My idea for incentivizing fewer draws is to kidnap the players' parents. Not gonna go into every little detail, I'm more of a big idea guy, but the plan also involves crocodiles.
@deinse82 This wouldn't work for orphans or GMs who hate their parents. What we need is a general solution which guarantees maximum participation. What about we have a tiger chained to the wall behind each GM, and every draw causes the chain to elongate.
Yeah but Fabi has a better chance of winning the rapid playoff then trying to force a win in a slow game. If they knew the rapid result 100% beforehand, then the losing player has no choice but to try and force the slow game win.
I wouldn´t have rapid and blitz involved in a classical world championship at all. Just give the champion draw odds, like it was in the old days. Quite frankly, if somebody wants to be considered world champion, he should beat the title holder in a match. That´s how it has been for centuries! Just imagine how much more interesting the match between Carlsen and Caruana would have been if there would have been no tie break, and Fabiano would have had to take risks and lay it all on the line in the classical games!
I'm very much looking forward to the World Championship match. I have a feeling that Magnus will win very convincingly. Ian has not been playing consistently great lately. I'd estimate Magnus is a 70% favourite, but we'll see. I'm sure though that we will see a lot of very interesting games!
@@saxonchess3293 I wouldn't call it boring, either. And I didn't. The main problem is the current format. It would be much more interesting if the players were forced to play for a win in classical, instead of rapid tie breaks.
@@fundhund62 Yeah I definitely agree with that. I still can't believe there a playoffs in a world championship match. And since Magnus was a very heavy favourite in the playoffs for the last two championships I think that gives him to big of an advantage
@@saxonchess3293 Absolutely. To my mind, it devalues the title of classical world champion. Just imagine if instead of the fascinating 32rd game between Karpov and Korchnoi in Baguio we would have had a rapid tie-break! Or if in 1987 they would have continued to play blitz games after that gruelling 24th game! Part of me hopes that Nepomniachtchi becomes world champion by drawing the Armageddon game with black, because that would show the whole world how ridiculous the current system is!
@@fundhund62 Yeah I get that haha. I wonder if a system such as if after the 14 games it's drawn 7-7 they continue playing untill someone gets 2 consecutive wins not counting draws obviously. I guess the downside of that is it could go on for a long time since the risk for playing for a win is even higher. I wouldn't mind that because I think the more chess the better and I think the longer it went on the more stamina would play a part and I think that would add an interesting element. There might be better ways then that but I think that is still clearly better then the current system
That's how Ben likes it. Always loved it in the older videos (possibly from another channel) where he'd shush people for laughing too much at his jokes. 😂
If you think nepo has a 45~40 percent chance you should get a bet out cause you can get like 3.3 odds or something. Pretty good expected value. Might do it myself cause Go Ben!
After Norway Chess, the odds for Nepo are 3.8 (aprox. 26%). At least on pinnacle, not sure what bookie you use. Anyways it's not worth taking that bet, Nepo at best has a 15% chance of beating Magnus. He hasn't done anything to warrant 45% odds. Fabi for example was winning tournaments all around the year he was playing Magnus for the WC (he even won more than Magnus that year iirc). All the top players put his odds at best around 45%. Nepo hasn't done anything close to that, nothing at all tbh. And more classical games now, doesn't help him out
I agree with you all that magnus is the favorite. But i think chess might be more influenced by varience and luck in a single match then these odds suggest. And you really don't know how the mental aspect is going to play out until your there.
@@FlourescentPotato That is not true. Expected value is everything. If you offer me 3 to 1 odds to predict a coin toss I am going to take that bet a thousand times and make tons of money despite the fact that I don't have a clue if I will actually be right during each coin toss.
To support Ben's talk about FIDE and the money (9:40 ish), if you read the FIDE World Cup regulations closely, item 4.5 of the player's contract says "20% of each prize is retained by FIDE." So Jan-Krzyzstof Duda, for example, 'won' $110,000 but in reality got $88,000 deposited into his account.
The simple idea that if it’s a draw, world champion retains the title is just great. You couldn’t beat the champ, he remains the champ, simple. The only problem with this idea: not that great for the media.
I'm not even sure about that. Imagine if the match between Magnus and Fabi would have been played under that rule. I dare say that we would have seen a much more exciting match. More errors? Sure, but that's kind of the point. You cannot win a match without taking risks. The only real issue wouly be that 12 (even 14 games) might be too short. But why not go back to 24 games in that case? Or 18? A nice side effect would be that it is very difficult to prepare (= memorize) for that many games in advance.
