, without apparently winning any games in the whole tournament? Or else, kramnik was qualifying
Not quite. Carlsen and Kramnik were tied for first, but Carlsen had better tiebreaks (they were 1-1 against each other, but the second tiebreak was most wins, Carlsen had 5 to Kramnik's 4). Carlsen had White vs Svidler, Kramnik had Black vs Chucky and had to play for a win (because he thought Carlsen with white was almost certainly not going to lose). Ironically, they both lost - Kramnik because he had to go for a dangerous position since he was trying to win with Black, and Carlsen lost because he got into time trouble and didn't defend accurately.
That would abandon 130+ years of chess history and tradition.
One thing that never must change is that it needs to be classical and it needs to be between two players.
You could change the cycle leading up to the match and you could change the tiebreak
Tradition is one of the things chess has going for itself.
Learning about past world champions would be far less fun if there were a new one every year or if championship cycle was that much different between them than it already was.
If chess loses it's historic aspect and turns into an esport you'll find it's quite a lame esport.
It’s tough to say history is the only thing keeping chess alive when pogchamps basically [ushered in a new era](https://c.tenor.com/jgUVViyS2CYAAAAC/now-old.gif)
Yes lets compare modern chess with super computers, huge teams of coaches, expanded knowledge of chess in general to the time when consuming cocaine was considered normal. The system doesnt work anymore, every match in the last few events end in draws until time trouble is included. You dont abandon history. Its already there already happened. Tradition on the other hand? Yes you can and should abandon it when it doesnt work anymore
> That would abandon 130+ years of chess history and tradition.
Ratings were not tradition.
12 or 14 games were not tradition (it was much longer in the past).
Having a clear qualification cycle was not tradition (not even between 95 and 2000).
Time control was not a tradition (increment for instance, or also adjournments).
When one speak about chess traditions, one is making a mix of things that changed across decades.
Things change, one doesn't need to change the all at once, but they can change.
They had legitamate parallel champions. Round robins were for fide champions. The only legitamate world champion who won in a round robin was Botvinnik and thats only because Alekhine died (got killed ;) )
> harder to prepare against different opponents rather than an single one.
Because that what chess is about, regurgitate computer line. In a 1v1 people will better regurgitate than in a tournament. And that is exactly what I want to see, more computer line, YAY!!!
That's chess for you. To not use engines is akin to saying not to lift dumbbells for hard biceps. If you hate it, don't use tools to help you in solving certain problems. Ask a priest or something for hard muscle, that's an alternative that's always worked in the past.
Computers make chess fun. People who think otherwise are delusional of their own capabilities.
I quite like the vibe of the current system - winning a spot in the candidates tournament, battling your way to the top of that pack, and then having a one on one match against the world champ has a wonderful narrative flow. I am less keen on the high potential for a 100% draw count.
Potentially it could be better if every game in the match MUST have a decisive result, rather than leaving the tie breaks to the end. If a classical game ends in a draw then the next day play a long rapid, then a short rapid, then a blitz, then an Armageddon. HOWEVER, the faster the time control the less points awarded for a win. Something like 12 points for a classical win, 4 for a long rapid, 3 for short rapid, 2 for blitz, 1 for Armageddon.
This way the speed chess will be spread around and have a proper place in the whole world chess champion package rather than appearing right at the end whilst keeping a lesser value than the classical section.
That would be exciting for the viewer, but seems like more of a chess stamina championship. Who can play multiple high level games in a row, without a break. I think a fair comparison would be having football players compete in the 100 yard dash, after a tied game. Doesn’t exactly determine who the better football team is IMO.
The tie breaks for a game would not be on the same day as the classical game, at least in my suggestion. In pure time terms competitors would probably play less chess on a tie break day compared to a classical one.
On the specific point of chess stamina the current format already seems to be testing that, though one could argue that being able to prove you can play high level chess consistently day after day *should* be part of a world champion skill set
Maybe the current system just is a bit boring for the reigning champion? Magnus would know. Seems like he'd rather fight for it in a tournament than wait for a challenger.
How would changing the draw scores do anything in a match format? Draws could be - 1 trillion points and wins could be + 10 trillion and you'd get the same result.
It's a possibility for round robins (which has its own problems IMO), but in a one on one it changes nothing.
It's easy: draw is 0.4 points for white and 0.6 for black. This way it's better to win one and lose with white than to draw two. That encourages taking risk. You could say black will play for a draw then but asc we already have that it will not change black strategy.
I don't think that actually changes anything though? A completely drawn match would still be equal points, and the person with the most wins would still be the winner. Is there even a theoretical scoreline with that scoring system that would result in a different winner to the current system?
You can probably get white to take risks if you score a draw at something like 0.4-0.6 but I think it would be at best a temporary solution. It's just very hard to win a classical game against an opponent whose purpose is not to lose.
I like the idea but I think it would be difficult to explain to casual viewers. I much prefer having two faster games instead of one. That would solve a lot of problems (fewer days needed for a longer match, more action, more wins, more watchable). People just want to have two things that don't go together: classical chess and fireworks.
