There was a double gold medal during the Olympics games, the two athletes were offered the final decision and decided to split the gold medal in a moment of pure joy and this moment went positively viral. I don't know the Olympic games rules but even if in chess rules it says they should go on, on a tie this close you can't be outraged with a draw here and enjoy the same thing happening during the olympics.
That was in the high jump. I was surprised at first that it was allowed, but the idea behind is that you can't force a potentially already injured athlete to make another jump. If both high jumpers refuse to make another jump and they are really tied, what do you do.... So they treated it the same as two runners who ran exactly the same time. The alternative is to altogether disqualify from the competition a high jumper who refuses to jump a tie break. But that seems really unfair if the high jumper is injured or does not want to risk injury. In chess, the injury problem does not really play a role. I see no good reason why playing a tie break should not be made obligatory (if wasn't obligatory already). In the very rare case that a player claims he cannot mentally cope with playing a tie break, just disqualify that player. This is not comparable to the very real injury risk of high jumping. Magnus' suggestion that they could agreee to play quick draws indefinitely deserves a disciplinary sanction for unsportsmanlike behaviour. Magnus' recent behaviour is damaging chess.
The difference is that in the Olympic high jump, the rules provided this option how extraordinarily it is for competitors to agree on it. Imo it was great sportsmanship, although both athletes are training buddies so there was some bias there... I'm not bothered Magnus and Nepo split the title on itself (should be an option). But you can't indeed change the rules during a tournament. This being said: no need to be dramatic about it, this is not the 'end of professional chess' 😉
@@knielsen50 Interesting, apparently this rule was introduced in 2009. I assumed it followed from the principle that athletes are free to decide not to continue the compeition. A long jumper who stops after his first jump will not have his only jump deleted just because he did not complete his remaining jumps.
😂😂😂😂 ok white chocolate that was funny. @BotezLive If Magnus struck a deal and he was still the only champion, I would be wary of "special treatment." This, however, is a modern approach to an ancient issue. In contrast to sudden death, it enables people to win based more on skill and less on chance or anxiety. For instance, they would probably each win six games if they played twelve. They would not win in a tidy pattern, though. Most likely, each would win several consecutive times. As a result, in their case, Sudden Death would only produce a winner based heavier on chance and less emphasis on skill. I thought it was very gracious of Magnus. In other sports, if someone defends their title and it ends in a draw, the champion retains the title. He was able to retain his title while also welcoming a newcomer. Perhaps change a few minor details, but I hope this theme is adopted in the future.
@@Marcustheseer by that logic why even hold a tournament or let's just announce everyone a winner when they arrive for the tournament. The thing is they only played 3 games of draw and then stopped playing. That's not even trying, at least try first then try something else. This championship was a joke and holds no value in the eyes of people who enjoy chess, well atleast for the majority. Btw don't want to hear "they are too elites and could keep drawing if they wanted to" argument as that means we should not hold any tournament if that's the case
it's the rule of the tournament that was bad. what stupid idea to make them keep competing without end. Next year it will be 4 drawing games, then 2 games 1 minute bullet and then a armagedon game. simple and done.
Do you think these tournaments are funded by thin air? Sponsors fund these tournaments because they know many fans are watching, the fans are the cornerstone of any professional sport, you can’t just make us stay up for hours on end to watch what the tournament called “Grand Finale” just to for it to turn out to be a grand disappointment
If having two winners is such a crime against chess, then why are draw offers allowed? Offering to share a title after multiple draws is equivalent to offering a draw in a single game. If that's so bad, then the rules should also disallow offering draws, only allow technical draws by repetition, and make stalemates a win instead of a draw. But in my opinion both sharing a title and offering a draw are perfectly fine and in the spirit of the game.
Your comment doesn't make any sense since it's literally in the rules that you have to keep playing till there is a winner and intentionally drawing is not allowed. Draws by not enough materials is a thing and draw offers are made so they don't have to play a position which by players standards are going to be a draw in the end. When you offer a draw during a tournament it means you both get 0.5 points and since others are playing as well then you could lose the chance to win the tournament. And lastly most fans were disappointed by sharing the title, so yes, it's a crime against chess to share the title and make it a joke of a title.
@@ML-jm2qjPatronizing and passive aggressive tone aside, my comment would have made more sense to you if you had read it more carefully. To be fair, you're probably right about whom you perceive as "most fans" but I wasn't talking about them.
@@ericspace8816 yeah, no I read it carefully. Splitting title is not even in the spirit of the game, nor in the rules, nor in expectations of fans, nor in respect of other competitors. Think about this, 10 GM'S tied with 9.5 points but even then 2 were removed from semi finals just because they needed 8 players. Now think about how robbed those people would feel. Why not share the title with all 10 GM'S then. Even those competitors made their disappointment clear about this. The thing is they didn't even try, GM Daniel even said he doesn't believe that they were so tired that they couldn't even play 15 blitz games and how can anyone be sure we won't get a champ after 10 more games? One blunder and game ends, which is more likely to happen once they are tired. They could've made it an armageddon match instead of sharing the title.
@@ML-jm2qj Well, I understand your opinion, it just happens to be the case that I disagree with it. I think it's in the spirit of the game, similar to how draws are in the spirit of the game. Of course, I understand that other people feel differently about it. I wrote the comment to make it clear that at least three persons are fine with FIDE's decision, two of them GMs, and third one some random schmuck on the Internet. 😀 Anyway, it's a game, have fun with it!
@@ericspace8816 I think the real issue here is that it was Magnus and his friend/rival who "suggested" that they simply both win. Nobody else would have been allowed to do that. It's not necessarily the fact that they changed the rules. It's the fact that they changed the rules just for Carlsen, and they did it twice in a matter of days. It's an objective fact that he is being given special treatment.
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 💚
They both agreed to the draw, seems fine to me. Past decisions on the matter I think just strengthen the argument, I can imagine Ian and/or magnus suffering if they pushed themselves too far like Anatoli v Kasparov
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.
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'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.
Lets be honest, people are just pissed that it was Magnus who initiated this, everyone wants the crown but when the king offers to share it people get pissed they werent the one sharing it with him, yall should be thanking Magnus for the energy and fandom hes brought to this sport and hes allowed to push the boundaries, thats what boundary breakers do
Yes, lets be honest pls.. You are not honest at all.. You shouldn't think like this, other ppl can make objective viewpoints. Not everyone thinking like you, and make total biased opinions about who like and not like.. Also you are totally mistaken, it's basically the opposite. Actually ppl only accepting this because Magnus initiated this. Imagine if Hans tryes this.. I mean FIDE would deny before anyone blink, but imagine if not.. People would NEVER accept it. And you would be the most enraged here commenting about it, how bad move it was and Magnus would never do something like this.. This is a competition, there are no kings who are above the rules. And basically forcing FIDE to make his friend a champion by his power. If you really want to your friend a title, let's let him win.. Bot don't be this greedy, want to be chamnpion and also give the title for your friend.. In my eyes, Wesley was the Champion. I really love Magnus, he is the best chess player of all time by far, zero doubt about it. Ppl say Fisher, Kasparov very close, but I think not at all.. But when you are this big.. As Alex also said, great power comes with great responsibility.. Which was i think the most important sentence of the whole video.. And she said this by a reason.. You have to think twice what you do as this big. And this was a ridicolous move.. Total selfish move, disgrace on all other players.. You can't show me one single player in the finals who like this other than them.. I can't even believe he did this.. Looks like Love cooked his brain.. It's not THE Magnus I know.. Also I don't rly understand Ian, his first champion title is something like that.. What give more judgement then success.. He is really really good. He could have reach this title without cheating EASILY. Not even once.. Multiple times, easily.. Why he did this to himself.. Alsop after what happened, it's really hard to believe it was just a coincidence that they were on different sides of the bracket and could only meet in the finals. Who can believe that Magnus didn’t orchestrate this too? This whole thing is rly rly fked.. There is a reason, basically why no ppl who look this objectively and agree with what happened.. Also FIDE would never accept it, if anyone else ask it other than Magnus, which makes it just much more bad..