8:22 Fischer's crazy rule about "10 to 9 isn't actually beating someone" sounds kinda like in pingpong, where you generally have to win with two points: you have to score the winning point while you're already leading, not just beat someone to the finish line.
Cricket, which is similar to chess in its long time format and frequent draws, also does this. If two teams playing for a trophy have a drawn result over the series of matches, the current champion retains the trophy.
A draw is not a win, thats some washed up rules. You need to end the event with a winner, find the best way to solve this and come up with a good tie break idea.
@@aesir1ases64 if you can't beat the current champion then they should remain the champion I feel. If you want a tie breaking set up use rules similar to Armageddon but 90 minutes for white and 45 minutes for black.
I like giving the champion draw odds. He earned it. If you want to be World Champion you should have to outright beat the guy. Plus, it's the only way to do it, if you don't want potentially endless matches and you don't want to decide the classical time-control champion with shorter time controls.
How about 'Classical Armageddon'? The challenger splits the time, say 2 hours total, between white who must win and black who must draw. The world champion then selects whether they want to be white or black.
True, the problem with that idea is it makes the classical part of the match, which theoretically should be the core of the match, unbalanced to begin with. The problem with the current system is that one player might feel like they have an advantage in rapid and so try to draw, but this idea makes it worse because one player will be sure that they will win in rapid if they draw the classical (because they already won the rapid)
From the point of view of the spectator, having a rapid tie-break before the match is identical to giving the champion draw odds. In both cases, one of the players has to go for the win. While I think both ideas are interesting, it's a bit silly to propose pre-match tie-breaks while claiming that draw odds are ridiculous and antiquated.
With the proposal, the draw odds would be given to the rapid winner as opposed to automatically going to Carlsen, the latter Finegold sees as antiquated
@@alexs5368 right, so both disincentivize draws in the same way. It's just a question of whether you want the defending champion to have the advantage or the better rapid player. It's not at all obvious to me that one solution is better than the other. Given that Ben seems to be against rapid tiebreaks in general, I don't understand how he made up his mind.
@@Andmunko being better at rapid is at least a chess skill. In say the Botvonik example he had draw odds basically for being a bit older than the later challengers of apparently equal skill given the draws. I don’t love the pre match rapid tie breaks, but I like them more than champion draw odds or post match rapid tie breaks. If you’re gonna have rapid involved at all before seems better than after
@@Andmunko The solution is ridiculously simple: Bring back first to 6 wins and let the players earn the WC title. If you can't win games, you don't deserve to be called the champion.
Man, it just seems like slow chess is on the way out. It's too time intensive a commitment. When 90% of chess is blitz and rapid you know the game is up. I'm no good at fast chess so this makes me sad.
90% was blitz and rapid last year because nobody could host slow games and monitoring somebody at their home for 6 hours isn't practical. Tata Steel, Norway Chess, and the World Cup all got great viewership, and big open events are well attended again with a year's worth of new blood trying their hand at it. Slow chess is fine, in my opinion.
Nepo is not "playing consistently lately" BECAUSE, I'm speculating, he wants Carlsen to think just that. And, if I were Nepo I would be saving my best prep for the match.
just change to a point system like in soccer where it a race to 21 points and you get 2 point for a win 1 point for a draw but if your black get a extra point for the win instead of playing for a draw as black you have more reason to play for the win
GM FINEGOLD- You said in your lecture that after- 1e4 c5 2Nf3 N-f6 3N-c3 was a move people play to avoid the Sveshnikov. I have been a Sveshnikov specialist since 1985 and if there is one thing I know it is this opening. I don't see anything wrong with Magnus's 3..e5 but I play 3.. N-f6 here. If white replies 4e5 N-g4 and white is losing a central pawn. White can play 4d4 leading back to a normal open Sicilian, and the Sveshnikov if black wants, and all the alternatives seems fairly harmless. The only thing I can think of that casts any doubt on 3.. N-f6 is white can try 4B-b5 when maybe the black night on f6 isn't on the nest square in the Rossolimo. Nothing of the kind is evident from my games but I am about 1900 so I am not exactly testing it against the world's top players. I would be most grateful if you had some wisdom to share.
