This actually has happened in other sports. An international women's pole vault title was shared just a few years ago. I guess I might be the only one who saw this as heartwarming rather than devastating/offensive.
The pole vault title is a completely different story, both vaulters couldn’t beat each other’s height after multiple tries, in chess there was eventually going to be a winner if they kept playing after a while, this is just nonsense
There are other examples, but this is very different. The players made the decision unilaterally, not the organisation. This could not have happened if it wasn't Magnus. It was a power play, pure and simple.
@@JGarrone that isn't true, no matter how many games they play there isn't guaranteed a winner. They could play an infinite amount games and draw every one of them.
I hate it when people bring up pole vaulting to support this decision. The fact that people have to resort to this very specific sport is evidence for how unusual it is. In chess, you have knockout rounds where it's 1 vs. 1. You basically play on until you have a winner. Stop being such a blind Magnus fanboy/fangirl. Maybe trust the opinions of all the other chess experts instead, who are obviously disagreeing with what happened.
I hope you’re doing well, Alex. I’m really sorry again about Squeak. My heart feels for you. Take solace in knowing you’ve done your best in doing everything you possibly could for him. Please don’t beat yourself up. Please don’t lose hope. 2025 will be much kinder to you, Alex 💚
I'm so sorry for Squeaky. I know it's that type of things which is hard leaving behind. Sending you a lot of good energy, positive vibes, and strength.
We celebrate shared gold at the Olympics as an accomplishment in sportsmanship. Armageddon, classical, bullet, and blitz are all different games. Seems dumb to play a format to get to the finals and have the tournament decided by a different format. Forcing people to play when they’re exhausted and have already tied in the finals seems cruel and unethical when they’re okay with sharing the title and prize.
The Armageddon kinda reminds me of fencing tie breakers. For fencing if it’s tied you flip a coin for priority. The person with priority is the one who wins if the min runs out with no one scoring . It forces the person with out priority to hit to win before time runs out giving them the disadvantage.
For all the crazy things happening in the world, I don't think this is a big of a deal. If the players agree to share the title and the organizers also agree, than why not? I never view this that "it is because of Magnus". I think that if this happened once, it is a catalyst to happen again and the rule holders are more flexible.
Great breakdown! Personally if two competitors tie multiple times then somebody winning 1/10 games isn't really the winner. So sharing the title seems appropriate. But I can certainly understand the perspective of competitors saying no somebody has to win. Obviously that's the objective. No matter what decision they made people would make controversy from it.
As a fan watching it all unfold on the day, I was and still am fine with the joint first. There was no Armageddon in force, so theoretically, it could still be going on. That's not the players' fault; it's the organisers'. Hard to believe the amount of drama in the chess world - chill out folks.☘
I’m with you. As for the precedent question, clearly organisers will instate armageddon for future events, and then that’s that. This was a one off, and as such, it was an interesting piece of chess history that was rather heartwarming to see.
They know that's a possibility going in. Look at Kasparov and Karpov, they didn't wimp out. It might be that Magnus is hoping by doing this there will be a rule change, or it might just be ego. But the idea that it's the fault of the organizers is ludicrous.
@@DanSmith-j8y Of course it is down to the organisers (the hint is in the name) - if you find the notion 'ludicrous', please give a cogent reason as to why. BTW, where did you earn psychology badges or perhaps they are mindreading badges, seeing as you know what Magnus was thinking...
@@JustinMurray170fin I gave you a reason already, and it was cogent. As for reading Magnus' mind, I didn't - that's why I said "MIGHT BE". A dumb guy trying to be smart is always hilarious.
Think they should play until there is a winner. I can understand Why they wanted to split it, but it feels like two long distance runners agreeing to just call it a draw after being neck & neck for a dozen miles. 5:17 good point to bring up about previous quick draw agreements though because idk anything about the historical precedent in competitive chess
You don’t need to understand ….. it is what it is. They both decided they both made it that far it’s their decision. They don’t care wether you understand it or not
@ I did mention that I can understand why they split it(emphasis on reading the word “can”, not “can’t”).. I’m curious whether the rules specifically addressed the players’ authority to split the final? I’m not sure on the exact rules of the tournament, but I would imagine that there is a reason many people are upset by the split. I’m not a chess guy, so there are likely aspects I’m not able to give the proper consideration
Forget Fide and Carlson for a sec. Imagine it's another organization, another player, another sport. You can't torture players and force them to play indefinitely, and Armageddon simply isn't fair, so that's not a solution either. A tie is just one way out, no matter how much you complain. Everybody knows a co-1st is worth less than real 1st. This shouldn't even be a controversy. And this should be a reminder, THE reminder to people who disagree with this outcome. Everybody knows a co-1st is worth less than real 1st. The only other better option i could think of is, tell the players you play for 1 more day, so that's maybe another dozen matches, and if you still tie, then you can share the 1st place. Prepare people's expectations a bit before dropping it.
