I agree with some of Anish's comments: the Champion is not necessarily the best player. Those are two different titles. And this occurs in other sports, too.
This is true BUT, Magnus decided not to play and if he would’ve wanted to I sure 95% of would say he’d win again… it’s not a matter if he participated and lost, it’s a matter of he didn’t participate therefore is the champion really the champion if he didn’t beat the best?
@@SgtJuls This argument is not much worth. Suppose Jan Krzysztof Duda would have decided to not participate in the last World Cup and suppose that Magnus Carlsen would have been the winner. How many of us would say "Carlsen is not the real winner of the World Cup because Duda did not participate, and if he participated he would have won"?
@@SgtJuls "Is the champion really the champion if he didn’t beat the best". This happens in sports all the time. The best team in the regular season stumbles in playoffs. The best runner gets injured before the Olympics. The best cyclist punctures his tire. People who are not #1 become campions all the time - in fact this is probably more frequent then the opposite. And don't forget that in 2016 Magnus almost lost to Karjakin, who was nowhere near as good as him.
No, the fact is that Magnus will no longer be a champion after this tournament is finished. This is an actual "fact" - using the definition of this word: a statement that could be proven to be true. What Hikaru said is not a fact - this is just his emotional interpretation.
i feel like there's also the generation in factor. we are literally living in an era where there are multiple chess monsters currently alive. fischer definitely had some competition, but magnus has way more impressive feats against way more powerful players
respectfully disagree … Fischer beating “Russia” was probably the greatest feat… he didn’t have a team helping him during that WCC. At his peak, his margin of victories at tournaments were clear cut, blowing out the competition. Today, we have cheat codes… computers… It doesn’t take away from Magnus. I think Magnus, Morphy & Capablanca have a certain style to their games that are more interesting than most. But the argument as to the best cannot alone be based on Elo when comparing different generations.
@@DKarkarov WOOOOOOOOO!!! couldn't agree more. don't know what crawled up magnuse's ass to make him not defend his title, but in 2021 he made nepo look like a child.
@boris I think he doesn't like the format of the championship match, and also the fact that he has to prepare for literally six months with very reduced possibilities to attend other tournaments spoils the fun for him
i doubt they would be too upset tbh. both of them realise magnus is better and they wouldn't have the title if he chose to play. i think whoever wins will be very happy with the $1m+ prize and the bit of recognition and fame that they will still receive
Anish is completely right. Best player not always the world champ or gold medalist in pretty much every other sport in the world. Another example is two of Vishy’s five world titles came when Garry was active but had broken away from FIDE. Only time Vishy played Garry in a world championship match was 1995 which Garry won convincingly 4-1. Yet everybody rightly recognizes Vishy as 5 times world champion. Also if we flip this logic around and assume for a moment that Nepo had won his match against Magnus. Even then Magnus would remain the best player in the world.
no it would be different because Ian beat him fair and square in wc match But the problem is=Magnus abdicated and refused to play And u can see the case with Anand vs Kasparov Anand is the world champion for 5 times but people still considered that time as Kasparov'Era
@@compton8301 wait a second, are we talking about the same guy that was almost going to qualify for the championship itself? The same guy that destroyed everyone in the FIDE grand prix and excelled at a time where there were players like rapport, levon and much more? I think you're letting your anger and (perhabs) biases blind you into believing Hikaru would get crushed by other Super GMs. The only one who can consistently crush Hikaru is Magnus himself but I don't think that's much of a problem since that's basically standard procedure. And don't get me wrong, as you have clearly not watched him play before or are so pathetic that you refuse not to engage critically, none of the things I mentioned were in blitz/rapid/online. It was Hikaru casually destroying the classical scene after not playing for 2 years. One of the best performances I've seen and this is coming from someone who had no faith in him at the start lmao
magnus stated that he won't defend because he feels like winning it won't give him any satisfaction that shows he improved or gained anything, since obv he has nothing to prove at this point. The only thing left for him to do is actually break records. So he stated that he wants to focus more on things that he can improve on and be better for the next time he plays.
Yeah, I have to agree with Hikaru here. I mean no disrespect to Ding or Nepo: both of them are extraordinary players, and both of them would annihiliate players who would annihilate me. But when you have another active player who: a) is clearly the highest-rated in the world (and the instant favourite to win any tournament he enters), and b) has not lost to the official World Champion in an official World Championship match... the title of 'World Champion' starts to feel a bit hollow. I do hope the dispute between Magnus and FIDE, regarding the format, can be resolved one way or another. I think not having him in the World Championship is simply bad for chess.
