Put Up or Shut Up: Hans Niemann's Accusers Need to Provide Evidence or Apologize

Rising American chess star Hans Niemann defeated World Champion Magnus Carlsen on Sunday in the third round of the Sinquefield Cup. The next day, Carlsen withdrew from the event, and his only public comment to date has been a not very subtle tweet stating "I've withdrawn from the tournament. I've always enjoyed playing in the@STLChessClub, and hope to be back in the future" accompanied by a video clip of José Mourinho saying: "If I speak I am in big trouble." Mourinho is a soccer manager who has gotten in trouble by making cheating allegations against opponents. You do not need a decoder ring to figure out that Carlsen is accusing Niemann of cheating without explicitly accusing Niemann of cheating.

There is a word describing what Carslen did: cowardly.

There are other applicable words, too, that I will not mention, other than to state that I respect Magnus Carlsen's accomplishments, but he is acting like a sore loser and a crybaby.

If your opponent cheated and you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then say so and provide the evidence. If you can't prove it, then shut up and take your loss like a responsible and mature adult.

I play tournament chess at a high amateur level (peak USCF rating of 2190, which means that at my best I ranked ahead of 97% of all rated players in the United States), so I understand very well how painful it feels to lose a tournament game--particularly if you believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are much better than your opponent. However, after I lose a game, I shake my opponent's hand and I move on to the next game. I would never belittle or diminish my opponent, regardless of what I think of my opponent's playing strength. I have lost to lower rated players who did not act particularly gracious in victory, but I accepted that as the cost of losing to such players, and I took that as added incentive to not lose to them again.

The chess community's response to this situation has been varied. Some players support Carlsen, some support Niemann, and some have retreated to neutral corners. Grandmaster Hikarua Nakamura went further than Carlsen by defaming Niemann and expressing skepticism that Niemann is legitimately a 2700 strength player, which by definition is accusing Niemann of cheating to reach the 2700 rating level. Nakamura provided no evidence to support his allegations and suppositions. 

It must be noted that Niemann has admitted that he cheated in online games as both a 12 year old and a 16 year old (he is 19 now), but he insists that he never cheated in over the board games and that he did not cheat against Carlsen. I would agree with anyone who says that Niemann should have been punished more severely for his prior cheating offenses, but under the current rules he has served his time (he was banned from Chess.com for a period) and he should be presumed innocent now unless/until there is evidence proving his guilt.

No one has presented a shred of evidence proving that Niemann has cheated in over the board games at all or against Carlsen specifically. Past offenses do not make you automatically guilty for all time, and in many instances past offenses are not even admissible in court as evidence because the prejudicial impact outweighs the probative value.

"Cancel culture" is out of control. An accusation--or even the implication of an accusation--can be enough to ruin a person's reputation or career. Niemann mentioned that at least one tournament invitation to him has been withdrawn in the wake of this nonsense. Chessbase.com provided a very good, unbiased recap of what has happened thus far, and as a licensed attorney I found one reader's comment particularly on point:

As a semi-retired US litigation attorney (NY State and Federal Bars), former Assistant District Attorney and Judge, I find it fascinating to watch Mr. Nakamura dig the defamation of character litigation hole that he now finds himself sitting in. Unless he can demonstrate with specificity how Mr. Niemann actually cheated in his otb game against Mr. Carlsen, he will likely have no viable defense should Mr. Niemann sue him for defamation of character seeking monetary damages for injury to his reputation and career. What Mr. Niemann may have done as a twelve or sixteen year old in online competition will likely not be probative at trial and may well be ruled inadmissible at trial. Likewise, suggestions that Mr. Niemann subject himself to a polygraph examination will not be probative. Polygraph examinations are not reliable and are generally not admissible as evidence at trial. (I have seen people lie and pass polygraphs. It's a skill that is taught and can readily be learned)

Chess.com has also created needless potential liability for itself by barring Mr. Niemann from its site and competitions absent a clear finding that Mr. Niemann cheated otb against Mr. Carlsen. Note also, that at a trial, it is likely that Chess.com will be forced in discovery to reveal to Mr. Niemann's experts any algorithm used by them forming the basis of a cheating accusation against Mr. Niemann.

I suspect that Mr. Carlsen has received the benefit of legal counsel as he has clearly refrained from making a direct charge of cheating against Mr. Niemann.

