Gukesh Dommeraju Becomes the 18th World Chess Champion After Capitalizing on Ding Liren's Game 14 Blunder

"I might smile, but I ain't no joke."--Dilated Peoples, "Kindness for Weakness" 

By defeating Ding Liren in game 14 of the World Chess Championship, Gukesh Dommeraju not only became the 18th World Chess Champion, but at age 18 he also became the youngest World Chess Champion ever, surpassing the record held by Garry Kasparov, who was 22 when he became World Chess Champion in 1985. Magnus Carlsen, who relinquished the title in 2023 by declining to play in the World Chess Championship but is still the world's highest rated chess player, was also 22--but a few months older than Kasparov was in 1985--when he first became World Chess Champion in 2013.

With the match tied 6.5-6.5, Ding had the advantage of playing White, and he only needed a draw to send the match to Rapid tiebreaks, which favored him on paper since his Rapid rating is much higher than Gukesh's Rapid rating. The players reached a position in which Gukesh enjoyed a one Pawn advantage, but the game was well within the drawing zone with correct play before Ding--behind on the clock as he was during most of the match--hastily blundered away the game and the match by playing a move that enabled Gukesh to trade off the remaining pieces; this transformed the position into a pure King and Pawn ending that Gukesh could win by force. At first it seemed that Gukesh may not have realized that Ding had blundered, but soon Gukesh's eyes widened and he struggled to keep a straight face. Gukesh's reaction tipped Ding off, Ding put his head in his hands in pure anguish, and after Gukesh played the correct trading sequence Ding extended his hand to resign the game and the match.

One of the basic endgame principles generally known by strong players--even ones who are well below the Grandmaster level--is to not trade into a pure King and Pawn ending unless you have calculated the ensuing moves all the way to the desired result (win or draw, depending on whether you are ahead or behind), because King and Pawn endings are a matter of strict counting, not instinct. Ding violated this fundamental principle, and as a result he lost the game and the crown.

Ding joins a long, distinguished list of great players who made ghastly blunders, a list that includes other World Chess Champions. It is difficult for a non-chess player to understand how a world class player can make a seemingly obvious error, but it is important to realize the high stress level of chess competition--or, to put it in cruder terms, "Pressure busts pipes." It is a mistake to think of chess as just another board game. Chess is not only a sport, but it is a grueling, violent sport, increasingly dominated by young players who have the necessary mental, emotional, and physical strength to prevail under the sport's challenging conditions.

Gukesh's win exemplifies two significant demographic shifts that have happened in chess: the best players are getting younger and younger, and Asian countries--most notably India and China--have emerged as dominant forces. As noted above, Gukesh is by far the youngest World Chess Champion ever, breaking a record that had stood for more than twice as long as he has been alive, and this is just the latest example of the extent to which young players have become dominant in chess. Regarding the rising fortunes of Asian countries in chess, consider that in the 1970s it was headline news when an Asian player won a game against a Grandmaster; at that time it would have been difficult to conceive of a World Chess Championship match featuring one Asian player--let alone two--but now Gukesh is the second Indian player to win the World Chess Championship, following in the footsteps of his hero and mentor Viswanathan Anand.

As recently as two years ago, it would not have seemed likely that either Ding or Gukesh would become World Champion in the near future, because Carlsen was dominant (as he continues to be whenever he chooses to play). Ding was considered by some to be a potential challenger, but if Carlsen had not resigned the title then Carlsen would have faced Ian Nepomniachtchi in 2023; however, Carlsen had already beaten Nepomniachtchi 7.5-3.5 in the 2021 World Chess Championship, and Carlsen decided that spending several months to prepare for a World Chess Championship match is less fun than playing in various big money tournaments around the world. After Carlsen dropped out, Ding--who had finished second to Nepomniachtchi in the 2022 Candidates Tournament--took his spot, and then Ding became World Chess Champion in 2023 by defeating Nepomniachtchi 2.5-1.5 in the Rapid Tiebreak after the players tied 7-7 in the Classical portion of the match. Gukesh earned the right to challenge Ding in the 2024 World Chess Championship by winning the next Candidates Tournament with a score of 9/14, finishing a half point ahead of Hikaru Nakamura, Ian Nepomniachtchi, and Fabiano Caruana.

After a tough year during which Ding struggled to regain top form, he fought hard versus Gukesh from beginning to end--stunning observers by winning game one after not winning a Classical game in the previous 304 days, and then bouncing back to win game 12 to tie the match after losing game 11--but in the end Gukesh's energy and fighting spirit proved to be too much; throughout the match, Gukesh pressed on in positions where other players might just accede to a draw, and that willingness to fight for every inch--reminiscent of Bobby Fischer's attitude that the game is not a draw until he says so--wore Ding down.