What some people tend to forget is that the Championship is all about the Challenger. If you are the challenger what is your objective? To beat the Champion. Should you play boring, cautious, uninspiring chess? or should you give it your all because (you are the challenger) you may never get another chance again. Its not the role of the Champion to play over the top exciting chess. Its the challenger that brings the tone, sets the pace and decides what flavor of games that will be played. I dont think its within Nepo's style to play cautious for very long. He might for a couple games but I expect him to loose patience for that,(get frustrated and make mistakes) so he is better off keeping true to his style. I hope that he comes out blazing, get a quick win and put pressure on Magnus. Then we will see some of the best Championship chess in a long time.
Sir, By playing slow chess at first player got the opportunities to learn and analyze their opponent's preparations, hidden plans, tactics; basically everything they can discover. This is like digging ground and find out diamonds. And use the knowledge in the rapid game. This is the way chess is beautiful, the more we dig the more we discover, new tactics get chance to appear. Instead if they play tiebreaker first the person with more ability to discover chess will not have a chance. However, if you think human already know everything about chess, or new things should not be discovered in a championship game, rather playing with stockfish, then you are right. Playing tiebreaker at first would be good idea. BUT chess is more beautiful when you find joyous in a boring game. If someone dont enjoy 12 games of 8 hours they happily can play chekers. No offense please, i gave my thought only.
I expect Magnus to be championship for the next 5-7 years. Nowadays 20+ years old players aren’t at the level of Magnus. The old style was like the boxing world champioship I believe that chess 960 is the future.
Funny how chess has been around for so long and we still haven't figured out the best format for a world championship... I agree with Ben, there shouldn't be a rapid in a slow chess championship where the best player is awarded the tittle of the WC. They need to figure out something else.
Magnus had good luck in all his matches so far, the matches with Karjakin and Caruana were very close. He has 80% chance of winning but people don't know that's still pretty narrow. If you have an 80% of winning a match, and play 5 matches, you'll lose one most likely. The best player in the world doesn't always win a match against a top 10 player. Highest rated is more important than World Champion.
The only thing Carlsen has been proving is that he's the world's champion of rapid tiebreaks. He wasn't able to get the better of either Karjackin or Caruana in classical chess; he beat them at rapid.
The same goes for karjakin and Caruana, they couldn't win a single classical game against Carlsen, so Carlsen needn't prove anything, he's just defending his title however he can.
Hmm.. So the match was postponed from 2020 to 2021 because of the pandemic. This implies that the pandemic is over now? Or people are more brave now than last year?
i propose a 12 game match where if they draw no one is wold champion that year, then the next year its the top 2 of the candidates, i think that would be funny
Even the King can't come back when defeated, so why the guys like Bodnik were allowed another "life", so to speak, was a mockery to the game. Terrible rules in the 60's. Personally, I think a portion of the finals game should be rapid aswell, so a more "rounded", skilled champion is found. A guy or girl who can win both slow and fast!
Should be 2 million prize. Winner takes all after 14 games. Loser is movlcked forever. In case of a draw they both lose the money and the champion keeps the crown. And is mocked forever.
I think that Carlsen is better than Nepo, but I also think that he is not fantastic in handling stress. So it all depends. If Nepo can win a game very early on and Carlsen cannot come back quickly, it will make Carlsen very nervous. On the other hand, nerves are not Nepo's best asset either. If Carlsen wins 2 - 3 games, Nepo might just mentally cave in.
If after 14 games the match is tied there should be a classical game of chess each day, or, even, each half day!, until there is a decisive game. Stamina plays a role in success, so let chess stamina award the prize and not chess instinct.
Such a tie-break would cause the loser not to play their best game and the other has an unfair advantage. I think that format is not better than the current format.
magnus is sooo strong that he can win world championship even with 10-15 days or without prepration seeing magnus's rapid & classical games in last 1 year what i observed is he looses or get in worst positions just because he knowingly plays inaccurate moves in openings to have full flaged fight only guys who can compete magnus in champ. matches upto 30-40% are Fabi , aronian, Ding & giri in order
Nepo will win as Carlsen is crap in matches. Best option for Nepo is to keep it solid and win by one game. All the pressure is on Carlsen who's gotten increasingly defensive as most champions before him did. He's there for the taking.
A proposal: a variation of chess960 (aka random chess) - such that the first move is actually for white to set up his main pieces however he likes and feels optimal; black then responds by setting up his pieces however he likes in response to white's set up. As in "random chess" this would diminish reliance on opening theory and there could be a lot of watchable drama from the very beginning of the game to see how white sets up his pieces, and how black responds. This avoids the random nature of "random chess" which seems arbitrary to me.