Grandmaster Jacob Aagaard wrote an article titled "Paranoia and Insanity" that took direct aim at Carlsen and Nakamura (I have not corrected minor grammatical and punctuation errors):

I have seen nothing out of the ordinary in the last two days. Hans playing reasonably well against opponents that are not playing that well. His big confidence. His awkwardness in front of the camera. His highly intuitive way of thinking. His lack of accuracy in variations. Him blundering when suggesting things, he thinks he might have looked at.

I also did not see anything out of the ordinary from Carlsen. Entitlement. Lack of responsibility. Lack of accountability. A Norwegian troll army ready to defame a man who only 400 days ago was a minor. Carlsen has acted badly in many situations after losing in the past. In that way, he reminds me of Federer, who was a badly behaved teenager. Become the best player in the world and behaved excellently. Then started losing to Djokovic and needed a period to adjust to reality.

People say that Carlsen does not behave badly when he is losing in his Meltwater Tour to Praggnanandhaa. It is partly because it is like Federer losing a set. It is partly because Praggnanandhaa is deferential to Magnus. Hans is not. Hans wants to kill the king. Wants to take the throne. He has no remorse over this at all.

Some people on Twitter is saying that Nakamura and Nepomniachtchi are backing up these accusations of cheating. I watched the Nakamura YouTube video and found it to be ridiculous, but also void of an actual accusation of cheating. When Nakamura is saying that no 2700 calculates this poorly, he is flat out wrong. I can also show positional mistakes from Nakamura that undermines the credibility of the playing strength of the former no. 2. Mistakes that Hans would simply not believe a GM had made. Because they are his strengths and Nakamura’s weaknesses.

There are many GMs who are suspicious. There are also many GMs who think this is ridiculous. There are also many GMs that are without real skills outside playing chess in exactly one way...

What I have seen is the nasty side of the Internet and poor behaviour from various individuals, who are totally within my experience of them as human beings. You may disagree with my presumptions of what happened here, but the simplest explanation is often the right one. Magnus could not accept that he could lose to someone he thinks of as "a joke" and came up with a different explanation. And the internet is full of his fans, happy to make meat out of it and they all know that Hans' hair works as an antenna. And they know it with certainty.

I cannot say for sure if Niemann cheated versus Carlsen or not, but I can say for sure that there is no publicly available evidence that he cheated. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a bedrock foundation not just of our legal system but of a free and open society. Lynching--whether literal or figurative--has no place in our culture.

What should be done now? Here are some steps to not only resolve this situation, but to make it less likely that such situations will happen in the future:

1) Carlsen should be compelled to return any appearance fees, prize money, and compensation that he received in connection with his participation in the Sinquefield Cup. His withdrawal disrupts the smooth operation of the event, and it means that the other participants will not all play the same number of games. Further, there is no justifiable reason that a player should be paid for not completing the playing schedule unless there is a medical emergency or other legitimate exigent circumstance.

2) Niemann should strongly consider suing Nakamura and anyone else who publicly defamed him by accusing him of cheating.

3) In general, the business and legal consequences of false accusations should be just as severe as the business and legal consequences of the alleged offense. In other words, if the business punishment for chess cheating is a six month ban, then a player who makes a demonstrably baseless cheating allegation should be banned for six months--and if the legal consequence is a specific fine and jail time, then a person who makes a demonstrably baseless cheating allegation should receive that same fine and that same amount of jail time.

Further, although no one can compel Carlsen to speak publicly if he declines to do so, if I were an organizer I would be disinclined to invite him to my event until he clarifies why he withdrew and under what circumstances he is willing to play. I realize that because of Carlsen's power and prestige he can write his own ticket to any event in which he wants to play, but in an ideal and fair world that would not be the case. No player should be bigger than the sport, and no person should be exempt from conducting himself with honor and integrity.

Let me emphasize that I deplore cheating in any form. I have written that chess cheaters should be punished swiftly and severely:

Someone who is caught in the act of cheating with physical evidence proving the cheating should be banned from tournament play for at least five years and should be forced to return any prizes won while cheating. Someone who is disqualified for cheating based on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence should be banned from tournament play for at least two years and should be forced to return any prizes won while cheating. Repeat offenders in either category should be banned for life. These rules should be incorporated into the bylaws of national chess federations and FIDE and bans issued by one such body should be enforced by all other such bodies.