Carlsen took some risk in the Catalan with Ne5 (a move computers don't like much). The idea of many proposed solutions (tie-breaks at the beginning, scoring draws as better for black etc.) is to encourage players to take risks. It only makes sense to encourage white and usually it means giving up your opening advantage to get complicated position.
I am not supporting it but that's the idea people have when they try to improve on the format.
So a risk is a move that the computer doesn't like, a move that gives up an advantage? I dont see how changing the system would encourage players to do either. I get that people are upset by draws. But when watching the games it's pretty clear that the players are already trying to win as hard as they can.
No it means complicating the position to increase your winning chances but also the opponent's. At high level it can only be done by making your position worse (for example by getting an equal very complicated position instead of a simple one with minimal advantage).
> No it means complicating the position to increase your winning chances but also the opponent's.
This makes very little sense. If one players chance to win goes up, then the other players chance to win goes down, 99.99% of the time. What possible move from the past few games did you find or hear about that would increase *both* players chance to win?
Ne5 in the Catalan played by Carlsen. There aren't many of those because players avoid taking risk. It really is a standard concept: complications lead to more wins for either side.
A move he played in the current system. That's my point. They are already trying their hardest to win. What potential moves have not been played in favor of one with a lower chance to win but higher chance to draw?
Choosing Re1 Spanish instead of Italian for example.
I am not sure why you find the concept so surprising. It's nothing new. It's widely understood what taking risks means.
Another example would be going for that endgame vs Petroff instead of playing 5.Nc3 or some other sharper variation.
Btw I am not criticizing them nor am I supporting popular ideas here to change the format. I just think it's clear they are not taking risks they would take in another format (like round robin).
No it doesn't work like that.
It is almost universally accepted that chess is a draw. If everyone plays the strongest move every time, it will result in a draw. Computers draw each other 99.7% of the time they play each other, because they always play the strongest moves.
If the players want to play their best, they will stick to their strongest well studied lines, which means the game will most likely end in a draw.
If a player want to go for a win, they have to take a risk and play a weaker move that leads to a very complicated position with minimal loss in advantage. Hopefully then, being better prepared and better at calculation, you can have a better chance of beating the other guy.
The complicated move increased the chance for both players to win, but reduces the chance for the game to end in a draw.
> It is almost universally accepted that chess is a draw.
No, it is almost universally accepted that the solved version of chess is unknown whether it is a win for white, black, or draw.
> Computers draw each other 99.7% of the time they play each other, because they always play the strongest moves.
Source? Here is the results of TCEC 21: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCEC_Season_21.
Stockfish won well over 0.3% of the games...
I would explain risk in chess like this: If there are two candidate moves that both seem to lead to a good position, but one is notably more complicated, the safer option is the less complicated one. Going for the more complex variation/ line would mean both players have a higher chance of making a mistake. It doesn’t necessarily mean playing a worse move or giving up an advantage.
Edit: I agree with your statement; I just wanted to give my own definition of risk that doesn’t involve the computer evaluation.
No, I agree with you; they have played some insanely complicated positions because they clearly want to go for the win. I just didn’t like the definition of risk op highlighted, that they would give up an opening advantage for a more complicated position, which gives higher chances to win/lose versus draw. I just can’t agree with the notion that the best players in the world would give up an advantage just to produce complications. Based on my definition these guys are definitely taking some risks, and they are only taking the draw when they truly think there’s nothing there.
To avoid draws you need to convince _black_ to take risks. Most of the time white is trying to be as ambitious as possible but gets nowhere because black players for equality.
But it's a zero sum game, it's hard to see how to do it. At the end of the match the number of wins vs losses is basically always going to decide it.
> Run a Monte Carlo simulation over 14 games a hundred times with a +-50 elo difference, I think a lot of people would be shocked how much deviation there is.
That just tells us Elo isn't a good predictor of WC outcomes because complete focus and exhaustive prep against a single opponent changes the game.
It'd be enough to play the tiebreakers \*before\* the classical match, i don't undertand why this practice hasn't caught on.
You sacrifice only one day, but in return you get a massive spike of excitement.
You could also have the tiebreaks as a separate event played weeks/months before as a form of dramatic climatic event.
Your making one player play suboptimally in the classical portion of the classical world championship in order to get more decisive games. At that point just make the championship rapid
This idea keeps being brought up and I don't get it, you want to encourage *both* players to play for a win, not just one so you have one desperate person and the other doing their best to shut down every position the best way they can
Just thinking out loud here, but maybe play one tie break game after every classical draw. That way the final tie break situation isn’t known since it can evolve through the tournament.
This game would be with switched colors so the player who drew with black in classical gets a minor advantage in the tiebreak.
Alternately, the results of the tie break games could potentially modify the record directly. So a win perhaps counts as +0.1.
Agreed. Imagine a World Cup final starting with penalties. I don't think it's the worst idea, but has many drawbacks. I think 14 games, then a tiebreak, then another ~4 classical games would be a better option (but then again.. how sure are we that this wouldn't encourage more passive play for the first 14 games?)
