Boris Spassky's Chess Legacy is Greater Than Just Being Bobby Fischer's Most Famous Opponent

Boris Spassky, who reigned as World Chess Champion from 1969-72, passed away today at the age of 88. He is perhaps best known for losing the 1972 World Chess Championship match to Bobby Fischer, but his chess legacy is much greater than being Fischer's most famous opponent. Spassky won the Soviet Championship--one of the strongest tournaments in the world--twice (1961, 1973), and he twice tied for first only to lose in the playoffs (1956, 1963). He played in three World Chess Championship matches, losing to Tigran Petrosian in 1966, dethroning Petrosian in 1969, and then losing to Fischer in 1972. Spassky was an elite level player for the better part of 30 years, participating in the Candidates round of the World Chess Championship cycle in 1956, 1965, 1968, 1974, 1977, 1980, and 1985. He won the Candidates cycle in 1965 and 1968--earning the right to play Petrosian on both occasions--and he lost to Viktor Korchnoi in the 1977 Candidates Finals. Spassky represented the Soviet Union seven times in Chess Olympiads from 1962-78, scoring 45 wins, 48 draws, and just one loss while winning a total of 13 medals (individual and team combined).

Spassky was a prodigy by the standards of his time; in the modern era, it is common for the best players to earn the Grandmaster title before the age of 20, but when Spassky became a Grandmaster at age 18 he was the youngest Grandmaster ever, a mark he held for just three years before Fischer became a Grandmaster at age 15.

Spassky won the 1955 World Junior Chess Championship, the event's third edition. He was the first World Junior Chess Champion who became the World Chess Champion, a feat later matched by Anatoly Karpov (1969 World Junior Chess Champion, 1975 World Chess Champion), Garry Kasparov (1980 World Junior Chess Champion, 1985 World Chess Champion), and Viswanathan Anand (1987 World Junior Chess  Champion, 2000 FIDE World Chess Champion/2007 World Chess Champion).

Spassky is deservedly praised for his universal playing style, but it should be remembered that he was a brilliant and ferocious attacker, particularly in his early years. Here is an example of the young Spassky's swashbuckling style, as he used a devastating sacrifice on move 16 to dismantle Grandmaster David Bronstein, who battled World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik to a 12-12 tie in the 1951 World Chess Championship match (by rule, Botvinnik retained the title). Spassky was White versus Bronstein in this game from the 1960 Soviet Championship:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Bd6 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. d4 O-O 7. Bd3 Nd7 8. O-O h6 9. Ne4 Nxd5 10. c4 Ne3 11. Bxe3 fxe3 12. c5 Be7 13. Bc2 Re8 14. Qd3 e2 15. Nd6 Grandmaster Andy Soltis called this move "One of the deepest sacrifices this side of The Evergreen Game." Nf8 16. Nxf7 exf1=Q+ 17. Rxf1 Bf5 18. Qxf5 Qd7 19. Qf4 Bf6 20. N3e5 Qe7 21. Bb3 Bxe5 22. Nxe5+ Kh7 23. Qe4+ 1-0. A position based on this game was featured in the 1963 James Bond movie "From Russia With Love."

In the 1970 Soviet Union versus the Rest of the World match, Spassky won a scintillating miniature versus Grandmaster Bent Larsen, defeating Larsen on the Black side of Larsen's Opening (1. b3):

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. c4 Nf6 4. Nf3 e4 5. Nd4 Bc5 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. e3 Bf5 8. Qc2 Qe7 9. Be2 O-O-O 10. f4 Ng4 11. g3 h5 12. h3 h4 13. hxg4 hxg3 14. Rg1 Rh1 15. Rxh1 g2 16. Rf1 Qh4+ 17. Kd1 gxf1=Q+ 0-1.

Despite Spassky's long, impressive career, he is best known--particularly to the general public--as Fischer's most famous opponent. Spassky scored three wins and two draws versus Fischer prior to facing him in the 1972 World Chess Championship, but Fischer won the 1972 match 12.5-8.5 despite spotting Spassky a 2-0 lead by blundering in a drawn position in game one and forfeiting game two while protesting the playing conditions. In 1992, Fischer beat Spassky in a non-title match (even though Fischer insisted that this was a World Chess Championship rematch) 10-5 with 15 draws (draws did not count in the score, per Fischer's rules). Spassky was on good personal terms with most of his opponents, including Fischer. Spassky said, "I prefer to have good relations with my opponent. My chess suffers if I have to play a man I consider unfriendly." Spassky was not only friendly with Fischer, but he shared some of Fischer's antisemitic view. Fischer's antisemitism is well-documented, but Spassky's feelings about Jews are not discussed as often; however, in 2005, Spassky signed a Russian petition seeking to ban Jewish organizations in Russia. Spassky later distanced himself from that petition but did not deny that he signed it. Evgeny Gik, a chess master who knew Spassky well, recalled that several Grandmasters reacted with disgust in the 1990s when Spassky--the guest of honor at a dinner party--made antisemitic remarks. Although Spassky did not speak publicly about Jews as often as Fischer did, Spassky's general attitude toward Jews is not a secret, and is a regrettable blot on his name.

After losing the match to Fischer in 1992, Spassky played occasionally in the 1990s, including a 5.5-4.5 match loss to 16 year old prodigy Judit Polgar in 1993. Spassky suffered a minor stroke in 2006, followed by a more serious stroke in 2010 that paralyzed the left side of his body. He spent the last stage of his life outside of the public eye, but Spassky's chess legacy is that he was a great champion, not just Fischer's foil.

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.