The critical point is that before there is punishment there must be proof. Here, the "internet court" has declared Niemann guilty without presenting any evidence. That is not only wrong, but it is dangerous. If you don't feel personally threatened by the notion that a gang of people can arbitrarily deem someone guilty and then publicly shame that person, then you are very shortsighted and foolish. What is being done to Niemann today could be done to anyone else tomorrow--including you or someone you love. Unsubstantiated allegations are toxic because a burden is placed on the accused to prove a negative, when the burden should always be on the accuser to prove his or her case.

GM Ben Finegold Pays Tribute to Chess Legend IM Calvin Blocker

Grandmaster Ben Finegold recently posted a video in which he discusses International Master Calvin Blocker's chess career, notes that Blocker clearly played at Grandmaster strength at his peak, and analyzes three of Blocker's wins, including a brilliant victory as Black against three-time U.S. Chess Champion (1987, 1995, 1998) Nick DeFirmian. 

Finegold points out that Blocker's aggressive style of play often leads to decisive results, and that Blocker is a fearless player who turns down draws even against higher rated players. Blocker is a chess artist and chess perfectionist who will spend 45 minutes on a single move in a search for the truth in a chess position. Before I met Blocker, I remember hearing stories about how hard he would fight for the tiniest advantage, one example being his epic Ohio Chess Congress game versus Errol Leibowitz that lasted several hours and over 100 moves. 

I was delighted to watch Finegold's video, and I hope that it brings back great memories for the 40 and over crowd while providing an education to the younger chess aficionados:

Finegold weaves biographical details into the video and in the game analysis, but it is worth taking a deeper look at Blocker's career, particularly for those younger than 40 who may not fully appreciate Blocker's accomplishments.

International Master Calvin Blocker has won a record 15 Ohio Chess Championships (1981-82, 1984-89, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000, 2005, 2008, 2013). State chess championship records are lamentably incomplete, but Blocker must rank very highly on the list of most state chess championships won in one state; John Curdo, who has won at least 17 Massachusetts championships, is the only player I can think of who would be ahead of Blocker for sure. Blocker is not only an Ohio chess legend as a player, but he is a well-regarded coach whose students included Marc Esserman, who became an International Master and published chess author.

Blocker's first love was music, and he was a concert pianist as a teenager before shifting his focus to chess (if you ask Blocker, he will insist that he never gave up piano, but it can at least be said that he stopped receiving formal piano training and doing formal piano performances). Despite being a late starter by chess standards, Blocker became a FIDE Master at age 26 and an International Master at age 27. In the current era during which teenagers become Grandmasters, those numbers may not seem impressive, but Blocker lived in Ohio in the pre-computer chess/pre-internet era and in the context of those conditions his rise was remarkable.

Achieving a high standard in either music or chess is quite an accomplishment, but to do so in both fields is most impressive. 

Blocker never attained the Grandmaster title because of a lack of opportunities to play in Grandmaster norm tournaments. The U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) only has online rating records dating back to 1991, but I did some archival research in old Chess Life magazines, and I confirmed that in April 1990 Blocker ranked 13th in the United States with a 2650 USCF rating:

That means that Blocker was higher rated than many players who participated in the U.S. Closed Championship during that era. It is also worth noting that many of the top players were closely bunched together; Blocker was just 21 points lower rated than Michael Wilder (sixth on the list) and 31 points lower rated than Maxim Dlugy (fifth on the list). Points are harder to gain and easier to lose at the very top of the rating list--so 20 or 30 points at that level means more than 20 or 30 points at the amateur level--but any way you look at it Blocker was one of the very best chess players in the country at that time. 

Blocker did not maintain that lofty perch by protecting his rating, either; he was 47th on the list of most active players, having played 190 rated games in the previous calendar year:

When Blocker was at his peak, the International Master title and the Grandmaster title were much less commonly achieved than they are now. In 1989, the U.S. barely had three dozen Grandmasters and fewer than 65 International Masters:

Currently, the U.S. has over 100 Grandmasters. Are players that much stronger today than they were over 30 years ago? There certainly has been a proliferation of available basic knowledge via computer chess programs and via the internet, but knowledge is not the same as understanding; old school titled players not only knew where the pieces belong but they knew why the pieces belonged there. There is a difference between saying "I traded off his bishop to weaken his dark squares" and "I traded off his bishop because the engine says that gives me a .8 advantage."