@@wilddof The only people whose opinions matter are those who were across the board from each other, and FIDE. If the players refuse to continue playing, you cannot force them. FIDE then gets to decide who gets the crown: both, nobody, or 3rd runner up. Simple as that. The opinion of the audience is worthless. You are entitled to your viewpoint, but people who lack the skill to compete against Magnus for the championship have no standing to complain.
@@GothamClive Could be wrong but pretty sure every game was Classical so if you play that way, probably looking at at least 3-5 hours every 3 days depending on if they go on like some of the Classical games I've seen.
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.
Sorry but if people want friendship and wholesomeness then a tournament where fans pay to watch the game is not the place to do it. It's disrespectful to the title , fans and competitors.
It was a big story in the rest of the world. Americans didn’t care since their athlete didn’t qualify 😂 So americas ego couldn’t tell the story of an itslian and an arabian celebrating together and bringing cultures together. In american media that’s illegal and gets censored😅 You guys need the hate to keep your country going 😢 Have fun in the US media bubble… SAD!
Its been a weird couple of weeks for chess, and i think this is one of those sticky situations where if they were gonna change the rules, it should have been done before or after the tournament. However, I'm a big fan of both Magnus and Ian, and I see this as great sportsmanship, rather than a F-you to chess and FIDE. I can see how some people, particularly high level players, would feel hard done by about this but as a general chess viewer who doesnt compete at a high level I think it's actually quite noble for Magnus to have proposed the idea of a split championship
Would it be great sportsmanship to have co-champions for the Superbowl? Would it be great sportsmanlike for the two teams to refuse to play the extra time to determine the winner?
@jamessloven2204 no, as that's a team sport and has been monetised to the thousandth degree. In the grand scheme of the public eye, chess is nothing compared to the Superbowl. Besides, those teams don't have to play again, and again, and again, and again, and again. I see the point you're trying to make but chess and the superbowl are not at all comparable.
@@The_Greg_5000 It's Blitz, it is very unlikely to draw 5 games in a row, even for players of that calibre. One would have to make a deliberate effort to draw infinitely. It's not a loophole, it's players refusing to play just a bit more. Draws in Blitz are unlikely and after 10 games, a result would be like a 99.99% guarantee.
@@The_Greg_5000 that is a loophole in the same way extra innings in baseball is a loophole. Yeah, it could theoretically go on forever. But you shouldn’t match fix the World Series.
I think these two players have raised an excellent point, whether or not FIDE handled it the right way. It’s PERFECTLY REASONABLE to say that two players can be so equally matched that it’s UNREASONABLE to try to decide which is better. Special “tie breaking” mechanisms are just stupid - either a reasonable amount of normal play can determine who is superior or it can’t. If you REALLY think that ties are unpalatable then let’s get rid of draws in individual games. In the event of a draw, a coin toss can determine the winner. It might seem silly but it’s no sillier than forcing players to play until one is too physically exhausted to continue.
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
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.
It's totally ok to stop a competition if those who compete are all satisfied with their position It's the same as allowing people to give up If the 16 best give up at the 1/8th stage, just become better than the 16th so you're the only one that doesn't give up and inherently takes the 1st place It's better for you since it's easier to become number 16 than number 1 But it just never happens because competitors hate settling for something other than gold Pointless controversy Fide offended Magnus so he didn't want their gold
Pefrect solution for them and their fans (at least only the totaly blinded biased ones) for sure. Disgrace on all other players and fans and the whole tournament and chess community.. There is a reason why only magnus and nepo fans like this, and everyone else not.. Pls don't look thiis only TOTALLY biased.. Try to look objective.
Bro if Hans did this or some other player did this people would shit on him stop meat riding magnus this is such a stil situation for every other player who lost in the finals. I dont hate Magnus the 17 time world champion but I do think this is stupid
I am no fan of anyone, I am not even a chess fan. I THINK THIS was a good solution, now tell me why it was not since when you become so good at chess as they are you know all the possible outcomes and you can only lose because of a mistake.@@wilddof
No it isn't. Certainly nothing compared to the 93 championship between Kasparov and Nigel Short - they split off from FIDE and played under PCA - so FIDE stripped Kasparov of the title and had Karpov and Tinman play for the title - and we had dueling chess champions for 13 years.
I’ve only recently been watching chess and don’t know all the competition rules. But I wonder... Instead of Amergedden, after a certain amount of draws have occurred, why not just decrease the clock for both players after each draw to speed up the game? Since they have already proven neither has the advantage at the regular speed. What other variable can be changed to show who is the sharper player? Amergedden seems like a strange mix of changing two variables unequally between the two players.
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.
That's the biggest problem with chess , that's at the top level it's a game of constant draws. In a competition there's needs to be a winner or it's not a competition.
“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.
It was done in Olympic vaulting just make them battle it out in another setting to see who is the true winner. Like how Ufc has the champ and interim champ.
@@wildwildben the issue is then the whole competition becomes a joke. I'm not trying to be rude but sharing is not a word you can use for COMPETITIVE tournament. If it was a charity tournament then maybe yeah. Not only sharing title disrespects the title but the fans and other competitors as well since they all had tied earlier. Why not "Share" the title with 8-9 people that tied on the same day with same points.
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.
"No one wants an armageddon" said no one ever. The point is very clear of armageddon and needs no explanation. People don't play armageddon directly since there are many others in tournaments and only one match would not be entertaining enough or give a fair chance to win the tournament. Sharing is not a word which should be used in a competition. They played 3 draws and called it a day, no respect for the fans and competitors or the title. Why not have all those 8-9 people share the world champion title when everyone had 9.5 points at the end of the day? Why play the competition at all? If 2 champs sounds okay then 8-9 shouldn't be an issue since they tied as well.
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.
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?
Chapters: - 0:00 chess drama - 1:24 more chess drama - 2:03 guess what? drama - 4:35 more drama? - 6:46 no chess without drama - 7:55 a bit of extra drama - 9:25 drama finale You're welcome. Don't be over-dramatic in the comments.
In my opinion, I believe it is clear that when you enter a tournament, you are consciously willing to finish it with a result (win or lose). That being said, while it is true that draws are allowed in chess, it is not fair for them to be permitted among the finalists. This undermines the essence of the competition, as the finalists might stop competing due to an agreement, I think it,s irrational, which could negatively impact the audience's experience, but again, the one that draws the audience, will always do what he wants.
Your comment makes no sense. So basically go to heck with fans expectations? The game Exists to this level because of fans. This is not what majority wanted. It's ridiculous to have two champs.