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 Retains World Chess Champion Title After Sweeping Fabiano Caruana 3-0 in Rapid Tiebreak

After the first World Chess Championship match that did not have a single decisive game, Magnus Carlsen won three straight games against Fabiano Caruana in the Rapid Tiebreak to retain his title. Carlsen squeezed Caruana in the first game and then almost let Caruana escape with a draw before relentlessly punishing Caruana's endgame mistake in time pressure. Carlsen won game two convincingly and then took game three as well after Caruana went for broke, as a draw would have produced the same match outcome as a loss.

Carlsen was heavily criticized for offering a draw in a winning position in game 12 of the classical portion of the match and there was much speculation about why Carlsen failed to push for a win but it seems that the simple answer is that--based on the skill sets of the players and the match format--he decided that his best strategy was to steer the match toward the Rapid Tiebreak. While these two players are evenly matched at slow time controls, Carlsen enjoys a clear and significant advantage over Caruana in faster time controls. Carlsen's game 12 draw offer is therefore understandable--his job is to win the match/retain his title, not satisfy the expectations of others--but perhaps reveals that the match format is flawed. One thing that can be said in favor of the current format is that the faster time controls to some extent deemphasize the importance of computer preparation and thus reintroduce human elements of natural talent, calm nerves and fighting spirit that are not as evident during slower time controls in this computer-dominated era.

Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik did not like Carlsen's game 12 draw offer. Kramnik declared after game 12 and before the Rapid Tiebreak that in order to prevail Carlsen must get over his fear of losing the title. This is reminiscent of the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear from Frank Herbert's Dune, which states "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." The ability to control one's fear/nerves plays a huge role in championship level play, as I noted in "It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship (my recap of the 2010 World Chess Championship match in which Viswanathan Anand defeated Veselin Topalov, 6.5-5.5), but the Litany Against Fear can be meaningfully applied in many areas of life.

Kramnik conceded that Carlsen should be considered the favorite in the Rapid Tiebreak but he cautioned that Caruana has legitimate practical chances if he has proper opening preparation.

Kramnik's comments make sense, but it seems a bit hypocritical for him to criticize another player's alleged fear when he dodged a rematch with Garry Kasparov, as mentioned in the interesting article Garry Kasparov: King without a Crown. While there is no question that Kramnik earned his match victory against a stubborn and complacent Kasparov, there is also no question that Kasparov deserved a rematch and should not have been forced to play in a qualifying event to get that rematch. As Kasparov stated of Kramnik, "He made new discoveries and pushed chess towards new horizons. It was not the most attractive style, but that does not matter. He came up with a strategy that took me by surprise and it is important for the development of chess that I was forced to make corrections to my style. I had been winning too many tournaments. You can't learn from your wins, only your defeats. It was a very painful defeat, but I deserved it because it taught me that I needed to change. It took a long time for me to do this--and I am still in the process of doing this--but I am winning while learning."

Kasparov retained his highest rated player in the world status even after losing to Kramnik and Kasparov absolutely dominated the subsequent tournaments. He even finally beat Kramnik's fabled Berlin Defense. "All my claims for a rematch and that I was the best player would have been weakened had I failed to win," Kasparov noted. "Kramnik should play me anyway, but my victory sent out a very important message. I finally broke down the 'Berlin Wall.' 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."

The point of this tour down memory lane is that, while Kramnik has the right to express his opinions, it should not be forgotten that at the peak of his career as World Champion he displayed fear, if not outright cowardice. At least Carlsen embraces the opportunity to play against the second highest rated player in the world; Kramnik ducked a Kasparov rematch and eventually Kasparov retired in frustration, still the highest rated player in the world.

Interestingly, Kasparov shared Kramink's viewpoint regarding Carlsen's game 12 draw offer and Kasparov predicted that Caruana would win the Rapid Tiebreak because, according to Kasparov, the most important trait in Rapid is strong nerves and Carlsen had demonstrated that his nerves were shot. While it does appear that Carlsen's nerves or fighting spirit may not be quite what they were at the start of his reign, his performance today suggests to me that Carlsen really was just being very calculating and practical. He has enough self-awareness and enough knowledge of his opponent to understand that they are basically equal in slow games but that there is a big difference in their skills at faster time controls. It was once said of Jack Nicklaus in his prime that he knew that he was the best golfer in the world, his opponents knew and he knew that they knew. There is more than a trace of that psychological warfare in Carlsen's match strategy: he knows, and he knows that Caruana knows, that Rapid and Blitz immensely favor Carlsen.

This is the second consecutive time that Carlsen defended his title by winning a Rapid Tiebreak--he defeated Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in the 2016 World Chess Championship Rapid Tiebreak--and this is Carlsen's third title defense overall.

The World Chess Champions who dominated their eras for a long time and/or were significantly better than their contemporaries include Paul Morphy (unofficial World Champion but clearly the best player of his time), Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Carlsen, who has achieved the highest chess rating of all-time and won World Championships in Classical, Rapid and Blitz formats, deserves to be included in that group. Is he better/greater than those players? Would he have beaten them in a match? Those questions are impossible to answer, because of the differences in eras, rules, computer preparation and so forth. My opinion is that Fischer is the greatest player of all-time because he was further ahead of his contemporaries (based on the official ratings) than anyone else has ever been. It is worth mentioning that Fischer thought very highly of Morphy, who was far ahead of his contemporaries in an era when chess ratings did not exist. Carlsen's current rating, which is dozens of points below his peak rating, is still higher than Fischer's then-record 2785, but when Fischer was 2785 he was 125 points ahead of everyone else, which is more than half a rating class (a rating class is 200 points). That is a staggering margin. Caruana is currently just three points behind Carlsen and no one would put Caruana in the same sentence with Morphy, Steinitz, et. al.