Also, ratings have no intrinsic meaning outside of the context of the rating pool. In other words, being rated 2650 in 1989 when that places you 13th in the country is more impressive than being rated 2700 now when that does not even get you in the top 15. The ELO rating system is based on percentage expectancy and the difference between two ratings; that is why Bobby Fischer's 2785 rating is more impressive than Magnus Carlsen's 2800+ rating: Fischer was more than 100 points ahead of the rest of the world, while Carlsen's nearest competitors are much closer to him than that. We don't know who would win a hypothetical match between prime Fischer and prime Carlsen, but we do know that prime Fischer was much further ahead of his rivals than prime Carlsen is ahead of his rivals. Similarly, we don't know how prime Blocker would do against today's young guns, but we do know that prime Blocker learned chess at a relatively late age in a non-computer/non-internet era without being based in a national chess hotbed and he nearly cracked the top 10 in the entire country.

During my archival research, I found this gem from the March 1989 issue of Chess Life:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Anne Desch used to write profiles of chess Masters. In the above article, Blocker talked about his varied interests, including piano, chess, running, and fencing. Blocker said, "Fencing is physical chess...chess is a physical game played on a mental plane and it's won at the mental level...fencing is a mental game played on a physical plane, and it's won on a physical level--on a level of competitiveness, stress, and stress management...but the training techniques in any physical sport are highly relative to chess."

Some commentators dismiss the connections and similarities between chess and physical sports but Blocker correctly notes that those connections are real and they are significant. This is not about making a trite statement such as "Chess is life and life is chess"; this is about the strong parallels between the mental and physical training regimens of chess champions compared to the mental and physical training regimens of other elite athletes.

Blocker is an extrovert and a showman; as entertaining as his games are, it can be even more entertaining to watch him talk about his games in a post-mortem session. In 1989, an issue of the Ohio Chess Bulletin showed a picture of Blocker analyzing an Ohio Chess Congress game while surrounded by a group of spectators (including me), and the caption said something to the effect of, "Blocker analyzes while spectators look on in awe." That was not hyperbole; I was in awe of him, and I was far from the only one. I first met Blocker at the 1989 Ohio Chess Congress, and he was the strongest chess player I had met up to that time.

I have known Blocker for over 30 years, and crossed swords with him over a dozen times in rated play, scoring just one draw (of which I am very proud). Any chess player over 40 years old in Ohio or the Midwest surely knows about Blocker, but when I was at a recent Ohio tournament it took my breath away for a moment when a much younger friend of mine saw Blocker--who attended the tournament but did not play--and asked me who he is. I explained simply, "He is an International Master who won 15 Ohio Chess Championships and was once ranked in the top 20 in the country with a 2650 USCF rating."

The passage of time is sobering, and those of us who know (or lived in!) the distant past have a responsibility to preserve the great names and events that deserve to be remembered. I appreciate Finegold's video, and I embrace the opportunity to supplement that video with what I know and what I have observed about IM Calvin Blocker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian Nepomniachtchi Wins The Candidates Tournament For the Second Time in a Row

Ian Nepomniachtchi won the 2022 Candidates Tournament with a round to spare, earning the right to challenge World Champion Magnus Carlsen in a match. Nepomniachtchi finished with 9.5/14, 1.5 points ahead of second place finisher Ding Liren. Carlsen defeated Nepomniachtchi 7.5-3.5 in the 2021 World Chess Championship match.

Vasily Smyslov was the first player who won consecutive Candidates Tournaments. Smyslov won the famous 1953 Zurich Candidates Tournament before achieving a 12-12 draw in a match versus World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik, who retained the title based on the World Championship match rules in place at that time. Then, Smyslov won the 1956 Amsterdam Candidates Tournament before beating Botvinnik 12.5-9.5 to claim the World Champion title. Botvinnik was entitled to an automatic rematch the next year, and he defeated Smyslov 12.5-10.5. Remarkably, Smyslov advanced to the Candidates Final in 1984 at the age of 63 before bowing to Garry Kasparov, who soon became the youngest World Chess Champion in recorded history.