Letting him Back into the Tournament because of an Trash rule that got Changed is good and in a Game where the Game ends in an Draw its Just the Game that needs to be Changed, a Draw IS a Draw, Split Championship was the right Thing to do
But as I think FIDE felt pressured bcz it was the first time a tournament played under that particular tie break rule the sudden death tie break, maybe they thought they made something wrong which make much flexible to Magnus Nepo offerings split
Oh, and..."draws are a disgrace". Chess, I invite you to meet cricket. As for the whole armageddon thing...FFS, that just makes a classical/rapid/blitz tournament into an armageddon tournament. Why not just replace all the matches with a single armageddon game, if it's the fair way to decide these things? Answer: because nobody wants an armageddon tournament.
“First time in chess history two players both walked away with the chess world championship” 1984/85 when Karpov and Kasparov both had to stop for a couple of months and considered dual world championship.
Dear Alex, I'm really sorry about Squeak. I had birds when I was younger so I know how much he means to you. It's been on my mind a lot so please know that my thoughts are with you during this tough time.
7:05 clearly didn't follow the last Olympics high jump. Everyone in the sport thought of it as a special moment where the two winners were looking at each other as equals rather than putting their egos first.
I Liked that they shared the title, Magnus showed class by giving the award to Nepo as well! Everybody did short draws so it seems it was a valid option, I see no problems!
This reminds me of instances when companies hire IT experts to try and breakthrough their intrastructure and find weaknesses. Magnus found a weakness (no meaningful tiebreaks) and decided to exploit it. Since FIDE decided to forego the tournament's tiebreak rule, they couldve decided not to go with their suggestion of co-champs, they couldve just installed a new tiebreak rule that will determine a champion.
Well, I guess high jump isn't a sport, since split titles are often awarded, as they are in many other sports. And for those who cite the soccer World Cup, well, there's a game for 3rd place there, but 3rd place was awarded to two people at the chess Blitz Championship, so isn't it a double standard to say you can share 3rd place but not 1st? And I've seen lots of races, especially in cycling, where even the finish photo couldn't determine a winner and they tossed a coin, but everybody was saying "give it to them both". I think most people who are against the split title are simply not used to it and can't accept a new concept. And about the other people cited in the video for whom it was "unfair" because they had to play to an end, well, Magnus asked, and they could have too, but they didn't, so why is it unfair?
You can make an incredible amount of good arguments for why you should be allowed to wear jeans to a tournament and why said tournament shouldn't have a possible outcome with indefinite ties during the final. I'll happy make these arguments. But you advocate for these changes _before_ the tournament. Making up tournament rules as you go may be less flexible, but they are the most fair to everyone's expectations and worthwhile competition does not exist without fairness.
People need to chill. This proved the lack of tie break was a huge oversight by FIDE and they'll hopefully fix it next time. Also, in sports, sometimes people share gold. They CAN time it to 1/10000 second if they want to, but usually sports are done to 1/100 for the rare occasions where two people are equally good.
Also an interesting argument I heard from someone, is that because it was literally new years eve and their remaining renting time for the venue was probably quite limited, it might have influenced FIDE's decision making. 😉 I used to hate Armageddon, but ever since they came up with the bidding system I find it to be kinda fair and entertaining. For those who don't know the format: Both players bid a time. Lower bid starts with the proposed time and gets to choose color (usually black because draw-odds), the other one starts with their full time. Much better than the antiquated 4min vs 5min rule imo. The fact that FIDE didn't use this format, or literally any rule that would stop games from going on indefinitely is solely a failure on their part tbf. I guess they learned their lesson now and this will be a once-in-lifetime thing.
Didn’t know about Armageddon and honestly that feels like the right answer. There definitely needs to be a better way to handle stalemates to where it doesn’t harm the health of the competitors.