Ding and Gukesh both have unassuming demeanors, and that makes it easy to underestimate them, as the stereotype is that a champion athlete is bold and brash. Media commentators are particularly fond of doing armchair psychoanalysis of Ding's body language, and Ding contributes to this by being so brutally honest about how he feels at any given moment. What commentators seem to miss or misunderstand is that for a mentally strong person it is possible to feel devastated for a moment but then resiliently bounce back. Ding lost game 2 in last year's World Chess Championship match, looked devastated afterward, trailed for most of the match--and then won game 12 en route to eventually claiming the title. This time, he lost game 11, looked devastated afterward, and then bounced back to win game 12 before drawing game 13 and falling just short in game 14. 

Gukesh has a quiet but fierce determination. His playing style is similar to Carlsen's in the sense that both players--to use a tennis analogy--keep hitting the ball over the net until their opponent falters and misses a shot; it is not necessary to hit the ball spectacularly, but just to hit it well enough that the opponent is forced to make a return shot. It will be interesting to watch Gukesh continue to develop as a player--he is likely not even close to his prime yet--and it will be fascinating to see how long he reigns as World Chess Champion. Emanuel Lasker held the World Chess Champion title for a record 27 years (1894-1921), but in his era there was not a regular cycle of World Chess Championship matches; he successfully defended his title five times before losing to Jose Raul Capablanca; unless the current rules change, Gukesh will have to defend his title every other year, meaning that a 27 year reign would require at least 13 successful title defenses. Carlsen defended his title in five matches without a defeat before voluntarily relinquishing the crown without a fight, while Kasparov--the longest reigning champion of modern times--defended his title in five matches and reigned for 15 years before losing to Vladimir Kramnik in 2000.

The 2024 World Chess Championship match featured a lot of fighting chess and was not just a parade of colorless draws. The most disappointing thing was the nature and quality of some of the questions asked in the post-game press conferences. During the Ding-Nepomniachtchi match, I wondered Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials?, and during this match it was disappointing to once again see Mike Klein at every post-game press conference asking questions that made little sense and had little relevance. With the match tied 6-6, Klein asked both players who has the momentum; momentum is something for commentators to speculate about--often incorrectly--not something to ask a player about in the middle of a competition. After the exciting game 13 draw, Klein asked a rambling question about how quickly Gukesh walked into the playing hall prior to the game, as if there is some brilliant insight to be gained by how fast a player is walking. In The Image: A Guide to Pseudoevents in America, Daniel Boorstin lamented that the role of news reporters shifted from covering significant events that happened to trying to create excitement out of nothing: "If he cannot find a story, then he must make one--by the questions he asks of public figures, by the surprising human interest he unfolds from some commonplace event, or by 'the news behind the news.'" That is a perfect description of what Klein and far too many credentialed media members do. I am a writer and not a video creator, but someone needs to give Klein the Mark Schwartz treatment, as I suggested last year in Dreaming of Becoming a Journalist Covering the World Chess Championship.

I hope that the next World Chess Championship features fighting chess--and better post-game questions.

Vladimir Kramnik Loses His Mind After Losing an Online Blitz Game to Hans Niemann

Grandmaster Hans Niemann can now play at Chess.com again after settling his lawsuit against Chess.com and former World Champion Magnus Carlsen, with both Chess.com and Carlsen publicly acknowledging that there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in over the board games in general and specifically in the Sinquefield Cup game when Niemann defeated Carlsen. Niemann returned to Chess.com in style, beating former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik in a blitz game. Instead of taking the loss like a man, Kramnik accepted a rematch, but replied to Niemann's e4 with ...f6, and then answered d4 with ...g5, allowing Fool's Mate. Kramnik was trolling Niemann, who resigned rather than playing Qh5 mate. Niemann responded to Kramnik's disgraceful display by simply saying that he has much respect for Kramnik and does not understand why Kramnik did this. Niemann apparently felt that he took the high road by resigning, but if I had been in his shoes I would have checkmated Kramnik and trolled back by saying something like, "I beat this guy so thoroughly last game that he forgot how to play chess and fell into the Fool's Mate." If Kramnik wanted to lose like a fool, Niemann should have fulfilled his wish.

Kramnik behaved like a petulant child--just like Carlsen did after losing to Niemann--because Kramnik is too arrogant and insecure to admit that Niemann outplayed him. Rather than losing with dignity and grace, Kramnik--echoing Carlsen's shameful behavior when Carlsen resigned against Niemann after one move rather than play against him in the online $150,000 Generation Cup tournament--chose to make a mockery of the rematch game, likely assuming that people will pay more attention and credence to the implication that Niemann is a cheater than to the fact that Niemann outclassed Kramnik in the prior game. 

If you have followed Kramnik's career, then you know that he has never lost a post-mortem analysis session; his post-game press conference performance after drawing with future World Champion Ding Liren is legendary--and not in a good way, because Kramnik comes across as either incredibly delusional or insufferably arrogant. If you don't watch the whole video, at least check out around the one minute mark when Kramnik is running his big mouth about how he is winning before Ding quietly but confidently refutes Kramnik's moves. Kramnik still insists that he is better, but Ding just chuckles and says, "I don't think so."