1. As for jeans - this is a stupid rule to enforce, they should have had the "give them a day to change" from the start. 2. The infinite ties - the system of solving this problem is just bad. Have 80% of the time, force another draw and win? Does that sound like a more fair competition than sharing the title? The solution as I see it should be like so: either allow ties, or make a system of deciding the winner more fair. How to make it more fair? Firstly, a) if the game has a certain amount of ties, stop the games and schedule the super-finals or whatever for another date. This will allow the players to rest, reflect on their games, analyze each other's play, prepare new strategies etc. As well as create an additional spectacular event. b) Now, if the rematch is still drowning in ties then come up with something that gives the players more or less fair chance to win. For instance count and evaluate the pieces to decide the winner. Or provide some unorthodox game mods to put them into an unfamiliar situation and let the intellect shine. Everything is better than "black wins by default". Hope this will allow for a positive change.
7:11 And Magnus is 100% right, Chess is a pure sport you even show us the Olympics there can be 2 winners, in 2020 in Tokyo there were 2 winners in the high jump ( Mutaz Barshim & Gianmarco Tamberi)
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.
Why do people refer to chess as a sport lol It's a board game calm down. (Don't bring up the ''Chess players use up 6000 calories'' because that moronic statement has been debunked countless times)
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 love chess, but I've "gone down the rabbit hole" several times after hitting a losing streak. I am not that good, but now I enjoy chess for its beauty and art. An old favorite movie is "Searching for Bobby Fischer". In the end, the young player and main character is in a championship game against a more technically sound boy about his same age. Having gone through his own cycle of excitement, disillusionment, and rebirth, the young main character knows his opponent has made a mistake and studies the board until he sees the winning moves. Knowing how much the championship means to his opponent, he offers a draw to share the championship. His opponent refuses thinking he has won. After the opponent loses, he becomes distraught and quits chess forever. Although based on a true story, the movie is not quite on the level of a grandmaster world championship. However, I see nothing wrong with a shared championship, unless there were ulterior motives involved. The Botez sisters' videos were an inspiration to me to start playing again. Answer one question: If FIDE is so concerned with the promotion of chess, why did they leave thousands of people like me stranded without resources in the small towns in the 1950's and 1960's?
So who would be the defending champion next championship? If a challenger would beat either of them, would he then be the new champion or does he have to beat both of them? What happens when four players would start to 'co-share' the championship? Why not ban finals altogether when the finalists are allowed to share title and winnings anyway? Why play these end tournaments at all? Just tally the year's results (sprinkled with a weightiing formula) and declare the winner based on those?
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.
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.
Preferential treatment is given to those who ask for it, and Magnus's only mistake was saying the threat was a joke. To me it seemed like Catness and Peeta at the end of the hunger games.
There are actually a lot of sports where two can share first place. It happened in athletics at the Olympics, it happens in alpine skiing, ski jumping, I bet it happens at swimming too. For me it was a lovely gesture, but I also get why some people are upset at this.
Those 80s finals between Kasparov and Karpov were legendary and made a lot of people start playing Chess. I know there were health issues so I am not saying they should have gone to that extreme but these two players have deprived the world of a great match and quite possibly something that spark interest in more people.
I think Magnus scared to lose cause a loss of motivation he doesn't improved as much as other players in some years so they got close and now is the killing point for Magnus if he doesn't grow this year for the future year I mean improving himself good amount he would get beat in the future year
I do not agree with FIDE on this, this is a stain in chess history. If anyone else did this who isnt Magnus, it would have turned down immediately. The influence of Magnus is ruining competitive chess
You know…I always thought if the two teams who made it to the Stanley Cup final were fairly evenly matched…they should just split the thing. Each team already fought hard for 15 playoff wins. Who wants to go through another whole game for that sixteenth. Conversely, hockey players are also not allowed to wear jeans to the arena. And none has ever deigned to violate that rule because hockey is a team sport where individual egos are frowned upon. Just a thought.
This happens In many forms of tournaments. It happens in Magic the gathering all the time. They split the prize and then play anyway for bragging rights.
I'm not even sure about the jeans rule. If it's such a clear rule, why is it cool that he breaks it? Wouldn't you expect that the best players had correct attire? Making up new draw rules on the spot seems weird to. I highly doubt they would have been cool with it if any other player suggested that. Imagine the backlash if female chessplayers did the same thing. They could have played it out and afterwards pushed for a change in the rules. In soccer it also took some time before they got their rules regarding game length and overtime down,...
"It's more a test of nerve than of skill" It's a head-to-head, broadcasted title-match (in a non-athletic sport) nerve is one of the relevant skills. I assume a lot more relevant than the "test of endurance rather than skill (until doctors intervene)" that is the alternative. I agree with the "changing the rules of the tournament, mid-tournament"-angle. (whenever possible, don't) But that's the only issue I see.
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.
Thank you ❤ it’s been really really sad losing my little buddy but more than anything I just hope he is alive. There’s wild parrots smaller than him in the area so the climate can support him at the very least is what I’ve been telling myself
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.
Playing until there is a winner is a meaningful tiebreak. If one person doesn't want to play anymore, then the other person wins. It's actually incredibly simple.
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.
There were 10 players with tied scores, but the other 8 had to play this tiebreaks and only 2 got away with not doing so. That itself seems unethical, not having the 2 players adhere to the exact same rules the other 8 were bound by.
doesn't sport at this level supposed to be a display of stamina and endurance? playing 21 blitz games and saying you are exhausted when people are playing fucking 24h blitz marathons is pathetic
@@Philopantheon82 I feel like two people can't shake and agree they are both number 1 champions. But they can, for sure, agree that neither actually won because the competition wasn't finished. They halted in concert before the end. I think that's a noble thing for friends to do. Number one means, mathematically 1. Two people can't be 1. But two people can for sure be 2. They mutually tied for second place. Cool!
@smartin5534 at least appreciate how they easily found the loophole in the sudden death tiebreaker which players could agree to draw without taking risks. These two gentlemen know every nook and cranny about the game of chess, and i am almost certain they are fully aware of the 5 months angushing Kasparov vs. Karpov tie breaker of 48 draws, plus everyone genuinely acknowledges the fact that both Ian and Magnus can achieve professional draws in a number of ways for ad infinitum!! perhaps the famous bongcloud in the mind. Sorry, but this is on Fide, not on players. Thus, co champions are fully justified. P.S. If Armageddon was applied, we were talking differently
@@Philopantheon82 the same could be said of any sport with extra time. I wouldn’t expect two teams at the World Series to split the championship. Even if were Game 7 and in extra innings.
The "equal prizes for women" in Norway chess has nothing to do with FIDE - that's the organizers of Norway chess. It's surprising that they even added a women's tournament, as there aren't any elite female players in Norway - so no local participants. For the world rapid and blitz championship the prizes for women were about 2/3 of the open. Of course, the best women could select which of the tournaments they wanted to play in.
Alex in her news reporter era :O. Room seems a bit empty -- we're still holding out hope for our king's return. Make title 'The situation is crazy' and 50x views, cheers.
I mean, Magnus obviously cares about the chess scene and when his feedback isn't listened to outside of games he uses his credentials to force the subject when the issue he previously pointed out arises. The need for a tie break rule for a game we know is theoretically solved to be a draw seems obvious and Magnus has spoken about it previously. Now it happened in a final and so he had the opportunity to keep his title, share it with a longtime competitor he respects and make a point to address the issue. In my humble viewer opinion, a series with 10 draws that ends up being decided by a single mistake hours down the line doesn't seem like a fair measure of the level of skills displayed to reach that point. So in lack of a tie break rule, a shared prize rule seems like the best solution. I feel like the main opponents to this are other chess players that have a very competitive attitude. It's one thing to enjoy competition, it is another to let it define 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.
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.
