วีดีโอ

But it worked as planned, he got lots og extra attention.

It’s already there, white is Niemann. The first mentioned is the one with the white pieces.

@@MartinZanichelli I think you know what i mean 🙄

a better experience would be to have less whining

@@mcronrn Wow, Mr. Ris has a lovely community 😆

Penalty kicks are even more arbitrary than armageddon chess, maybe there should be two champions, or just replay the final. Settling matches with deliberately chancey sudden-death scenarios has always been a melodramatic gimmick. At least nepo&carlsen fought to a deadlock unlike football teams boring the world to tears for 30mins until the penalty lottery begins. This event shows how ludicrous decisiveness bias is - judgements are based on winner/loser dichotomy & performance is ignored. If you score the winning penalty you become "the better side", "deserving champion" etc in the minds of those suffering this affliction

If those are the rules FIFA wants, and announces in advance, and every team is OK with those rules, I don't have any objection. But that isn't the present case, so it is utterly irrelevant.

Exactly so!

Armageddon is a much stupider way of deciding a world title. The tiebreak rule in this tournament was clear, and every player had agreed to it before the even began. It was a perfectly functional tiebreak rule; nothing the slightest bit wrong with it. That's why nobody even thought of complaining about it. Curiously enough, BOTH Karpov and Kasparov objected to changing the termination rule for their first match. They BOTH wanted to continue with the "indefinite format." Why was their wish to play by the per-arranged rules rejected while Magnus and Nepo's wish to CHANGE the rules were accepted? That was the foolish mistake FIDE made.

But they never played a single game that was a prearranged draw. If they had played such a game it could be considered fixing but they didn't so it's not. Planning a violation and actually committing a violation are different as I am sure most people would agree.

Understood. We don't know if Magnus and Ian planned this before the start of the finals.

@@justsayin8676 The moment Magnus proposed ending the match in a manner not consistent with the clear tiebreak rule he had agreed to before the tournament began, he was engaged in match fixing. The rules are the rules; it is not the player's place to make up new rules on the fly. This is not complicated. Magnus should have been disqualified immediately; then Nepo would have his first world title free and clear. Instead, he compounded Magnus's error by agreeing with the match-fixing proposal. They both should have been disqualified at that point.

@@dontvoteforanybody3715 Nepo could have said no. FIDE could have said no. The proposal did not directly determine the outcome of the match. Hence the proposal was not match fixing. I agree that the players cannot make new rules. It's a moot point since Magnus did not make up new rules. He ASKED if FIDE would relax their rules and they did. FIDE changed the rules, not Magnus or Nepo. If you want to blame someone, blame the flawed rules that FIDE put in place before the tournament or blame FIDE for using their discretion to change the rules at the end. Disqualifying Magnus for simply making the proposal would have been idiotic.

@@justsayin8676 The offense is in the attempt. If I pocket a diamond ring but it falls through a hole in my pocket before I leave the store, I'm still guilty of an offense.

There was no poor planning by FIDE. Their tiebreak rule was perfectly clear and every player agreed to it before the tournament began. The moment Magnus proposed any other method of ending the match than was provided for in the rules, he should have been disqualified for match fixing. This is not complicated.

@@dontvoteforanybody3715 Their new "tiebreak" rule was idiotic.

Magnus engaged in match fixing the moment he proposed a method of ending the competition that was different from the clear termination rule he and every other player had agreed to before the tournament began. Magnus should have been disqualified instantly.

We don't hold sporting competitions so that the players can toss a coin to pick a winner. We don't have sporting competitions so the players can hug each other and "share" the prize money and the title. It's not for the players that we have sporting competitions; it is for the organizers and the fans. If it were for the players, they could get together any Monday and play a match on whatever terms they like. We have sporting competitions so the fans can watch a real competition. We want a winner and a loser because that produces the most exciting competition.

Good argument! In principle I agree. But - I think the players had given the spectators full value. To force a decision at this point might have been entertainment, but lacked chess interest. Might as well check who is the best high jumper or knows the most capitals in the world, also drama.

You are unwittingly demanding an even more rarefied form of kayfabe

If you want to organize a tournament and give out prize money under those rules, be my guest. You won't get many fans watching, though. This tournament had different rules that every player agreed to before the event began. Proposing to change the rules at the end is match fixing plain and simple.

Well did they drew purposely? Nope. The games were fighting draws.

@ No, but they were ready to draw purposely, if the FIDE will disagree with their suggestion about the shared first place, as the video proofs with the conversation between Magnus and Nepo.

Nope they weren't fixing anything, it was just a joke between them, easy to understand if one has a sense of humor...

@@lajos-berenyi But according to players it's a joke so how can you say it was serious? Because they're friends and I bet everyone makes jokes like this especially people with dark humour like Magnus. So how exactly can you prove if it's a serious conversation or not? Because in fact no games were played and no fixing was done. Do no way to prove that

@ If according to them it was only a joke, then maybe they can consider the punishment (for example if they will lose the title) also just a joke.

I am sorry - are you telling me that chess has no draws? Chess - famously - is the ONLY game where professional games can be prearranged as draws. Read Tony Miles book where he describes prearranging a draw with someone who blunders in the opening - he honours the agreement anyway - but rubs the square with his finger, to point out the blunder. Chess is not just fixed - players write about it in their biographies.

I see you're a magnus fan

The first mistake FIDE made was not disqualifying Magnus the moment he proposed ending the match in a manner inconsistent with the perfectly clear rule he had agreed to before the tournament began. Even proposing to share the title was already match fixing. This isn't complicated.