Carlsen demanded to have a young super-grandmaster as his opponent, specifically Alireza Firouzja, or else Carlsen didn't want to play in the championship anymore.
That's the thing. He didn't propose any. He said to fide (sarcasm) bro y'all have a trash format I ain't playing. And he is completely ok to do that. He gets decides where he plays and it's not his fault that this year's wcc has low viewers due to him not playing
From what I understood, Carlsen was going to play the world championship match in current time control if his opponents was Alireza, but he also would have played the match against anybody if the format was shortened.
Two other common viewpoints from other sports are that you need to at least beat the world champion and/or have to defend the title before you the actual World Champion. The winner of Nepo-Ding has not beaten the world champion, so they can only reach above criteria when one of them have to defend the title next time.
Same goes for magnus. He didn't defend his title by beating the number one contender so he is no more the champion. You can't just win one championship and decide to retire and then be called chess champion for the rest of your lives. You have to come and defend it. And if you refuse to do so you lose the title. It's that simple.
@@Stoiccynic224 "You can't just win one championship and decide to retire and then be called chess champion for the rest of your lives" are you even a chess player? xDDD Such statement couldn't come from chess player. He literally dominates chess world by being ahead of #2 player by 50+ elo points thats no joke. For years he was champion in every single time format (not just classical) and hasnt lost a single game to the number one contender (Ian) in previous year. You must be trolling. I cant come up with any other conclusion. Yes TECHNICALLY He will lose his title in classic format. But practically speaking, everyone (except u) will still know he's #1 player (not just currently but in history so far)
If they changed the format then it wouldn`t be as "weird" if the best player didn`t always win, as we see in football, track & field, and the "regular" chess competitions like Tata Steel, etc. With the difficulty of being able to get to the WC match through the Candidates, and the fact that the champion automatically sits in the final to defend the title, it becomes more of an expectation that Magnus wins, as he has also mentioned to be the problem that he feels relieved rather than happy when winning.
If it happens too often that the best player in a sport or a game isn't the world champion, there is something wrong with the way you decide who is the world champion. Chess is a bit like this. To be eligible for the candidates and then to win it, and after that having to win against the reigning WC ... That's a lot of hoops to jump through!
It's not the process, actually. Magnus wasn't wc on those years because he didn't participate because he didn't like the format. Fischer wasn't wc because he retired, Magnus will not be wc in 2023 because he is not participating. It has nothing to do with the process but the players that are not willing to play. It's really not that often that the best player casually looses against an overall worst player, some brilliancy is required as shown with Kramnik combined with inaccuracies from the defender.
The problem is more about how boring and frustrating is to prepare those matches. Magnus wants something more exciting, like rapid, blitz and classical chess during the wc. However, that will definitely bring higher chances for unworthy champions, as seen with the wc for blitz/rapid games.
Yes,but he's still almost unbeatable in classical Remember Tata steel? Magnus lost 2 games in the row,then he comeback to get 2 nd place in the end of tournament(he an get the 1st place if he beat prag) So Magnus still very strong in classical,even we can say the strongest
Fischer didn’t just not need the title… he just plain hates the game after. magnus is on the Mt Rushmore of chess… along with Kasparov & Fischer… the 4th person is a matter of preference IMO.
yes,but for decades=the wc player has always been the strongest player alive So when this kind of thing happen=people started to worry about it They worried the wc title will lose its appeal,because not the strongest player held it Just imagine if u live in Fischer's era but the wc is not Fischer but someone else,even though Fischer dominate everyone
Yes, I agree with this sentiment. 'World Champion' is just a title and does not necessarily mean that they are the best. Typically they are the same person, but not always.
Yet should not be ignored that there is intense pressure in the World Champpion match and one that people can spesificly focuse on that aim so there is also preparing opponent style and to plan how to win him in this particulare serie. and things like that that makes it unique and special. Also rules have been made and long time is a thing. And if one wants to be world Champion he needs to show up. Maybe Magnus feared that the lack of motivation dont help him in this long and intense match people can argue.