I think it was the right decision. On rare occasions you have two completely equal competitors and a flawed system for determining a clear winner. Playing on after some many matches - and thus with exhaustion being such a big factor - any decisive win would have felt more like a coin toss anyway. It's good to sometimes remind ourselves, that even in situations that are by definition a zero sum game, we can find it in ourselves to work together and let fellowship take precedence over competition. Just every once in a rare while, there doesn't always have to be a loser in life. Sometimes we can share a win.
They weren't completely equal. They tied a few games and then quit. And one person getting tired faster than the other is literally how most sporting events work. A boxer with more endurance than his opponent doesn't feel like his win was "more like a coin toss". That's ridiculous. This has nothing to do with "working together" or "fellowship". And actually, what's happening here is the exact opposite of "working together". Carlsen is being given preferential treatment. Nobody else would have been allowed to come back from a withdrawal like that and nobody else would have been allowed to say, "Just let us both be winners because I don't feel like playing anymore."
@@elementblue780 If they weren't equal, does that mean that you would then argue, that one player was superior at the point of quitting? Although all sports have an endurance component simply stemming from the fact that humans get tired and time is a limited resource, sports differ in alle sorts of other ways. I think there's an argument to be made that games like Chess and Scrabble are first and foremost intellectual games, while sports like boxing are fundamentally physical in nature. Not that boxing does not have mental aspects, but proportionally, it seems to me a lesser part of it. It is like comparing apples to oranges. They are both fruit, but saying that oranges are bad, because they are not green, is unfair due to the nature of oranges being different. Similarly, saying a Chess player is worse at chess for having worse endurance is not a fair judgement on their skills in chess, I'd say. I also think there's an argument to be made that no one knows for sure, if Carlsen was given preferential treatment. If it had been another player, there might well have been the same outcome. So although it might seem more likely for it to happen for Carlsen, the argument is not as strong as to be decisive in my opinion. From the tone of your response, exemplified by calling a differing viewpoint from your own ridiculos, I get the sense that fellowship is not overly important to you anyway - and so not much can be said on that point. If it is, I'd suggest a less combatitive phrasing of your arguments.
Calling this an abuse of power is absurd. Rules are made to serve us, not for us to serve them. Most people forget that. This while very unorthodox is also highly unproblematic in every sense as it does not hard anyone or anything directly, or indirectly. This was a great example of how power should be used. Ill go as far as to say that if they both after already climbing that high in the tournament agreed to end it like this, and fida disagreed, that would of been an abuse of power as that does cause direct harm even if it does follow tradition. Botez, if you read this, please re evaluate. I know you are very passionate about chess. But don't forget that for an action to be bad, it has to have direct or indirect harmful effects not just break away from convention.
The mistake in the first place is to have it all come down to sudden death if it's tied after the 4 initial games. Maybe it should be Armageddon, but that has it's weakness of being a bit unfair. Best solution would probably be to start another best of 4 round and keep repeating that until someone gets 2.5 points.
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.
Absolutely stupid everyone knows magnus could have defeated Ian if they had played some mare games it's blitz not classical but at the same magnus can also lose by exhaustion so he was like ok let's share it, and the question of legitimacy will happen only over Ian like Ding.
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
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.
Is it anymore dangerous than extra time in a football game? Also, a blitz game is only 10 minutes long. A single classical game is 4 hours before the first time control.
armageddon is stupid and unfair way to play. on high lvl play where draw is a common result, its even easier for black to set up a so called fortress and go for draw in order to actually win the match, wile its even worse for white to have to play risky in order to try get the win. even with the time difference, just too much in favor of black
There was a double gold medal during the Olympics games, the two athletes were offered the final decision and decided to split the gold medal in a moment of pure joy and this moment went positively viral.
I don't know the Olympic games rules but even if in chess rules it says they should go on, on a tie this close you can't be outraged with a draw here and enjoy the same thing happening during the olympics.
That was in the high jump. I was surprised at first that it was allowed, but the idea behind is that you can't force a potentially already injured athlete to make another jump. If both high jumpers refuse to make another jump and they are really tied, what do you do.... So they treated it the same as two runners who ran exactly the same time.
The alternative is to altogether disqualify from the competition a high jumper who refuses to jump a tie break. But that seems really unfair if the high jumper is injured or does not want to risk injury.
In chess, the injury problem does not really play a role. I see no good reason why playing a tie break should not be made obligatory (if wasn't obligatory already). In the very rare case that a player claims he cannot mentally cope with playing a tie break, just disqualify that player. This is not comparable to the very real injury risk of high jumping.
Magnus' suggestion that they could agreee to play quick draws indefinitely deserves a disciplinary sanction for unsportsmanlike behaviour. Magnus' recent behaviour is damaging chess.
The difference is that in the Olympic high jump, the rules provided this option how extraordinarily it is for competitors to agree on it. Imo it was great sportsmanship, although both athletes are training buddies so there was some bias there...
I'm not bothered Magnus and Nepo split the title on itself (should be an option). But you can't indeed change the rules during a tournament.
This being said: no need to be dramatic about it, this is not the 'end of professional chess' 😉
Like you said you don’t know the Olympic rules. Very different from FIDE which has a rules requiring them to keep playing until a winner is declared
"if the relevant athletes at any stage decide not to jump further, the tie for first place shall remain"
@@knielsen50 Interesting, apparently this rule was introduced in 2009. I assumed it followed from the principle that athletes are free to decide not to continue the compeition. A long jumper who stops after his first jump will not have his only jump deleted just because he did not complete his remaining jumps.
Alex The Reporter
Love u Dina ❤
lol ok
Хороший репортер. Молодец 😊
Maybe, just just good sportsmanship? 🤷♂️😇. But good reporting
What does korosho mean?
Im so sorry about Squeak, I hope he will come back home soon, untill then stay strong.
That was actually a terrific video but I have no friends
thank you for the nice comment though
Its ok boo. Jesus is your friend lol
lmaoo
@@BotezLive you're responding to a Vaticanian bot, preserve your time
😂😂😂😂 ok white chocolate that was funny.
@BotezLive If Magnus struck a deal and he was still the only champion, I would be wary of "special treatment." This, however, is a modern approach to an ancient issue. In contrast to sudden death, it enables people to win based more on skill and less on chance or anxiety. For instance, they would probably each win six games if they played twelve. They would not win in a tidy pattern, though. Most likely, each would win several consecutive times. As a result, in their case, Sudden Death would only produce a winner based heavier on chance and less emphasis on skill.
I thought it was very gracious of Magnus.
In other sports, if someone defends their title and it ends in a draw, the champion retains the title. He was able to retain his title while also welcoming a newcomer. Perhaps change a few minor details, but I hope this theme is adopted in the future.
So the tournament host agreed and the only two players involved agreed? Sounds like no one else’s opinions matter.
thats the thing in a tournement oppinions dont matter facts matter,if they are both kind of equaly good then why not let both have it.
@@Marcustheseer by that logic why even hold a tournament or let's just announce everyone a winner when they arrive for the tournament. The thing is they only played 3 games of draw and then stopped playing. That's not even trying, at least try first then try something else. This championship was a joke and holds no value in the eyes of people who enjoy chess, well atleast for the majority. Btw don't want to hear "they are too elites and could keep drawing if they wanted to" argument as that means we should not hold any tournament if that's the case
it's the rule of the tournament that was bad. what stupid idea to make them keep competing without end.
Next year it will be 4 drawing games, then 2 games 1 minute bullet and then a armagedon game. simple and done.