In short, Kramnik has always been a sore loser (or "drawer" in the game with Ding Liren), so his behavior after Niemann beat him is par for the course. What first Carlsen and now Kramnik are making abundantly clear is that the tight circle of elite Grandmasters who are invited to big money tournaments to play against each other do not want an interloper joining their club. They don't like Niemann, they don't respect Niemann, and they don't want him to ever be included. It is not clear if Niemann will ever become a top 10 player--his peak to this point has been 31st in the world rankings earlier this year--but it is very clear that Carlsen and Kramnik are afraid of the mere possibility that Niemann will crack the exclusive private club where a handful of chess players make far more money than even other Grandmasters make.

It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence that Niemann has ever cheated in over the board competition, nor is there any reason to believe that he cheated in his recent win versus Kramnik--but there is plenty of evidence about who Kramnik is and how he will be remembered by knowledgeable, objective observers.

History will not remember Kramnik as a great World Champion or as one of the 10 greatest players of all-time; yes, he beat Garry Kasparov in the 2000 World Championship match, but by that time Kasparov had already reigned as the World Champion for 15 years. Kramnik's reign lasted just over half as long as Kasparov's. Kramnik spent eight years as World Champion before losing the title to Viswanathan Anand, who Kasparov defeated 10.5-7.5 in the 1995 World Championship match. 

When Kasparov retired from top level chess in 2005, he remained the highest rated player in the world, and he had received the Chess Oscar--the chess world's Player of the Year award--a record 11 times, including in both 2001 and 2002 when Kramnik was the World Champion. Anatoly Karpov is second with nine Chess Oscars, while Kramnik received the award just twice. 

Shamefully, Kramnik did everything in his power to avoid a World Chess Championship rematch with Kasparov, knowing full well that Kasparov had an excellent chance of retaking the crown. An exasperated Kasparov criticized Kramnik's refusal to arrange a rematch:

I believe it is the duty of the world champion to defend his title against the most dangerous opponent. When I beat Karpov in 1985 I was forced to defend my title against him within eight months. The organizers and the public believed that Kramnik was the most dangerous opponent, so I had to play him--I had no choice. Kramnik knows this and now he is champion he must prove to the world he is "real" by facing his most dangerous opponent--me.

In the last six months I have proved I am still the world number one and I beat Kramnik recently. But now Kramnik, who was not made to win a qualifier to play me, implies that I must qualify to play him. I don't want to diminish the importance of his victory. He deserved to win. But it is Kramnik's turn to prove Kasparov didn't go mad in London. The public need another match to prove Kramnik is the real thing.

Kasparov and Kramnik played 10 tournament games against each other after their 2000 World Championship match, with Kasparov scoring one win and nine draws. Kasparov's victory came on the White side of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense, demonstrating that he had figured out how to defeat the main weapon Kramnik used to wrest the title away from Kasparov. 

As noted above, after losing or drawing games Kramnik tends to insist that he was winning all the way until the end, despite the fact that his assertions are often demonstrably false--but if we take Kramnik at his word that he has squandered numerous winning positions then perhaps he is the biggest choker in the history of elite level chess; after all, Kramnik committed one of the most ghastly blunders ever made by an elite player when he fell into a mate in one in the second game of his six game match versus the supercomputer Deep Fritz.

How can chess be promoted as a big-time sport and be taken seriously by the public if top players behave like whining crybabies when they lose, and if top players (and media members) throw around unsubstantiated cheating allegations? Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura recently whined about being dragged into Niemann's lawsuit, but Nakamura was not dragged into anything: he opened his mouth to spew unsubstantiated cheating allegations against Niemann and as a direct result of that Niemann sued him. "Start no stuff and there will be no stuff" would be a good mantra for Nakamura to live by in the future. Further, if Nakamura is truly interested in promoting chess as opposed to just generating more clicks and obtaining more viewers, then he should think twice about making unsubstantiated accusations that cast aspersions on the sport. There is a reason that the NBA fines owners, coaches, and players who make negative statements about officiating: such statements are bad for the league.

Nakamura is more of a chess streamer than a full-time player at this point, so he may figure that anything that creates content is good for his business model in the long run. Kramnik has retired from top level play for the most part, but he often speaks about promoting the game, as does Carlsen--but Carlsen and Kramnik seem much more interested in promoting themselves and their brands than in promoting the game. For instance, Carlsen's refusal to defend his World Championship title is bad for chess: why should anyone outside of the chess community take the World Championship seriously if the World Champion does not take it seriously? Note that Carlsen has not retired from chess; he is very busy playing in a host of big money tournaments--usually invitation-only--which is not only lucrative for him but also keeps his name in public view, which helps him promote his businesses and corporate sponsorships that are providing the bulk of his income now.

There is good reason to believe that the ratings of the top chess players are inflated now because they have essentially created a separate rating pool amongst themselves (and the ratings of other chess players are likely deflated, but that is a topic for another day). Instead of whining about losing games to Niemann, it would be great to see Carlsen--and other elite players--participate more often in open tournaments so that they put their money--and their rating points--where their big mouths are.