I would ask you to answer a simple question: why wasn't the title share offered to Duda and So during the semi-finalists stage? Why not 4 co-champions instead of just 2?

The players can play for friendship or their own gratification any day of the year they like. When they show up to a competition, however, they are expected to compete. That's what the rules are there to ensure. A sporting competition with prize money and titles is not for the players; it is for the organizers and fans. What the players want is completely irrelevant once they enter the sporting arena. What dictates are the rules of the competition that all players agreed to before it began. This is not complicated or debatable.

The tiebreak rule was clear and agreed upon by every player before the tournament began. There is nothing the least bit "ridiculous" about the rule. The moment any other method of deciding the match was proposed by the players, that was match fixing by definition.

@ so if they were playing their 150th tiebreaker, round about now, that is not ridiculous? A sensible view for sure. The rules clearly stated that in unforeseen circumstances the FIDE president should decide, this is what happened. So not even a rule break.

@@joseraulcapablanca8564 Did you or Magnus point this out to FIDE before the match started? Criticising now, is trying to defend cheats and fixers. Sorry for such words, but I have learnt from my fallen hero who accused Hans Niemann for cheating with NO PROOF!

@ it cannot be cheating as what happened was within the rules. As for match fixing, no games were played after the discussion look at the games played between them and tell me they were fixed. Honestly Niemann cheated, lied, and, stole. True there is no proof that he cheated in «that» game.

@@joseraulcapablanca8564 First, only Magnus claimed Hans cheated, then he paid money to settle outside the court. Second, just because no games were played does not mean there was no match fixing. You talk to your opponent about short draws! If this is not cheating, what is? Can you imagine Man united and man city doing this even as a joke? But one thing is for sure- FIDE does not have spine to say anything to Magnus- lots of money involved. It is good to be a fan, but probably getting the reasons right makes a person intelligent. Like you I believed, when Magnus is calling Hans a cheat, there must be something... Why, Magnus settle it outside court? How is it justified to tarnish someone's reputation like that just because Hans defeated him once!!!!

Do you mean the first match? That was halted by by FIDE at the request of the Russian Chess Federation. Kasparov wanted to play on as he believed Karpov was exhausted.

@@jonsirulesx9929 i meant for the number of games they had to play ,not the fact that carlsen and nepo agreed while kasparov did not.for real how long should they play or how many games,at one point it is not chess anymore

@@jeanbacis9646 That's an extremely easy question to answer. It's answered in the rules every player agreed to before the event began. They play until there is a decisive result. What don't you understand? (If it's "not chess anymore," then the end should come quickly. What's the problem?)

The players did not fix the ending of that match; it was terminated by the organizer. There is no relevant similarity to the present case.

Chess is a cruel sport. Did you not see Ivanchuk's breakdown after the Naroditsky game? Nepo's ego does not supersede the rules. Sorry.

It's a reasonable question to ask given that the players were allegedly conspiring to achieve a desired conclusion

@thishex who alleged this?

@@bertrc2569 Discussed in the video. It was a conversation overheard by some of the tournament attendees.

@@thishex in other words, gossip, not worth repeating. An official comment would turn it from gossip to something worth mentioning.

@@bertrc2569 There's video evidence according to other comments.

No player wanted to risk the sudden death situation ? That’s ridiculous . Why play the game at all if both players are afraid of losing . People came to see a contest and want a decisive result . Just because armegeddon was not stipulated doesn’t mean the players should take it upon themselves to agree to share the title . With that kind of thinking we may as well consider Magnus and Caruana as Co- World Champions when they drew the classical portion of their match . And this was just a blitz match which has even less import in the grand scheme of things . A totally lame decision on the part of both players . This is something I think a competitor like Fischer would have never agreed to. Lost even more respect for Carlsen after this to go along with what he showed after the Niemann fiasco .

@@michaelblankenau6598I agree that the chess community as a whole would have expected a clear winner and Fischer would never have stooped to such antics. However, for the players in question who have been close friends since childhood, it was a win-win scenario which they proposed to FIDE and FIDE accapted. As simple as that. Don't blame them...

@@michaelblankenau6598 You seem to be forgetting that Carlsen was much better, if not actually winning, the last Classical game with Caruana. The only reason Carlsen offered a draw was because he was certain that he would beat Caruana in the Rapid playoff. If the Rapid playoff, complete with an Armageddon, did not exist then Carlsen would certainly have played on.

“their decision to call the match a draw“ They have no right to call the match a draw. They only have right to suggest. But they also have no right to enforce FIDE with threatening them with making match fixing. This the problem.

@@lajos-berenyi Do you have proof that they threatened FIDE? I was not aware of this.

Definitely a possibility, but FIDE should have first directed them to play a single Armageddon game for the title, and only if they refused then resort to disqualification.

@@David-w8j4u no armargeddon in the rules=no armageddon.

@@David-w8j4u Armageddon is not only an idiotic way to settle any title match, it is also contrary to the clear rules set down in advance and agreed to by every player.

Not really. He was happy to pay the fine and say no more about it (wearing the right clothing the next day); this would have been to mature outcome. Organisers tried to force him to run around for new trousers like he's an actor in some silly farce.

Silly comment.

would have....cheap and empty words

@richardmarcosek1786 fine, u want facts? Fact is he finished 26th after 8 rounds kid 😂

Carlsen would have worn shorts if he wanted to run.

@@horrortackleharry meh too obvious even for you guys