It's frankly ridiculous that only 12 classical time control games be played in a WCh. I stopped watching WCh matches when that kicked in. If they want to avoid WCh matches taking a long time to complete then make the format 24 games and play 6 games per week. Play a TC in between classical and rapid. For example 75/30.
The idea of playing the rapids before the slow chess is frankly ridicoulous :) . You are putting preassure to one of the the players before starting the match just because a bounch of rapid games..
İn classical game Nepomniatchi is better. It makes him favourite against Carlsen. Carlsen is thé better in Rapid and Blitz Games. It means he can exhibit his capability fast, but his capability is not as high as Nepomniatchi. If thé match goes to Tie-break, Carlsen has Chance; otherweise, Nepomniatchi has Chance.
Good video. I think it's interesting that at 31:35 the pawn to F5 allows the position to be broken open for humans but an engine claims it's defendable by white.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
My idea for incentivizing fewer draws is to kidnap the players' parents. Not gonna go into every little detail, I'm more of a big idea guy, but the plan also involves crocodiles.
Will the crocodiles have lasers mounted on their heads?
I don’t think I’ve laughed out loud at a RUclips comment until today
@deinse82 This wouldn't work for orphans or GMs who hate their parents.
What we need is a general solution which guarantees maximum participation.
What about we have a tiger chained to the wall behind each GM, and every draw causes the chain to elongate.
*nods*
😂😂😂
‘Now if I was either colour I’d resign’ 😂😂 made me laugh
"When I play Magnus, you know what's happening: I'm worse, I'm much worse, I shake hands, I go cry" LOLOLOLOLOLOL
4:50 I mean: Carlsen basically knew he'd win vs Caruana in rapid chess, and Caruana probably knew that too, but it changed nothing.
absolutely right
Caruana is conservative. Nepo is more aggressive. Should be a few decisive games.
Yeah but Fabi has a better chance of winning the rapid playoff then trying to force a win in a slow game. If they knew the rapid result 100% beforehand, then the losing player has no choice but to try and force the slow game win.
"i´m worse, i´m much worse, i´m lost, i shake hands and i go cry"
new favorite finegold quote
You still got it Ben- making simple joys apparent to us dull audience members : )
The idea of rapid tie-breaks before the World Championship Is great
That will just increase the pressure on Nepo cause Magnus will win this section of the match!
@@erikskov8759 exactly, more Crazy games, good for us.
So not only are you going to win slow chess by winning in quick chess, but you're also going to win it before the match even begins? :D
I wouldn´t have rapid and blitz involved in a classical world championship at all. Just give the champion draw odds, like it was in the old days. Quite frankly, if somebody wants to be considered world champion, he should beat the title holder in a match. That´s how it has been for centuries!
Just imagine how much more interesting the match between Carlsen and Caruana would have been if there would have been no tie break, and Fabiano would have had to take risks and lay it all on the line in the classical games!
It's better than my idea: Chess battle royale: shorter time controls with each draw.
I'm very much looking forward to the World Championship match. I have a feeling that Magnus will win very convincingly. Ian has not been playing consistently great lately. I'd estimate Magnus is a 70% favourite, but we'll see. I'm sure though that we will see a lot of very interesting games!
It will definitely be more entertaining than the last two matches. Which wouldn´t be that much of an achievement, to be honest.
@@saxonchess3293 I wouldn't call it boring, either. And I didn't.
The main problem is the current format. It would be much more interesting if the players were forced to play for a win in classical, instead of rapid tie breaks.
@@fundhund62 Yeah I definitely agree with that. I still can't believe there a playoffs in a world championship match. And since Magnus was a very heavy favourite in the playoffs for the last two championships I think that gives him to big of an advantage
@@saxonchess3293 Absolutely. To my mind, it devalues the title of classical world champion. Just imagine if instead of the fascinating 32rd game between Karpov and Korchnoi in Baguio we would have had a rapid tie-break! Or if in 1987 they would have continued to play blitz games after that gruelling 24th game!
Part of me hopes that Nepomniachtchi becomes world champion by drawing the Armageddon game with black, because that would show the whole world how ridiculous the current system is!