Ding Liren is the New World Chess Champion After Defeating Ian Nepomniachtchi in Rapid Tiebreak

Ding Liren defeated Ian Nepomniachtchi 2.5-1.5 in the Rapid Tiebreak to win the World Chess Championship title abandoned by Magnus Carlsen, whose reign lasted from 2013-2023 and included four successful title defenses. Carlsen is still the highest rated chess player (2853) in the world, followed by Nepomniachtchi (2794) and Ding (2789). Nepomniachtchi qualified for the 2023 World Chess Championship match by winning the Candidates Tournament for the second time in a row. Ding finished second in the Candidates Tournament after beating the highest rated American player (Hikaru Nakamura, ranked fifth in the world with a 2775 rating) in the last round, but Ding was elevated to fellow challenger status with Nepomniachtchi after Carlsen declined to participate.

The vast majority of games in the Classical portion of recent World Chess Championship matches were draws, but six of the 14 games in the Classical portion of the Ding-Nepomniachtchi match were decisive. Perhaps the key moment in the Classical portion of the match happened when Ding won game 12 to tie the score at 6-6. Nepomniachtchi enjoyed a promising position in game 12 but he lost the thread while trying to win, and then threw away the game with a major mistake that he played after using very little time on his clock. In retrospect, that was the turning point: Ding trailed from game seven until he won game 12, but after game 12 Nepomniachtchi did not win another game. The players drew the final two Classical games and the first three Rapid Tiebreak games, so Ding's first lead in the World Chess Championship came when he won the fourth game of the four game Rapid Tiebreak and immediately became the World Champion!

It is a heartbreaking result for Nepomniachtchi, who was a few accurate moves away from all but clinching the title in game 12, and it was a magnificent triumph for Ding, the first Chinese player among the 17 undisputed World Chess Champions since Wilhelm Steinitz assumed the throne in 1886 (unofficially, Steinitz' reign at the top of the chess world dates back to 1866, but there was not a formal World Chess Championship match prior to 1886).

In public, Ding has an unassuming, low key demeanor that can be misinterpreted. Every time Ding lost a game, armchair psychologists examined Ding's body language and proclaimed that he was a broken person who could not recover from such a devastating setback. This made little sense, because a person does not become the third ranked chess player in the world and qualify to play in a World Chess Championship match without having great mental toughness and strength of character. The in-game commentators provided valuable insights relating to the moves played, but it is disappointing that people who ask idiotic questions at press conferences receive media credentials. No one needs to ask Ding Liren how he ranks his self-confidence on a scale of 1-10, nor does anyone need to ask Nepomniachtchi if the match is over when there are three games left in the Classical portion (a question that sounded stupid at the time, and aged very poorly after Nepomniachtchi lost in the Rapid Tiebreak).

This match featured more decisive games than recent matches not because the players are better (or worse) than the players from other World Chess Championship matches, but because this match featured a fascinating clash of personalities and playing styles. Thus, when one player steered the game toward his type of position, he tended to win, and vice versa. In such a match, it is easy to nitpick and to criticize the players' moves; it is important to remember that even if a chess computer evaluates a position as objectively equal that does not mean that the path to maintain equality is obvious to a human: there are equal positions in which any sensible move retains the balance, and there are equal positions in which one player has to walk a delicate tightrope involving many "only" moves, some of which may not be intuitive or obvious to a human.

It should also be mentioned that deciding the World Chess Championship in a Rapid Tiebreak is similar to breaking a tie in a marathon with a series of sprints: a marathon and a sprint both involve running, but they are different sports. Classical chess--chess played at slow time controls--is one sport, and rapid chess is a different sport. There is actually a separate event to determine the world champion at rapid time controls. There is no perfect format for a World Chess Championship: a match extending until one player wins a set number of games with draws not counting led to the marathon 1984-85 Karpov-Kasparov match in which play was eventually suspended with the outcome undecided after 48 games, while letting the champion retain the title in a drawn match has its drawbacks as well. It would be nice to see a Classical match format lasting longer than 14 games.

All of that being said, the players signed contracts and agreed to the format, so it cannot be said that one player was at a disadvantage: both players knew that if they drew the Classical portion of the match then the title would be determined in a Rapid tiebreak (with a Blitz tiebreak to follow if the Rapid tiebreak was drawn).

Turning our attention back to the just concluded World Chess Championship, it is no secret that Nepomniachtchi often plays too quickly, and it is clear that this trait has been costly for him at times. I respect Grandmaster Anish Giri for candidly stating early in the match that when he mentions this flaw in Nepomniachtchi's approach he understands that Nepomniachtchi must be doing a lot of things very well to win back to back Candidates Tournaments. Giri said that he has greater flaws in his game to iron out than Nepomniachtchi has in his game, and that explains why he (Giri) has never played in a World Chess Championship match. Such humility and self-awareness are great traits for other commentators to cultivate.

Congratulations to Ding, and best wishes to Nepomniachtchi, who is young enough and good enough to still contend for the World Chess Championship.