In a Sport basing the Championship on pure luck is the dumbest Thing ever, at that Point make it a coinflip Contest, at least its an satisfying result then
Magnus made a magnanimous gesture, I was glad for Ian, and FIDE needed still to say No. Beyond that, Alex, your calm thoughtful and insightful analysis is outstanding, especially the point at the end. The truth is the highest quest, not one person! Thanks.
We miss Squeak,this must be a really hard time for you Alex,I truly hope this is the only setback this year and that everything else brings nothing but positivity!😔💙
If it helps (and not to lose hope), Squeak has been loved and cared for. Many of my feral animals have vanished over the years, yet for the time I cared for them, they were loved. They are not with us ever long enough...but good luck still going forward!
I am fine with them sharing the title under the circumstances. What if two Super Bowl teams decided to share the title. People would riot. But what if they each played hard to win and in overtime they were so exhausted that neither could make the final score so they played for three hours of overtime. At some point we could say they should just both get the title.
I've been fond of Magnus, but this isn't the first time where I've thought it's painfully obvious that he's scared of losing and tries to disguise it as something else. And everyone goes along with it. Refusing to play World Championship matches was the first red flag for me.
Remember the Tokyo 2020 Olympics? Mutaz Essa Barshim (Qatar) and Gianmarco Tamberi (Italy) both cleared 2.37m but couldn't surpass 2.39m. Instead of a jump-off, Barshim asked: "Can we have two golds?" The official said yes, and the duo erupted in joy. It think it was a golden moment of sportsmanship and camaraderie. I was ok with that and I'm ok with this chess championship result.
Why can't two or more people be equal? If there isn't a clear matric to decide who's better, all should get first position. If immeasurable unfairness needs to be involved to decide a winner, the game probably is not meant for a single winner. Do let me know if it's not that simple
Boxing solved this ages ago. If the world championship is a draw in points - the old champion stays champion. I thought chess also had this rule in the 70s. Didnt know that this isnt a rule anymore. After lets say: 20 games - if both have same points : the old champion stays champion. Easy as that. But to make it easier , because i get it ''if someone is as good as the old champion, why should be the old champion the winner'' - i get it , so another solution : After same points arrived after 20 games, i am for 20 bullet games with chess960. No way, that with chess960 both players could learned the same amount of preparation. Espescially when its bullet chess960 - espescially with 20 games. So i am sure, a winner is then made. There is no need for ''Armageddon-mode''.
At Wimbledon in 2018, when Isner and Mahut played their marathon match, ending 70-68 in the fifth set (because one player had to establish a two game lead), they brought in a tie-break, to be played if the score reaches 12-12 in the fifth set. Ironically, it was needed the very next year in that epic Djokovic v Federer final!! The point is, many sports have a system for deciding a winner if there is no outcome in normal time. Perhaps FIDE can learn from what happened, as the Wimbledon authorities did. An Armageddon game may be seen as less than satisfactory, but at least it will lead to a resolution.
It's beyond my understanding that anyone can't understand the concept of competition and winning. It's not a love-in, it's a contest. The whole point is to have one overall winner.
I like it when the people who create the value that organizations benefit by flex their power a bit. Yes rules are rules, but sometimes organizations that invent tules start thinking they’re in charge, when in reality it is the players who make all of this happen. It’s the players who bring the attention; it’s the players who work hard and build the amazing skill people want to see. Yes, the organization serves a vital purpose but I think it was demonstrated by the indescribably dumb way the organization handled a conflict over fabric choice and their previous rules that the org needed reminding who actually brings value to the sport. Organizations need to be reminded, occasionally, that they can be replaced if they don’t conduct themselves respectfully with the people who create the value. Two top-level players coming to a handshake agreement and the organization bending to their will after an amazing showing of play on the players part and after an amazing failure in judgement on the orgs part doesn’t weaken chess. It shows who actually makes chess great: the players. The org just needed its leash pulled and that’s what happened and it’s a good thing.
well in high jump olympics 2 gold medals were shared..... I am not much intro chess tournaments, but although armagaddon seems nice there should be other tiebreaker, or some combination of them...