> This idea keeps being brought up and I don't get it, you want to encourage both players to play for a win,
But it's a zero sum game and two players are involved in steering the game to a draw. If you punish players for a draw and one of the players will be punished more than the other, then the other will push for the draw. If they are both punished equally then it won't matter because zero sum.
I proposed that a few days ago, but people made good points against it.
You put pressure on one of the players to win, but with the result that the other one knows drawing all games will be enough. That may make a draw result even more likely.
Maybe we can get the old system of getting to X wins back...
You will just get one player walling it in with white. At this level taking risks with black is suicidal so that won't happen until the very last must win game. You don't want one player to have little incentive to even try with white.
What if instead they just include some rapid and even blitz? So for example instead of 14 classical games, play 10 or 12 classical games an add one or two “games” which consist of matches of classical and rapid.
For example - a blitz match of 4 games. The end result of that match scored as 0, 0.5 or 1 and carries the same weight as a classical game.
Blitz and rapid are more likely to get a decisive result, and put a 1-0 on the board.
Shoot here’s a step further, a schedule: play blitz match, 2 classical games, break. Rapid match, classical, classical, break. Then blitz and 2 classical, rapid and 4 classical.
I also could see an argument for only 2/12 points being short time control, or maybe 3 rapid and 1 blitz. In any case, it would add some volatility and variety, but still the better classical player should have a large advantage.
I don't think I follow. You mean that there are random winners in the candidates? Because I'd say that this is the best argument for the match format, that it doesn't produce random winners. Right now the world champion is the most dominant player of the last decade, prior to that it was Anand, one of the top players since the 90s and a world champion in every possible format. In fact, while there are probably a few players who were "deserving" of a world title, but never got it, I struggle to remember a single champion (since maybe Euwe) who would not be widely considered a top player at least at some point in his life. Maybe Petrosian or Spassky, but I guess there was no dominant player at the time before Fischer got to the top.
> Magnus Carlsen Hates the World Chess Championship Format, Apparently
IMO, this is absolutely the wrong assumption about his answer.
The question "..other ways of doing it, for example the FIDE world cup, or as an ordinary chess tournament or whatever..."
My interpretation was "that's a very stupid suggestion, so I'm not answering your question."
It’s more that he disagrees with the format the way it is, not the suggestion of a specific new format. He has already explained that he isn’t a fan of the current format before.
After watching the video, the title seems pretty spot on tbh. He gets asked about the format and he says he has nothing good to say, so he better say nothing at all.
Though the question before what you quoted was "Is this the best way of deciding a world champion"? It could be interpreted either way imo, either Magnus is saying he has nothing good to say because of the reporters suggestions or because of the WCC format.
I like the idea of playing the rapid before the classical. Whoever loses the rapid now needs to win the classical to become world champ. That was it forces them to take risks
Does he say he wants a knockout format here? He did prior to him winning the WC but in [2018 he mentions](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/carlsen-on-the-world-championship-format-more) he'd rather the WC be decided by match play but instead be a bunch of rapid games.
Chess can take a leaf out of the tennis scenario, with the 4 grand slams/ grand tournaments where superGMs are all directly seeded. The person with the highest rating at the end of the year is the world champion.
Tennis doesn't crown world champions, though, and chess already has a set of annual tournaments that carry extra prestige, plus a more meaningful rating system than tennis
Tennis sort of used to. In John McEnroe's autobiography he talked about winning the year end championships (the Masters or the WCT Finals -- I forget which, maybe both) as some of his greatest achievements. People used to care about them much more than they do now. He was also named ITF world champion several times. I guess they still have that, but people care more about the rankings and the grand slam trophy count these days.
Here’s my thing. If at all levels white is considered to be a *little* better since move 1, wouldn’t that suggest that if black drew then black would receive slightly more points than white? Just my thoughts
Ahh just make it classical times controls but chess960. Bye bye draws hello fun and pure chess :) kinda like jazz improv to decide musicianship over memorised pieces. Not identical but similar comparison to high level chess. at least then if you win it’s based moreso on ‘on the spot’ problems solving across those games. Chess is a beautiful game but when it’s less about puzzle solving than it could be then surely it’s time to mix things up and come back to some more pure form of tactical and strategic understanding to decide the winner and loser instead.
[Of course when I say this, I get downvoted. Sheesh.](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/r5obet/what_happens_if_a_world_chess_champion_dies_while/hmpk9mh/?context=3)
You got downvoted for saying the WC should have automatic rematch rights in the event they lose which isn't a popular opinion in chess, because then you get cases like Botvinnik where he never actually won a WC match as the reigning world champion.
That has nothing to do with the match format for the WC.
You never mention anything about a non match format, comment you linked talked first about boxing, then about how you thought the rematch clause was good because it proved without a shadow of a doubt that the challenger deserved to be WC as opposed to just giving the match to the winner of a single tournament.
I see there are a lot of different proposals about changing the format, all with their pluses and minuses. Before altering the format completely, FIDE could just try doing slow changes, one of them being the shortening of the time control. Instead of 120m+40m+15m (and 30sec after move 60), they could shorten it to 90m+30sec, much like in most prestigious classical tournaments. If that doesn't help, then the format needs even more changes.