Ding Liren Exploits Ian Nepomniachtchi's Blunder to Win Game 12 and Tie the World Chess Championship at 6-6

Even in today's era with computer-assisted preparation, top level chess does not have to consist primarily of draws if both players are willing to fight. Fighting chess creates winning chances for both players, and fighting chess also creates a state of heightened psychological tension that can result in blunders. As Viswanathan Anand once put it, success at top level chess is "a question of nerves." If we want to see perfect--or at least "ideal"--chess then we can watch two computers play against each other. As a strong amateur chess player, I enjoy playing fighting chess and I enjoy watching top level players who play fighting chess.

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ding Liren versus Ian Nepomniachtchi has featured fighting chess in almost every game, and after 12 games the score is tied 6-6 with each player winning three games. The first player to score 7.5 points wins the match, and there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends in a 7-7 tie.

Nepomniachtchi won game two after a game one draw, and he has never trailed during the match. He enjoyed a one point lead from game seven until his collapse in game 12 today, when he built an advantageous position only to squander his edge by playing too quickly before committing a one move blunder that lost the game. Game 12 featured daring play by both players. 

Chess fans who complain about too many draws should not then make fun of top level players who blunder while playing enterprising chess. Taking risks to win also means that you can lose. I respect  Nepomniachtchi's fighting spirit, and as someone whose fighting spirit has led both to great victories and ignominious defeats I can empathize with how he must be feeling after game 12.

A drawn chess game may or may not feature highly accurate play, but a decisive game inevitably includes at least one mistake. There is a tendency for some people to assume that the level of play in matches featuring many decisive games is lower than the level of play in matches that have fewer decisive games. In 2018, Carlsen retained his World Chess Championship title with three wins in rapid play after he and challenger Fabiano Caruana drew all 12 classical games that they contested. One should not assume that the 12 classical games were error-free just because they were all draws, nor should one assume that Carlsen would win a match against the current match competitors based on his prior results. Each match takes on its own flavor.

Objectively speaking, based on chess ratings it is reasonable to suggest that Magnus Carlsen--who declined to defend his World Championship title--is still the world's strongest chess player. However, the notion that if he had played in this World Chess Championship match he would have made fewer mistakes than the current match participants is not supported by the evidence. It is easy to forget--and many people seem to have forgotten--that Carlsen made many mistakes in his World Chess Championship matches. For example, Carlsen missed a winning continuation in game one of his match versus Caruana and the game ended in a draw. Also, in game six of his 2014 match versus Anand, Carlsen made a ghastly blunder that should have cost him the game on the spot--but Anand returned the favor by overlooking the winning move.

In short, Carlsen is a great player and a resourceful fighter but even in his prime he did not play perfect chess, so it is not fair to the current World Chess Championship players to compare them unfavorably to a player who declined to participate. Chess can be a very tension-filled game because a chess player can play 50 correct moves in a row, build up an overwhelming position, and then throw away the game with just one mistake. Most other sports are not like that; if a basketball team takes a 20 point lead, the opposing team cannot come back on one play, and the same concept holds true for baseball, hockey, and football: a large lead cannot be erased by just one mistake.

Chess tests every fiber of your mind, body, and soul. That is one reason why chess is a great game, and that is why I have so much respect for uncompromising players who fight to win every game. Bobby Fischer used to say that a game was not drawn until he said it was drawn, a mindset that resulted in him winning the 1963-64 U.S. Championship with an 11-0 score before later winning 20 straight games against elite Grandmasters without yielding a single draw en route to capturing the World Championship in 1972. That stubborn attitude served Fischer well in chess, even if it may have been counterproductive for him away from the 64 square board. 

In some ways, Nepomniachtchi is fighting against himself as he tries to become the World Chess Champion. If he succeeds in this attempt despite his agonizing game 12 loss, he can truly say that he did it his way. If he falls short, he is young enough to make another attempt to reach the summit, and he can decide if his uncompromising approach may need some modification, at least in terms of the time he spends on each move before making very committal and potential risky decisions.

Ding is harder to read. He comes across as a low energy person, but rest assured that anyone who has qualified for a World Chess Championship match has a fierce fighting spirit regardless of his demeanor. I do not look at his facial expressions or body language and conclude that he is in psychological peril each time that he loses a game, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is strong enough to overcome adversity. 

Whoever wins this match is a worthy successor to Carlsen.

"You've Got to be Kidding": Ian Nepomniachtchi Says What We Are All Thinking During World Chess Championship Press Conference

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ian Nepomniachtchi versus Ding Liren for the title vacated by Magnus Carlsen has featured some exciting games--including three wins by Nepomniachtchi and two wins by Ding--but the postgame press conferences have been marred by journalists in name only asking idiotic questions. 

After today's game 11 ended in a draw, the press conference moderator Keti Tsatsalashvili asked Nepomniachtchi, "Do you think that the most difficult part of the match is already behind, and now you just have to finish the job, or do you think that the most critical games are still ahead of you?"