World Chess Championship Heads to Tiebreakers After 12th Consecutive Draw

Game 12 of the 2018 World Chess Championship match came to a sudden, surprising and disappointing end after World Champion Magnus Carlsen offered a draw in a very promising position and relieved Challenger Fabiano Caruana accepted. The match, tied 6-6 after 12 straight draws, will now be decided by tiebreaker games to be played on Wednesday. The first tiebreaker is a best of four match of Rapid Chess (25 minutes per player per game, with a 10 second increment added after each completed move). The second tiebreaker is a series of up to five Blitz Chess matches of two games each played at a time control of five minutes per player per game, with a three second increment added after each completed move. If neither the Rapid nor Blitz tiebreakers prove decisive, then the World Chess Championship will be determined by a one game, winner take all Armageddon showdown during which White has five minutes and Black has four minutes plus draw odds (thus, a draw is a win for Black). An increment of three seconds per move will be applied after move 60 of the Armageddon game. The players will draw lots for color assignments in these games. The prize fund would have been split 60/40 had the outcome been decided during the 12 Classical games but now it will be split 55/45.

For those who love chess as an art and violent sport, it is sad that the linear, classical World Championship will once again be decided by games contested at fast time controls. This is exactly what happened in the previous World Championship match when Carlsen retained his title by defeating Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in a Rapid tiebreak match. At the time, I acknowledged the entertainment value of those Rapid games but also stated unequivocally that this is a "terrible" way to determine who is World Champion. There are separate championship events for Rapid and Blitz, so deciding the classical World Championship with Rapid (and possibly Blitz and even Armageddon) tiebreaks is like determining the NBA Championship with a Three Point Shootout followed by a Slam Dunk Contest; those are great events but they have nothing to do with crowning a champion.

Bobby Fischer, arguably the greatest chess player of all-time and a tremendous fighter, once responded to a draw offer by growling, "I determine when it is a draw!" He won the 1964 U.S. Championship with an unprecedented 11-0 sweep, fighting to the bitter end to win the last game even though the second place finisher (former U.S. Champion Larry Evans) was hopelessly behind with 7.5/11. It was later said that Evans won the tournament and Fischer won the exhibition. Fischer later won 20 straight games en route to claiming the 1972 World Chess Championship; the mental power, psychological tenacity and personal drive that it takes to prevail in 20 consecutive games against the best players in the world is difficult to quantify or explain--but it stands in marked contrast to Carlsen's approach in this match and particularly in game 12, about which he said flatly, "I wasn't in a mood to find the punch." As Gurney Halleck told Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's Dune, "What has mood to do with it? You fight when the necessity arises--no matter the mood! Mood's a thing for cattle or making love or playing the baliset. It's not for fighting."

It is evident that, based on Carlsen's match strategy to minimize risk as much as possible in the 12 classical games and then seek victory at faster time controls, Carlsen did not believe that "necessity" had arisen in game 12. Carlsen's strategy may make statistical sense based on a comparison of his prowess at faster time controls compared to Caruana's relative ineptitude at such time controls but this situation indicates that the match's format is flawed if fan excitement and decisive games are paramount values.

It also seems that Carlsen in general has lost some of his fighting spirit/motivation, his confidence or perhaps both. Carlsen's confidence may have been shaken after missing a winning shot in game one. Carlsen's public lament about his favorite chess player being himself several years ago--even if offered tongue-in-cheek--strikes an odd note for a World Champion and the highest rated player ever who one would expect to have tremendous confidence in his repeatedly demonstrated abilities.

Is it possible that, having been World Champion and having surpassed the rating record once held first by Fischer and then by Garry Kasparov, Carlsen has lost the drive to be the champion? He wants to win--anyone in his position would want to win--but does Carlsen still want to work hard enough to win or is he content to just kind of coast and accept whatever outcome happens? Prime Carlsen used to show at least some semblance of the fighting spirit that Fischer almost always displayed, for prime Carlsen used to press minuscule edges until his opponent cracked. Now, Carlsen lacks the willpower or patience for such long-term maneuvering.

Grandmaster Alex Yermolinsky, whose pithy, blunt and informed post-game video commentaries have been a treat to watch, speculated that the problem "may not be the format, but the players." He hypothesized that because Carlsen and Caruana have lived and are living rather sheltered lives without deprivation or risk they do not understand or appreciate what is at stake in a World Championship match. Yermolinsky stated that regardless of the outcome on Wednesday, life will proceed the same way for both players, with invitations to closed tournaments with guaranteed paydays and not much at risk.

Carlsen has already accomplished a lot in chess, and defending his crown against the second highest rated player in the world would further enhance his legacy but from the larger viewpoint of the future of the sport this kind of match is not good from an artistic or sporting standpoint--nor is there reason to believe that circumstances would improve if Caruana becomes World Champion, because throughout this match he has alternately been unable or unwilling to push Carlsen despite the fact that it is obvious that Carlsen is content to have 12 draws. If I were Caruana, I would resent the notion that I am easy prey at any time control.

It remains to be seen if either player has saved up any special opening preparation for these final games. If Carlsen has done so, then Caruana--who is uncomfortable anyway at fast time controls--is toast; if Caruana has a surprise up his sleeve then it will be interesting to see Carlsen forced to react to a novelty with limited time to think.

The tiebreaker games will likely be entertaining, but not as entertaining as it would have been to see the title determined by a decisive result in the classical portion of the match.

Carlsen Misses a Crushing Shot and Caruana Secures a Draw in Game One of the 2018 World Chess Championship

Game one of the 2018 World Chess Championship match between champion Magnus Carlsen and challenger Fabiano Caruana provided drama, inspiration and a blunder that can only evoke knowing nods from any club player. Anyone who has played tournament chess for even a brief period of time is well-acquainted with the classic lament, "I was winning but..." followed by a painfully detailed description of chessboard self-immolation. Several years ago, National Master Will Aramil became so exasperated from hearing these tales of woe that he said he was going to design t-shirts for chess players on which the front reads "I was winning but..." and the back reads "Shut up, you lost!"

