About the Grischuk and Kasparov quote, it turns out I did misrepresent ... Grischuk said that Carlsen's URS score gap for rapid and blitz "should" be negative in a live stream on chess24 and Kasparov tweeted a similar thing ... where I misrepresented is that Kasparov didn't say a word "improve" but see "his ratio is smallest ever"
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1067826806823297029 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBvQ36SqgqM
To quote Carlsen himself "Some people think that if their opponent plays a beautiful game, it’s OK to lose. I don’t. You have to be merciless."
It's just the way he is and I not only don't blame him for it I personally respect it.
A good example is boxing. You have someone like Mayweather who is 50:0 a historical record. Yet he's often hated by fans because his boxing isn't exciting. It's also true that most fans would rejoice if he lost ... so why take risks? Many purists enjoy his style including myself.
In the end prize-fighting is about winning. It's their living. If Carlsen loses but plays a beautiful game none of the fans will pay for his livelihood - I am confident in stating this.
I don't mean to get all Ghandi-like on you, but I do want to ask you sincerely - what kind of world do you want to create? Do you want to help turn Silicon Valley into a culture that values class and heart, not just winning? I certainly do. Nothing wrong with winning, but I gotta believe that winning and sportsmanship/heart aren't mutually exclusive, even in the age of Facebook.
If you feel the same way, then ask yourself what kind of culture you are promoting in your comments. The change doesn't start with the powers that be all of a sudden deciding to pay people for integrity. The guys at the top are all too rich and powerful to advocate such blasphemy. The only way this changes is when the masses start telling each other that things should be different and can be different.
Which starts with holding people accountable when they let us down. Including the legends like Magnus Carlsen, who I consider to be a hero, along with the other chess players who could be worthy of the GOAT moniker. (Including, now, Fabiano. Even more so Fabi if he can get himself into shape playing blitz.)
Chess is a harmless game so boxing would be a better example. Imagine a boxer that uses dirty tactics or uses PEDs ... that's "winning at all costs." But a boxer that has an elusive style that's considered boring by fans because fans like a lot of action ... I applaud this person if the style is superior in getting results.
You can see my point is different fans appreciate different aspects of the game. I loved the way Carlsen took it to rapid. You didn't and I can understand why.
In boxing I see the beauty in elusive tactical style of Mayweather, other want to see a slugfest. Because boxing places your health at risk I look down on that to be honest and I value a victory with minimum risk.
I sympathise with your good intentions but you misrepresented my words.
I never argued for "winning at all cost." I believe ability to win, regardless of how unimpressive (as long as it is ethical) is a virtue.
I do not live in Bay Area nor the US, I wish you all well though :)
And that seems to be exactly what is happening by respecting those who do / looking down on those who don't. Not every reward has to be expressed by the in-game scoring system.
Within the rules.
Not arguing with you, just refining the point for the audience :-)
-- from NYT
I'm sure if Magnus had the benefit of the computer valuation he would have made more striking moves, but his reasons for taking safer approach (a4, e4) makes sense especially considering how evenly Caruana fought back in previous winning positions, and his objective going in.
At the point he offered the draw, even the computer suggested it was fairly even. The shocking part for me was that he also had a huge advantage in time, but I suppose he did not have the right mindset to switch gears.
I think if you want the championship to be more about "heart/courage" (and less about cold calculation) they just need shorter time controls. That was my one takeaway. Maybe something in-between rapid and classical. If you want to see robots push marginal advantages in drawish positions, just set up an AI tournament. Leave the humans to demonstrate heart, courage, and intuition!
Perhaps "marred" is a bit too strong. Could we at least agree on "besmirched"?
Here's the first paragraph from LiChess coverage:
'It is not often that the chess world unites to criticise Magnus Carlsen, but on Monday evening in London the World Champion had few supporters after his decision to squander a highly favourable position and offer a draw to his challenger Fabiano Caruana as soon as legally permissible in the final classical game of the world title match in London.
“Cowardly” said Carlsen’s compatriot and former coach Simen Agdestein. “Lazy” was Kramnik’s description of Carlsen’s play leading up to the draw offer. “I think he knows he is not playing the best moves,” the former World Champion added. “Shocking” said Kasparov, declaring that because he seemed to be losing his nerve, Carlsen was no longer his favourite to win the tiebreakers.'
https://lichess.org/blog/W_yTNhUAAC0A1JxI/cautious-carlsen-s...
Not that I'm being cynical about it... nobody wants to be a champion that nobody remembers. Especially not in an age where computers consistently outplay humans.
This is a general truth in sport, not just Chess. See also bike racing, baseball, PUBG.
People will tend towards doing what it takes to win. If you don't like those tactics, change the rules.
The point that others here are making is that Carlsen is objectively better at blitz chess, which is what the tiebreakers are formatted in.
"Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves."
Even if Kasparov and Grischuk said this today (citation please?), it doesn't make it true. There are many players who get better playing rapid and blitz. Look at the trajectory of the Bay Area's own GM Daniel Naroditsky. Nakamura.
I suspect most of the blitz haters are people who simply haven't spent enough time to get good at it.
"Regardless of all critics."
To your main point, the critics weren't saying that Carlsen isn't the best. They were complaining because he is not acting with respect to the purity and beauty of the game. There is simply an aesthetic ugliness to offering a draw with such a crushing time advantage in a better position.
I'm not arguing that this may not have been good strategy, lose the battle, win the war, etc etc.
What I'm saying is that there is a war to be won that is different than a 1 or 0 point. It's the battle for hearts and minds, which is won not just through victory but through integrity and courage. You win hearts by showing hearts.
Magnus didn't win hearts with his mercilessly pragmatic approach to winning the world championship title. I still respect him as the rightful owner of the title of best chess player in the world.
But if we're going to employ the "good by association" logical fallacy with whatever Kasparov and Grischuk may have said today, why not actually just quote the champion Magnus himself?
In the press conference, he came out and told everyone that Fabiano earned the right to share the crown of world's best player in classical chess with him.
Who am I, who are you, who are any of us to disagree with that?
I also enjoyed the final a lot. But the fact remains that the beauty and spectacle 2018 World Championships of the world's most beautiful mind game was marred by a decidedly un-beautiful game in round 12.