Magnus compensated a white loss with a white win. You might think a white loss and a black draw are equal to a white win and white draw but eh? Sergey rules. Magnus sucks. Wesley So rules. Hikaru, Garry Kasparov, Liren, Veselin Topalov suck. Hans, Bobby Fischer, Nepo, Vladimir Kramnik, et al rule. I'm referring to Liren's stupid list of Veselin, Garry & Magnus or Vlad, Bobby & Wesley So. SAYNOTO2900 GOD BLESS AMERICA More info: ZS4ZPF
I think FIDE should have adopted Fischer's specifications for the world championship all the way back in the 1973. Not only would we have seen Fischer play again in the classical championship format but it would have made the matches much more interesting. These were his qualifications: 1. The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting. 2. No limit to the total number of games played. 3. In case of a 9-9 score, the champion retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally. This would mean these kind of boring matches we saw in the 2016 match would never happen for a bunch of reasons. A. Draws aren't counted. Drawish openings, like the theoretical lines of the Ruy Lopez, would be discouraged. Would vastly improve the variety and excitement of the openings played in these championships. B. the challenger always has an incentive to play towards imbalances, make sure there are winning chances one way or another, and the impetus is on the challenger to win by at least 2 games, meaning they can never strive just to tie even in winning points alone. C. Drawing games requires at least some stamina- with no limit on games, both players would not want to waste energy on draws, try to aim towards explosive wins. Many more reasons, but I think its a shame this wasn't implemented. It would have made the championship much more exciting and true to its roots.
Sounds very interesting. 9-9 rule is debatable, of course, but the idea of 10 wins really could add some thrill. Though, unfortunately, no limit to number of games, making matches potentially endless, is a huge technical problem, inconvenient for any organizer.
jocal17 I don't understand what baadur jobava has to do with anything. But also I would point out that it's a bit misleading to say the Karpov/Kasparov match was adjourned because of the fact that they had to get to 6 wins. It was and still is to this day intensely controversial and almost certainly was a political move on the part of FIDE in collusion with higher ups of the USSR who supported Karpov. In response to your other point, while I agree it would be difficult and grueling, I also believe it would be kind of the point of a world championship match to be hard. If it's supposed to test who is the absolute best in the world it should not be a waiting game, it should be an ultra marathon.
Alex G You are right saying that being the best in the world should be proved a hard way. But this being hard for the players is only one part of a problem. What about organization? It is a lease of a place where they play, cameras/journalists, places in the hotel... It all takes time and money. And if amount of them can’t be planned ahead, it is, of course, a problem.
It was just an example of how mixing it up would never happen unless someone was down. And now that I say that I shows there would never be an incentive since someone who is down would not be running out of games to play. The political nature is quite irrelevant. They had a valid enough excuse if they were making a political move. Karpov lost like 30 pounds or something. What does a marathon have to do with chess skill? Are we talking about chess or their off the board physical training? And the more I think about it ops claims don;t actually make sense.If you have an infinite amount of games there would never be any reason to risk playing sharp.
There's a reason why FIDE rejected his proposal. No. 1 is reasonable and FIDE actually accepted this, but no. 2 would simply turn the WC match into a battle of attrition. Consider, for instance, how many draws Kasparov and Karpov had in their 1986 WC match. How you think a match that could continue for weeks with dozens and dozens of draws to be "more interesting" is beyond me, but, nevertheless, FIDE actually caved in and accepted this condition. No. 3 is complete bullshit and actually undermines no. 1 which is why FIDE never accepted it and, ultimately, denied Fischer's overall proposal.
I love this guy's voice it's like. Sit back get high and watch a bag of chips while you listen to me talk chess. Also enjoy the company of my dog and the background traffic.
"Should the title be determined by..." Four years ago, I would have said classical. I'm a spectator though. Now that I've been watching all of the different time controls in live events, it's been fascinating to watch Magnus win. At this moment, it's not like there's a different champion at different weight divisions, it's Magnus #1 and everyone else chasing. Fischer 960 has been the only exception, and Magnus was a mere #2 in that variation. Rapid online games have most enjoyable as of late. I don't see way the world championship cannot continue to be determined by a combination of classical and rapid time controls. Most people do not take and entire day to play one game.
What I found funny was that Jan Gustafsson saw exactly this checkmate in his live commentary with Peter Svidler before it actually happened. Maybe his greatest moment in his chess commentary career ;)
I think having separate rounds of classical and blitz both factoring to be best. To be the world champ you should not only be able to play great chess but fast too. If they deserve the title, they'll win both.
For the sake of a few eccentric players why change the classical / blitz criterion? I can concede a 2900 - 2500 discrepancy but certainly nothing below 2000 blitz rating.
I stopped the video and studied the position after rook to c8, which looked like just a temporizing move to me. Even then I did not see queen to h6 coming. Nothing can make me feel stupider than chess. Having paid no attention to chess for over 40 years, I did not know the world championship was not still just what you call "classical chess." I'm more impressed by depth than speed (a prejudice of being almost 70 years old, I suppose), so I'd be a traditionalist on your question about how the world championship should be decided.