I see the capitalistic approach to trade amongst society with corporations however the contemplation of giving material to a third party without understanding the platform of trade or the ethics placed up the exchange leads to a downside of business ventures. Now granted doing business with your company has obviously lead to a variety of marketing opportunities. Which leads to a continued trust factor of direction which is what most think of when wanting success. Much appreciated.
hi beauty. I don’t watch chess like I do the ufc.. but magnus has been a champion, prodigy since a kid. I’m happy he’s not an asshole it’s a kind gesture what’s winning to him ? Doesn’t mean as much as the people who are mad.. I hope they become friends
FIDE should never have allowed it, and they shouldn't have backed down over the jeans either. It's a slippery slope. Compare snooker and darts: the former has a strict dress code, and spectators are at best allowed to politely applaud; in darts, everyone's drinking, they're raucous, shouting, the players are dressed very casual, and some people prefer it - I'm just not one of them.
I actually fully support their joint decision to stop playing and call it “even”. In the end, they were the last 2 players fighting for the top spot in the tournament. If they want to stop “fighting” and just go join the New Year celebrations, good for them. I also think that FIDE should have crowned them as tied for second place - so no blitz world champion in 2024, as there was no clear victor. They both tied for second place. I would also either split the 70k for second place between them (35k each) and move the 90k for 1st place to next year’s competition for 1st place. See how much they want to share next year when the 1st place is 180k and second is 70k. FIDE blundered big time
I don't mind this so much... It's something different, and if people don't like it they can just change the rules to include an armageddon for next year. This incident served to highlight a flaw in FIDE's rules so that something can be done about it. Magnus has more sway than other players, duh; of course he does. It's natural that it would be that way, and in a way he earned it. Maybe it's not fair but life is not fair. If other players want the same level of influence, accomplish what Magnus has and then you will. That's just how things work; to the victor go the spoils. Also I found it kind of nice that they shared. Perhaps it indicates a shift to a world where one person doesn't have to lose for someone else to win.
Just goes to show the power of social media and how the backlash against jeans-gate probably influenced their decision to throw the rules out the window. It’s a silly world where Fide gets forked and loses both pieces 😂
Alex The Reporter
Love u Dina ❤
lol ok
Хороший репортер. Молодец 😊
This actually has happened in other sports. An international women's pole vault title was shared just a few years ago. I guess I might be the only one who saw this as heartwarming rather than devastating/offensive.
The pole vault title is a completely different story, both vaulters couldn’t beat each other’s height after multiple tries, in chess there was eventually going to be a winner if they kept playing after a while, this is just nonsense
There are other examples, but this is very different.
The players made the decision unilaterally, not the organisation. This could not have happened if it wasn't Magnus. It was a power play, pure and simple.
@@JGarrone that isn't true, no matter how many games they play there isn't guaranteed a winner. They could play an infinite amount games and draw every one of them.
I hate it when people bring up pole vaulting to support this decision. The fact that people have to resort to this very specific sport is evidence for how unusual it is. In chess, you have knockout rounds where it's 1 vs. 1. You basically play on until you have a winner. Stop being such a blind Magnus fanboy/fangirl. Maybe trust the opinions of all the other chess experts instead, who are obviously disagreeing with what happened.
This happened in Men's high jump at 2020 Olympics. The two competitors agreed to share the gold medal, similar to what happened here.
Imagine 48 Games over 5 months
I hope you’re doing well, Alex. I’m really sorry again about Squeak. My heart feels for you.
Take solace in knowing you’ve done your best in doing everything you possibly could for him. Please don’t beat yourself up. Please don’t lose hope.
2025 will be much kinder to you, Alex 💚
Oh no. I didn't hear about Squeak. Very sorry to hear it. Seemed like a good dude.
Im so sorry about Squeak, I hope he will come back home soon, untill then stay strong.
I'm so sorry for Squeaky. I know it's that type of things which is hard leaving behind. Sending you a lot of good energy, positive vibes, and strength.
Thank you 🥺♥️
Who is this?
@@yugimota23 it’s her bird? 🐦
What happend to Squeak?
@@AllmondISP he's missed
We celebrate shared gold at the Olympics as an accomplishment in sportsmanship.
Armageddon, classical, bullet, and blitz are all different games. Seems dumb to play a format to get to the finals and have the tournament decided by a different format.
Forcing people to play when they’re exhausted and have already tied in the finals seems cruel and unethical when they’re okay with sharing the title and prize.
They both agreed, end of story. Moving forward, install Armageddon. Next?
The Armageddon kinda reminds me of fencing tie breakers. For fencing if it’s tied you flip a coin for priority. The person with priority is the one who wins if the min runs out with no one scoring . It forces the person with out priority to hit to win before time runs out giving them the disadvantage.
