I think the difference, and what Carlsen is doing well in this case, is just backing out now instead of trying to defend his title and then getting 5 games in and just going "I hate this and I want to leave. I forfeit".

That would look even worse for him, and be unsatisfying for his opponent and the public. In this case, he realizes he doesn't have the passion for this event any more, so he's doing the best thing for the sport and just letting two people who are still passionate about it compete instead of doing the mental-sports version of playing injured.

Yes, that's what people mean, almost by definition. In highly competitive events, even a slight break in focus and drive toward winning are often really problematic. Once that wolf-like focus and readiness to fight is broken, a competitor is usually done.

I think Magnus just changed focus to being the first 2900. I bet the way the last match went was a bit of a let down for him as well.

i have to imagine there are only so many 'tricks'/new lines left for him to use to win games at that level. revealing them on center stage for a single win is wasteful of the resources he has. the WCC games get studied by everyone, not only live with the worlds best engines, but after the fact too. much better to use those resources in tournaments where you can actually play a lot of games with it before people really get a chance to study it in depth.

By resources i mean things like going into a position that gives your opponent an incredibly small advantage but is hard for them to play. It's one of the best ways to win games. it's hard work to find those lines, and he's been doing it for so long at WCC level it's not surprising that he's tapping out against someone he's already beaten. if you use a line in the WCC, it becomes very risky to use it again - because if your opponent studied it and plays it correctly then all you've done is make it even harder for you to win the game.

to reach 2900 he has to win games, not tie

> much better to use those resources in tournaments where you can actually play a lot of games with it before people really get a chance to study it in depth.

That doesn't exist anymore, any game Carlsen plays is studied in depth by the world immediately, and especially by his opponents. Same for other top grandmasters.

> that he's tapping out against someone he's already beaten.

Many observers overplay the importance of one match loss. More than one chess champion title was taken by a challenger who had lost in the previous attempt [1] - and considering there was just a handful of champions, it is a lot.

[1]: Spassky and Kasparov have lost in their first attempts against Petrosyan and Karpov.

while true, it is still fair to say Carlsen views nepo as a waste of time. While it would be easy to dismiss this as hubris - i think the bigger point is that he doesnt gain anything from beating him again. It's not that Nepo has no chance of winning.

Magnus specifically mentioned Firouzja as an opponent that he would consider playing the WCC against[1]. So while not the most important factor in his decision, the fact that Nepo won the candidates again and was the last challenger before Magnus made the Firouzja statement seems relevant. Also relevant is that the candidates tournament concluded on July 5th and Magnus released his withdrawal now in the same month.

It seems to me like the challenger being Nepo was the last significant piece of information towards his decision. How specific it is to Nepo or a more general feeling of Nepo being one of many people he doesnt feel any personal benefit from playing against, who knows.

[1] https://chess24.com/en/read/news/magnus-carlsen-unlikely-i-w...

> Magnus specifically mentioned Firouzja as an opponent that he would consider playing the WCC against[1].

That is not how it works, and not how it is supposed to work. This is hubris and disrespect to all chess players in the world. For more than 100 years champions changed each other in title matches (well, before Kasparov's limitless ego created a decade of turmoil in Chess), with just one exception by Fischer, and now Carlsen 'doesnt feel any personal benefit'. :ThumbDown:

I think you are misunderstanding. His sentiment seems to be one of "I am burnt out and unmotivated to continue BUT the idea of playing against a young upcoming GM could be motivating enough"

So it isnt the most important reason, but nepo being the challenger didnt offer anything to change his mind like he was hoping the result of the candidates would.

Even wolves are only focused during occasional hunts. They also play, raise their young, mate, sleep, and care for their sick and injured.

Depends on the game, but people will often come back much stronger after a ~6 months break.

It’s a mix of having a new perspective, dealing with stress, and having time to heal etc. This is one of the reasons most sports have an off season. Even if basketball could easily be played year round, the game would suffer.

Magnus isn't stopping. He's playing chess everywhere else, at tournaments all over the world. He's pursuing his goal of a 2900 rating (he currently has the world record for his peak rating, though he's dropped a bit from that).

He's just not playing in the FIDE World Championship because he dislikes the process.

Not sure there will be much distinction in the history books unless there’s an accompanying rule change, etc. that comes out of it.

It is both okay to stop and do other things eventually and it also counts as ‘breaking’

So no one can ever quit without it being considered 'breaking'? If not, what would distinguish between 'breaking' and not 'breaking'?

Surely, if one can quit without it being considered breaking, resigning while on top is how.

You can honorably lose while giving it all, like most other champions did, except Fischer, who forfeited, and Alekhin, who died while holding the title.

Yes, quitting is always breaking. It is just that breaking isn't always a bad thing for the player

For me it's the intent at the time a decision was made.

What intent constitutes 'breaking'?

It's a temporal question. If you decide in the middle of a competition that you don't care any more and want to quit/forfeit/throw the match, then you broke. You committed to playing an event, presumably because you thought you could win or at least compete, and instead your mental stamina broke and you gave up.

IMO, it's less the intent that you have when you quit - the intent is almost always at that point that you don't want to be there any more doing the thing. The more important part is the intent that led up to the moment where you quit.

In some ways, it's similar to quitting any job. If you just have a bad day or week at work and put in your resignation with no other plan because you just can't stand coming in to work again, you "broke". If you're still working, but interviewing elsewhere, get another job, put in your notice and walk away with something else lined up, it's a bit different.

So the only way for it not to be considered not 'breaking' is by losing. That makes no sense

Um no. Losing is also breaking. Breaking doesn’t have a moral component, it is just losing. The world champion isn’t morally better than everyone, he just wins against challengers.

Well, there is another way: you can die undefeated, like Alekhin.

Yes, every championship title eventually goes to someone else.

Counterpoint: John Elway.

I don’t understand