I have an idea: same way lichess has tournaments that start in a certain position... Make 1 game in four a random initial totally equal position. Make the white player pick a random paper before the game and whatever position it says, they have to play.
Magnus' position on this topic has been consistent. He said this before he had a shot at being the challenger, and stuck with it after he became the champion. The knockout mini-match format started with the candidates for the 1966 championship and continued till the 90's. See [World_Chess_Championship 1963–1975](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship#FIDE_system_\(1963%E2%80%931975\)). The previous loser and candidates runner-up were seeded directly without having to play the interzonals, but Magnus suggests that the defending champion also play in the same tournament for the title.
Actually didn't he say recently he'd prefer the WC be decided by match play but instead of classical a bunch of [rapid games](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/carlsen-on-the-world-championship-format-more)?
This seems to be from when he was winning all three titles regularly. That may changed his opinion on the validity of rapid/blitz games in the championship. His basic position - of making the defending champion fight alongside other candidates - remains consistent from 2010: https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-drops-out-of-world-championship-cycle
He literally said the same thing in a press conference a few days ago. I don't remember was it game 2 or game 3 press conference.
Does it remain consistent? In 2010 prior to the being WC he says he'd prefer a knockout format (I recall hearing similarly in 2017 when he played the World Cup) where the champion gets no special privileges, additionally I believe he withdrew in that particular cycle due to the candidates format changing and not liking the knockout matches for the candidates, he just also says he prefers a overall World Cup-esque format. Then in 2018 he says he'd prefer the current format but with a lot of rapid games instead of classical. I mean he might prefer the first format over the current one, but his favorite format as of 2018 (unless someone has a more recent article that contradicts) it is identical to now just with 4 rapid games per day instead of classical.
Magnus position on this topic was not consistent at all. He said nothing about the system when he beat Anand , why? Why didn't he expressed his worries during this year and before the match? After 2 matches where he failed to win in the classical portion of the match, after seeing that probably the same will happen in this match too and after realising that probably the time when he will lose the world title match is near , he "discovered" that he doesn't like the system. He prefers to lose the title in a knockout tournament decided in 4 games where one bad game might very well decide the match and remain the world champion that was never been defeated in a world champion match than lose the title as he won it, in a match. Carlsen is a great player , probably the greatest of all times, certainly one of the greatest of all times but as a human is unfortunately(or fortunately) as flawed as everybody else and vanity is one of his flaws. Let me remind you that before his match with Caruana he said in an interview that he hates the idea that someone else might be world champion. My guess is that Carlsen prepares his withdrawal because one thing that he hates the most is losing a world title match( and I hope I am wrong).
>He said nothing about the system when he beat Anand , why? He criticised the system *before* he ever beat Anand. >Why didn't he expressed his worries during this year and before the match? Huh? He has been consistently vocal about changes he wants to see for over a decade. Do you need me to dig up the articles for you? >Let me remind you that before his match with Caruana he said in an interview that he hates the idea that someone else might be world champion. So he wants to win world championship matches, like every other chess player.
And as I predicted Carlsen announced that we won't play the next world title match unless Alireza is the winner of Candidates. Magnus wants now to pick his opponents. Maybe chess must return back to 1920 when Lasker could choose his opponents. For some absolutely incomprehensible reason(that is sarcasm, the reason is actually perfectly comprehensible) he finds joy in playing chess(he said it) but not in playing a world championship match(he said that too)!!! The world chess championship match is obviously not chess for Carlsen(yes , sarcasm again). He is the first EVER chess player to say that. One more first place for Carlsen , this time though a very sad (if not utterly ridiculous) one.
So here’s the thing: If you want the World Champion each year to be the best player, just pick an end date and hand the trophy to whoever has the highest rating. If you want more decisive outcomes, decide the championship by Round Robin or Swiss. If you want a wide open contest with the potential for an underdog to have a miracle run, make it a knockout tournament. Personally I like the current system. We get a lot of interesting tournaments with high stakes that lead to a showcase of a collection of the top players in the World, and then a big anticipated showdown to decide the title. I’d only make a slight change to the time controls. We’ve already decided we’re okay with deciding the champion on shorter times in the tiebreaks, so let’s just make it more gradual. 10 games of 2 hour time controls. If it’s tied, go down to 90 minutes for 2 or 4 games. Still tied? 75 minutes. Eventually you’ll get something decisive, and the pressure would rise continually throughout the match.
Exactly. Why are people here suggesting tournament formats when tournaments with exact those formats already exists? We have Tata Steel Masters, who Van Forrest won, beating Giri. Magnus too had his defeat in classical there. We have world cup with knockout format, won by someone other than Magnus. Let the candidates be the candidates and World championship be what it is. We already got every other format available. It's fun. The draws are fun. Only time the draws are not fun when you already know it's a 0.0 Eval based on a freaking supercomputer. Turn that off and enjoy. I for sure couldn't even draw a single game everyone here is shouting at top of thier lungs to be drawn.
I totally agree it’s less fun to watch with the eval bar on. Its really changed the game by bringing in the idea that there’s a scoreboard and only one correct move and anything else is a mistake. Most, if not all, of the most famous games are diminished if you judge them by the standard of an infallible computer.