@@fundhund62 Yeah I get that haha. I wonder if a system such as if after the 14 games it's drawn 7-7 they continue playing untill someone gets 2 consecutive wins not counting draws obviously. I guess the downside of that is it could go on for a long time since the risk for playing for a win is even higher. I wouldn't mind that because I think the more chess the better and I think the longer it went on the more stamina would play a part and I think that would add an interesting element. There might be better ways then that but I think that is still clearly better then the current system
Dead silence after the “ I would do anything to win at chess but I won’t do that “ meatloaf reference , while I’m over here dying 😂
That's how Ben likes it. Always loved it in the older videos (possibly from another channel) where he'd shush people for laughing too much at his jokes. 😂
He also played a Sophie's Choice gambit to a room full of teenagers. Ben has no fear.
A very position Karpov like style of play vs a dynamic tactical attacking player, It's like Karpov-Kasparov again!
Go Ben!, Go Nepo!, Go Magnus!
Go home! Go fishing!
Go crazy! Go stupid!
“If everybody’s doing it, that’s a lot of guys doing it.”
Well done.
Rooofl “watch The Godfather movies several times and then you understand how FIDE gets their cut”
I love to see Ben as THE brilliant commentator
This collage with Ben staring down sceptically scrutinizing the position is great.
If you think nepo has a 45~40 percent chance you should get a bet out cause you can get like 3.3 odds or something. Pretty good expected value. Might do it myself cause Go Ben!
Bruh Nepo has like 20% if that
After Norway Chess, the odds for Nepo are 3.8 (aprox. 26%). At least on pinnacle, not sure what bookie you use. Anyways it's not worth taking that bet, Nepo at best has a 15% chance of beating Magnus. He hasn't done anything to warrant 45% odds. Fabi for example was winning tournaments all around the year he was playing Magnus for the WC (he even won more than Magnus that year iirc). All the top players put his odds at best around 45%. Nepo hasn't done anything close to that, nothing at all tbh. And more classical games now, doesn't help him out
I agree with you all that magnus is the favorite. But i think chess might be more influenced by varience and luck in a single match then these odds suggest. And you really don't know how the mental aspect is going to play out until your there.
A bet is only worth making if you think it will actually come true, regardless of expected odds.
@@FlourescentPotato That is not true. Expected value is everything. If you offer me 3 to 1 odds to predict a coin toss I am going to take that bet a thousand times and make tons of money despite the fact that I don't have a clue if I will actually be right during each coin toss.
To support Ben's talk about FIDE and the money (9:40 ish), if you read the FIDE World Cup regulations closely, item 4.5 of the player's contract says "20% of each prize is retained by FIDE." So Jan-Krzyzstof Duda, for example, 'won' $110,000 but in reality got $88,000 deposited into his account.
Which organization is more corrupt, FIDE or FIFA? Discuss.
yay another awesome Ben vid! GO BEN !
The Dave Chappelle reference was fire, CHARLIE MURPHY! I'M RICK JAMES B*ITCH! lmfao
I'm already starting to think about the videos I will need to watch, so I have a hope in hell of understanding the games. Oh the anticipation.
The simple idea that if it’s a draw, world champion retains the title is just great. You couldn’t beat the champ, he remains the champ, simple. The only problem with this idea: not that great for the media.
I'm not even sure about that. Imagine if the match between Magnus and Fabi would have been played under that rule. I dare say that we would have seen a much more exciting match. More errors? Sure, but that's kind of the point. You cannot win a match without taking risks.
The only real issue wouly be that 12 (even 14 games) might be too short. But why not go back to 24 games in that case? Or 18?
A nice side effect would be that it is very difficult to prepare (= memorize) for that many games in advance.
I asked Magnus the name of, and his opinion of, his next Championship contender.
He said: "Yawn..."
🥱
Can't say FIDE without saying fee.
I lost it at “that would require seconds of work! “
9:34 they basically try to steal as much money as possible and they do a good job
Chappelle's Show references always cracking me up.
6-6 tie should be decided by a game of stratego
Can Stratego end in a draw? Go to Clue or connect 4 if so
'you will know Magnus is the lord' made my Sunday
8:22 Fischer's crazy rule about "10 to 9 isn't actually beating someone" sounds kinda like in pingpong, where you generally have to win with two points: you have to score the winning point while you're already leading, not just beat someone to the finish line.
But Fischer didn't want the match to keep going if it was 10-9; his idea was that if it was 9-9 he declares victory and goes home
@@Rahul-eh3rf can’t blame him for wanting that
This is CLASSICAL chess match. It must be NO rapid, NO Armageddon games. Challenger must win; if the score is 7:7, current champion remains.
Agree, this is by far the simplest solution. To be a new champ, you need to be BETTER than the current champ.