It's the supporters who give the game any meaning beyond it being some random game between two skilled players
Do you think these tournaments are funded by thin air? Sponsors fund these tournaments because they know many fans are watching, the fans are the cornerstone of any professional sport, you can’t just make us stay up for hours on end to watch what the tournament called “Grand Finale” just to for it to turn out to be a grand disappointment
If having two winners is such a crime against chess, then why are draw offers allowed? Offering to share a title after multiple draws is equivalent to offering a draw in a single game. If that's so bad, then the rules should also disallow offering draws, only allow technical draws by repetition, and make stalemates a win instead of a draw. But in my opinion both sharing a title and offering a draw are perfectly fine and in the spirit of the game.
Your comment doesn't make any sense since it's literally in the rules that you have to keep playing till there is a winner and intentionally drawing is not allowed. Draws by not enough materials is a thing and draw offers are made so they don't have to play a position which by players standards are going to be a draw in the end. When you offer a draw during a tournament it means you both get 0.5 points and since others are playing as well then you could lose the chance to win the tournament. And lastly most fans were disappointed by sharing the title, so yes, it's a crime against chess to share the title and make it a joke of a title.
@@ML-jm2qjPatronizing and passive aggressive tone aside, my comment would have made more sense to you if you had read it more carefully. To be fair, you're probably right about whom you perceive as "most fans" but I wasn't talking about them.
@@ericspace8816 yeah, no I read it carefully. Splitting title is not even in the spirit of the game, nor in the rules, nor in expectations of fans, nor in respect of other competitors. Think about this, 10 GM'S tied with 9.5 points but even then 2 were removed from semi finals just because they needed 8 players. Now think about how robbed those people would feel. Why not share the title with all 10 GM'S then. Even those competitors made their disappointment clear about this. The thing is they didn't even try, GM Daniel even said he doesn't believe that they were so tired that they couldn't even play 15 blitz games and how can anyone be sure we won't get a champ after 10 more games? One blunder and game ends, which is more likely to happen once they are tired. They could've made it an armageddon match instead of sharing the title.
@@ML-jm2qj Well, I understand your opinion, it just happens to be the case that I disagree with it. I think it's in the spirit of the game, similar to how draws are in the spirit of the game. Of course, I understand that other people feel differently about it. I wrote the comment to make it clear that at least three persons are fine with FIDE's decision, two of them GMs, and third one some random schmuck on the Internet. 😀 Anyway, it's a game, have fun with it!
@@ericspace8816 I think the real issue here is that it was Magnus and his friend/rival who "suggested" that they simply both win. Nobody else would have been allowed to do that. It's not necessarily the fact that they changed the rules. It's the fact that they changed the rules just for Carlsen, and they did it twice in a matter of days. It's an objective fact that he is being given special treatment.
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.
What happened, can someone explain please??
Who or what is squeak?
@@Ron_DeForestthey’re bird who got lost
*their
They both agreed to the draw, seems fine to me. Past decisions on the matter I think just strengthen the argument, I can imagine Ian and/or magnus suffering if they pushed themselves too far like Anatoli v Kasparov
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.
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.
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
Lets be honest, people are just pissed that it was Magnus who initiated this, everyone wants the crown but when the king offers to share it people get pissed they werent the one sharing it with him, yall should be thanking Magnus for the energy and fandom hes brought to this sport and hes allowed to push the boundaries, thats what boundary breakers do
Yes, lets be honest pls.. You are not honest at all..
You shouldn't think like this, other ppl can make objective viewpoints.
Not everyone thinking like you, and make total biased opinions about who like and not like..
Also you are totally mistaken, it's basically the opposite. Actually ppl only accepting this because Magnus initiated this. Imagine if Hans tryes this.. I mean FIDE would deny before anyone blink, but imagine if not.. People would NEVER accept it. And you would be the most enraged here commenting about it, how bad move it was and Magnus would never do something like this..
This is a competition, there are no kings who are above the rules. And basically forcing FIDE to make his friend a champion by his power. If you really want to your friend a title, let's let him win.. Bot don't be this greedy, want to be chamnpion and also give the title for your friend.. In my eyes, Wesley was the Champion.
I really love Magnus, he is the best chess player of all time by far, zero doubt about it. Ppl say Fisher, Kasparov very close, but I think not at all.. But when you are this big..
As Alex also said, great power comes with great responsibility.. Which was i think the most important sentence of the whole video.. And she said this by a reason..
You have to think twice what you do as this big. And this was a ridicolous move.. Total selfish move, disgrace on all other players.. You can't show me one single player in the finals who like this other than them..
I can't even believe he did this.. Looks like Love cooked his brain.. It's not THE Magnus I know.. Also I don't rly understand Ian, his first champion title is something like that.. What give more judgement then success.. He is really really good. He could have reach this title without cheating EASILY. Not even once.. Multiple times, easily..
Why he did this to himself..
Alsop after what happened, it's really hard to believe it was just a coincidence that they were on different sides of the bracket and could only meet in the finals. Who can believe that Magnus didn’t orchestrate this too? This whole thing is rly rly fked.. There is a reason, basically why no ppl who look this objectively and agree with what happened.. Also FIDE would never accept it, if anyone else ask it other than Magnus, which makes it just much more bad..
@wilddof Sure thing Champ
@@wilddof The only people whose opinions matter are those who were across the board from each other, and FIDE. If the players refuse to continue playing, you cannot force them. FIDE then gets to decide who gets the crown: both, nobody, or 3rd runner up. Simple as that. The opinion of the audience is worthless. You are entitled to your viewpoint, but people who lack the skill to compete against Magnus for the championship have no standing to complain.
Imagine 48 Games over 5 months
Hikaru can play 90 in one night😂
That's one game every three days. maybe I'm missing something, but to me that doesn't sound too hard.
@@GothamClive missing >10kg
@@LordKapikul I did not miss that and made the resolution that I'm going to play a game of chess every three days from now on.
@@GothamClive Could be wrong but pretty sure every game was Classical so if you play that way, probably looking at at least 3-5 hours every 3 days depending on if they go on like some of the Classical games I've seen.
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.
Sorry but if people want friendship and wholesomeness then a tournament where fans pay to watch the game is not the place to do it. It's disrespectful to the title , fans and competitors.
@@ML-jm2qj TRUE AND PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BET ON THE RESULT
nobody watched that woke crap
It was a big story in the rest of the world. Americans didn’t care since their athlete didn’t qualify 😂 So americas ego couldn’t tell the story of an itslian and an arabian celebrating together and bringing cultures together. In american media that’s illegal and gets censored😅 You guys need the hate to keep your country going 😢 Have fun in the US media bubble… SAD!
that was in the rulebook. this wasn't
Its been a weird couple of weeks for chess, and i think this is one of those sticky situations where if they were gonna change the rules, it should have been done before or after the tournament.
However, I'm a big fan of both Magnus and Ian, and I see this as great sportsmanship, rather than a F-you to chess and FIDE. I can see how some people, particularly high level players, would feel hard done by about this but as a general chess viewer who doesnt compete at a high level I think it's actually quite noble for Magnus to have proposed the idea of a split championship
Would it be great sportsmanship to have co-champions for the Superbowl? Would it be great sportsmanlike for the two teams to refuse to play the extra time to determine the winner?
@jamessloven2204 no, as that's a team sport and has been monetised to the thousandth degree. In the grand scheme of the public eye, chess is nothing compared to the Superbowl. Besides, those teams don't have to play again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
I see the point you're trying to make but chess and the superbowl are not at all comparable.
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.
I think Magnus is just using his power to expose loopholes and stupid rules , i dont see anything wrong with it.