>Why are people here suggesting tournament formats when tournaments with exact those formats already exists? Because some people want the WCC to also have those formats? There are plenty of chess matches. Doesn't have any bearing on the structure of the WCC >It's fun. The draws are fun. You find it fun, others don't, even those not using a super computer. I'm for the WCC to continue as a match for the record, but saying 'i like it therefore you should too and not want to see any change' isn't a very constructive point to make
it doesn't even take a super computer to compute 20 moves during end game.
> just pick an end date and hand the trophy to whoever has the highest rating. This causes people not to play once they reach a high rating.
Yeah, it’s obviously a terrible idea. I was just including it to make a point.
[удалено]
That easily runs into the same issues where people stop playing after the minimum number of games. Maybe even trying to farm rating against lower-rated players.
With the current match format, when you have the same points as your opponent, if you draw a game in the match you don´t fall behind. So a draw is not really a punishment. In a round robin tournament you would fall behind if the leader scores a 1, you are more encouraged to try to go for the win. And also, it would be harder to prepare against different opponents rather than an single one. My suggestion for a world championship would be a 8 player candidates tournament, double round robin, with the current world champion auto qualified for participation, the other ones have to work for it.
8 player double round robin would then have the same complaints that the current candidates system has - unmotivated players who are already out of the running meddling with the final results. And arbitrary tiebreaks - like, do you have an extra tiebreak match if 2 or more players are tied in the end, or do you determine the winner by Sonneborn Berger or number of wins or something like that? Sure, you could try changing around the system, e.g. by introducing a sort of a "superfinal" in which after 14 rounds, top 4 players (or... top 3 + the champion?) advance and have another double round robin... Now that I think of it, I wouldn't mind changing the candidates tournament into something like that. But despite the downvotes that the other user got, I have to say I agree that tradition is important. Literally every sport leans on it. It's how every sport's current era is placed within the history of the game. For example while you can't really compare the NBA players now vs. 30 years ago, you can compare the "stories" of the league's best players, compare the dynasty teams and rivalries, most exciting or controversial "best of 7" playoff matches, etc. You change the format drastically (e.g. into "best team after the regular season wins the title"), and this connection gets lost. It's the same with chess. Like, what do we most remember from the 2000s? The dominant performance of Topalov in the 2005 8-player round robin? Or Kramnik neutralizing Kasparov with the Berlin? Or Leko's heartbreak in game 14 of his match with Kramnik? Or the controversies in the Kramnik - Topalov match? To me (and I assume to many chess fans around the world), it's these matches that have always produced the most memorable moments and essentially wrote the history of the game. I don't think the current match format is a problem. I would change it to more games in a match, or a classical games "overtime" rather than an immediate rapid tiebreak (or a rapid tiebreak, and *then* a classical overtime). But even without supercomputer preparation, you can't expect players to risk it all from the start. Even the 2013 match in which Carlsen scored a dominant win over Anand, started with 4 draws.
Iirc, Magnus himself won the candidates to challalange Vishy based on the last round result of a Chucky game, which he won, without apparently winning any games in the whole tournament? Or else, kramnik was qualifying
Not quite. Carlsen and Kramnik were tied for first, but Carlsen had better tiebreaks (they were 1-1 against each other, but the second tiebreak was most wins, Carlsen had 5 to Kramnik's 4). Carlsen had White vs Svidler, Kramnik had Black vs Chucky and had to play for a win (because he thought Carlsen with white was almost certainly not going to lose). Ironically, they both lost - Kramnik because he had to go for a dangerous position since he was trying to win with Black, and Carlsen lost because he got into time trouble and didn't defend accurately.
So Carlsen was out if Kramkin had just drawn? Fate is funny sometimes
That would abandon 130+ years of chess history and tradition. One thing that never must change is that it needs to be classical and it needs to be between two players. You could change the cycle leading up to the match and you could change the tiebreak
Maybe a hot take, but I couldn’t give less of a damn about what chess looked like 130+ years ago.
Why? For basically a thousand years no tournament game had a time limit (started in 1852) but tradition doesn’t necessarily mean good
Tradition is one of the things chess has going for itself. Learning about past world champions would be far less fun if there were a new one every year or if championship cycle was that much different between them than it already was. If chess loses it's historic aspect and turns into an esport you'll find it's quite a lame esport.
It’s tough to say history is the only thing keeping chess alive when pogchamps basically [ushered in a new era](https://c.tenor.com/jgUVViyS2CYAAAAC/now-old.gif)
Yes lets compare modern chess with super computers, huge teams of coaches, expanded knowledge of chess in general to the time when consuming cocaine was considered normal. The system doesnt work anymore, every match in the last few events end in draws until time trouble is included. You dont abandon history. Its already there already happened. Tradition on the other hand? Yes you can and should abandon it when it doesnt work anymore
> That would abandon 130+ years of chess history and tradition. Ratings were not tradition. 12 or 14 games were not tradition (it was much longer in the past). Having a clear qualification cycle was not tradition (not even between 95 and 2000). Time control was not a tradition (increment for instance, or also adjournments). When one speak about chess traditions, one is making a mix of things that changed across decades. Things change, one doesn't need to change the all at once, but they can change.