FIDE--the governing body of international chess--organized Candidates Tournaments on a regular basis from 1950-1992. The tournaments were generally held every three years. In 1993, World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov and his challenger Nigel Short broke away from FIDE to hold a non-sanctioned World Chess Championship match, and for the next 14 years there was both a FIDE World Chess Champion and a linear Classical World Chess Champion. 

Viswanathan Anand's 6.5-4.5 victory over Vladimir Kramnik in 2008 completed the reunification of the World Chess Championship, as FIDE World Champion Anand defeated the man who had wrested the linear Classical title from Kasparov in 2000. Kramnik had won a reunification match against FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov in 2006, but then FIDE held a World Championship Tournament in 2007; Kramnik participated under protest (he felt that the World Championship should be determined by match play, not tournament play), and he finished tied for second (with Boris Gelfand) in that event behind Anand.

Other players in addition to Smyslov and Nepomniachtchi who earned the right to be the World Championship challenger in consecutive full Candidates cycles are Boris Spassky (1965, 1968), Viktor Korchnoi (1978, 1981), and Anatoly Karpov (1987, 1990). Spassky lost to World Champion Tigran Petrosian in 1966, but dethroned Petrosian in 1969. Korchnoi lost World Championship matches to Karpov in 1978 and 1981. Karpov lost World Championship matches to reigning World Champion Garry Kasparov in 1987 and 1990. The above list does not include players who played in consecutive World Championship matches without having to go through a full qualifying cycle, such as Botvinnik (who benefited from an automatic rematch clause in 1958 and 1961). It should also be mentioned that Anand won full Candidates cycles in 1995 and 2014. Anand lost the 1995 Professional Chess Association World Championship match to linear Classical World Champion Kasparov 10.5-7.5, and Anand lost the 2014 World Championship match to Magnus Carlsen 6.5-4.5 (Carlsen had dethroned Anand 6.5-3.5 in 2013).

Smyslov and Spassky showed that a player can bounce back from losing a World Championship match to beat the World Champion the next time around. There has been much speculation about how psychologically devastating it must have been for Nepomniatchtchi to lose to Carlsen the way that he did (repeatedly blundering from equal or even superior positions), but in the wake of that defeat Nepomniatchtchi has shown no ill effects; it will be interesting to see if the strength of character that he has shown while earning the right to challenge for the World Championship again will enable him to avenge his loss to Carlsen.

However, the next Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi match may not be decided by psychological factors; if both players play their best, Carlsen is the stronger player. Another factor may prove most important: Carlsen has intimated that if a new challenger did not emerge from this Candidates cycle then he may retire from World Championship matches, because he apparently feels that he has nothing to prove after beating representatives from the previous generation (including Anand) and his own generation. That is a strange attitude for an all-time great to take--one would expect him to feel motivated to beat any challenger who emerges from the pack--and we will soon find out if Carlsen was posturing, if he was seeking publicity to possibly increase the prize fund for the match, or if he is serious about leaving the World Championship scene undefeated in World Championship match play.

If Carlsen withdraws, Nepomniachtchi will play a World Championship match against Liren, based on Liren finishing second in the 2022 Candidates Tournament. 

The perils of prognostication are very apparent when one looks at how wildly off the mark many of the "expert" predictions about the Candidates Tournament turned out to be. Chess Life Online's commentator GM Jacob Aagard has written some wonderful instructional books, but if you want to make money wagering on chess you would be well-advised to bet the opposite of whatever he predicts. Nepomniachtchi was supposed to fade down the stretch, but instead he dominated the entire event, clinching victory with a round to spare and emerging as the only player to not lose a game. Ding Liren was supposed to be rusty after not playing much over the board chess since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but he finished second. Teimour Radjabov supposedly did not even belong in the field, but he finished a strong third (edging out Hikaru Nakamura on tiebreaks) just a half point off the pace for second. The future may belong to 19 year old Alireza Firouzja, but in the present he struggled to avoid finishing last, ending up in sixth place 3.5 points behind the winner and just .5 points out of the basement.