Some world chess championship games fail to live up to the hype, as the players steer the game into safe waters and are content with a draw. Game one was, thankfully, not like that at all. It featured imaginative play that can inspire club players, and even Carlsen's blunder is inspirational in a way: it serves as a reminder that this game is difficult even for the best players and that it is possible to achieve great success without being perfect.

I was fortunate that the dramatic time scramble--including Carlsen's fateful blunder--took place during my lunch break, so I was able to watch that portion of the game live and enjoy the commentary of Grandmaster Robert Hess and International Master Daniel Rensch.

Carlsen did not lose game one but tonight he is surely beset by thoughts of "I was winning but..." High level, detailed analysis of each match game is available at a variety of websites, so since I am a chess Expert--and not a Grandmaster or a chess computer--I will mainly confine my commentary to the psychological and sporting aspects of the match. Carlsen has enjoyed decent success against Caruana with black and Carlsen played the Sicilian Defense in game one, which provided an indication that Carlsen was ready to fight and not merely try to "hold serve" with black. The opening moves were nothing special and one wonders what Caruana had in mind, as he used up a lot of time without gaining any kind of advantage; in fact, before move 20 it was already clear that if anyone would be pushing for an advantage it would be Carlsen, not Caruana.

Soon, Caruana faced pressure not only on the board as his position deteriorated but also on the clock, as Caruana had less than six minutes (plus the 30 second increment added after each move) to make 15 moves to reach the time control at move 40. The game looked like it had all the makings of a classic Carlsen python-like death squeeze--but Caruana has shown before that he can resist Carlsen's attacks (or at least defend stoutly enough that Carlsen loses his edge and lets the advantage slip away) and on move 34, with Caruana barely surviving on the increment and his position about to collapse, Carlsen missed a forced win. The winning sequence would not necessarily be obvious to a club player but it was well within the capabilities of a player of Carlsen's caliber.

After Carlsen missed his chance, Caruana steered the game out of the danger zone and to a pawn down endgame that is a technical draw with correct play. Carlsen did not readily concede the draw and the game lasted 115 moves, the longest game that these two competitors have played against each other--but he did not succeed in putting any further dents in Caruana's armor.

Objectively, this was a good result for Carlsen in many ways. The strategy for professional players is typically to draw with black and seek opportunities to win with white, so a draw in game one puts pressure on Caruana to not only draw game two with black but also to win one of his five remaining games with white. Also, if the match ends in a 6-6 tie then the tiebreaking games will be played at a much faster time control and Carlsen is demonstrably better at faster time controls than Caruana is.

However, the objective reality does not take into account the psychological dimension. Carlsen used to enjoy a large rating advantage over every other player in the world but now Caruana has all but caught up to Carlsen in that department. Carlsen used to be known for relentlessly pursuing the smallest edge until he obtained victory but in recent years his technique has not been so reliable, and Carlsen has publicly stated that he does not think he is as strong a player as he was a few years ago. Carlsen is a more experienced match player than Caruana is. For all of these reasons, Caruana's ability to draw a lost game against Carlsen should provide a psychological boost to Caruana and could have a negative effect on Carlsen.

Of course, at this point it is pure speculation to speak of how one game will affect the thought processes of the two competitors. Carlsen has proven to be a tough-minded person and he could very well reframe game one's events such that he has increased confidence because of how easily he obtained a winning position against the second ranked player in the world. Unless Caruana has better opening preparation for his next game with white, all of the confidence in the world will not matter much--and Carlsen is unlikely to let such a large advantage slip away for a second time.

All that we know for sure from game one is that, all factors considered, these players are evenly matched and it would be surprising if the final margin of victory is not close. Carlsen has flirted with disaster in previous world championship matches and, as noted above, he is close to losing his perch atop the ratings list, so this match with Caruana will either lift Carlsen to new heights or else push him off of the top of the heap.

I think that Carlsen will retain his title and number one ranking this time but if he does not sharpen his game I would not be surprised if his next challenger (which of course could very well be Caruana again) dethrones him.

Carlsen Retains World Chess Championship in Spectacular Style

Magnus Carlsen, the 16th linear World Chess Champion, retained his title by defeating challenger Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in a Rapid tiebreak match after the two competitors tied 6-6 in 12 games contested at a Classical time control. While Karjakin did not quite crack the Carlsen code, he pushed the Champion to the brink; Carlsen did not enjoy a lead in the title bout until he won the third game of the tiebreak match after the first two games were drawn. In game two of the tiebreak match, Karjakin displayed remarkable composure and grit as he held off the highest rated player of all-time to draw an endgame that was objectively lost.

The tiebreak match had extremely high entertainment value, culminating in the decisive move of the fourth game that compelled Karjakin's instant resignation: Carlsen's 50. Qh6+!, a beautiful Queen sacrifice that forces checkmate in all variations. While the climactic combination was not necessarily difficult for a player of Carlsen's caliber, it was still an impressive finish considering the stakes and the small amount of time that each player had remaining to complete the game.

However, from a chess purist's standpoint this was a terrible way to decide the World Chess Championship. As Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan pointed out, there are separate World Chess Championship titles for Classical, Rapid and Blitz time controls, so it make no sense to decide the Classical title with a tiebreak match using Rapid time controls. As he asked rhetorically, will the Rapid Championship now use a Classical time control if a tiebreak match is necessary?

Granted, even if the match conditions were decided purely on aesthetic and sporting considerations--which will never happen in the real world, when economics and logistics inevitably play a role in determining such things--there is no perfect format. An automatic rematch clause if the Champions loses--a perk enjoyed by Mikhail Botvinnik from 1948-63--is a huge advantage. Enabling the Champion to retain his title in the event of a tied match is also a significant advantage. In 1984-85, we saw the perils of a format that forces one player to win six games with draws not counting: Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov battled for 48 games before the match was suspended with Karpov leading 5-3.