Cricket, which is similar to chess in its long time format and frequent draws, also does this. If two teams playing for a trophy have a drawn result over the series of matches, the current champion retains the trophy.
A draw is not a win, thats some washed up rules.
You need to end the event with a winner, find the best way to solve this and come up with a good tie break idea.
@@aesir1ases64 if you can't beat the current champion then they should remain the champion I feel. If you want a tie breaking set up use rules similar to Armageddon but 90 minutes for white and 45 minutes for black.
I like giving the champion draw odds. He earned it. If you want to be World Champion you should have to outright beat the guy. Plus, it's the only way to do it, if you don't want potentially endless matches and you don't want to decide the classical time-control champion with shorter time controls.
That's a brilliant idea for tie-breaks. Have them first! It's honestly genius.
How about 'Classical Armageddon'? The challenger splits the time, say 2 hours total, between white who must win and black who must draw. The world champion then selects whether they want to be white or black.
43: 19 "If I was either color I'd resign" lol
If NepOmnyashiy win that match everyone will learn how to pronounce his name right. Btw it means "a not remembering one". "Pomnit" = "Remember"
i don't really like Greg Shahade's idea, because it gives the winner an even bigger incentive to play for draws
True, the problem with that idea is it makes the classical part of the match, which theoretically should be the core of the match, unbalanced to begin with. The problem with the current system is that one player might feel like they have an advantage in rapid and so try to draw, but this idea makes it worse because one player will be sure that they will win in rapid if they draw the classical (because they already won the rapid)
i would be curious to know ur idea for the format of a championship match. i already really like the idea of doing the tie breaker first
From the point of view of the spectator, having a rapid tie-break before the match is identical to giving the champion draw odds. In both cases, one of the players has to go for the win. While I think both ideas are interesting, it's a bit silly to propose pre-match tie-breaks while claiming that draw odds are ridiculous and antiquated.
With the proposal, the draw odds would be given to the rapid winner as opposed to automatically going to Carlsen, the latter Finegold sees as antiquated
@@alexs5368 right, so both disincentivize draws in the same way. It's just a question of whether you want the defending champion to have the advantage or the better rapid player. It's not at all obvious to me that one solution is better than the other. Given that Ben seems to be against rapid tiebreaks in general, I don't understand how he made up his mind.
@@Andmunko being better at rapid is at least a chess skill. In say the Botvonik example he had draw odds basically for being a bit older than the later challengers of apparently equal skill given the draws. I don’t love the pre match rapid tie breaks, but I like them more than champion draw odds or post match rapid tie breaks. If you’re gonna have rapid involved at all before seems better than after
@@Andmunko The solution is ridiculously simple: Bring back first to 6 wins and let the players earn the WC title. If you can't win games, you don't deserve to be called the champion.
Ben's lessons are super nice. Apart from being very funny, he really is a good teacher too
Thanks for the amazing content 💙💙
Tiebreaks at the front? That's fucking brilliant man.
Man, it just seems like slow chess is on the way out. It's too time intensive a commitment. When 90% of chess is blitz and rapid you know the game is up.
I'm no good at fast chess so this makes me sad.
90% was blitz and rapid last year because nobody could host slow games and monitoring somebody at their home for 6 hours isn't practical. Tata Steel, Norway Chess, and the World Cup all got great viewership, and big open events are well attended again with a year's worth of new blood trying their hand at it. Slow chess is fine, in my opinion.
Nepo is not "playing consistently lately" BECAUSE, I'm speculating, he wants Carlsen to think just that. And, if I were Nepo I would be saving my best prep for the match.
Very smart to do that. That is why i think he will win.
just change to a point system like in soccer where it a race to 21 points and you get 2 point for a win 1 point for a draw but if your black get a extra point for the win instead of playing for a draw as black you have more reason to play for the win
Tiebreaks before the Caruana Carlsen match would have had the same result. Magnus playing for draws.
GM FINEGOLD- You said in your lecture that after-
1e4 c5
2Nf3 N-f6
3N-c3
was a move people play to avoid the Sveshnikov. I have been a Sveshnikov specialist since 1985 and if there is one thing I know it is this opening. I don't see anything wrong with Magnus's 3..e5 but I play 3.. N-f6 here. If white replies 4e5 N-g4 and white is losing a central pawn.