Hi Gregory. I have also just rediscovered chess after about a 36 year hiatus (Agadmator is a big reason why). I only played timed chess once when I was about 12 at a chess club frequented by college players. I won about 75% of my traditional matches there, but didn't do well at all with the single timed one I played. The interesting thing was that I normally make my moves rather quickly during a classical game, but I think the time aspect became too much of a distraction for me. It didn't make things better that the guy I was playing, who was about 10 yrs. my senior, kept talking trash to me while I was trying to determine my moves. I also prefer the more traditional game, but it is fun to watch the best in the world have to make such quick decisions. It certainly adds some interesting moves that you most likely would never see without the time constraint.
@@trevors3908 I don't quite believe you. What do you mean you FOUND qh6+ ? I find it irrational that you would willingly sacrifice your queen for no reason whatsoever. I can't say that you weren't looking for the checkmate, but if you were willing to play such an incredulous move you must have thought something was worth playing it. But to not look a move further in only two iterations seems eerily suspicious to me that you claim to have found the winning idea without winning.
@@griffisme4833 this is really the most interesting, not the queen sac itself, but that Carlsen spent maybe 15 sec to calculate this other line, as he will loose if he doesn't give mate
Isn't that a bit unfair? Then if 2 equal players keep playing the tournament and keep drawing and drawing then the same champion would be crown year after year despite being an exactly equal player ot the other one.
Of course to get a title you have to beat the person not getting a draw it's the same for world records if you run the same time you won't be the world record you have to beat the world record. You can't take someone's title with a draw, that's common sense to me.
I agree with you, sir. Classical chess is Classical chess. If a world championship match is tied at the end of 24 games, the reigning champion should retain his title. P.S.: thanks for all your hard work in finding all these gems, as well as your commentary! Well done,sir! You're a veritable Croatian Sensation!
Akshay Singh Jamwal He might have thought that this was his best try, since he would have lost a pawn otherwise and here, he got two pawns for the exchange.
I believe it was a sacrifice, maybe Karjaking thought that 2 pawns and knight for the rook would give him more practical chances of winning than beeing down a pawn.
My Dad asked the same question, but the answer is that he didn't! Giving up his rook for a knight and pawn, leaves Karjakin with sharp lines and a passed pawn, and he felt if he didn't accept it he would have no winning chances. He says this in an interview!
It should be decided on all classical games; no rapids should be able to determine who's the best chess player in the world. You already have a World Rapid Championship, and that's where that type of time-control setups should remain.
Zacharoni & Cheese AKA The Harry Potter Ninja And I take it your comment to Beerdy is not infringing in their choice to live their life by saying whatever they want and you just minding your own business, right? Because that would be crazy. It's like when someone comes to you and says: "Don't let anyone tell you how to live your life" ;)
ray lmao tbh, i only wrote that because he spelled you as yoy and i wanted to mess with him by saying that and yessss lol what i say pretty much doesnt matter
Zacharoni & Cheese AKA The Harry Potter Ninja I replied to you because your name says Zacharoni & Cheese, which sounds like an important part of a complete breakfast.
Lomber Punction is called "en passant", it occurs when your opponent makes a double-step move with a pawn from starting square, and it could have been captured by the opponents pawn had it moved only one square.
Lol i play pawn moves 2 a lot of times knowing that a lot of people simply dont know the en passant rule. Its pretty rare but situations do happen. I wonder why it was created in the first place.
10:06 "did Carlsen see this?" you think it was a coincidence that the next day was his birthday? He has so much foresight he probably saw this outcome since game 1
Absolutely amazing. He is the GOAT for what he is doing for chess on and off the board. He is doing an amazing job in promoting chess to people who wouldn't normally be interested in chess.
Blitz should be separate. I dislike Blitz and Bullet games because they reduce the match to the most obvious moves. When you take a sport based on deep evaluation of the board and then remove the ability to deeply evaluate the board, no one wins.
Less time to evaluate means less evaluation. Shallow evaluations. Unless you are suggesting that they don’t come up with deeper strategies given more time to think.
When did I say I am incapable of evaluating a position within seconds? What a bizarre and arrogant assumption to make over TH-cam comments. I’ve made it clear that I appreciate analysis deep enough that it takes the best players in the world longer than a few seconds to reach, and you are whining about terminology and using childish “just because you can’t” accusations. Why does it offend you that I have clearly different standards?
I have explained several times that I don’t consider scanning the board for mere seconds “evaluation.” What you childishly pretend is contradiction is merely me speaking in your words, since communication seems to be a difficult subject for you. I am a 1-time American national chess champion, and Hikaru Nakamura was playing in the national tournament in which I took 1st. It’s thanks to people like you that I retired from chess shortly after. It’s thanks to people like Agadmator that I am starting to get back into it after many years. Shall we stop stinking up his comment section?
Its called "en passant". It can capture that way as after a pawn makes a move of two squares from its starting square, and it could have been captured by an enemy pawn had it moved only one square
For the most part, I like the way Magnus is thinking with his quote. Being merciless is pretty much the only way to become World Champion. That being said, I'm among those who believe it is okay to lose if your opponent has played a beautiful game. Learn from your opponent's beautiful moves and tactics, make them your own, and beat your opponent with them next time.