All of that being understood, the 2016 format--a 12 game Classical match followed by (if necessary) a four game Rapid match, a two game Blitz match and a one game winner take all "Armageddon" battle with White having five minutes and Black having four minutes plus draw odds--leaves much to be desired. I agree with Grandmaster Seirawan's suggestion that an 18 game Classical match would lead to better play because one victory would not necessarily be decisive; in a 12 game match players tend to be cautious and steer toward the tiebreaks as opposed to fighting it out and possibly losing the one game that could spell overall defeat. The boring and quick draw in game 12 of the Carlsen-Karjakin match made a poor impression, no matter how understandable it was strategically given the circumstances.

In the 2016 World Chess Championship, Carlsen proved that he is a great Champion and Karjakin demonstrated that he is a worthy challenger who may very well wear the crown one day. I commend both players for their performances under great pressure. I just hope that in the future the World Chess Championship match will last longer than 12 games and will be contested entirely at a Classical time control.

Has Karjakin Cracked the Carlsen Code?

World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen is perceived/described as an imperturbable performer but perhaps that is not the case--or perhaps challenger Sergey Karjakin has thrown Carlsen off of his game. Karjakin successfully defended worse positions several times as the two players drew the first seven games of their 12 game title match. Did this trend favor Carlsen--who kept getting advantageous positions that he failed to convert--or was Karjakin's tenacity wearing Carlsen down?

We received at least a preliminary answer in game eight as Karjakin not only refuted Carlsen's overly aggressive attempts to win but completely turned the tables to post the first decisive result of the match. Karjakin now "only" needs four draws to dethrone Carlsen.

Chess is a unique combination of science, art and sport. Becoming a chess champion involves mastery of many different skills and traits, not the least of which is managing nerves at critical moments. Carlsen has been justifiably compared with all-time tennis great Bjorn Borg; both players have nerves of steel and made their names by outlasting their opponents as opposed to overpowering them. 

It has been striking to see Carlsen's nerves falter not only at the board--several Grandmasters have described Carlsen's game eight play as uncharacteristic, if not completely unrecognizable--but afterward as well, when he blew off the mandatory post-game press conference. That petulant act might cost Carlsen 10% of his share of the prize fund ($40,000 if he loses the match, $60,000 if he comes back to win the match).

An important part of being a champion is to--in the immortal words of Rudyard Kipling, prominently displayed at Wimbledon--"meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters just the same." I will never forget when Scottie Pippen of the three-time defending NBA champion Chicago Bulls made a point of congratulating Patrick Ewing and the New York Knicks on the court after the Knicks dethroned the Bulls by winning a hard fought seven game series in 1994. That was a devastating loss for Pippen but he displayed his class at that moment; he did not run and hide like a little child who did not get what he wants. 

The image of Carlsen bolting from the press conference after game eight is equally indelible. At that moment he looked like anything but a great champion, even though he has not yet been dethroned. It is important to remember that previous title holders have bounced back from even more dire circumstances to retain the crown (perhaps most notably, Garry Kasparov won a must-win final game with black against Anatoly Karpov in 1987). If Carlsen wins this match, perhaps game eight and its aftermath will just be a footnote in chess history, but if Karjakin prevails while Carlsen crumbles on and off of the board then we may have to reassess Carlsen's place in the chess Pantheon. Is Carlsen--the highest rated player of all-time--really worthy of being mentioned with Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov or is Carlsen's high rating the product of rating inflation? If Carlsen's reign as World Champion lasts for just three years--with only victories against an aging Viswanathan Anand to his credit--then it may be reasonable to question how Carlsen would have fared against the all-time greats in a hypothetical match played under equal conditions.

Initial Impressions of the First Truly Post-Kasparov Era World Chess Championship Match

Although Garry Kasparov has not been World Chess Champion since 2000 and has not played in a top level rated tournament since 2005, the World Chess Championship match currently being contested in New York is the first such match to feature two players who both reached their primes after Kasparov retired. The 25 year old World Champion Magnus Carlsen, who won the World Chess Championship in 2013 and retained the crown by defeating former World Champion Viswanathan Anand in 2014, is facing 26 year old challenger Sergey Karjakin, who still holds the record for being the youngest player to attain the Grandmaster title (12 years, seven months). This is the "youngest" World Chess Championship ever in terms of the combined ages of the two combatants.

World Chess Championship matches traditionally have been held in a best out of 24 games format (with a win counting as one point and a draw counting as a half point) but economic and promotional considerations have led to the shortening of such matches to best out of 12. Obviously, the shorter the match the more likely an upset, so in that sense the change is unfortunate for those of us who would prefer that randomness be removed from the championship equation as much as possible. The shorter format also tends to lead to more conservative and less imaginative play, because one mistake could result in not just the loss of a game but very possibly the loss of the match.

After four games, the Carlsen-Karjakin match is knotted at 2-2, with neither player scoring a victory yet. Carlsen has pushed Karjakin to the brink of defeat in the last two games but Karjakin has defended tenaciously to salvage positions that most chess players could not hold against a regular Master, much less the highest rated player in the game's history. If an action movie were made about Karjakin, the tagline (delivered in classic movie announcer promo voice) would be "Sergey Karjakin is hard to kill."

Chess games and chess matches are as much about nerves and resolve as they are about brain power. Before the match, I expected a 6.5-4.5 result in Carlsen's favor (which is roughly what one would predict based on the rating differential between the players) but it will be interesting to see how these first four games are "spun" based on the final outcome. If Carlsen wins, the story will be that he put relentless pressure on Karjakin, who finally cracked after being worn down from repeatedly defending difficult positions--but if Karjakin pulls off the upset, then the story will be that Karjakin gained confidence (and Carlsen lost confidence) after he proved that he could withstand Carlsen's best shot, something that few other Grandmasters have been able to do in recent years.