The whole idea in fencing of "priority" is so stupid. No one's fighting duels anymore, but it should still retain some of its origins.
Worlds Not the same without Squeak
I know :(
What is squeak?
@@adityapacharne5688 I assume it was her pet bird.
For all the crazy things happening in the world, I don't think this is a big of a deal. If the players agree to share the title and the organizers also agree, than why not? I never view this that "it is because of Magnus". I think that if this happened once, it is a catalyst to happen again and the rule holders are more flexible.
This happens all the time in track snd field for example. I don't see why all this drama.
It's not SAME. I'M tired of ignorant people like you defending it.. Situations are different..
@@percyweasley9301 get to magnus level face him then your decision/opinion will matter before then.. MOOO point. 🐄
@@percyweasley9301 haha I'm gonna agree with the top chess players and not you
Great breakdown!
Personally if two competitors tie multiple times then somebody winning 1/10 games isn't really the winner.
So sharing the title seems appropriate.
But I can certainly understand the perspective of competitors saying no somebody has to win. Obviously that's the objective.
No matter what decision they made people would make controversy from it.
As a fan watching it all unfold on the day, I was and still am fine with the joint first.
There was no Armageddon in force, so theoretically, it could still be going on. That's not the players' fault; it's the organisers'.
Hard to believe the amount of drama in the chess world - chill out folks.☘
I’m with you. As for the precedent question, clearly organisers will instate armageddon for future events, and then that’s that. This was a one off, and as such, it was an interesting piece of chess history that was rather heartwarming to see.
They know that's a possibility going in. Look at Kasparov and Karpov, they didn't wimp out. It might be that Magnus is hoping by doing this there will be a rule change, or it might just be ego. But the idea that it's the fault of the organizers is ludicrous.
@@DanSmith-j8y Of course it is down to the organisers (the hint is in the name) - if you find the notion 'ludicrous', please give a cogent reason as to why.
BTW, where did you earn psychology badges or perhaps they are mindreading badges, seeing as you know what Magnus was thinking...
@@JustinMurray170fin I gave you a reason already, and it was cogent. As for reading Magnus' mind, I didn't - that's why I said "MIGHT BE". A dumb guy trying to be smart is always hilarious.
Is it really the most controversial world chess championship though?
Think they should play until there is a winner. I can understand Why they wanted to split it, but it feels like two long distance runners agreeing to just call it a draw after being neck & neck for a dozen miles.
5:17 good point to bring up about previous quick draw agreements though because idk anything about the historical precedent in competitive chess
You don’t need to understand ….. it is what it is. They both decided they both made it that far it’s their decision. They don’t care wether you understand it or not
@ I did mention that I can understand why they split it(emphasis on reading the word “can”, not “can’t”)..
I’m curious whether the rules specifically addressed the players’ authority to split the final? I’m not sure on the exact rules of the tournament, but I would imagine that there is a reason many people are upset by the split.
I’m not a chess guy, so there are likely aspects I’m not able to give the proper consideration
Ian Carlsen
Magnus Nepomininiachi
Both r the winners
@@GOXXog-vr1mh underrated comment
The best choice ever
Both disgraceful match fixers
@@hoxplanet This was about Magnus' ego and him sticking it to FIDE.
Forget Fide and Carlson for a sec. Imagine it's another organization, another player, another sport.
You can't torture players and force them to play indefinitely, and Armageddon simply isn't fair, so that's not a solution either. A tie is just one way out, no matter how much you complain. Everybody knows a co-1st is worth less than real 1st. This shouldn't even be a controversy.
And this should be a reminder, THE reminder to people who disagree with this outcome. Everybody knows a co-1st is worth less than real 1st.
The only other better option i could think of is, tell the players you play for 1 more day, so that's maybe another dozen matches, and if you still tie, then you can share the 1st place. Prepare people's expectations a bit before dropping it.
Letting him Back into the Tournament because of an Trash rule that got Changed is good and in a Game where the Game ends in an Draw its Just the Game that needs to be Changed, a Draw IS a Draw, Split Championship was the right Thing to do
I think Magnus is just using his power to expose loopholes and stupid rules , i dont see anything wrong with it.
But as I think FIDE felt pressured bcz it was the first time a tournament played under that particular tie break rule the sudden death tie break, maybe they thought they made something wrong which make much flexible to Magnus Nepo offerings split
Oh, and..."draws are a disgrace". Chess, I invite you to meet cricket. As for the whole armageddon thing...FFS, that just makes a classical/rapid/blitz tournament into an armageddon tournament. Why not just replace all the matches with a single armageddon game, if it's the fair way to decide these things? Answer: because nobody wants an armageddon tournament.