Nepomniachtchi immediately turned toward her, looked her in the eye and said, "You've got to be kidding." She said, "Sorry?" and Nepomniachtchi repeated, "You've got to be kidding, no?" She said, "No, I'm not." 

Nepomniachtchi then said, "Indeed, (there are) three games (left in the match) and I should give my all to do the job, let's say. Of course it is not anything like it's over--obviously not. It's pretty much an unclear match, I think."

Keti Tsatsalashvili then turned to Ding to ask another question before thinking better of it, and asking the assembled media members if they had any questions.

Game 11 was a relatively short and uneventful draw, so media members who struggle to think of competent and relevant questions even after exciting, decisive games were completely baffled today. Thus, the topic of conversation shifted from the World Chess Championship match to how to detect and prevent chess cheating. Chess cheating is a relevant topic for the chess world in a broad sense, but it is not relevant to this match because there is zero reason to believe that any cheating is taking place, or could take place given the strict precautions that are in place.

Nevertheless, Leontxo Garcia of "El Pais" admitted that he needs help writing his game story for today, and thus he asked both players to comment about chess cheating in general and also specifically if they believe that any of the top 25 players in the world have cheated in over the board chess. Again, it is obvious that chess cheating is a relevant topic for discussion, but it is not obvious why that should be brought up after game 11--except for the fact that Garcia admitted that he needs help writing his game story (at least some people who struggle to do their jobs are candid enough to admit this).  

After Garcia sent the press conference spinning away from the World Chess Championship, Mumbled Name (perhaps he prefers to preserve his anonymity to the general public by not clearly identifying himself) from "Die Zeit" in Hamburg asked both players if they are aware that "500 meters from here Hans Niemann is playing in an open tournament. Do you know about that and what do you think about that?" Nepomniachtchi looked at Mumbled Name as if to inquire, "What is wrong with you?" before noting that he is aware that there is a strong chess tournament taking place nearby "but still, I don't get your question." Mumbled Name mumbled something about Niemann's presence overshadowing the World Chess Championship, and Nepomniachtchi retorted, "No, I don't think so."

The main thing overshadowing the 2023 World Chess Championship is the low quality of the media coverage.

Dreaming of Becoming a Journalist Covering the World Chess Championship

I recently asked Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials? but after further thought I decided that I just have to work harder to reach the incredible intellectual level of the brilliant people who are privileged to cover the chess world's most important and prestigious event. 

The questions below are modeled after some of the excellent, insightful inquiries made in recent World Chess Championship press conferences, because I realize that there is no way that I could independently think of such questions myself--seriously, I cannot imagine ever asking such questions, but maybe I can dream of reaching such a journalistic pinnacle!

1) "Is this match more enjoyable for you than your previous World Chess Championship match?" This is a great question to ask to a player who is leading 4-3 after losing the previous World Chess Championship match following a series of blunders.

2) "Are you familiar with (insert the names of players from an obscure game played a long time ago)? Did this game influence your preparation?" This is a great question because during the World Chess Championship match the players are very much inclined to provide all of the details and background regarding their preparation.

3) "Today is (insert the name of a holiday from a religion that neither player observes). On this holiday (insert elaborate description of how that holiday is observed). Do you plan to celebrate your victory by observing this holiday?" This may be the most brilliant question yet! During a World Chess Championship match, players cannot wait for the opportunity to engage in elaborate comparative religion discussions.

4) "Your opponent experienced tremendous time pressure today. How did that make you feel?" The sheer insight of this question renders me speechless.

5) "Did you choose today's opening for sentimental reasons, or did you have a strategic reason for your choice?" This question is the most brilliant question yet! Clearly, with the World Chess Championship title on the line, we must not ignore the very realistic possibility that the players are choosing openings for sentimental reasons.

6) "Every game in this match has featured a different opening. Do you plan to play a different opening in the next game, or will you repeat one of the openings you already played during this match?" Again, it is brilliant to expect the players to reveal specifically what they plan to play in upcoming games. Such a question is guaranteed to generate a fascinating answer.

7) "From 1-10, how do you evaluate your self-confidence now?" This brings to mind the time that a reporter thought that it would be brilliant to ask Chris Paul if he thought that his team would win their next playoff game. Paul replied, "What? I'm on the team. What do you expect me to say, that it's over?" Clearly, Paul failed to appreciate the brilliance of that question, but it is wonderful that this line of questioning has been brought back to life in the World Chess Championship.

8) "Do you get excited watching other people play online chess games?" After being asked this question by Mike Klein, Ding Liren pretended that he could not understand the question and kept asking Klein to repeat it. Obviously, the question was so brilliant that Ding wanted to hear it over and over again. What else would world class chess players be doing other than watching other chess players play online games and then getting excited about that? I mean, there is no way that Ding would ask Klein to repeat the question just to highlight how ridiculous the question is, right? After hearing the question several times, Ding stated, "I am not excited to watch the other games played online."