Nadal Moves Further Ahead of the Pack With 14th French Open Title/22nd Grand Slam Title

In January 2022, Rafael Nadal won the Australian Open, becoming the first man to capture 21 Grand Slam singles titles--breaking a three way tie with Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. It is interesting to contrast the reaction to Nadal's feat with the typical reaction every time Federer accomplishes something: every breath Federer takes is construed as proof that he is supposedly the greatest tennis player of all-time, while Nadal's feats are often diminished or qualified in some fashion--but Nadal forges ahead, and he is making it increasingly difficult for anyone to rank Federer ahead of him. Nadal is now halfway through toward a calendar year Grand Slam--one of the few significant achievements not yet on his resume--after winning the French Open to extend his records for French Open titles (14) and Grand Slam titles (22, now two ahead of Federer and Djokovic).

When Nadal first started dominating Federer head to head, we were told that Nadal is just a clay court specialist whose body will break down prematurely due to his hard-charging style. Even after Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon, there were still many commentators who stubbornly refused to admit that Nadal had surpassed Federer. Now that Nadal and Djokovic have emerged as the only Open Era players to win each Grand Slam at least twice, and now that Nadal is setting longevity records--including being the oldest French Open winner--after previously setting "youngest to" records, Nadal's critics are running out of arguments to make against his greatness: Nadal has maintained his head to head advantage versus Federer, Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, and Nadal has broken Federer's record for Grand Slam singles titles. Name an objection to Nadal being ranked ahead of Federer, and Nadal has refuted it.

Nadal's French Open dominance is unparalleled in tennis history, and may be unparalleled in sports history. Bjorn Borg won four straight French Open titles (1978-81) and a then-record six overall (1974-75, 1978-81) but Nadal has not only shattered those marks but his French Open titles alone outnumber the combined Grand Slam wins of every male player in tennis history except for Federer (20), Nadal (Djokovic), and Pete Sampras (14). Jimmy Connors (eight) and John McEnroe (seven) are top ten players of all-time but their combined Grand Slam win totals only exceed Nadal's French Open win total by one. 

From the perspectives of total accomplishments and longevity, Nadal is the Open Era's greatest player. Would Nadal have been able to beat Borg at the French Open if both players were in their respective primes? That question is unanswerable due to the vast differences between their eras. The most intriguing and unique aspect of Borg's career is that, at his best, he was both Federer and Nadal at the same time: Borg not only dominated the French Open the way that Nadal has, but Borg also won a then-unprecedented five straight Wimbledon titles. Borg's feat of winning both events in the same year three straight times (1978-80) has yet to be matched. Borg is likely the only player in the Open Era who could have beaten Federer at his best at Wimbledon and Nadal at his best at the French Open. For example, Pete Sampras--whose name at one time was mentioned prominently in the greatest player of all-time conversation--would not have stood a chance at the French Open against either Borg or Nadal. 

If Nadal can find a way to manage his chronic foot injury, he appears to have enough left to continue to add to his record Grand Slam singles win total, perhaps pushing that number to a level that will not be challenged for a long time.

The Triumph and Tragedy of Tiger Woods

Tiger Woods' ability to play competitive rounds at major golf championships after almost losing his leg in a car accident speaks volumes about not only his prodigious talent but also his determination, grit, and pain tolerance. Woods made the cut at the 2022 Masters ahead of several notable names, and he finished 47th. He then made the cut at the 2022 PGA Championship before withdrawing after limping through a difficult third round. There is much about Woods to be admired, emulated, and respected, both in terms of his dominance in his prime, and his determination to play through injury now.

However, obscured in the story of his remarkable comeback is why exactly he has to come back.

In February 2021, Woods suffered serious injuries in a one car accident during which he was entirely at fault due to driving far faster than the speed limit. Despite his vehicle event recorder demonstrating that he was driving in excess of 80 mph in a 45 mph zone at the time of the crash, Woods was not even issued a speeding ticket. His dangerous conduct not only caused serious injuries to himself, but he could have seriously injured or even killed innocent people. Even worse, this not the first time that Woods' reckless conduct behind the wheel potentially endangered other people. 

In May 2017, he was arrested for suspicion of DUI after police found him sitting unconscious in a damaged Mercedes Benz on the side of a road; he tested positive for five different drugs and had no explanation for how his car became damaged, but he was permitted to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for entering a diversionary program. 