“First time in chess history two players both walked away with the chess world championship” 1984/85 when Karpov and Kasparov both had to stop for a couple of months and considered dual world championship.
Dear Alex, I'm really sorry about Squeak. I had birds when I was younger so I know how much he means to you. It's been on my mind a lot so please know that my thoughts are with you during this tough time.
7:05 clearly didn't follow the last Olympics high jump. Everyone in the sport thought of it as a special moment where the two winners were looking at each other as equals rather than putting their egos first.
I Liked that they shared the title, Magnus showed class by giving the award to Nepo as well! Everybody did short draws so it seems it was a valid option, I see no problems!
This reminds me of instances when companies hire IT experts to try and breakthrough their intrastructure and find weaknesses. Magnus found a weakness (no meaningful tiebreaks) and decided to exploit it. Since FIDE decided to forego the tournament's tiebreak rule, they couldve decided not to go with their suggestion of co-champs, they couldve just installed a new tiebreak rule that will determine a champion.
Well, I guess high jump isn't a sport, since split titles are often awarded, as they are in many other sports. And for those who cite the soccer World Cup, well, there's a game for 3rd place there, but 3rd place was awarded to two people at the chess Blitz Championship, so isn't it a double standard to say you can share 3rd place but not 1st? And I've seen lots of races, especially in cycling, where even the finish photo couldn't determine a winner and they tossed a coin, but everybody was saying "give it to them both". I think most people who are against the split title are simply not used to it and can't accept a new concept. And about the other people cited in the video for whom it was "unfair" because they had to play to an end, well, Magnus asked, and they could have too, but they didn't, so why is it unfair?
You can make an incredible amount of good arguments for why you should be allowed to wear jeans to a tournament and why said tournament shouldn't have a possible outcome with indefinite ties during the final. I'll happy make these arguments.
But you advocate for these changes _before_ the tournament. Making up tournament rules as you go may be less flexible, but they are the most fair to everyone's expectations and worthwhile competition does not exist without fairness.
Pele the True GOTY of Soccer
3:02 💀
Ded
“It’s all prearrangement“ - Bobby Fischer the OG 🐐
but they do, do it in other sports, the same thing has happened at the Olympics in the high jump recently. it's not uncommon
Friendship won!
People need to chill. This proved the lack of tie break was a huge oversight by FIDE and they'll hopefully fix it next time. Also, in sports, sometimes people share gold. They CAN time it to 1/10000 second if they want to, but usually sports are done to 1/100 for the rare occasions where two people are equally good.
If they are that evenly matched, then sharing the title makes sense.
I thought there was a history in chess where the world champion gets to kick everyone around.
Also an interesting argument I heard from someone, is that because it was literally new years eve and their remaining renting time for the venue was probably quite limited, it might have influenced FIDE's decision making. 😉
I used to hate Armageddon, but ever since they came up with the bidding system I find it to be kinda fair and entertaining.
For those who don't know the format: Both players bid a time. Lower bid starts with the proposed time and gets to choose color (usually black because draw-odds), the other one starts with their full time. Much better than the antiquated 4min vs 5min rule imo.
The fact that FIDE didn't use this format, or literally any rule that would stop games from going on indefinitely is solely a failure on their part tbf. I guess they learned their lesson now and this will be a once-in-lifetime thing.
It’s not entirely true that sports always have a winner. Olympic golds have been split like this before
I still hope you find Squeak. All the best and Good Luck
😮did he escape?
@strawpiglet Sadly yes
@@rucaskoay2991 😔
Didn’t know about Armageddon and honestly that feels like the right answer. There definitely needs to be a better way to handle stalemates to where it doesn’t harm the health of the competitors.
Magnus just play for fun, that wass a christmas giff for nepo
Magnus did not betray!
there were occasions where this happened in other sports aswell. there were these two athletes in high jumping who shared the gold medal.
This is why i will never consider playing in chess competitions
Magnus can afford to buy FIDE and run it himself.
Dinner with P. Diddy
Next Question
p.diddy and kids. now there's a Touchy subject!
The inclusion of the Femke Bol clip getting gold at the Olympics after another amazing sprint was perfection
But in that sport they share the first place often.