It's en-passant rule it's a special pawn capture that can only occur immediately after a pawn makes a move of two squares from its starting square and it could have been captured by enemy pawn had it advanced only one square.
Bf8 then Rxf8 check,if king to h7 then same mate as shown in video. If Kxf8 then Rook takes f7 check.Ke8 or Kg8 doesn't matter both will lead to mate.If king to g8 then Rf8, king to h7 queen to f5 check ,Kh6 Qg6#. If Ke8 Rf8 Kd7 Qf7 Kc6 Rc8 Kb5 Qc4 Ka5 Ra8#
Probably Rxf8, Kxf8 and then Rxf7 with check and you just hunt that king with rook and queen. I think it's a forced mate in 4 or 5 regardless of black's moves.
wow GM Simon Williams put this as one of the best moves by Magnus Carlsen I really liked this game Magnus Carlsen V.S. The youngest GM of all time, Sergey Karjakin.
it's "en passant", a legal move in chess, you can use your 'one move' pawn to capture the 'first-two-move' opponent's pawn when they are on the same row. And it's your choice to make that move. it's a rule to balance the 'first-two-move' ability of the pawn, I suppose.
The world has attention deficit disorder en mass and rapid is a great way to keep more people interested in chess and really classical chess is not statistically that much better compares to the huge amount of time and resources it takes. What would be interesting is making draws count as zero so tournaments can only be won with actual wins. You can even allow just 4 draws per person before they start losing .5 points per draw thereafter. Chess is a drawing game but in tournaments it is made worse because it's safe to play for a draw and it takes away from the spirit of the game and the quality of the games.
Rey Tamayo Another idea would be to give three points for a win and only one for a draw, just like in football. That would be a bit more fair if you‘re asking me, as a draw between good players is usually a sign that both did a good job.
Oliver S. I would agree when money and ego are not involved it would mean both tried but tprnaments are a business and drawing is a safe way to stay close to the top. Considering that a greater than 50% of the games end up in draws, drawing is not a bad option for top players vs. going for a win and taking risks. Your system would definitely work similar to mine but psychologically mine would prevent even more draws because it is way costlier. Just look how hard the player in this game tried and the risks he rooms and pains he took to avoid a draw while the other player was purposely going for a draw which takes the chivalry away and cheapens the game. With your system the champion would have no incentive to win as he would be 2 points up still with a draw while with my system he would be even as he would lose a half a point so his incentive to play hard to win would be stronger and in fact it would almost certainly require him to win to stay on top, once again removing the incentive to draw and increasing the incentive2and in most cases the need to win!
But after rook to C8, couldnt Sergey play bishop to F8 instead of moving the king? that way he could take the rook with the king and after finish his mate against the white king? ir am I missing something?
Bf8 then Rxf8 check,if king to h7 then same mate as shown in video. If Kxf8 then Rook takes f7 check.Ke8 or Kg8 doesn't matter both will lead to mate.If king to g8 then Rf8, king to h7 queen to f5 check ,Kh6 Qg6#. If Ke8 Rf8 Kd7 Qf7 Kc6 Rc8 Kb5 Qc4 Ka5 Ra8#
Paul Justin But when rook takes on F7 with check, then you go back with king to G8, and when rook goes to F8, now the king can move to H7, and there is not mate at all. that would give him the time to Checkmate the white king, as he only needs 1 tempo to win. maybe the reason was because time was rushing off.
Methossoldier study chess first before commenting...still checkmated...do it with boards then comment...when rook captured pawn f7 check and its over wherever the king goes...
the basic idea here is if bf8 then rook takes bishop, if king takes rook then the other rook gives check on f7, and then carlsen will gives series of checks till mate. if king didn't capture back and went to h7 then again queen to h6
At 10:21, if black played Bf8, what would be the result? I don't think white can win from that position. At the most white can draw with repeated check.
I think there should be classical games to decide the world championship. This would deliver games of high quality, and that is what I think most people would expect from a title match.
"Sometimes one has to come back for something classic" 30 fps: Check Medo in the backround: Check Queen sacrifce and Both Players threaten mate in 1: Double Check (Mate) 🤗
I agree with you. I even think the old rule, where a tie means the defending world champion still holds the title while the money is divided 50-50, should be used.
Can somebody please explain me at 10:25 when Carlsen delivered check to Karjakin with his rook why does bishop to f8 not work? I mean it looks perfectly reasonable for me, so can you tell me why it doesn't work? I mean even after the following moving sequence: Bf8, Rcxf8, Kxf8, Rxf7, the king is perfectly safe on g8 for example, and any attempt to checkmate black can be easily prevented (and even deliver Carlsen mate...).
Karjokin: Your king is cornered!
Carlsen: No u
And this time the cornER has become the cornHOLER
*Kakyoin
Magnus compensated a white loss with a white win. You might think a white loss and a black draw are equal to a white win and white draw but eh?
Sergey rules. Magnus sucks. Wesley So rules. Hikaru, Garry Kasparov, Liren, Veselin Topalov suck. Hans, Bobby Fischer, Nepo, Vladimir Kramnik, et al rule.