Again, I commented this in a lot of videos. Why can't we incorporate armageddon in world championship match? If you win the classical, 3 points for you, 0 points for the opponent. 90 minutes + 45 minutes, increment 5 seconds. (Compared to the current one, it's 120 minutes + 60 minutes) If you win the armageddon rapid, 1 points for you, 0 point for the opponent. 15 minutes, increment 5 seconds. (so winning 1 classical equals to winning 3 armageddon since winning in classical is much harder) The time portion in classical is reduced since we add armageddon. If you play with white in classical, you play white in armageddon. This way, all the games are decisive, just the decisive-ness is varies for every match. With this, we have a way to cope with the boringness of 14 classical match, and all player will have more strategy to win (not only to draw games). And we can apply this to candidates tournament as well
Yes in a sense of course that is true because if he isn't beaten in a match no one earned the championship from him. When someone wins a WCh match they are technically the world champ but not necessarily currently the best player.
Not sure why is Hikaru so keen on changing the WCC format, literally everyone else besides Hikaru and magnus hasn't stated anything with regards to having problems with the format. In case of Hikaru he just wants to avoid the hardwork, in case of magnus that is because he has done too much of that. Atleast Hikaru repeating again and again about changing the format is making him look like that. As a viewer, i don't mind the long drawn games honestly. They are interesting to follow because there are a lot of ups and downs which occurs throughout the games regardless. Sorry but, if you are not willing to play long intense games which exhausts the shit out of you, you don't deserve to be the champion of that sport. What is the point then?
I mean… yeah but also, you should be able to see their point. FIDE just made up that standard, and it’s kinda dumb. The Olympics sets the standard for most sports: 4 years. Why should chess be every 2? Championship occurrence should be directly related to turnover, and most sports sports have far higher turnover then chess because age affects athleticism. A chess player can hold the top spot for over 20 years, checking to make sure they are still the best every 2 is a tad excessive.
Год назад
Also, "the best in the world" hits different than the world champion title.
When a boxing champion retires, his title is vacated. Two new fighters will compete for the vacant championship. The retired champion may still be the best fighter but has retired. It's a little like Floyd Mayweather Jr who's retired and not the champion. He would likely regain his title if he fought again and has continued to fight paid exhibitions. If we love chess, we should be careful not to inadvertently ruin the credibility of the championship.
But the problem is=Magnus is not retired,that's the biggest issue If u look at all other champion,they usually abbdicated their title when they retire and stop partitipcate He can still compete in every big event Can u imagine if Magnus reach 2900 and win all these events,wc title will lose its appeal
I woke up craving something sweet and salty....like Applewood bacon. But thanks to this video now I'm served sour. Thanks Hikaru "tries to sound normal and cool" nakamura
I don't know. Of course, this causes some discomfort in Nepo and Ding, because whoever wins, it's very likely that they won't be so happy, because they'll know they didn't beat the true champion (Carlsen). However, the fact that Carlsen doesn't compete, doesn't want to compete, for whatever reason, either because he doesn't agree with the format, or because he thinks it's too stressful, etc., he's »losing«, or even, »giving up«. For example, saying that Carlsen's behavior is not that of a "loser" would be equivalent to saying that, when someone loses in chess because of time, it was not a real defeat. But hey, time is also a factor in chess. As well as preparation, as well as managing stress, anxiety, accepting the format, etc. From that perspective, Carlsen was disqualified or something like that.
I'm not sure it's all that simple. One way to look at it might be to think of the World Championship as one of many tournaments, it just has a high prize fund and the title. There are plenty of other events out there with substantial prizes and Magnus appears to be booked into plenty of these in the future. Also, a lot of players have mentioned the mental and physical toll that elite chess can take on the strongest players. Nobody can sustain that forever, and props to Magnus for a very long run, to play at the top level for 10 years is huge. Apparently he also made a small fortune.
I totally agree with Hikaru. His honesty is awesome. Congrats, Hikaru...you are the best!! Thank you for expressing openly your opinion. A lot of us feel the same way.
Maybe, instead of being done like 'boxing' where the World champ faces a challenger, chess champions should be decided more like NFL champions (except maybe the current champion gets an automatic seed in the 'playoffs'/candidates.) This way players are always 'achieving' instead of 'maintaining'. Just an idea. Also, if a championship match is desired, the 2 top finishers could play for the championship of the world. Like Ding and Nepo are.
Here's the deal, sometimes (like with Magnus, Fischer, Kasparov and many others) the WC is the best player as well. However, sometimes that is not the case and it occurs in other sports, besides chess. But to say that the winner of this match is not WC is folly. Little bit of sour grapes by Naka? If things had been slightly different in the candidates and he was playing for the title, I PROMISE you he would be singing a different song.
i genuinely think he would say the same thing even if he was playing. hes speaking the truth that everyone knows. this world championship has been massively devalued by magnus not playing because its not even a debate if he is the best player at the moment.