Carlsen generally seems imperturbable but the reality is that under the pressure of World Championship match play he has blundered before; Anand missed a golden opportunity after Carlsen made a ghastly mistake in game six of their 2014 match and had Anand been more alert he could have made the score 3.5-2.5 in his favor at that critical juncture--but Anand, who never could overcome Kasparov when they were both in their primes, perhaps at some level did not truly believe that he could beat a powerful opponent who was barely half his age. In chess, if you believe that your opponent is better than you then you often do not "trust" that he can blunder. I suspect that Karjakin will not be so forgiving if Carlsen makes a mistake against him and that psychological dynamic should make the rest of this match very dramatic and intriguing.

Vladimir Kramnik was the only player of Kasparov's era to beat Kasparov in a World Chess Championship match in no small part because Kramnik was the only player from that era who truly believed that Kasparov could be beaten. I don't think that Karjakin fears Carlsen the way that other players of their generation do and that is perhaps the most compelling aspect of this battle of the young titans.

Magnus Carlsen Convincingly Retains World Chess Championship

In November, Magnus Carlsen--the highest rated chess player ever--defeated former World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand 6.5-4.5 to retain the World Chess Champion title. Last year, Carlsen dethroned Anand in a 6.5-3.5 rout on Anand's home turf in India. After the final game of the most recent match, Carlsen told Leontxo Garcia, "I do not know if nerves were the key factor in general. But in the last game, nerves definitely had something to say. But I think nerves are a part of your strength and weaknesses as a chess player. If you have bad nerves, it is unfortunate but it is no excuse. In that game showed I have stronger nerves, probably because of the age difference."

Shortly after Carlsen defended his crown, Garry Kasparov (the 1985-2000 World Chess Champion who held the rating record that Carlsen eclipsed) offered his typically blunt (and insighftul) comments:

This year's match between Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand proved that time doesn't run backwards. It is extremely difficult to overcome a gap of a full generation between the players. I believe Magnus Carlsen is a special talent, and even though he didn't play his best and Anand played better than he did last year, Magnus won. The score was a little closer than last year mostly due to Carlsen's nerves in a psychologically difficult rematch after he beat Anand so easily last year.

Did the run of the match surprise me in any aspect? Before the match began I predicted [to a number of newspapers and to Frederic Friedel of ChessBase] that Carlsen would win by two points. Magnus had one important advantage on his side: he is the better player. But it was atypical for Carlsen to not make the most of his chances in several games. I blame that on tension. For him this match was psychologically not easy, after he had beat Anand so decisively in 2013.

Championship level chess requires intelligence, resourcefulness and energy but it also requires prodigious amounts of confidence/psychological strength. In "It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship, I discussed the emotional fortitude that Anand displayed in his first title defense since becoming the 15th classical World Chess Champion:

During an an interview conducted shortly after the match with Topalov ended, Anand provided some insights about the mentality that is required to win such a competition, stating, "It's just a question of nerves." In this high tech, computer dominated era, elite chess players prepare their opening moves to a greater and deeper extent than at any time in chess history but during the games they are under great pressure to remember this preparation while also being ready for any possible surprises (known as theoretical novelties) that their opponents might unleash. Topalov won the first game of the match when Anand got confused about the correct order of his prepared moves, an error which gave Topalov a crushing attack against Anand's exposed king--but Anand showed great psychological resilience by striking back with a game two win to level the score.

While Anand demonstrated strong nerves versus Topalov--and in several other high level encounters--he has now faltered twice against Carlsen. It is obvious that Carlsen is the stronger player but it is fascinating to observe how that superiority manifests itself not only in the moves that Carlsen plays but also in the way that Carlsen's strength affects Anand. Anand demonstrably lacks confidence against Carlsen and at times Anand's play is unrecognizable as he struggles to figure out how to fight on even terms with his much younger rival. If chess games were purely decided at an intellectual level then Anand would play very well and Carlsen would just play better but what we have seen in both matches is that, at key moments, Anand either blunders outright or at the very least he lacks the confidence to pursue the best path, to play the moves that he might reflexively play against a less intimidating opponent.

It is very difficult to play against Carlsen for reasons that extend beyond his chess talent. Carlsen is a chess warrior who has great and commendable fighting spirit: "More people have to change their attitude. Too many have seen chess as a scientific process where you exchange ideas in openings and midgames and if there is no clear advantage you agree a draw. But you have to fight until the end. I’ve stopped agreeing draws--it's not a natural part of the game. I think others will do the same thing." Carlsen insists that "a modern sportsman" must "fight until the last moment every day, in every tournament. Being tired is no excuse for making mistakes."

As a young player, Anand relied on his tactical acumen and his exceptionally fast rate of play to steamroll most opponents; now Anand is not as sharp tactically nor does he calculate so quickly and thus he has evolved into a player who prepares his openings very deeply and thoroughly in order to guide the game onto terrain that Anand expects to be comfortable for him and equally uncomfortable for his opponent--but Carlsen is largely unaffected and unimpressed by Anand's computer-assisted preparation. In Magnus Carlsen, an Unlikely Chess Master, Grandmaster Peter Heine Nielsen (one of Carlsen's seconds) explains, “Magnus believes in his pure chess strengths. You shouldn't be able to do that in today's world and none of us thought it was possible. Luckily, we were wrong.” A recent Financial Times article notes that Carlsen is refuting the notion that chess is played out because the silicon beasts know all and see all:

Whereas computer analysis has raised the relative importance of the opening for most players, Mr. Carlsen has relegated it. He looks instead to win a game later on via the steady and patient accumulation of sometimes almost imperceptible advantages.