White can play 4d4 leading back to a normal open Sicilian, and the Sveshnikov if black wants, and all the alternatives seems fairly harmless. The only thing I can think of that casts any doubt on 3.. N-f6 is white can try 4B-b5 when maybe the black night on f6 isn't on the nest square in the Rossolimo. Nothing of the kind is evident from my games but I am about 1900 so I am not exactly testing it against the world's top players.
I would be most grateful if you had some wisdom to share.
Hardly a specialist if 1900 for that long...
learning the art of digression mastery
What are the vegan food options like in Dubai, Ben?
What some people tend to forget is that the Championship is all about the Challenger. If you are the challenger what is your objective? To beat the Champion. Should you play boring, cautious, uninspiring chess? or should you give it your all because (you are the challenger) you may never get another chance again. Its not the role of the Champion to play over the top exciting chess. Its the challenger that brings the tone, sets the pace and decides what flavor of games that will be played. I dont think its within Nepo's style to play cautious for very long. He might for a couple games but I expect him to loose patience for that,(get frustrated and make mistakes) so he is better off keeping true to his style. I hope that he comes out blazing, get a quick win and put pressure on Magnus. Then we will see some of the best Championship chess in a long time.
i aways get confused...i never know if it's Dubai (UAE) or Doboj (Bosnia)
TWO MORE DAYS BABBY!!
Sir,
By playing slow chess at first player got the opportunities to learn and analyze their opponent's preparations, hidden plans, tactics; basically everything they can discover. This is like digging ground and find out diamonds. And use the knowledge in the rapid game. This is the way chess is beautiful, the more we dig the more we discover, new tactics get chance to appear.
Instead if they play tiebreaker first the person with more ability to discover chess will not have a chance.
However, if you think human already know everything about chess, or new things should not be discovered in a championship game, rather playing with stockfish, then you are right. Playing tiebreaker at first would be good idea. BUT chess is more beautiful when you find joyous in a boring game. If someone dont enjoy 12 games of 8 hours they happily can play chekers.
No offense please, i gave my thought only.
"if you want to be the president you have to watch the godfather several times" hahahahahah
How about a soccer shootout if they tie all games?
50:05 The Color of Money!
ruclips.net/video/cmDACqyT_dc/видео.html
The problem with F5 is pawn takes takes take check check rook takes queen check fork knight take takes mate
So you're saying FIDE isn't exactly bona fide?
I really like that Shahade idea.
I expect Magnus to be championship for the next 5-7 years. Nowadays 20+ years old players aren’t at the level of Magnus.
The old style was like the boxing world champioship
I believe that chess 960 is the future.
Alireza Firouzja says hi.
Laughed at the Godfather joke
Would be cool to also hear the other people in the chat to understand what the question/comment is
Funny how chess has been around for so long and we still haven't figured out the best format for a world championship... I agree with Ben, there shouldn't be a rapid in a slow chess championship where the best player is awarded the tittle of the WC. They need to figure out something else.
Like playing exciting burning your bridges edge of the seat chess.
Magnus had good luck in all his matches so far, the matches with Karjakin and Caruana were very close. He has 80% chance of winning but people don't know that's still pretty narrow. If you have an 80% of winning a match, and play 5 matches, you'll lose one most likely. The best player in the world doesn't always win a match against a top 10 player. Highest rated is more important than World Champion.
Caruana had more luck than Magnus as magnus failed to convert the first game and the second he just decided to draw it
The only thing Carlsen has been proving is that he's the world's champion of rapid tiebreaks. He wasn't able to get the better of either Karjackin or Caruana in classical chess; he beat them at rapid.
The same goes for karjakin and Caruana, they couldn't win a single classical game against Carlsen, so Carlsen needn't prove anything, he's just defending his title however he can.
@@srinivassridhar5151 The difference is that nobody's calling Caruana or Karjackin the world champion.
@@profd65 Yeah, because they are not.
its different if they take no risks and play for draws its legit there own fault for not wanting to take risks.
@@profd65 Because the champion retains the title until s/he retires or is defeated.
You love Dubai....? I love Dubai nice things. What do you love Dubai?
(nope this isn't Danya in disguise)
What about Qa7 instead of Rd1?
good job ben
very unexpected cocaine joke XD
Hmm.. So the match was postponed from 2020 to 2021 because of the pandemic. This implies that the pandemic is over now? Or people are more brave now than last year?
''he tried to castle with his queen, and they asked him what he is was doing he said : cocaine is a hell of a drug XD
29:33
i propose a 12 game match where if they draw no one is wold champion that year, then the next year its the top 2 of the candidates, i think that would be funny
Traditionally, an undefeated champion is still the champion.