How is having a winner an stupid rule?
@leonidaslopez170 the stupid rule was referring got the jeans , the loophole is referring to the infinite draws
@@The_Greg_5000 It's Blitz, it is very unlikely to draw 5 games in a row, even for players of that calibre. One would have to make a deliberate effort to draw infinitely. It's not a loophole, it's players refusing to play just a bit more. Draws in Blitz are unlikely and after 10 games, a result would be like a 99.99% guarantee.
@xyxy-f6t He made his point with the jeans. What was his point with the draw?
@@The_Greg_5000 that is a loophole in the same way extra innings in baseball is a loophole.
Yeah, it could theoretically go on forever. But you shouldn’t match fix the World Series.
I think these two players have raised an excellent point, whether or not FIDE handled it the right way. It’s PERFECTLY REASONABLE to say that two players can be so equally matched that it’s UNREASONABLE to try to decide which is better. Special “tie breaking” mechanisms are just stupid - either a reasonable amount of normal play can determine who is superior or it can’t.
If you REALLY think that ties are unpalatable then let’s get rid of draws in individual games. In the event of a draw, a coin toss can determine the winner. It might seem silly but it’s no sillier than forcing players to play until one is too physically exhausted to continue.
Worlds Not the same without Squeak
I know :(
What is squeak?
@@adityapacharne5688 I assume it was her pet bird.
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
@@davidpainnit’s FIDE’s decision not theirs. Competitors can’t just arbitrarily decide to share a winners trophy.
@@davidpainn What an idiotic thing to say.
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.
It can also be that nobody thought of the problem until it became obvious in the middle of play, no?
@@Nikolaijg _Could_ be, in theory. It isn't in practice. Even if it was, my point stands.
@@Nikolaijg Then the rules are changed for the next tournament. They are not changed on the fly at the whim of one player.
It's totally ok to stop a competition if those who compete are all satisfied with their position
It's the same as allowing people to give up
If the 16 best give up at the 1/8th stage, just become better than the 16th so you're the only one that doesn't give up and inherently takes the 1st place
It's better for you since it's easier to become number 16 than number 1
But it just never happens because competitors hate settling for something other than gold
Pointless controversy
Fide offended Magnus so he didn't want their gold
Both rock. I think double championship was the PERFECT solution. Congratulations!
Pefrect solution for them and their fans (at least only the totaly blinded biased ones) for sure. Disgrace on all other players and fans and the whole tournament and chess community..
There is a reason why only magnus and nepo fans like this, and everyone else not.. Pls don't look thiis only TOTALLY biased.. Try to look objective.
Bro if Hans did this or some other player did this people would shit on him stop meat riding magnus this is such a stil situation for every other player who lost in the finals. I dont hate Magnus the 17 time world champion but I do think this is stupid
I am no fan of anyone, I am not even a chess fan. I THINK THIS was a good solution, now tell me why it was not since when you become so good at chess as they are you know all the possible outcomes and you can only lose because of a mistake.@@wilddof
@sravanpatri585why is it stupid tho if they already draw a few timez? You are just a pathetic hater
@@sravanpatri5851 Hans is that cheater from 'Germany, right? He should retire and express that he is sorry to all of us.
Don’t think it’s a big deal if players and FIDE agree to share the 1st place.
Is it really the most controversial world chess championship though?
No it isn't. Certainly nothing compared to the 93 championship between Kasparov and Nigel Short - they split off from FIDE and played under PCA - so FIDE stripped Kasparov of the title and had Karpov and Tinman play for the title - and we had dueling chess champions for 13 years.
Yes. It is. It shows society's weak side and fear of 1 ultimate champion.
@@TokinMystic12 no there have been way more controversial championships like Fisher v Spasky or Kasparov v Short
I’ve only recently been watching chess and don’t know all the competition rules. But I wonder... Instead of Amergedden, after a certain amount of draws have occurred, why not just decrease the clock for both players after each draw to speed up the game? Since they have already proven neither has the advantage at the regular speed. What other variable can be changed to show who is the sharper player? Amergedden seems like a strange mix of changing two variables unequally between the two players.
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.
There was a tie break. It was sudden death.
This is the same tie break used in a soccer penalty shootout.
That's the biggest problem with chess , that's at the top level it's a game of constant draws. In a competition there's needs to be a winner or it's not a competition.
“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.
Actually after 1993 you had dueling world champions - Karpov and Kasparov when Kasparov and Short played under PCA.
yes but they didn't declare a winner and then they met back later to finish it
It was done in Olympic vaulting just make them battle it out in another setting to see who is the true winner. Like how Ufc has the champ and interim champ.
They should have shared the 2nd place, and FIDE should have called 'no champion' for this tournament. \o/
This is the only correct suggestion!
Perfect solution, but I there is more joy in watching people share. Much more. Two gentlemen.
Andrea... princiPles and preCEdent.
@@wildwildbensharing is not for competitive sports. Sorry, I don’t agree.
Ooo, that's a really good idea.
@@wildwildben the issue is then the whole competition becomes a joke. I'm not trying to be rude but sharing is not a word you can use for COMPETITIVE tournament. If it was a charity tournament then maybe yeah. Not only sharing title disrespects the title but the fans and other competitors as well since they all had tied earlier. Why not "Share" the title with 8-9 people that tied on the same day with same points.
In Armageddon how do they decide who gets black? Do both players play both colors? It just does not seem fair to give unequal odds no?
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.
"No one wants an armageddon" said no one ever. The point is very clear of armageddon and needs no explanation. People don't play armageddon directly since there are many others in tournaments and only one match would not be entertaining enough or give a fair chance to win the tournament. Sharing is not a word which should be used in a competition. They played 3 draws and called it a day, no respect for the fans and competitors or the title. Why not have all those 8-9 people share the world champion title when everyone had 9.5 points at the end of the day? Why play the competition at all? If 2 champs sounds okay then 8-9 shouldn't be an issue since they tied as well.
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 bltz. Let them play for another hour or two and one of them will blunder.
Magnus can afford to buy FIDE and run it himself.
Why she didn't make any video on Gukesh becoming the world 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?
world cup soccer dont split 3 place, whre is the double standard blitz sharin 1 place. ?
Chess is not high jump. They played 3 draws and ended it. Makes no sense. Try first.
Chapters:
- 0:00 chess drama
- 1:24 more chess drama
- 2:03 guess what? drama
- 4:35 more drama?
- 6:46 no chess without drama
- 7:55 a bit of extra drama
- 9:25 drama finale
You're welcome. Don't be over-dramatic in the comments.
Messi Better
Pele
@@patogordo1385
Backyard merchant.
Yes the goat 🐐 Lionel messi
Maradona tho
@@ELCNUmorFnaMehT coke
In my opinion, I believe it is clear that when you enter a tournament, you are consciously willing to finish it with a result (win or lose). That being said, while it is true that draws are allowed in chess, it is not fair for them to be permitted among the finalists. This undermines the essence of the competition, as the finalists might stop competing due to an agreement, I think it,s irrational, which could negatively impact the audience's experience, but again, the one that draws the audience, will always do what he wants.
They both agreed, end of story. Moving forward, install Armageddon. Next?
Spot on!! Armageddon is the way to go
Both agreeing contra the rules is literally the definition of match fixing.
They both agreed. That’s a felony. End of story.
@@OurCognitiveSurplus for real. Imagine if this were baseball, and in the World Series the teams agree to stop playing and share the championship.