Why do i even watch this when i don´t know anything about chess...
In a Sport basing the Championship on pure luck is the dumbest Thing ever, at that Point make it a coinflip Contest, at least its an satisfying result then
Donchenko said it well. Kudos for saying what needs to be said!
Magnus made a magnanimous gesture, I was glad for Ian, and FIDE needed still to say No. Beyond that, Alex, your calm thoughtful and insightful analysis is outstanding, especially the point at the end. The truth is the highest quest, not one person! Thanks.
2:29 I’m genuinely curious how it was easier to put this specific random screenshot instead of current live ratings.
We miss Squeak,this must be a really hard time for you Alex,I truly hope this is the only setback this year and that everything else brings nothing but positivity!😔💙
Don’t think it’s a big deal if players and FIDE agree to share the 1st place.
If it helps (and not to lose hope), Squeak has been loved and cared for. Many of my feral animals have vanished over the years, yet for the time I cared for them, they were loved. They are not with us ever long enough...but good luck still going forward!
I am fine with them sharing the title under the circumstances. What if two Super Bowl teams decided to share the title. People would riot. But what if they each played hard to win and in overtime they were so exhausted that neither could make the final score so they played for three hours of overtime. At some point we could say they should just both get the title.
Frankly this felt unfortunate but it feels like Magnus taking a shot to FIDE
Two Winners or
Two Drawers or
Two Losers
?
two winners, obviously
Two winners ofc
Both win, in game and life
I've been fond of Magnus, but this isn't the first time where I've thought it's painfully obvious that he's scared of losing and tries to disguise it as something else. And everyone goes along with it. Refusing to play World Championship matches was the first red flag for me.
Squeak here: happy world
Squeak gone: sad world
Hope you find him
Agree, as per the rules they play until one wins. To do otherwise robs a player out of a true win and the audience out of a Champion.
Let say After three tie breaker, players can opt for shared title
they were co-runner-ups
Remember the Tokyo 2020 Olympics? Mutaz Essa Barshim (Qatar) and Gianmarco Tamberi (Italy) both cleared 2.37m but couldn't surpass 2.39m. Instead of a jump-off, Barshim asked: "Can we have two golds?" The official said yes, and the duo erupted in joy. It think it was a golden moment of sportsmanship and camaraderie. I was ok with that and I'm ok with this chess championship result.
Why can't two or more people be equal? If there isn't a clear matric to decide who's better, all should get first position. If immeasurable unfairness needs to be involved to decide a winner, the game probably is not meant for a single winner.
Do let me know if it's not that simple
Boxing solved this ages ago. If the world championship is a draw in points - the old champion stays champion. I thought chess also had this rule in the 70s. Didnt know that this isnt a rule anymore.
After lets say: 20 games - if both have same points : the old champion stays champion. Easy as that.
But to make it easier , because i get it ''if someone is as good as the old champion, why should be the old champion the winner'' - i get it , so another solution :
After same points arrived after 20 games, i am for 20 bullet games with chess960. No way, that with chess960 both players could learned the same amount of preparation. Espescially when its bullet chess960 - espescially with 20 games. So i am sure, a winner is then made. There is no need for ''Armageddon-mode''.
At Wimbledon in 2018, when Isner and Mahut played their marathon match, ending 70-68 in the fifth set (because one player had to establish a two game lead), they brought in a tie-break, to be played if the score reaches 12-12 in the fifth set. Ironically, it was needed the very next year in that epic Djokovic v Federer final!!
The point is, many sports have a system for deciding a winner if there is no outcome in normal time. Perhaps FIDE can learn from what happened, as the Wimbledon authorities did. An Armageddon game may be seen as less than satisfactory, but at least it will lead to a resolution.
i hope Magnus was not too tired and nervous on his wedding night.
I don't understand the fuss about the split. If it is good enough for Olympic why isn't it good enough for chess?
magnus is like a harvey spectre of chess
Ignore the Marry me comments 😤
U should Marry me 🥺 (I am very intelligent 😎🤓)
U got 85 in the IQ test
Lil bro
I think Magnus has been allowing other players to win and get paid.
Both should have been declared second and no champion until next year.
I think when friendship wins it’s always beautiful! Why are people disappointed or even frustrated is beyond my understanding.
It's beyond my understanding that anyone can't understand the concept of competition and winning. It's not a love-in, it's a contest. The whole point is to have one overall winner.