In November 2009, Woods crashed his car into a fire hydrant, a tree, and several hedges. He was cited for careless driving as a result of that incident. Fortunately, no one was injured other than Woods. 

Woods' injuries and the obstacles that he created for himself in his personal life are tragic notes to his golf career, but his reckless behavior behind the wheel could have led to fatal tragedies not only for himself but for innocent people and their families. While it would be inspiring to see Woods charge up the leaderboard at a major golf championship again, it would be even more inspiring if he conquers whatever causes him to get behind the wheel with such callous disregard not just for his life and limbs, but for the life and limbs of others. If Woods is only working on his golf, his life story may have a much more tragic ending than just falling short of breaking Jack Nicklaus' record for major championships won.

The NCAA Tournament Provides Drama, but Does it Provide Great Basketball?

The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (better known as "March Madness") is one of the sports world's most high-profile and beloved events. Passionate fans energetically cheer for their favorite schools (and, it must be noted, passionate fans wager on the outcomes of the games). No one can dispute March Madness' enduring popularity. However, passion and popularity should never be confused with high efficiency and skill set mastery; the notion that college basketball players and teams play a better and/or "purer" form of the game than NBA players and teams do is demonstrably false.

Put more bluntly and concisely, several of the biggest NCAA games of this season were almost unbearable to watch because the level of play was so bad.

Perhaps mismatches are to be expected during the NCAA Tournament's early stages, so this discussion will focus on the Elite Eight, the Final Four, and the Championship Game. If college basketball is a better and/or "purer" form of the game then surely this would be most evident in the most important games of the year featuring the top eight teams in the country.

In the first Elite Eight game of 2022, Villanova defeated Houston, 50-44. As the low score indicates, the pace of this game was painfully slow, bringing back nightmarish memories of the awful pre-shot clock era when stalling was a regularly used strategy; the NBA began using a 24 second shot clock in the 1954-55 season, but the NCAA did not start using a shot clock until the 1985-86 season, when the college game finally limited each possession to 45 seconds (that number was cut to 35 in 1993-94, and then reduced to the current number of 30 in 2015-16). Houston shot 17-57 from the field (.298), including a brutal 1-20 (.005--that is not a typo!) from three point range. Villanova shot even worse from the field (15-52, .288) but compensated by shooting 5-21 (.238) from three point range--which is bad, but not as bad as Houston--and making all 15 of their free throw attempts. Despite the low number of possessions and high number of missed field goals, the teams combined to commit a total of 20 turnovers.

It is true that defense and rebounding have always been essential elements for winning a basketball championship, but when the field goal percentages in a game would not even be good batting averages it is evident that we are not watching great defense as much as we are watching players and teams that are unable to execute basic, fundamental offensive strategies, and are unable to make shots under pressure. NBA defenses are more sophisticated than college defenses, and NBA players are much more athletic, so if Houston and Villanova players cannot make shots under NCAA Tournament conditions then that does not bode well for how those players may perform at the next level.

The second Elite Eight game featured Duke defeating Arkansas, 78-69. Duke played at a high level, with team shooting splits of .547/.400/.889, but this just highlighted how outmatched Arkansas (.419/.300/1.000) was. Duke led by as many as 18 points, and the margin was not closer than 10 points during the final 11 minutes until Arkansas made a layup with :46 remaining, after which neither team scored the rest of the way. Duke is one of college basketball's elite programs of the past four decades, and Arkansas was not competitive for most of the game.

Kansas stomped Miami 76-50 in the third Elite Eight game. Miami kept the score close in the first half before being outscored 47-15 in the second half; it is difficult to imagine that anyone other than a diehard Kansas fan considered the game entertaining, or even watchable: how can a supposedly "elite" college basketball team score just 15 points in 20 minutes? It is not inconceivable that an NBA team, if motivated to do so, could hold a major college basketball team scoreless for 10, 15, or even 20 minutes, because far too many college teams and players simply lack the necessary fundamental skills to make shots against any kind of defensive resistance.

The Elite Eight concluded with North Carolina jumping out to a 9-0 lead versus Saint Peter's, and never looking back en route to a dominating 69-49 win. Saint Peter's shot 7-31 (.226) from the field in the first half, and trailed 47-20 with 15:33 remaining in the second half before "heating up" to only lose by 20 on 18-60 (.300) field goal shooting--and it's not like North Carolina shot the lights out, either, as the Tar Heels finished with shooting splits of .410/.273/.619. How can anyone consider any of these games, or the NCAA Tournament as a whole, to represent great--or even fundamentally sound--basketball?