I'm referring to Liren's stupid list of Veselin, Garry & Magnus or Vlad, Bobby & Wesley So.
SAYNOTO2900
GOD BLESS AMERICA
More info:
ZS4ZPF
Gotta love that save at 9:42 "He actually had something else in mind... as it's check"
😂😂😂That was savage😂😂
He got ahead of himself. He had something else in mind for the next move
Surprisingly he actually had the idea of getting out of check.
lmfao
Winning when you're one move from being mated. That's gotta be the best feeling...
Best moves at
1:08 lie down
7:28 quits
im talking bout the dog
lol
Thx
😂 😂
If Carlsen gives you a free queen like that towards the end of a game than just get up and leave even if you don't see it
Don't wait three seconds lol
yeah, its been my observation that if he is offering his queen he has an endgame figured out and you're done
I think FIDE should have adopted Fischer's specifications for the world championship all the way back in the 1973. Not only would we have seen Fischer play again in the classical championship format but it would have made the matches much more interesting.
These were his qualifications:
1. The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting.
2. No limit to the total number of games played.
3. In case of a 9-9 score, the champion retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally.
This would mean these kind of boring matches we saw in the 2016 match would never happen for a bunch of reasons.
A. Draws aren't counted. Drawish openings, like the theoretical lines of the Ruy Lopez, would be discouraged. Would vastly improve the variety and excitement of the openings played in these championships.
B. the challenger always has an incentive to play towards imbalances, make sure there are winning chances one way or another, and the impetus is on the challenger to win by at least 2 games, meaning they can never strive just to tie even in winning points alone.
C. Drawing games requires at least some stamina- with no limit on games, both players would not want to waste energy on draws, try to aim towards explosive wins.
Many more reasons, but I think its a shame this wasn't implemented. It would have made the championship much more exciting and true to its roots.
Sounds very interesting. 9-9 rule is debatable, of course, but the idea of 10 wins really could add some thrill. Though, unfortunately, no limit to number of games, making matches potentially endless, is a huge technical problem, inconvenient for any organizer.
jocal17 I don't understand what baadur jobava has to do with anything.
But also I would point out that it's a bit misleading to say the Karpov/Kasparov match was adjourned because of the fact that they had to get to 6 wins. It was and still is to this day intensely controversial and almost certainly was a political move on the part of FIDE in collusion with higher ups of the USSR who supported Karpov.
In response to your other point, while I agree it would be difficult and grueling, I also believe it would be kind of the point of a world championship match to be hard. If it's supposed to test who is the absolute best in the world it should not be a waiting game, it should be an ultra marathon.
Alex G You are right saying that being the best in the world should be proved a hard way. But this being hard for the players is only one part of a problem. What about organization? It is a lease of a place where they play, cameras/journalists, places in the hotel... It all takes time and money. And if amount of them can’t be planned ahead, it is, of course, a problem.
It was just an example of how mixing it up would never happen unless someone was down. And now that I say that I shows there would never be an incentive since someone who is down would not be running out of games to play.
The political nature is quite irrelevant. They had a valid enough excuse if they were making a political move. Karpov lost like 30 pounds or something.
What does a marathon have to do with chess skill? Are we talking about chess or their off the board physical training? And the more I think about it ops claims don;t actually make sense.If you have an infinite amount of games there would never be any reason to risk playing sharp.
There's a reason why FIDE rejected his proposal. No. 1 is reasonable and FIDE actually accepted this, but no. 2 would simply turn the WC match into a battle of attrition. Consider, for instance, how many draws Kasparov and Karpov had in their 1986 WC match. How you think a match that could continue for weeks with dozens and dozens of draws to be "more interesting" is beyond me, but, nevertheless, FIDE actually caved in and accepted this condition. No. 3 is complete bullshit and actually undermines no. 1 which is why FIDE never accepted it and, ultimately, denied Fischer's overall proposal.
Karjakin: Mate bud
Carlsen: Call the ambulance, but not for me
I love this guy's voice it's like. Sit back get high and watch a bag of chips while you listen to me talk chess. Also enjoy the company of my dog and the background traffic.
I'm just wondering how high you gotta be to just watch a bag of chips haha. Kidding aside, totally agree.
@@TheInfallibleChase lool
1:30 The knight didn't capture anything :P
Robert Anghel hahaha I was gone a say that . but u saw the video before me I guess :P
It captured a ghost
knight capture f6 square.
A dubious blunder
A dubious agadmator.
Magnus Carlson is a real gem. The end was amazing. I could not have thought of it.
1:30 That's the strangest looking Nxd6 move I've ever seen.
Xd xd xd
Nah man it's Nd6#
What if sargey block the check using bishop on f8 he win if he see that 🤔
"Should the title be determined by..."
Four years ago, I would have said classical. I'm a spectator though. Now that I've been watching all of the different time controls in live events, it's been fascinating to watch Magnus win.
At this moment, it's not like there's a different champion at different weight divisions, it's Magnus #1 and everyone else chasing. Fischer 960 has been the only exception, and Magnus was a mere #2 in that variation.