Your comment makes no sense. So basically go to heck with fans expectations? The game Exists to this level because of fans. This is not what majority wanted. It's ridiculous to have two champs.
Just think , if it someone else other than Magnus who requested this, FIDE would 100% says NO. Magnus is basically the POPE of chess right now
1. As for jeans - this is a stupid rule to enforce, they should have had the "give them a day to change" from the start.
2. The infinite ties - the system of solving this problem is just bad. Have 80% of the time, force another draw and win? Does that sound like a more fair competition than sharing the title?
The solution as I see it should be like so: either allow ties, or make a system of deciding the winner more fair.
How to make it more fair? Firstly,
a) if the game has a certain amount of ties, stop the games and schedule the super-finals or whatever for another date. This will allow the players to rest, reflect on their games, analyze each other's play, prepare new strategies etc. As well as create an additional spectacular event.
b) Now, if the rematch is still drowning in ties then come up with something that gives the players more or less fair chance to win. For instance count and evaluate the pieces to decide the winner. Or provide some unorthodox game mods to put them into an unfamiliar situation and let the intellect shine. Everything is better than "black wins by default".
Hope this will allow for a positive change.
7:11 And Magnus is 100% right, Chess is a pure sport you even show us the Olympics there can be 2 winners, in 2020 in Tokyo there were 2 winners in the high jump ( Mutaz Barshim & Gianmarco Tamberi)
Bullshit modern man is weak. Or we could all just take trophies for everyone
chess is not pure.. someone takes a turn first. a pure sport would be something like track or weight lifting
Yeah let's give everyone 1st rank at this point. I'll do you a better one, why even hold a competition? We all are world champions.
2:29 I’m genuinely curious how it was easier to put this specific random screenshot instead of current live ratings.
Ignore the Marry me comments 😤
U should Marry me 🥺 (I am very intelligent 😎🤓)
U got 85 in the IQ test
Lil bro
My question is did they split the first place reward or the first and second place reward?
split both
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.
saying that blitz games can "go on" is clueless. There is no way (besides match fixing) that they wouldn't have a decisive game in 2 or 3 more games
Why do people refer to chess as a sport lol It's a board game calm down. (Don't bring up the ''Chess players use up 6000 calories'' because that moronic statement has been debunked countless times)
3:02 💀
Ded
That part took me out 😂
Click here if you approve of magnus sharing the championship. Don't forget, chess is still a game, and that makes this a wholesome moment.
|
\/
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.
I love chess, but I've "gone down the rabbit hole" several times after hitting a losing streak. I am not that good, but now I enjoy chess for its beauty and art. An old favorite movie is "Searching for Bobby Fischer". In the end, the young player and main character is in a championship game against a more technically sound boy about his same age. Having gone through his own cycle of excitement, disillusionment, and rebirth, the young main character knows his opponent has made a mistake and studies the board until he sees the winning moves. Knowing how much the championship means to his opponent, he offers a draw to share the championship. His opponent refuses thinking he has won. After the opponent loses, he becomes distraught and quits chess forever. Although based on a true story, the movie is not quite on the level of a grandmaster world championship. However, I see nothing wrong with a shared championship, unless there were ulterior motives involved. The Botez sisters' videos were an inspiration to me to start playing again. Answer one question: If FIDE is so concerned with the promotion of chess, why did they leave thousands of people like me stranded without resources in the small towns in the 1950's and 1960's?
I still hope you find Squeak. All the best and Good Luck
😮did he escape?
@strawpiglet Sadly yes
@@rucaskoay2991 😔
So who would be the defending champion next championship? If a challenger would beat either of them, would he then be the new champion or does he have to beat both of them?
What happens when four players would start to 'co-share' the championship?
Why not ban finals altogether when the finalists are allowed to share title and winnings anyway?
Why play these end tournaments at all? Just tally the year's results (sprinkled with a weightiing formula) and declare the winner based on those?
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
yeah except in other fields regulations allow this shit and FIDE rulebook DIDN'T. It is bad for sport like chess.
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.
These guys didn’t put in three hours of tie breaks. That is 18 extra games, and a lot less dangerous than extra time in a football game.
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 is big deal for other competitors and fans. Some people paid 400$ + travel costs to see the champion win the title. And it never happened
I disagree ... the Botez sisters are the coolest chess players out there.
Preferential treatment is given to those who ask for it, and Magnus's only mistake was saying the threat was a joke. To me it seemed like Catness and Peeta at the end of the hunger games.
There are actually a lot of sports where two can share first place. It happened in athletics at the Olympics, it happens in alpine skiing, ski jumping, I bet it happens at swimming too. For me it was a lovely gesture, but I also get why some people are upset at this.
tip here: add some carpet or sound absorbing material around the room to get out some of the echo in your room.
Those 80s finals between Kasparov and Karpov were legendary and made a lot of people start playing Chess. I know there were health issues so I am not saying they should have gone to that extreme but these two players have deprived the world of a great match and quite possibly something that spark interest in more people.
I think Magnus scared to lose cause a loss of motivation he doesn't improved as much as other players in some years so they got close and now is the killing point for Magnus if he doesn't grow this year for the future year I mean improving himself good amount he would get beat in the future year
100%
I do not agree with FIDE on this, this is a stain in chess history. If anyone else did this who isnt Magnus, it would have turned down immediately. The influence of Magnus is ruining competitive chess
Two Winners or
Two Drawers or
Two Losers
?
two winners, obviously
Two winners ofc
Both win, in game and life
Rather have 2 people at 2nd than 1st. Makes no sense and is a disrespect to fans, game, competitors.
You know…I always thought if the two teams who made it to the Stanley Cup final were fairly evenly matched…they should just split the thing. Each team already fought hard for 15 playoff wins. Who wants to go through another whole game for that sixteenth.
Conversely, hockey players are also not allowed to wear jeans to the arena. And none has ever deigned to violate that rule because hockey is a team sport where individual egos are frowned upon. Just a thought.
This happens In many forms of tournaments. It happens in Magic the gathering all the time. They split the prize and then play anyway for bragging rights.
This is a symptom of a game having three possible outcomes. You can't sustain binary win or lose competitions from a ternary outcome game
I'm not even sure about the jeans rule. If it's such a clear rule, why is it cool that he breaks it? Wouldn't you expect that the best players had correct attire?
Making up new draw rules on the spot seems weird to. I highly doubt they would have been cool with it if any other player suggested that. Imagine the backlash if female chessplayers did the same thing.
They could have played it out and afterwards pushed for a change in the rules. In soccer it also took some time before they got their rules regarding game length and overtime down,...
“It’s all prearrangement“ - Bobby Fischer the OG 🐐
Chadgun Marlsen > Yian Nepomichi
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.
Dinner with P. Diddy
Next Question
p.diddy and kids. now there's a Touchy subject!
"It's more a test of nerve than of skill"
It's a head-to-head, broadcasted title-match (in a non-athletic sport)
nerve is one of the relevant skills.
I assume a lot more relevant than the "test of endurance rather than skill (until doctors intervene)" that is the alternative.
I agree with the "changing the rules of the tournament, mid-tournament"-angle. (whenever possible, don't)
But that's the only issue I see.
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.
Thank you ❤ it’s been really really sad losing my little buddy but more than anything I just hope he is alive. There’s wild parrots smaller than him in the area so the climate can support him at the very least is what I’ve been telling myself
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.
Playing until there is a winner is a meaningful tiebreak. If one person doesn't want to play anymore, then the other person wins. It's actually incredibly simple.
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.