"The space that chess occupies is so gigantic that in spite of all the computer work done today, you can get out of it," says Mr. [Frederic] Friedel, who occasionally chaperoned Mr. Carlsen at tournaments when he was a teenager. "Magnus goes off into sidelines . . . then he just outplays people. It is extraordinary and amazing."

After beating Anand for the second consecutive time, Carlsen commented that this is two down and five more to go, a reference to his goal to surpass Garry Kasparov's total of six successful World Chess Championship matches. Carlsen's next title defense will take place in the United States in 2016. The United States has hosted the lineal World Chess Championship six times (winner listed first, defending champion in bold): 1886 (Steinitz v. Zukertort), 1891 (Steinitz v. Gunsberg), 1894 (Lasker v. Steinitz), 1907 (Lasker v. Marshall), 1990 (Kasparov v. Karpov), 1995 (Kasparov v. Anand). In addition to those six matches, the United States also hosted FIDE's 1999 World Chess Championship event in Las Vegas but that tournament did not include the reigning, undefeated champion Kasparov--who captured the lineal title in 1985 and retained it until losing a match to Vladimir Kramnik in 2000--and thus should not be considered part of the authentic, lineal title chain.

Anand Shows That He is not the Retiring Kind

After Viswanathan Anand lost his World Chess Championship title to Magnus Carlsen, some commentators speculated that Anand might retire from top level chess. The 44 year old Anand had slipped to eighth in the world chess rankings and it seemed like he did not have the necessary energy and/or motivation to seriously challenge the 23 year old Carlsen. Anand's tournament record in the past few years has been less than stellar and prior to losing to Carlsen he had only narrowly fought off past his prime World Championship challenger Boris Gelfand. Levon Aronian, the 31 year old second ranked player in the world, seemed poised to emerge from the eight player Candidates Tournament to battle against Carlsen.

However, a funny thing has happened on the road to Anand's retirement/Aronian's coronation: Anand has turned back the clock to produce three sizzling victories, a 6.5 score and a 2883 performance rating after 10 rounds in the Candidates Tournament, while Aronian is in second place with a 5.5 score. Anand scored 1.5/2 in his head to head encounters with Aronian and there are just four rounds left in the double round robin event, so--barring a total collapse--Anand will surprise the chess world and earn the right to reclaim the World Chess Championship.

Anand is not be as consistently dominant in tournaments as he used to be but he is a crafty veteran of World Championship play--winning the title in more different formats than any other player--and it is inspiring to watch an "older" player rise to the occasion against the world's elite. If Anand finishes off the Candidates Tournament in style and gets a second opportunity face Carlsen in the World Chess Championship it will be fascinating to see how Anand adjusts his approach; the first time around, it seemed like Anand failed in at least three regards: (1) his opening preparation did not yield much, (2) he lacked the confidence to go for the kill on the rare occasions when he had a potential opportunity to do so and (3) during long games he clearly suffered from mental and/or physical fatigue, resulting in disastrous blunders. During the Candidates Tournament, Anand has demonstrated that he can still get the best of top notch players like Aronian and former World Champions Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov--but can Anand defeat a much younger foe who seems to enjoy psychological and physical advantages against him?

Carlsen is not only the World Chess Champion and the highest rated chess player in the world but he is also the highest rated chess player ever. Just qualifying to challenge Carlsen will be quite a feat for Anand but if Anand dethrones the man who at least some people believe to be the greatest chess player of all time that will be the biggest achievement of his already highly decorated career. Anand would be a heavy underdog against Carlsen--and he did not manage to post even one win in their previous match--but he was not considered a serious contender in the Candidates Tournament until he raced out into the lead and never looked back.

Anand Agonistes

It has been said that athletes die twice, with their first death coming at the end of their sporting careers. Perhaps the greatest athletes in a given sport die three times: first when their primacy is challenged/overthrown, second when they are no longer capable of playing competitively at all and third when they pass away in the same fashion as all other mortal beings. If this is true, then Viswanathan Anand--barring a highly unlikely rise back to the top of the chess world--has experienced the first of his three deaths.

Anand was the undisputed World Chess Champion from 2007-2013, winning or defending the linear World Chess Championship four consecutive times (2007, 2008, 2010, 2012). The 22 year old Magnus Carlsen dethroned the 43 year old Anand in a 6.5-3.5 rout that will likely be remembered as a changing of the guard moment in chess history. Carlsen seems poised to enjoy a long reign at the top, while if Anand continues to play competitively his rating will inevitably follow the inexorably downward path previously traversed by all other former World Champions who remained on the scene.

It is worth remembering that before becoming an elder statesman Anand was once a wunderkind--and that despite his tactical acumen and dazzlingly fast rate of play there were some doubts if he possessed all of the necessary qualities to become the World Chess Champion. Anand convincingly refuted his skeptics by winning the 2007 World Championship Tournament and then by defending his crown in matches against Vladimir Kramnik, Veselin Topalov and Boris Gelfand.

Cathy Forbes' 1993 Inside Chess Interview with Anand provides a fascinating, time capsule view of Anand before he reached the chess summit. Here are some choice excerpts (Forbes' comments and questions are set in regular type, while Anand's answers are set in bold); the first three paragraphs are taken from Forbes' introduction, while the remaining passages are taken from the interview itself:

Vishy talks the way he used to play chess--like a machine gun. His play may have slowed down, but not his speech. Never has my tape-recorder been so strenuously rewound for fear of missing some pearl of this great player's wisdom.

He radiates warmth, self-confidence and self-containment. His facetious, but gentle, sense of humour surfaces frequently, his giggle is infectious; incredibly enough, he seems happy.

Where is the eccentricity, the pain, the paranoia, the surliness, the arrogance, the obsessiveness of the top chess man? Surely he must be too good to be true?
 
**********

People have said that Anand's play is all tricks.