Rapid online games have most enjoyable as of late. I don't see way the world championship cannot continue to be determined by a combination of classical and rapid time controls. Most people do not take and entire day to play one game.
From "hi this is mato" to "hello everyone" :)
Totally dubious statement
it seems that croatians are the best chess commentators lol
Dont forget Rick's "helloooo chess fans" from ChesstoImpress :)
No that dude blows
From Suren: "Hello chess lovers"
What I found funny was that Jan Gustafsson saw exactly this checkmate in his live commentary with Peter Svidler before it actually happened. Maybe his greatest moment in his chess commentary career ;)
I think having separate rounds of classical and blitz both factoring to be best. To be the world champ you should not only be able to play great chess but fast too. If they deserve the title, they'll win both.
What if someone can't play better than 1200 at blitz but can play at 2900 in classical? Due to some weird mental problem
For the sake of a few eccentric players why change the classical / blitz criterion? I can concede a 2900 - 2500 discrepancy but certainly nothing below 2000 blitz rating.
If you win in classical you get the title.Blitz is only for tiebreakers.
ytmndman if one person wins classical but does so bad in blitz, should they be considered world champion?
Yes. Deep strategy is considered superior to reaction-time.
1:20 - Good one Sir :)
Black plays Sicilian - "Finally an interesting opening" :D
An absolute gem of a game. Well played Magnus!
I love your videos! They are easily understood and well presented. Thanks!
+James Bjorlie Thank you James :)
I stopped the video and studied the position after rook to c8, which looked like just a temporizing move to me. Even then I did not see queen to h6 coming. Nothing can make me feel stupider than chess.
Having paid no attention to chess for over 40 years, I did not know the world championship was not still just what you call "classical chess." I'm more impressed by depth than speed (a prejudice of being almost 70 years old, I suppose), so I'd be a traditionalist on your question about how the world championship should be decided.
I found Queen to H6 rather quickly, but did not see the checkmate, for some reason. Odd how the mind works, huh?
I'm your age. You are not alone.
Hi Gregory. I have also just rediscovered chess after about a 36 year hiatus (Agadmator is a big reason why). I only played timed chess once when I was about 12 at a chess club frequented by college players. I won about 75% of my traditional matches there, but didn't do well at all with the single timed one I played. The interesting thing was that I normally make my moves rather quickly during a classical game, but I think the time aspect became too much of a distraction for me. It didn't make things better that the guy I was playing, who was about 10 yrs. my senior, kept talking trash to me while I was trying to determine my moves.
I also prefer the more traditional game, but it is fun to watch the best in the world have to make such quick decisions. It certainly adds some interesting moves that you most likely would never see without the time constraint.
Ok boomer
@@trevors3908 I don't quite believe you. What do you mean you FOUND qh6+ ? I find it irrational that you would willingly sacrifice your queen for no reason whatsoever. I can't say that you weren't looking for the checkmate, but if you were willing to play such an incredulous move you must have thought something was worth playing it. But to not look a move further in only two iterations seems eerily suspicious to me that you claim to have found the winning idea without winning.
10:24 bf8 blocking check is best move. Sneaky since the queen sac is almost invisible, but it delays mate for at least 7 moves perfect gameplay.
How do you mate after bf8? Seems like I'm missing something.
Sac the rook capture the bishop, rook and queen are coming at the king after king captures rook
@@Columbine-en3qc 1.bf8 rxf8 2. kxf8 rxf7+ 3. ke8 rf8+ 4. kd7 qf5+ 5. kc6 rc8+ 6. kb7 qd7+ 7. ka6 ra8#
@@griffisme4833 this is really the most interesting, not the queen sac itself, but that Carlsen spent maybe 15 sec to calculate this other line, as he will loose if he doesn't give mate
@@griffisme4833 What if after rxf7+, kg8 , rf8, kh7?
I like watching agadmator’s videos because I enjoy seeing his cute dog in the background.
1:30 knight captures air on F6
I like your channel most of all chess channels. Both thumbs up. Very good explanations and perfect tempo. Congrats
Carlsen is scary good, probably the best ever to play chess
there should be a classical champion and a rapid/blitz champion, especially since, personally, I feel there is a big difference between the two.
Definitely agreed. They almost feel like different games
Yeah, I feel like im a better chess player when I play rapid and blitz, just because I get bored when I play classical lol
There is. Magnus Carlsen is the Classical world champion and Blitz world champion. Viswanathan Anand is the Rapid world champion.
Thaertios well if you think it I guess we should bow and scrape to make you happy
As of Feb 2020 Magnus Carlsen is the undisputed classical, rapid and blitz champion.
This winning queen sacrifice is so beautiful!
1:30 "and knight captures on c6"
Me: capture what, your sanity?
PS: love your vids, if are seeing this
he said d6 btw
3:17 aslo mistake
Unbelievable sacrificing queen to win title. Even in my dreams I wouldn't have thought of that move 👏👏👏👏
24 classical games, best score wins, tie goes to the champ. Done.
+BKITU That's what I prefer
Isn't that a bit unfair?