Here is a very easy explanation from me. In CSGO ( a fps game ) the last major ( most prestigious championship ) was won by Faze Clan But the best player for several years now is ( debatable ) S1mple from navi.
The thing about Magnus Carlsen is his cold-bloodedness. Bro is so smooth with it, he doesn't give a fuck if he is on the final of world championship or not If Ding Liren had the same ability, he would have won today.
When you think about it. There are chess world champions of different formats. Blitz or bullet or whatever. Fischer random. But the classical champion is champion of all chess.
Yet,that's why people argue about it Classical champions should be the strongest player on classical,it wont be an issue if Ian/Ding beat Magnus(the current strongest chess player in the world with the highest elo) But Magnus resigned his throne and refused to participate So there's a 'hollow' when we talk about classical wc title
@@alexponco4753 that's my point kind of. Why argue and why not just call ding classical champion? No one argues any other format even though Magnus is highest elo. My other point is that it seems people seem to consider classical format "chess" but it is what it is I guess.
There was an even worse situation in tennis, where the best player Djokovic and even the second best Medvedev weren’t allowed in tournaments due to Covid restrictions or political bullshit, so this other player Alcaraz was number one for almost a year. The whole thing made being a world champion a meaningless thing, because it didn’t reflect skill, but rather circumstance and luck.
Garry Kasparov defended his championship against 3 generations of players. He maintained #1 Elo rating over 3 decades - 80s, 90s and 00s. He was #1 player in the world for 255 months overall (more than 20 years). He maintained a ten-year unbeaten streak. Magnus is one of the all time great, there is no denying that, but you guys need to check your recency bias.
@@anonymerdude4501 Yes, but this statement (about "absolute terms") is true about pretty much every single World Champion with maybe one or two exception. Because chess evolve. There is a reason why Kasparov called his book "My great predecessors".
@@cutekitten9856 Ye but Magnus has been dominating in an era where there are insane AI'z and the most chess players. Right now chess is way harder than there's ever been, so it depends on what you value because if it's consistency is Kasparov, if it's prime it's probably Magnus
Yeah, this is where you need to look at boxing for guidance. There is a lesser known title in boxing and it is the "lineal" championship. Basically it is a non physical title you get by beating the person who has it, and that person got it by beating the person who had it before, etc. It can be traced all the way back to the founding of professional boxing. You can't be stripped, and you don't lose it unless you get beaten. It is why Tyson Fury is the bigger draw than Oleksandr Usyk, because he has fewer belts... but he is the lineal champion not Usyk. The lineage is more important than any belt. Magnus Carlsen is 100% the "lineal" champion in the chess sense.
How does that work if the lineal champion decides not to defend his title? I mean by that argument, Karpov isn't the lineal champion because he didn't defeat Fischer, and then Kasparov isn't the lineal champion because he only defeated Karpov, but Karpov didn't defeat Fischer, and so on.
@@rdbom4252 lol well then it gets complicated but it goes to the person who gets accepted as the dominant force. In boxing for example when Lennox Lewis retired he was the lineal champion but it eventually was accepted as passed to Vladimir Klitschko because he had most of the belts and had beaten every top rank fighter (minus his brother, but he beat the guy who beat his brother)
@@jesusthroughmary Let's say Ding wins this WC for the sake of argument. What if Magnus doesn't retire but gets worse, over the years, and at some point Ding is the better player? Would he then be respected as the proper champion? If so, then what's the point of a WC match at all if everyone is just respecting the WC based on who they believe is best? But if not, then what's to stop it dragging on until Magnus is 80 years old? And what if there is a similar situation with two more closely-matched players. Does the WC get lingering respect for years as a WC if he refuses to defend his title but doesn't actually retire? I think we can all agree that he wouldn't get WC respect in that situation. So really we're just basing this on who we think is better, and there isn't any point to the WC match. I mean, what if Magnus had a new medical condition which means that he's no longer able to play in a long title match? He could then just refuse to play, knowing he'll be seen as the true WC until he retires, despite not being able to defend a WC match if it came to it. I know this is hypothetical, but the point is it could happen, if not now then in the future. So all this talk about it not being a real WC match seems a bit mean-spirited (and open to abuse by the incumbent WC). I think if you don't defend your title then that's it: give respect to the new WC.
So Hikaru says Magnus is the world champion without playing anyway but in my opinion Hans Niemann not only is not playing the world championship he also beat Magnus and also dont need any ratingpoints because clearly chess speaks for itself, so he has to be the true word champion!
