English Chess Forum

I hope the title of this thread passes muster among the hyper-critical here.

There is a debate raging on twitter (or X if you prefer) about the agreed division of the title between Magnus & Nepo. The balance of opinion is against them. I’m not among the critics. I watched the whole shebang on the Take Take Take YT channel & thoroughly enjoyed the drama & remarkable chess. However many, like Niemann, are beside themselves with outrage. Sutovsky, whether on his own account or as a spokesman for FIDE, seems particularly bitter. Perhaps he didn’t enjoy being singled out for criticism by Carlsen. I’m not up on high-level chess politics so can form no opinion on that particular spat.

Everything being connected to everything else, as Marx said, Carlsen’s breakaway ‘Freestyle’ chess (Fischer Random) initiative is mentioned as a source of conflict with FIDE. It’s all over my head but fun to watch.

Anyone here beside themselves, indifferent, comatose? Just wondered. Let’s have a poll!

I voted for "nothing wrong with co-champions".

This forum (thankfully) is not X/Twitter.

I pick a fourth option: "nothing wrong with co-champions in general, but dislike them when the format was clearly explicitly designed to produce an outright winner".

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:47 am

I voted for "nothing wrong with co-champions".

This forum (thankfully) is not X/Twitter.

Twitter is a lot more interesting.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:47 am

This forum (thankfully) is not X/Twitter.

Not sure what point you are making here.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:52 am

I pick a fourth option: "nothing wrong with co-champions in general, but dislike them when the format was clearly explicitly designed to produce an outright winner".

Well, yes. I didn't know how to vote, since it is entirely possible to agree with both of the ( supposedly conflicting ) major options. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the majority view.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 9:19 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:47 am

This forum (thankfully) is not X/Twitter.

Not sure what point you are making here.

Should be obvious, surely. Clive says X/Twitter is "interesting". Maybe it is, but it has downsides that this forum does not have.

I voted for don't care as the compromise option, although that isn't to say I think it is unimportant. Nice to see the tradition of agreeing the poll question is wrong continuing.

Clive Wismayer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:14 am

I hope the title of this thread passes muster among the hyper-critical here.

I assume Clive is fishing for someone to say GM Liang won the World Open without the need for tiebreaks. I'm happy to oblige.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 9:36 am

Should be obvious, surely.

I was wondering whether it had some relevance to the topic under discussion. If it just felt like a cool thing to write, fair enough.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 9:41 am

I voted for don't care as the compromise option, although that isn't to say I think it is unimportant.

I certainly didn't consider that approach!

I'd pick another option - there should have been some means of stopping play and giving the players a break after a long series of draws, but doing so after only 3 tie-break games lasting a total of less than 30 minutes was too soon.

The final started at 5 pm, so they weren't playing very late into the evening. I'd change the rules for next time to give the players a break after every 4 games.

Don't care. Blitz chess is fun chess, the equivalent to five a side football in comparison to the full game.

FIDE should have got into the fun spirit of things like Magnus and Ian and invented an on the spot tie break by declaring Magnus the winner because he got to the final playing fewer games in the last 8 section. (it took him 10 games, Nepo 13) If the players said 'But that is not in the rules.' FIDE then say; 'Neither is what you are proposing. Happy New Year!''

(Magnus and Jean-Gate was featured on the Jeremy Vine show a few minutes ago. )

I like Geoff's idea. But maybe we could instead give Ding the title as the highest rated blitz player not involved in this fiasco?

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 10:34 am

I like Geoff's idea. But maybe we could instead give Ding the title as the highest rated blitz player not involved in this fiasco?

Maybe a blitz match v Gukesh to decide the title?

Better to just disqualify everyone who played in New York

Clive Wismayer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 9:05 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2025 8:47 am

I voted for "nothing wrong with co-champions".

This forum (thankfully) is not X/Twitter.

Twitter is a lot more interesting.

Now, this *is* trolling.