@@DanSmith-j8ymagnus and the other guy won. Lol.. everyone else lost.
How’d y’all feel about the Olympic high jumpers sharing the gold?
They should resolve it via chess boxing
how come nepo and magnus didn't end up playing an armageddon? had they not reached the amount of games played for an armageddon to be called?
Alex.... get off the fence and say what you really think!
I like it when the people who create the value that organizations benefit by flex their power a bit. Yes rules are rules, but sometimes organizations that invent tules start thinking they’re in charge, when in reality it is the players who make all of this happen. It’s the players who bring the attention; it’s the players who work hard and build the amazing skill people want to see. Yes, the organization serves a vital purpose but I think it was demonstrated by the indescribably dumb way the organization handled a conflict over fabric choice and their previous rules that the org needed reminding who actually brings value to the sport. Organizations need to be reminded, occasionally, that they can be replaced if they don’t conduct themselves respectfully with the people who create the value.
Two top-level players coming to a handshake agreement and the organization bending to their will after an amazing showing of play on the players part and after an amazing failure in judgement on the orgs part doesn’t weaken chess. It shows who actually makes chess great: the players.
The org just needed its leash pulled and that’s what happened and it’s a good thing.
I don't know why but the first thing that my intuition thinks is that Magnus wants to remove the competitive drive from Ian.
Chess Streamers : Let them keep the Blitz Title but don't address them as World Blitz Champion 2024.
well in high jump olympics 2 gold medals were shared.....
I am not much intro chess tournaments,
but although armagaddon seems nice there should be other tiebreaker,
or some combination of them...
Our Chess(combat) Correspomdent on the scene! Is that meta enough? I’m usually down with the hive mind,reporter. Bird is the Word.
I see the capitalistic approach to trade amongst society with corporations however the contemplation of giving material to a third party without understanding the platform of trade or the ethics placed up the exchange leads to a downside of business ventures. Now granted doing business with your company has obviously lead to a variety of marketing opportunities. Which leads to a continued trust factor of direction which is what most think of when wanting success. Much appreciated.
give everyone a participation trophie
And he sacrificed.....a half from the 1st place!
well done Alexandra! the right and the wrong should be called out.
hi beauty. I don’t watch chess like I do the ufc.. but magnus has been a champion, prodigy since a kid. I’m happy he’s not an asshole it’s a kind gesture what’s winning to him ? Doesn’t mean as much as the people who are mad.. I hope they become friends
conFIDE and diVIDE , uncle Ben would have been proud of u Alex for that ending.
FIDE should never have allowed it, and they shouldn't have backed down over the jeans either. It's a slippery slope. Compare snooker and darts: the former has a strict dress code, and spectators are at best allowed to politely applaud; in darts, everyone's drinking, they're raucous, shouting, the players are dressed very casual, and some people prefer it - I'm just not one of them.
It's a bless for generation "Everybody-is-a-winner"
I actually fully support their joint decision to stop playing and call it “even”. In the end, they were the last 2 players fighting for the top spot in the tournament. If they want to stop “fighting” and just go join the New Year celebrations, good for them.
I also think that FIDE should have crowned them as tied for second place - so no blitz world champion in 2024, as there was no clear victor. They both tied for second place. I would also either split the 70k for second place between them (35k each) and move the 90k for 1st place to next year’s competition for 1st place. See how much they want to share next year when the 1st place is 180k and second is 70k.
FIDE blundered big time
What if they have already decided not to play for the win before the start of the finals?
Move on. There is a loophole in the unrealistic rule. Fix it for the next.
I don't mind this so much... It's something different, and if people don't like it they can just change the rules to include an armageddon for next year. This incident served to highlight a flaw in FIDE's rules so that something can be done about it. Magnus has more sway than other players, duh; of course he does. It's natural that it would be that way, and in a way he earned it. Maybe it's not fair but life is not fair. If other players want the same level of influence, accomplish what Magnus has and then you will. That's just how things work; to the victor go the spoils. Also I found it kind of nice that they shared. Perhaps it indicates a shift to a world where one person doesn't have to lose for someone else to win.
Chadgun Marlsen > Yian Nepomichi
well they have recently shared the gold medal twice in high jump in olympic games.... instead of keeping jumping and jumping...
Chess speaks for himself.
Just goes to show the power of social media and how the backlash against jeans-gate probably influenced their decision to throw the rules out the window. It’s a silly world where Fide gets forked and loses both pieces 😂