I don't deny that tactics play a part in my game, but I'm a changing player, I've been changing a lot over the last few years. I think my style now, compared with 1990 or 1991, has changed quite a lot. I'm playing a lot more solid openings...on the other hand, I've lost some of the, let's say, sangfroid (laughter).
 
Nothing is happening in my chess career that I'm worried about, let's put it that way. There's still lots of scope for improvement, this is clear. I'm not the best player in the world at the moment, nor am I clear number two or three, but I'm one of the top players, my chess is improving and life's going well.
 
Tell me how you study.

Generally, I read a lot, but always in a very disorganized way. I never think, "What are my repertoire problems, and how am I going to work them out?" I just kept on reading, and a lot of it came in handy. Where I come from, India, this approach is normal. Indian players don't think about this guy's weaknesses, how to avoid all these transpositions--you don't think like this in India. Only in the Candidates Matches did I start to get some picture about how these things work. Then I did some really serious work on the opening.

I got ChessBase at the end of '89. I've been carrying it around since the Interzonal. It's almost indispensable, because without it at a tournament, the reality is that you won't know what your opponents have been doing recently and everyone else will have it.

If Kasparov came to one tournament without his computer, he could probably get away with it. But if he started to do it regularly, then the gaps in his information would start to pile up.

You need the computer to make some preparation, basically. If you want to study something, you still have to do all the studying yourself--the computer won't help you. It will just give you information on hand. The only thing the computer saves you is reinventing the wheel. I mean, if some great idea has already been played before, you're wasting your time.

Is chess a sport in your view?

Absolutely! Clearly! The sporting aspect always comes to the fore...If you asked me, would I like to be the most beautiful world champion in history or the most successful one, I'd choose the latter...most chess players would. There's always going to be a trade-off between success and beauty. Beauty is nice when it comes along, but...

**********
 
Forbes also presented some longer Anand statements that he made in response to more general questions. For instance, here is part of Anand's take on the chess politics of the late 1980s and early 1990s:

I wasn't really involved in the early struggles of the GMA, but already in 1988 I realized one thing: you need some non-chess players knocking some sanity into all these Grandmasters. Chess players generally live in a world of their own. Even though they dislike each other, hate each other, like Karpov and Kasparov, Karpov and Korchnoi, they have very enjoyable analysis sessions and postmortems. It's very nice that they can talk about chess, but on other matters they can be a bit wacky. Just completely out.

For instance, among many players there is an almost ingrained hatred for rapid chess, which I find very annoying. Look what one-day cricket has done for cricket. You need to change with the times.
 
**********
 
Finally, Anand's take on how the underdog Nigel Short should approach his upcoming World Chess Championship match against Garry Kasparov is fascinating in light of the uphill challenge that Anand just faced against the heavily favored Carlsen. The strategy Anand described is the one that he attempted to use against Carlsen--avoid disastrous mistakes, keep the score close, hope that the favorite gets nervous the longer that the outcome of the match remains in doubt--but both Kasparov and Carlsen demonstrated that their brute playing strength and cool nerves were too much for their respective opponents to overcome. It is reasonable to assume that Anand applied the same logic to his own situation prior to the Carlsen match and came to the conclusion that he had very little practical chance to beat Carlsen; before the match, Vladimir Kramnik declared that Anand "is somewhat intimidated" by Carlsen and the result backed up that analysis: Anand's timid, error-filled performance even in equal or superior positions versus Carlsen supports the theory that Anand lacked confidence that he could prevail against a younger, stronger and more consistent opponent.

Here is how Anand regarded Short's chances (Kasparov ultimately won, 12.5-7.5, the most lopsided linear World Chess Championship match by winning percentage [.625] since 1950 until Carlsen posted a .650 winning percentage against Anand) :

Well, Gazza is clear, clear favorite, no doubt about this. First of all, compare his performance in Linares, winning here this year, with Nigel's performance [last place] last year--not interesting. There is absolutely no doubt that if things go normally, Garry will probably win. But put yourself in Nigel's place. For him to give up now, to accept this view, is suicide. He has to, at least, keep the idea that he has a chance. And I believe he does have some chance. Kasparov is almost 200 rating points ahead, Nigel has a score of minus ten against him.

But Nigel doesn't have to go into the lead. What Karpov did against Kasparov in New York was brilliant. He was not leading, and Kasparov was really going for him, but Karpov always recovered, and Kasparov got very wobbly in Lyon before he eventually pulled himself together. If Nigel can learn something from this, I think he can, without too much difficulty, make it a close fight.

I believe, with some effort, Nigel can avoid getting wiped out. If he is well prepared, if he is in the match at the half-way stage, say only one point down; if he has produced some chances, Kasparov can get very edgy. If you play someone who is much weaker than you, and you're fighting for your chances, it can feel very uncomfortable.

For Nigel to win the match would be enormously difficult. Everything before, the Candidates, even the Candidates Final--will seem like a picnic. He has to look at his chances realistically, and be prepared to fight, but he has done this everywhere. In tournaments Nigel gives the impression that he couldn't care less, but in matches, he always manages to pull himself together.

For instance, there's a big difference even between drawing the match at 12-12 and letting Kasparov keep the title, and winning it 12.5-11.5. That's much, much, much more than half a point. The day Kasparov thinks he's about to lose the match, he's going to have everything put into it. He's going to fight with every bone in his body. If you cut his arms and legs off, he'll fight with his teeth.

I think I can speak for Kasparov when I say that he likes being World Champion. He'd be pretty upset about not being World Champion anymore. I don't think he can imagine life without being World Champion.

If Nigel comes to the point of beating Kasparov, he will really be working for all the millions he's making. He won't have gotten anything free. Okay, it's not a likely scenario, but let's imagine Nigel a point up with four games to go. Those games would be nightmares for Nigel--but pleasant nightmares, of course.