I am quite sure that I have never thought of such questions before, but the fine journalists at the World Chess Championship have inspired me to stretch my thinking into previously unexplored territory. I doubt that I will ever be asked to cover the World Chess Championship--I appear to lack the requisite intellectual requirements--but I think that I have proven that, if presented the opportunity, I am ready jump into the fray! 

Side note: I think that World Chess Championship press conference questions prefaced by "Mike Klein, Chess.com," are destined to be revered in the same way that NBA press conference questions prefaced by "Mark Schwartz, ESPN" have become legendary! All Klein needs to do to reach that status is to ask one player if he knows the mental state of the other player, and then keep asking different versions of that same question after the question has been answered. Schwartz won a couple of Sports Emmys for asking questions like that, setting the high bar that other journalists just hope that we can attain with a lot of hard work and deep thought. Schwartz and Klein specialize in asking the questions that all fans wish they could ask. Why would fans want to know about strategy when we could instead recklessly speculate about the mental and emotional states of other people?

Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials?

The World Chess Championship is a significant cultural, artistic, and sporting event. In the most recent World Chess Championship, Magnus Carlsen retained his title by defeating challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi, 7.5-3.5. Subsequently, Carlsen declined to defend his crown again, although he still plays in elite level over the board and online chess tournaments. Thus, the current World Chess Championship match--which began in Astana, Kazakhstan on Sunday--pits Nepomniachtchi, the winner of the most recent Candidates Tournament, versus Ding Liren, who finished second in the most recent Candidates Tournament.

Nepomniachtchi and Ding drew game one on Sunday, but in today's game two Nepomniachtchi sacrificed the Exchange and won in sparkling fashion after Ding played an unusual move order in the opening. Thus, Nepomniachtchi leads 1.5-.5 in a race to 7.5 points; there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends with a 7-7 score.

After each game, the players participate in a press conference, fielding questions from a moderator, from online questioners, and from credentialed media members attending the event.

I have worked as a credentialed media member covering sports events, so I have been "treated" to listening to idiotic questions asked by the likes of Andre Aldridge and Vincent Thomas. Mike Klein is a FIDE Master who has won a host of journalism awards. He should know better than to ask idiotic questions at a World Chess Championship press conference. His job is to ask questions that inspire the players to provide insights about the game of chess in general and about this prestigious event in particular.

Instead, today after game two Klein asked Nepomniachtchi who does he expect will be the first person to send him a congratulatory text message after Nepomniachtchi finally won a World Chess Championship game for the first time. In one question, Klein managed to combine a backhanded compliment--was it necessary to remind Nepomniachtchi that this was his first win in World Chess Championship play?--with a question that cannot possibly generate a meaningful answer. Nepomniachtchi replied that he will probably receive congratulations from his parents and from his friends, but that he is mostly avoiding social media to concentrate on the event. Klein followed up by noting that former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov liked the number 13 and then asking if Nepomniachtchi ascribes any significance to the number 13 since he obtained his first World Chess Championship win in his 13th World Chess Championship game. Nepomniachtchi replied, "No."

If Klein is trying to be funny, no one is laughing. If he thinks that he is asking insightful questions, no one with any modicum of intelligence would agree.

Grandmaster Irina Krush, a member of the World Chess Championship online commentary team (along with former World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand), provided a welcome contrast to Klein's foolishness. She asked Nepomniachtchi if during the game he realized that a position similar to one of the game's opening positions had previously been seen in an online blitz game (Ding Liren-Levon Aronian). He replied that he was not sure, because during the game he was focused on figuring out the position's nuances. Nepomniachtchi went into some detail about his in-game thought process. Then, Krush asked Ding if he had been surprised by the recapture ...gxf6. Ding candidly admitted that he had been surprised, and that he had only considered ...Qxf6. He then stated what he had planned to play. Krush's questions were on point, and elicited thoughtful answers from both players. Chess.com can send Klein home, and cede their press conference time to Krush.

If the tone of this article seems harsh, part of the reason is that Chess.com is a repeat offender in terms of being an organization whose World Chess Championship reporters are woefully unqualified. During the previous World Chess Championship, "Sean from Chess.com" asked Nepomniachtchi if he had shaved off his famous "man bun" after a loss as an act of shame like samurais used to do. That kind of idiotic question does nothing to promote chess, the World Chess Championship, or the journalism profession. As a strong amateur chess player, a fan/historian of the World Chess Championship, and a journalist, I am saddened and offended by such nonsense.

Is it too much to ask of Chess.com that they hire competent journalists who are capable of asking questions that are not idiotic?

Side note: is it too much to ask of the various organizations that present awards to journalists that they honor people who are capable of stringing together coherent and insightful thoughts? Klein is just one of many people who have won so many journalism awards that they may actually have deluded themselves into believing that they are credible journalists.

Magnus Carlsen's Decision to Not Defend His World Championship Title is Bad for Chess

A famous saying in the chess world is "The threat is stronger than the execution," but now that Magnus Carlsen has announced that he will not defend his World Chess Championship title we also see that the execution of a threat can be quite damaging.