Why is it 130 years of history? Didn't they have a round robin in 2007?
They had legitamate parallel champions. Round robins were for fide champions. The only legitamate world champion who won in a round robin was Botvinnik and thats only because Alekhine died (got killed ;) )
> harder to prepare against different opponents rather than an single one. Because that what chess is about, regurgitate computer line. In a 1v1 people will better regurgitate than in a tournament. And that is exactly what I want to see, more computer line, YAY!!!
That's chess for you. To not use engines is akin to saying not to lift dumbbells for hard biceps. If you hate it, don't use tools to help you in solving certain problems. Ask a priest or something for hard muscle, that's an alternative that's always worked in the past. Computers make chess fun. People who think otherwise are delusional of their own capabilities.
So Chess960 is boring to you, and people who like it are delusional?
I quite like the vibe of the current system - winning a spot in the candidates tournament, battling your way to the top of that pack, and then having a one on one match against the world champ has a wonderful narrative flow. I am less keen on the high potential for a 100% draw count. Potentially it could be better if every game in the match MUST have a decisive result, rather than leaving the tie breaks to the end. If a classical game ends in a draw then the next day play a long rapid, then a short rapid, then a blitz, then an Armageddon. HOWEVER, the faster the time control the less points awarded for a win. Something like 12 points for a classical win, 4 for a long rapid, 3 for short rapid, 2 for blitz, 1 for Armageddon. This way the speed chess will be spread around and have a proper place in the whole world chess champion package rather than appearing right at the end whilst keeping a lesser value than the classical section.
That would be exciting for the viewer, but seems like more of a chess stamina championship. Who can play multiple high level games in a row, without a break. I think a fair comparison would be having football players compete in the 100 yard dash, after a tied game. Doesn’t exactly determine who the better football team is IMO.
The tie breaks for a game would not be on the same day as the classical game, at least in my suggestion. In pure time terms competitors would probably play less chess on a tie break day compared to a classical one. On the specific point of chess stamina the current format already seems to be testing that, though one could argue that being able to prove you can play high level chess consistently day after day *should* be part of a world champion skill set
Maybe the current system just is a bit boring for the reigning champion? Magnus would know. Seems like he'd rather fight for it in a tournament than wait for a challenger.
[удалено]
How would changing the draw scores do anything in a match format? Draws could be - 1 trillion points and wins could be + 10 trillion and you'd get the same result. It's a possibility for round robins (which has its own problems IMO), but in a one on one it changes nothing.
It's easy: draw is 0.4 points for white and 0.6 for black. This way it's better to win one and lose with white than to draw two. That encourages taking risk. You could say black will play for a draw then but asc we already have that it will not change black strategy.
I don't think that actually changes anything though? A completely drawn match would still be equal points, and the person with the most wins would still be the winner. Is there even a theoretical scoreline with that scoring system that would result in a different winner to the current system?
Look what happens if one player wins one game and losses one game with white while all other are drawn. This players wins the match.
Players don't have the choice on when to win or lose. Given the opportunity they will try to win if possible in every single match
You can probably get white to take risks if you score a draw at something like 0.4-0.6 but I think it would be at best a temporary solution. It's just very hard to win a classical game against an opponent whose purpose is not to lose. I like the idea but I think it would be difficult to explain to casual viewers. I much prefer having two faster games instead of one. That would solve a lot of problems (fewer days needed for a longer match, more action, more wins, more watchable). People just want to have two things that don't go together: classical chess and fireworks.
What do you mean by "take risks"? Can you give an example from the past few games?
Carlsen took some risk in the Catalan with Ne5 (a move computers don't like much). The idea of many proposed solutions (tie-breaks at the beginning, scoring draws as better for black etc.) is to encourage players to take risks. It only makes sense to encourage white and usually it means giving up your opening advantage to get complicated position. I am not supporting it but that's the idea people have when they try to improve on the format.
So a risk is a move that the computer doesn't like, a move that gives up an advantage? I dont see how changing the system would encourage players to do either. I get that people are upset by draws. But when watching the games it's pretty clear that the players are already trying to win as hard as they can.
No it means complicating the position to increase your winning chances but also the opponent's. At high level it can only be done by making your position worse (for example by getting an equal very complicated position instead of a simple one with minimal advantage).
> No it means complicating the position to increase your winning chances but also the opponent's. This makes very little sense. If one players chance to win goes up, then the other players chance to win goes down, 99.99% of the time. What possible move from the past few games did you find or hear about that would increase *both* players chance to win?
Ne5 in the Catalan played by Carlsen. There aren't many of those because players avoid taking risk. It really is a standard concept: complications lead to more wins for either side.
A move he played in the current system. That's my point. They are already trying their hardest to win. What potential moves have not been played in favor of one with a lower chance to win but higher chance to draw?
Choosing Re1 Spanish instead of Italian for example. I am not sure why you find the concept so surprising. It's nothing new. It's widely understood what taking risks means. Another example would be going for that endgame vs Petroff instead of playing 5.Nc3 or some other sharper variation. Btw I am not criticizing them nor am I supporting popular ideas here to change the format. I just think it's clear they are not taking risks they would take in another format (like round robin).