Then if 2 equal players keep playing the tournament and keep drawing and drawing then the same champion would be crown year after year despite being an exactly equal player ot the other one.
There aren't 2 players exactly equal though that isn't possible.
Of course to get a title you have to beat the person not getting a draw it's the same for world records if you run the same time you won't be the world record you have to beat the world record. You can't take someone's title with a draw, that's common sense to me.
Well , first come first serve basis
Thx To présenter. You have a really good manner of presenting the matches play that challenge what has been played by master chess players.
Carlson: "I'm 4 parallel universes ahead of you!"
by far my favourite ending to a game, that was special!
A brilliant game by carlsen!
I agree with you, sir. Classical chess is Classical chess. If a world championship match is tied at the end of 24 games, the reigning champion should retain his title. P.S.: thanks for all your hard work in finding all these gems, as well as your commentary! Well done,sir! You're a veritable Croatian Sensation!
01:30 "knight captures on D6" lmao what does he capture the square?
That may have been one of the most exciting mates I’ve ever seen.
How does a GM miss such an obvious fork?
Akshay Singh Jamwal time pressure obviously
Akshay Singh Jamwal He might have thought that this was his best try, since he would have lost a pawn otherwise and here, he got two pawns for the exchange.
I believe it was a sacrifice, maybe Karjaking thought that 2 pawns and knight for the rook would give him more practical chances of winning than beeing down a pawn.
Two options:
1. He, for some weird reason, wanted that exchange
2. Shit happens
My Dad asked the same question, but the answer is that he didn't! Giving up his rook for a knight and pawn, leaves Karjakin with sharp lines and a passed pawn, and he felt if he didn't accept it he would have no winning chances. He says this in an interview!
I love that sacrifice. I agree with you. There should only be classical games!
It should be decided on all classical games; no rapids should be able to determine who's the best chess player in the world. You already have a World Rapid Championship, and that's where that type of time-control setups should remain.
I like watching games by the famous
top players and other players in Chess. Carlsen especially is a supercomputer when it comes to chess .
Yoy should stop smoking. It will do wonders for you're throat.
Beerdy - Bruce Lee Central yoy should let him live his choice and mind your own buisness
Zacharoni & Cheese AKA The Harry Potter Ninja
And I take it your comment to Beerdy is not infringing in their choice to live their life by saying whatever they want and you just minding your own business, right? Because that would be crazy. It's like when someone comes to you and says: "Don't let anyone tell you how to live your life" ;)
ray lmao tbh, i only wrote that because he spelled you as yoy and i wanted to mess with him by saying that and yessss lol what i say pretty much doesnt matter
Zacharoni & Cheese AKA The Harry Potter Ninja
I replied to you because your name says Zacharoni & Cheese, which sounds like an important part of a complete breakfast.
ray LMFAO im done, seems legit!
Excellent service 👏 👍 Medo swept the floor 😊
3:23 what is happenning???
Lomber Punction is called "en passant", it occurs when your opponent makes a double-step move with a pawn from starting square, and it could have been captured by the opponents pawn had it moved only one square.
thanks dude i never heard about this before
thank you as well
Now I know what that is, thanks to the people the responded =)
Lol i play pawn moves 2 a lot of times knowing that a lot of people simply dont know the en passant rule. Its pretty rare but situations do happen. I wonder why it was created in the first place.
Your commentary, the games you pick, everything is perfect.
Thx for your work !
One suggestion : not to spoil the result of the game in the thumbnail
10:06 "did Carlsen see this?" you think it was a coincidence that the next day was his birthday? He has so much foresight he probably saw this outcome since game 1
Ultimate checkmate by Carlsen. Never seen this type before.
"you might aswell toss a coin" :D
Absolutely amazing. He is the GOAT for what he is doing for chess on and off the board. He is doing an amazing job in promoting chess to people who wouldn't normally be interested in chess.
You're right about the most boring chess was played between the best chess players in the world championship.
Magnus is a tatical beast, he can see 40 moves in the future, this is insane.
It's more like 7- 15 per variation depending on the depth needed. Straight from his mouth
Blitz should be separate. I dislike Blitz and Bullet games because they reduce the match to the most obvious moves. When you take a sport based on deep evaluation of the board and then remove the ability to deeply evaluate the board, no one wins.
Less time to evaluate means less evaluation. Shallow evaluations. Unless you are suggesting that they don’t come up with deeper strategies given more time to think.
I am not interested in moves without deep analysis. What is obvious is subjective, and your definition of “evaluate” is looser than mine.
When did I say I am incapable of evaluating a position within seconds? What a bizarre and arrogant assumption to make over TH-cam comments.
I’ve made it clear that I appreciate analysis deep enough that it takes the best players in the world longer than a few seconds to reach, and you are whining about terminology and using childish “just because you can’t” accusations.
Why does it offend you that I have clearly different standards?
I have explained several times that I don’t consider scanning the board for mere seconds “evaluation.” What you childishly pretend is contradiction is merely me speaking in your words, since communication seems to be a difficult subject for you.
I am a 1-time American national chess champion, and Hikaru Nakamura was playing in the national tournament in which I took 1st.