@@kristianfagerstrom7011 yea but in theory if you tie with someone you are considered equal in skill
@@gloryrod86 Yep, but in order to dethrone a reigning champion, you must defeat them. Proving superior skill. Equal is not enough.
@@kristianfagerstrom7011 but if he didn't defeat you either hes not much of a champion, hence my proposition
@@gloryrod86 Enough of a champion to defeat the previous one, and so he'll remain champ until defeated.
If it's a draw just give it to the highest rated person... oh wait, that'd be Carlsen.
Even the King can't come back when defeated, so why the guys like Bodnik were allowed another "life", so to speak, was a mockery to the game. Terrible rules in the 60's. Personally, I think a portion of the finals game should be rapid aswell, so a more "rounded", skilled champion is found. A guy or girl who can win both slow and fast!
You’re actually quoting “the color of money”, not risky business
I didn't only like the video but I really really really really really like the video.
Should be 2 million prize. Winner takes all after 14 games. Loser is movlcked forever. In case of a draw they both lose the money and the champion keeps the crown. And is mocked forever.
I think that Carlsen is better than Nepo, but I also think that he is not fantastic in handling stress. So it all depends. If Nepo can win a game very early on and Carlsen cannot come back quickly, it will make Carlsen very nervous. On the other hand, nerves are not Nepo's best asset either. If Carlsen wins 2 - 3 games, Nepo might just mentally cave in.
If after 14 games the match is tied there should be a classical game of chess each day, or, even, each half day!, until there is a decisive game. Stamina plays a role in success, so let chess stamina award the prize and not chess instinct.
How about tiebreak with "No Castle" matches?
Cocaine is a hell of a dr- no no xD
I'd like to think that well see 4 decisive classical games. 1 to Ian. 3 to Magnus
Go Greg, but also stay there
Such a tie-break would cause the loser not to play their best game and the other has an unfair advantage. I think that format is not better than the current format.
It’s FIDE or the highway
nice Color of Money reference... not risky business tho
There was pulp fiction reference at 30:04
"and you will know my name is the lord when I lay my finger upon you!!" *bang bang*
Great stuff ben 😁
magnus is sooo strong that he can win world championship even with 10-15 days or without prepration
seeing magnus's rapid & classical games in last 1 year what i observed is
he looses or get in worst positions just because he knowingly plays inaccurate moves in openings to have full flaged fight
only guys who can compete magnus in champ. matches upto 30-40% are Fabi , aronian, Ding & giri in order
"We won't see 14 draws"
Nepo will win as Carlsen is crap in matches.
Best option for Nepo is to keep it solid and win by one game.
All the pressure is on Carlsen who's gotten increasingly defensive as most champions before him did.
He's there for the taking.
oh wow bens a vegan, thats cool, for some reason unexpected haha
Draw odds and a rematch? It is good to be King.
What about following norway chess, armageddon after each draw?
Dude did he really take the knight and play Bd4 ? God damn that looks scary.
A proposal: a variation of chess960 (aka random chess) - such that the first move is actually for white to set up his main pieces however he likes and feels optimal; black then responds by setting up his pieces however he likes in response to white's set up. As in "random chess" this would diminish reliance on opening theory and there could be a lot of watchable drama from the very beginning of the game to see how white sets up his pieces, and how black responds. This avoids the random nature of "random chess" which seems arbitrary to me.
It's frankly ridiculous that only 12 classical time control games be played in a WCh. I stopped watching WCh matches when that kicked in. If they want to avoid WCh matches taking a long time to complete then make the format 24 games and play 6 games per week. Play a TC in between classical and rapid. For example 75/30.
The idea of playing the rapids before the slow chess is frankly ridicoulous :) . You are putting preassure to one of the the players before starting the match just because a bounch of rapid games..
Dude...how hes looking at history note. He knows king wins....queens....will they make kings. Checkmate
İn classical game Nepomniatchi is better. It makes him favourite against Carlsen. Carlsen is thé better in Rapid and Blitz Games. It means he can exhibit his capability fast, but his capability is not as high as Nepomniatchi. If thé match goes to Tie-break, Carlsen has Chance; otherweise, Nepomniatchi has Chance.
Good video. I think it's interesting that at 31:35 the pawn to F5 allows the position to be broken open for humans but an engine claims it's defendable by white.
lets goooooo