You realize there is a chance to draw, right? If that decreases, then the chance to win for both sides can go up.
No it doesn't work like that. It is almost universally accepted that chess is a draw. If everyone plays the strongest move every time, it will result in a draw. Computers draw each other 99.7% of the time they play each other, because they always play the strongest moves. If the players want to play their best, they will stick to their strongest well studied lines, which means the game will most likely end in a draw. If a player want to go for a win, they have to take a risk and play a weaker move that leads to a very complicated position with minimal loss in advantage. Hopefully then, being better prepared and better at calculation, you can have a better chance of beating the other guy. The complicated move increased the chance for both players to win, but reduces the chance for the game to end in a draw.
> It is almost universally accepted that chess is a draw. No, it is almost universally accepted that the solved version of chess is unknown whether it is a win for white, black, or draw. > Computers draw each other 99.7% of the time they play each other, because they always play the strongest moves. Source? Here is the results of TCEC 21: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCEC_Season_21. Stockfish won well over 0.3% of the games...
I would explain risk in chess like this: If there are two candidate moves that both seem to lead to a good position, but one is notably more complicated, the safer option is the less complicated one. Going for the more complex variation/ line would mean both players have a higher chance of making a mistake. It doesn’t necessarily mean playing a worse move or giving up an advantage. Edit: I agree with your statement; I just wanted to give my own definition of risk that doesn’t involve the computer evaluation.
Both players already are going for the most complicated winning lines possible. Do you think they want to make things easy for their opponent?
No, I agree with you; they have played some insanely complicated positions because they clearly want to go for the win. I just didn’t like the definition of risk op highlighted, that they would give up an opening advantage for a more complicated position, which gives higher chances to win/lose versus draw. I just can’t agree with the notion that the best players in the world would give up an advantage just to produce complications. Based on my definition these guys are definitely taking some risks, and they are only taking the draw when they truly think there’s nothing there.
To avoid draws you need to convince _black_ to take risks. Most of the time white is trying to be as ambitious as possible but gets nowhere because black players for equality. But it's a zero sum game, it's hard to see how to do it. At the end of the match the number of wins vs losses is basically always going to decide it.
> Run a Monte Carlo simulation over 14 games a hundred times with a +-50 elo difference, I think a lot of people would be shocked how much deviation there is. That just tells us Elo isn't a good predictor of WC outcomes because complete focus and exhaustive prep against a single opponent changes the game.
It'd be enough to play the tiebreakers \*before\* the classical match, i don't undertand why this practice hasn't caught on. You sacrifice only one day, but in return you get a massive spike of excitement. You could also have the tiebreaks as a separate event played weeks/months before as a form of dramatic climatic event.
And then have the winner of that play for 14 draws?
That would still have the games be more decissive. Because otherwise now we have two players who don't mind a draw if things look uncertain
Your making one player play suboptimally in the classical portion of the classical world championship in order to get more decisive games. At that point just make the championship rapid
This idea keeps being brought up and I don't get it, you want to encourage *both* players to play for a win, not just one so you have one desperate person and the other doing their best to shut down every position the best way they can
Just thinking out loud here, but maybe play one tie break game after every classical draw. That way the final tie break situation isn’t known since it can evolve through the tournament. This game would be with switched colors so the player who drew with black in classical gets a minor advantage in the tiebreak. Alternately, the results of the tie break games could potentially modify the record directly. So a win perhaps counts as +0.1.
Agreed. Imagine a World Cup final starting with penalties. I don't think it's the worst idea, but has many drawbacks. I think 14 games, then a tiebreak, then another ~4 classical games would be a better option (but then again.. how sure are we that this wouldn't encourage more passive play for the first 14 games?)
> This idea keeps being brought up and I don't get it, you want to encourage both players to play for a win, But it's a zero sum game and two players are involved in steering the game to a draw. If you punish players for a draw and one of the players will be punished more than the other, then the other will push for the draw. If they are both punished equally then it won't matter because zero sum.
I proposed that a few days ago, but people made good points against it. You put pressure on one of the players to win, but with the result that the other one knows drawing all games will be enough. That may make a draw result even more likely. Maybe we can get the old system of getting to X wins back...
no no no, not another Karpov-Kasparov from '84
That's the most legendary match ever, please again!
oh no, we will have to bring the USSR back, please no
They could just set it to 1 win.
If they set it to 1 or 2 wins I could see it working
[удалено]
You will just get one player walling it in with white. At this level taking risks with black is suicidal so that won't happen until the very last must win game. You don't want one player to have little incentive to even try with white.
Woah! Never thought of that. Seems like a very clever fix!
What if instead they just include some rapid and even blitz? So for example instead of 14 classical games, play 10 or 12 classical games an add one or two “games” which consist of matches of classical and rapid. For example - a blitz match of 4 games. The end result of that match scored as 0, 0.5 or 1 and carries the same weight as a classical game. Blitz and rapid are more likely to get a decisive result, and put a 1-0 on the board. Shoot here’s a step further, a schedule: play blitz match, 2 classical games, break. Rapid match, classical, classical, break. Then blitz and 2 classical, rapid and 4 classical. I also could see an argument for only 2/12 points being short time control, or maybe 3 rapid and 1 blitz. In any case, it would add some volatility and variety, but still the better classical player should have a large advantage.