It’s thanks to people like you that I retired from chess shortly after.
It’s thanks to people like Agadmator that I am starting to get back into it after many years.
Shall we stop stinking up his comment section?
Mr.Dominic Amoe You are completely right. That other person doesn't know what they are talking about.
I always hit like before I watch the vid. Never disappointed. Well played sir!
What a sacrifice of queen ! Really impressive.
3:21 how can the a4 pawn capture the b4 pawn? am I missing something?
Its called "en passant". It can capture that way as after a pawn makes a move of two squares from its starting square, and it could have been captured by an enemy pawn had it moved only one square
Aravindh Venkat thanks
My vote is for classic, I agree. I like the Magnus quote on top. "Merciless"...
For the most part, I like the way Magnus is thinking with his quote. Being merciless is pretty much the only way to become World Champion.
That being said, I'm among those who believe it is okay to lose if your opponent has played a beautiful game. Learn from your opponent's beautiful moves and tactics, make them your own, and beat your opponent with them next time.
1:30 Knight captures on d6...sure
One of the best games I’ve ever seen.
3:21 what happened here?
It's en-passant rule it's a special pawn capture that can only occur immediately after a pawn makes a move of two squares from its starting square and it could have been captured by enemy pawn had it advanced only one square.
en passant, a rule added to prevent a free pass for any pawn that hasn't moved and is trying to get pass an enemy pawn that is close
Wow. Magnus Carlsen is really fantastic. What a checkmate.
10:24 if sergy played Bf1..what would carlsen play!
(1) RxBf8, KxRf8, (2)Rxf7+,... And the KingHunt Begins
@@OfficialFoliLucker 1.bf8 rxf8 2. kxf8 rxf7+ 3. ke8 rf8+ 4. kd7 qf5+ 5. kc6 rc8+ 6. kb7 qd7+ 7. ka6 ra8#
1.bf8 rxf8 2. kxf8 rxf7+ 3. ke8 rf8+ 4. kd7 qf5+ 5. kc6 rc8+ 6. kb7 qd7+ 7. ka6 ra8#
Also, it is Bf8 not bf1
"You might as well flip a coin" 😹😹
10:30 why he didn't bring bishop back
Rook captures
1.bf8 rxf8 2. kxf8 rxf7+ 3. ke8 rf8+ 4. kd7 qf5+ 5. kc6 rc8+ 6. kb7 qd7+ 7. ka6 ra8#
I agree with your assessment of how the matches should be played.
Please explain this variation:
Bishop on f8 to block the check by rook on Rc8. Thank You!!
Lots of love from india, ur channel is awesome !!
Bf8 then Rxf8 check,if king to h7 then same mate as shown in video. If Kxf8 then Rook takes f7 check.Ke8 or Kg8 doesn't matter both will lead to mate.If king to g8 then Rf8, king to h7 queen to f5 check ,Kh6 Qg6#. If Ke8 Rf8 Kd7 Qf7 Kc6 Rc8 Kb5 Qc4 Ka5 Ra8#
Then you simply take the bishop and after king recaptures, check with the other rock and from there check mate eventually.
Probably Rxf8, Kxf8 and then Rxf7 with check and you just hunt that king with rook and queen. I think it's a forced mate in 4 or 5 regardless of black's moves.
+Eppepalli Rohith
Thanks all !! Perfect Reply!!
Very cool. Thx agadmator. Classic only. Definately. Classic chess is the only chess .
NxD6. No, that didn’t happen. 1:30
Second time watching this. One of your best analyses.
3:27 im... quite confused.
See: “en passant”
nob
So am I I’m new to the game
wow GM Simon Williams put this as one of the best moves by Magnus Carlsen I really liked this game Magnus Carlsen V.S. The youngest GM of all time, Sergey Karjakin.
3:27????????
it's "en passant", a legal move in chess, you can use your 'one move' pawn to capture the 'first-two-move' opponent's pawn when they are on the same row.
And it's your choice to make that move.
it's a rule to balance the 'first-two-move' ability of the pawn, I suppose.
Thnx but ive already researched it :)
Great, Simply great Carlsen! 👍🏼
The world has attention deficit disorder en mass and rapid is a great way to keep more people interested in chess and really classical chess is not statistically that much better compares to the huge amount of time and resources it takes. What would be interesting is making draws count as zero so tournaments can only be won with actual wins. You can even allow just 4 draws per person before they start losing .5 points per draw thereafter. Chess is a drawing game but in tournaments it is made worse because it's safe to play for a draw and it takes away from the spirit of the game and the quality of the games.
Rey Tamayo Another idea would be to give three points for a win and only one for a draw, just like in football. That would be a bit more fair if you‘re asking me, as a draw between good players is usually a sign that both did a good job.