There were 10 players with tied scores, but the other 8 had to play this tiebreaks and only 2 got away with not doing so. That itself seems unethical, not having the 2 players adhere to the exact same rules the other 8 were bound by.
doesn't sport at this level supposed to be a display of stamina and endurance? playing 21 blitz games and saying you are exhausted when people are playing fucking 24h blitz marathons is pathetic
They both came in second. It was a tie for second place and, this year, no one won first place. Duh.
Non sense and you know that yourself
@@Philopantheon82 I feel like two people can't shake and agree they are both number 1 champions. But they can, for sure, agree that neither actually won because the competition wasn't finished. They halted in concert before the end. I think that's a noble thing for friends to do. Number one means, mathematically 1. Two people can't be 1. But two people can for sure be 2. They mutually tied for second place. Cool!
exactly. They are co-finalists, not co-champions
@smartin5534 at least appreciate how they easily found the loophole in the sudden death tiebreaker which players could agree to draw without taking risks. These two gentlemen know every nook and cranny about the game of chess, and i am almost certain they are fully aware of the 5 months angushing Kasparov vs. Karpov tie breaker of 48 draws, plus everyone genuinely acknowledges the fact that both Ian and Magnus can achieve professional draws in a number of ways for ad infinitum!! perhaps the famous bongcloud in the mind. Sorry, but this is on Fide, not on players. Thus, co champions are fully justified.
P.S.
If Armageddon was applied, we were talking differently
@@Philopantheon82 the same could be said of any sport with extra time. I wouldn’t expect two teams at the World Series to split the championship. Even if were Game 7 and in extra innings.
The "equal prizes for women" in Norway chess has nothing to do with FIDE - that's the organizers of Norway chess. It's surprising that they even added a women's tournament, as there aren't any elite female players in Norway - so no local participants.
For the world rapid and blitz championship the prizes for women were about 2/3 of the open. Of course, the best women could select which of the tournaments they wanted to play in.
Alex in her news reporter era :O. Room seems a bit empty -- we're still holding out hope for our king's return. Make title 'The situation is crazy' and 50x views, cheers.
Is it just me or... is she the IRL look-a-like of Robin Scherbatsky?
I mean, Magnus obviously cares about the chess scene and when his feedback isn't listened to outside of games he uses his credentials to force the subject when the issue he previously pointed out arises. The need for a tie break rule for a game we know is theoretically solved to be a draw seems obvious and Magnus has spoken about it previously. Now it happened in a final and so he had the opportunity to keep his title, share it with a longtime competitor he respects and make a point to address the issue.
In my humble viewer opinion, a series with 10 draws that ends up being decided by a single mistake hours down the line doesn't seem like a fair measure of the level of skills displayed to reach that point. So in lack of a tie break rule, a shared prize rule seems like the best solution. I feel like the main opponents to this are other chess players that have a very competitive attitude. It's one thing to enjoy competition, it is another to let it define 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.
Magnus seemed to be ok with that when he won two world championship titles in tie breaks (by the way in non-classical time control)
@xxxleecher whats your point
@@randomuser942464 my point is nobody said Magnus "wasn't really the winner" as you stated above
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.
they were co-runner-ups
I think it was the right decision. On rare occasions you have two completely equal competitors and a flawed system for determining a clear winner. Playing on after some many matches - and thus with exhaustion being such a big factor - any decisive win would have felt more like a coin toss anyway. It's good to sometimes remind ourselves, that even in situations that are by definition a zero sum game, we can find it in ourselves to work together and let fellowship take precedence over competition. Just every once in a rare while, there doesn't always have to be a loser in life. Sometimes we can share a win.
They weren't completely equal. They tied a few games and then quit. And one person getting tired faster than the other is literally how most sporting events work. A boxer with more endurance than his opponent doesn't feel like his win was "more like a coin toss". That's ridiculous.
This has nothing to do with "working together" or "fellowship". And actually, what's happening here is the exact opposite of "working together". Carlsen is being given preferential treatment. Nobody else would have been allowed to come back from a withdrawal like that and nobody else would have been allowed to say, "Just let us both be winners because I don't feel like playing anymore."
@@elementblue780 If they weren't equal, does that mean that you would then argue, that one player was superior at the point of quitting?
Although all sports have an endurance component simply stemming from the fact that humans get tired and time is a limited resource, sports differ in alle sorts of other ways. I think there's an argument to be made that games like Chess and Scrabble are first and foremost intellectual games, while sports like boxing are fundamentally physical in nature. Not that boxing does not have mental aspects, but proportionally, it seems to me a lesser part of it. It is like comparing apples to oranges. They are both fruit, but saying that oranges are bad, because they are not green, is unfair due to the nature of oranges being different. Similarly, saying a Chess player is worse at chess for having worse endurance is not a fair judgement on their skills in chess, I'd say.
I also think there's an argument to be made that no one knows for sure, if Carlsen was given preferential treatment. If it had been another player, there might well have been the same outcome. So although it might seem more likely for it to happen for Carlsen, the argument is not as strong as to be decisive in my opinion.
From the tone of your response, exemplified by calling a differing viewpoint from your own ridiculos, I get the sense that fellowship is not overly important to you anyway - and so not much can be said on that point. If it is, I'd suggest a less combatitive phrasing of your arguments.
Calling this an abuse of power is absurd. Rules are made to serve us, not for us to serve them. Most people forget that. This while very unorthodox is also highly unproblematic in every sense as it does not hard anyone or anything directly, or indirectly. This was a great example of how power should be used. Ill go as far as to say that if they both after already climbing that high in the tournament agreed to end it like this, and fida disagreed, that would of been an abuse of power as that does cause direct harm even if it does follow tradition. Botez, if you read this, please re evaluate. I know you are very passionate about chess. But don't forget that for an action to be bad, it has to have direct or indirect harmful effects not just break away from convention.
The mistake in the first place is to have it all come down to sudden death if it's tied after the 4 initial games. Maybe it should be Armageddon, but that has it's weakness of being a bit unfair. Best solution would probably be to start another best of 4 round and keep repeating that until someone gets 2.5 points.
give everyone a participation trophie
Donchenko said it well. Kudos for saying what needs to be said!
Frankly this felt unfortunate but it feels like Magnus taking a shot to FIDE
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.
Alex.... get off the fence and say what you really think!
6:01 I think you should mention that was classical not 3 minute blitz
Take a pawn away from each player after the first game till someone wins
sounds like a tiebreak system anish could help set up
Thats stupid.
If the top 8 player took draws to secure their place in the knockout round, then the precedent is set, draws can take place
What about gukesh
what about him
Old news.
@@toaster4693😂😂😂
@@BotezLivepls tell us about Gukesh 🙏
@@BotezLive i mean he became the 2nd Indian to become a chess champion
So like what are your thoughts on ur that's all
Absolutely stupid everyone knows magnus could have defeated Ian if they had played some mare games it's blitz not classical but at the same magnus can also lose by exhaustion so he was like ok let's share it, and the question of legitimacy will happen only over Ian like Ding.
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
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.
Is it anymore dangerous than extra time in a football game?
Also, a blitz game is only 10 minutes long. A single classical game is 4 hours before the first time control.
armageddon is stupid and unfair way to play. on high lvl play where draw is a common result, its even easier for black to set up a so called fortress and go for draw in order to actually win the match, wile its even worse for white to have to play risky in order to try get the win. even with the time difference, just too much in favor of black
Ohhhh Maaa Godddd!!!!!
This orange is so good
🔥 📛 👩🚒 🚒 🧯 🍊