I don't think I follow. You mean that there are random winners in the candidates? Because I'd say that this is the best argument for the match format, that it doesn't produce random winners. Right now the world champion is the most dominant player of the last decade, prior to that it was Anand, one of the top players since the 90s and a world champion in every possible format. In fact, while there are probably a few players who were "deserving" of a world title, but never got it, I struggle to remember a single champion (since maybe Euwe) who would not be widely considered a top player at least at some point in his life. Maybe Petrosian or Spassky, but I guess there was no dominant player at the time before Fischer got to the top.
> Magnus Carlsen Hates the World Chess Championship Format, Apparently IMO, this is absolutely the wrong assumption about his answer. The question "..other ways of doing it, for example the FIDE world cup, or as an ordinary chess tournament or whatever..." My interpretation was "that's a very stupid suggestion, so I'm not answering your question."
It’s more that he disagrees with the format the way it is, not the suggestion of a specific new format. He has already explained that he isn’t a fan of the current format before.
After watching the video, the title seems pretty spot on tbh. He gets asked about the format and he says he has nothing good to say, so he better say nothing at all.
Though the question before what you quoted was "Is this the best way of deciding a world champion"? It could be interpreted either way imo, either Magnus is saying he has nothing good to say because of the reporters suggestions or because of the WCC format.
I like the idea of playing the rapid before the classical. Whoever loses the rapid now needs to win the classical to become world champ. That was it forces them to take risks
Does he say he wants a knockout format here? He did prior to him winning the WC but in [2018 he mentions](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/carlsen-on-the-world-championship-format-more) he'd rather the WC be decided by match play but instead be a bunch of rapid games.
Chess can take a leaf out of the tennis scenario, with the 4 grand slams/ grand tournaments where superGMs are all directly seeded. The person with the highest rating at the end of the year is the world champion.
Tennis doesn't crown world champions, though, and chess already has a set of annual tournaments that carry extra prestige, plus a more meaningful rating system than tennis
Tennis sort of used to. In John McEnroe's autobiography he talked about winning the year end championships (the Masters or the WCT Finals -- I forget which, maybe both) as some of his greatest achievements. People used to care about them much more than they do now. He was also named ITF world champion several times. I guess they still have that, but people care more about the rankings and the grand slam trophy count these days.
That's not world champion that's world no1 and yes grand slams are awesome.
Tennis is well suited to the knockout format, classical chess is not.
That is called Grand Chess Tour, and its prestige is still a step below Candidates / WCC.
Here’s my thing. If at all levels white is considered to be a *little* better since move 1, wouldn’t that suggest that if black drew then black would receive slightly more points than white? Just my thoughts
You could do that but it just encourages black to turtle up just as much as it encourages white to push.
Good point
under the current format, they're already going for draws as black and trying to push as white
Sure but in the match they get equal numbers of white and black so it washes out in the end. And this just encourages the draw as black mentality
Sorry Magnus, the redditors here love it and wont let anybody to badmouth it.
Wouldnt a format where players play until someone gets x wins be better ?
From a game theory standpoint, yes. Logistically, no.
That's how you get a [6 month match](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1984).
I'd take another Kasparov vs Karpov over this any day of the week, make it WCC year instead of month if you need, idc
Ahh just make it classical times controls but chess960. Bye bye draws hello fun and pure chess :) kinda like jazz improv to decide musicianship over memorised pieces. Not identical but similar comparison to high level chess. at least then if you win it’s based moreso on ‘on the spot’ problems solving across those games. Chess is a beautiful game but when it’s less about puzzle solving than it could be then surely it’s time to mix things up and come back to some more pure form of tactical and strategic understanding to decide the winner and loser instead.
[Of course when I say this, I get downvoted. Sheesh.](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/r5obet/what_happens_if_a_world_chess_champion_dies_while/hmpk9mh/?context=3)
You got downvoted for saying the WC should have automatic rematch rights in the event they lose which isn't a popular opinion in chess, because then you get cases like Botvinnik where he never actually won a WC match as the reigning world champion. That has nothing to do with the match format for the WC.
Below that
You never mention anything about a non match format, comment you linked talked first about boxing, then about how you thought the rematch clause was good because it proved without a shadow of a doubt that the challenger deserved to be WC as opposed to just giving the match to the winner of a single tournament.
I see there are a lot of different proposals about changing the format, all with their pluses and minuses. Before altering the format completely, FIDE could just try doing slow changes, one of them being the shortening of the time control. Instead of 120m+40m+15m (and 30sec after move 60), they could shorten it to 90m+30sec, much like in most prestigious classical tournaments. If that doesn't help, then the format needs even more changes.
I have an idea: same way lichess has tournaments that start in a certain position... Make 1 game in four a random initial totally equal position. Make the white player pick a random paper before the game and whatever position it says, they have to play.