Before the beginning of the Candidates Tournament to determine his challenger, Carlsen stated that he was not likely to defend his title unless a member of the younger generation such as Alireza Firouzja won the event. Carlsen noted that he had already defeated representatives of the prior generation and representatives of his own generation. I cannot recall another champion in any sport suggesting that his or her enthusiasm for fighting for the crown depended primarily on the identity or age of the challenger. A championship mentality is epitomized by trying to defeat whoever the challenger is.

As it turned out, Ian Nepomniachtchi--the challenger who lost the most recent World Chess Championship match to Carlsen--won the Candidates Tournament for the second consecutive time. Shortly after Nepomniachtchi prevailed, Carlsen declared, "I am not motivated to play another match; I simply feel that I don't have a lot to gain. Although I'm sure a match would be interesting for historical reasons and all of that, I don't have any inclination to play, and I will simply not play the match." Carlsen added, "The matches themselves have been at times interesting, at times a little bit of fun. But overall, I feel like it's my time to go from the world championship matches. I enjoy playing tournaments a lot. Obviously, I enjoy them a lot more than I enjoy the world championship, and frankly I don't see myself stopping as a chess player any time soon."

Carlsen made the announcement on International Chess Day, and to emphasize the point that he is only retiring from World Championship play but not from competitive chess, he promptly won the SuperUnited Rapid & Blitz Tournament, finishing atop a strong field that included Nepomniachtchi and Firouzja.

There have been 16 officially recognized, undisputed World Chess Champions, starting with Wilhelm Steinitz--whose claim to the title is undisputed, though the exact starting date of his reign is disputed--and running in an unbroken chain through Carlsen, who became World Chess Champion in 2013. There were also six "FIDE World Chess Champions" crowned from 1993-2006, and the less that is said about the split title era the better, but a brief summary of the lamentable time when chess imitated boxing's alphabet soup of champions can be found in my article about Viswanathan Anand defeating Vladimir Kramnik in the 2008 match that finally reunified the World Chess Championship title.

Becoming World Chess Champion is the dream of all serious chess players. When the World Chess Champion announces that he will not defend his title he thereby cheapens the value of that title, and this is even more true when the World Chess Champion makes it clear that he intends to keep playing chess. Thus, his message is that being the World Chess Champion does not matter very much, and in fact other chess competitions matter more to him.

Prior to Carlsen, only two of the undisputed World Chess Champions failed to defend their titles. Alexander Alekhine died while he was World Chess Champion, and Bobby Fischer refused to agree to match terms with challenger Anatoly Karpov, resulting in Karpov receiving the title by default in 1975. In the wake of Alekhine's demise, FIDE took over the organization of the World Chess Championship, starting with a round robin event in 1948 that crowned Mikhail Botvinnik as Alekhine's successor. Karpov, eager to prove worthy of Fischer's forfeited throne, ran off an incredible series of tournament victories and held the title until 1985, when he lost a match to challenger Garry Kasparov. 

This is not about whether Carlsen has a right to resign his title but keep playing tournament chess; he obviously has that right. The point is examining to what extent Carlsen has a responsibility to defend his title for, as he put it, "historical reasons." I would argue that the World Champion should keep defending his title until someone beats him, or until he has broken the record for holding the title for the longest time (which is either 27 years by Emanuel Lasker, or 28 years by Wilhelm Steinitz if you count the start of his reign in 1866). 

I am nowhere near the caliber of chess player that Magnus Carlsen is, but I have won the Dayton Chess Club Championship a record 10 times. I considered it a point of pride to fight for the title every year, and I only missed one DCC Championship from 1987 until the club disbanded in 2020. I won my 10th title in 2015 as a new father who was also in the middle of attending law school, and I did not hesitate to play in the 2016 event even though I knew that it would be very challenging to win a repeat title considering my life circumstances at that time; I intended to either win again, or "validate" my successor by participating in the tournament. Over that 33 year period, I was rarely the highest rated player in the tournament, and I don't believe that I was ever the highest rated player in the years that I won (I was the highest rated player some years when I failed to win, but that is another story for another time). The point is that either championships matter or they don't matter. To me, a championship--whether for city, state, country, or the world--means something, and it means something more even than events that offer bigger cash prizes. 

Magnus Carlsen has made it clear that being World Chess Champion does not matter very much to him, and that is sad for chess. I understand that the current cycle requires him to do a lot of preparation for one high pressure match, and then go through that process again without much respite. No one said that being a champion is easy. I also understand that Carlsen would prefer that the World Chess Championship match not be played with classical slow time controls--but there is something to be said for maintaining the tradition of playing slow time control chess in which most games are not decided by chaotic time scrambles. There are separate World Chess Championships for Rapid and Blitz, and Carlsen has already won both of those titles on multiple occasions. The World Chess Championship played at a slow time control is something special and different.

I respect Carlsen's accomplishments and I acknowledge his right to make this decision, but as a chess champion on a local level, as a dedicated participant in rated chess events, and as a chess fan I am profoundly disappointed.