Oliver S. I would agree when money and ego are not involved it would mean both tried but tprnaments are a business and drawing is a safe way to stay close to the top. Considering that a greater than 50% of the games end up in draws, drawing is not a bad option for top players vs. going for a win and taking risks. Your system would definitely work similar to mine but psychologically mine would prevent even more draws because it is way costlier. Just look how hard the player in this game tried and the risks he rooms and pains he took to avoid a draw while the other player was purposely going for a draw which takes the chivalry away and cheapens the game. With your system the champion would have no incentive to win as he would be 2 points up still with a draw while with my system he would be even as he would lose a half a point so his incentive to play hard to win would be stronger and in fact it would almost certainly require him to win to stay on top, once again removing the incentive to draw and increasing the incentive2and in most cases the need to win!
But chess is one of the saving graces in society so we should not sacrifice a great game to cater to the masses.
Came back to rewatch this game.
But after rook to C8, couldnt Sergey play bishop to F8 instead of moving the king? that way he could take the rook with the king and after finish his mate against the white king? ir am I missing something?
Bishop F8 follows rook takes f8 king takes f8 and rook takes f7 and mate in two
Bf8 then Rxf8 check,if king to h7 then same mate as shown in video. If Kxf8 then Rook takes f7 check.Ke8 or Kg8 doesn't matter both will lead to mate.If king to g8 then Rf8, king to h7 queen to f5 check ,Kh6 Qg6#. If Ke8 Rf8 Kd7 Qf7 Kc6 Rc8 Kb5 Qc4 Ka5 Ra8#
Paul Justin But when rook takes on F7 with check, then you go back with king to G8, and when rook goes to F8, now the king can move to H7, and there is not mate at all. that would give him the time to Checkmate the white king, as he only needs 1 tempo to win. maybe the reason was because time was rushing off.
Eppepalli Rohith replied right.
Methossoldier study chess first before commenting...still checkmated...do it with boards then comment...when rook captured pawn f7 check and its over wherever the king goes...
3:22 How does the pawn at A4 capture the pawn at B4?
En passant
In 49th move, Sergey Karjakin could have defended the king by Bishop to f8. What are your thoughts on this?
That is actually mate in 7 which in the end is quite easy to execute. I thought the same though, but there are plenty of "checkmating" ways.
Can you tell the possible mating ways after defending with bishop?
After Bf8 black could win easily (mate in one) unless there is any forced mating ideas for white.
eruditenaga you can actually force mate no matter what in this case
the basic idea here is if bf8 then rook takes bishop, if king takes rook then the other rook gives check on f7, and then carlsen will gives series of checks till mate. if king didn't capture back and went to h7 then again queen to h6
50. Qh6+ is simply crushing
9:41, This is happens to me all the time
The board position at 2:51 is about one billionth on the list of what you would expect.
omg i watched this video again and i am amazed how developed your narrative! congrats mate.
--only classical! (everything else is party chess)
Magnus at his best. What a brilliant Queen sac!
He(sergey) could have blocked the check with bishop and the very next move checkmated carlsen. No ?
Torre por alfil, y si captura el rey ,Torre por peón y check mate se acerca
Then Carlsen would have captured the bishop with a check and after king recaptures, Rook takes f7 with check which leads to checkmate.
i forget it was in English xd, well rock take bishop, and if the king take the bishop then the other rock takes the pawn and check mate is coming
Oh thanks . I didn't see that coming.
Yes Sergey could try his bishop , but he couldn't find that check by queen, and on other hand his eyes were also on to Carlson's King 😊😊
At 3:24 how does the pawn capture? I see this happen many times in your videos. Its disturbing.
Google 'en passant'.
How does a Super GM miss such a simple tactic?
time pressure?
it's blitz after all
not classical chess
when you think you are wining and you really are wining you don't usually see the only think that can defeat you...
At 10:21, if black played Bf8, what would be the result?
I don't think white can win from that position. At the most white can draw with repeated check.
Black wins, I don't see a repeated check.
Looks like the average viewer doesn't know what En Passant is... and I'm not even playing chess.. sigh
Great Q sac! Your commentary was insightful and I too wonder how many moves in advance that Carlsen saw the sac!
Great Game and great Video as Always
1:30 The knight captured the d6 square from f6! that's a royal feat!
I saw it live too ! Classy way to retain his title !
1:30 Knight captures and forks g4 and h5. And in this position carlsen did not lose any pieces.
yes only classic games defines greatness
I think there should be classical games to decide the world championship. This would deliver games of high quality, and that is what I think most people would expect from a title match.
"Sometimes one has to come back for something classic"
30 fps: Check
Medo in the backround: Check
Queen sacrifce and Both Players threaten mate in 1: Double Check (Mate) 🤗
Classical chess is fine. It does, after all, have a time limit. But a mixture is good too. Thanks for the video! NOT only blitz!
I agree with you. I even think the old rule, where a tie means the defending world champion still holds the title while the money is divided 50-50, should be used.
Such a brilliant move by Magnus Carlsen
Nice job. Waiting for moore.
Can somebody please explain me at 10:25 when Carlsen delivered check to Karjakin with his rook why does bishop to f8 not work? I mean it looks perfectly reasonable for me, so can you tell me why it doesn't work? I mean even after the following moving sequence: Bf8, Rcxf8, Kxf8, Rxf7, the king is perfectly safe on g8 for example, and any attempt to checkmate black can be easily prevented (and even deliver Carlsen mate...).
What a majestic mate