This analysis is not meant to take anything away from what Saint Peter's accomplished by advancing to the Elite Eight as a small school; the point is about the overall quality of play at the highest levels of college basketball.

The Final Four opened with Kansas beating Villanova, 81-65. Kansas opened the game with a 10-0 run, and pushed the lead to 38-19 before settling for a 40-29 halftime advantage. Kansas shot 15-31 (.484) from the field in the first half, while Villanova shot just 10-29 (.345) from the field. Kansas outscored Villanova 10-5 to take a 50-34 lead early in the second half, but Villanova rallied to cut the margin to 64-58 before Kansas outscored Villanova 11-1 to remove any doubt. Villanova shot 12-28 (.429) from the field in the second half to finish 22-57 (.386) for the game.

The much anticipated second Final Four game featured Duke versus North Carolina. North Carolina ended Coach Mike Krzyzewski's regular season career by beating his Blue Devils 94-81 at Cameron Indoor Stadium, avenging Duke's 87-67 win at North Carolina on February 5--and North Carolina ended Kryzewski's NCAA Tournament career by beating his Blue Devils 81-77. The first half was very competitive, with neither team leading by more than six points, but the offensive execution was sloppy at both ends of the court: North Carolina shot just 12-34 (.353) from the field, while Duke shot 16-37 (.432) from the field as the Blue Devils led 37-34 at halftime. Both teams were awful from three point range in the first half, with North Carolina shooting 3-13 (.231) and Duke shooting 2-12 (.167). The Tar Heels shot 5-6 from three point range at the start of the second half en route to taking a 60-55 lead. Duke kept attacking inside, and used a 10-4 run to go up, 65-64. With North Carolina clinging to a 75-74 lead, Duke's Mark Williams missed two free throws, and then Caleb Love hit a dagger three pointer to make the score 78-74; that sequence exemplified the game's two big themes: the Tar Heels shot 7-13 (.538) from three point range in the second half to finish 10-26 (.385) overall, while Duke struggled to make free throws (12-20, .600). North Carolina shot 27-64 (.423) from the field overall, while Duke shot 30-72 (.417), including 5-22 (.227) from three point range.

Kryzewski's resume--including five NCAA championships and a record 13 Final Four appearances--indicates that he is one of the greatest college coaches of all-time, but it is worth noting that his Duke team this season lost seven times to an unranked team while being ranked in the AP Top 10, the most such losses in one season since the AP poll expanded to 25 teams in 1989-90. Throughout his career, his teams have often lost to underdog teams in the NCAA Tournament--including a loss as the second seed to 15th seed Lehigh in 2012, one of just 10 times a second seed has lost to the 15th seed, and a loss as the third seed to 14th seed Mercer in 2014. Kryzewski did a great job of building Duke into a recruiting powerhouse, but it could be argued that--considering the amount of talent his teams had relative to other teams during the past several decades--he could/should have won even more than he did.

The NCAA Championship Game featuring Kansas and North Carolina epitomized the characteristics and trends described above: we saw an abundance of energy and passion, but that should not in any way be confused with high level execution or a consistent display of basic fundamental skills. Kansas won 72-69, making history with the biggest comeback (16 points) in NCAA Championship Game history. Kansas began the game with a 7-0 run, but trailed 40-25 at halftime, tied for the fourth largest halftime deficit in NCAA Championship Game history. Kansas shot 10-33 (.303) from the field in the first half, including 2-7 (.286) from three point range and 6-21 (.286) in the paint. North Carolina built a 15 point halftime lead despite shooting just 12-33 (.364) from the field in the first half, including 3-11 (.273) from three point range. Kansas opened the second half with a 20-6 run to erase most of North Carolina's advantage, and then Kansas tied the score at 50 on a three point play by Ochai Agbaji with 10:53 remaining in the contest. Agbaji, who scored 12 points on 4-9 field goal shooting in the Championship Game after scoring 21 points on 6-8 field goal shooting in the Final Four rout of Miami, was voted the Final Four Most Outstanding Player. Kansas soon took a 56-50 lead, and was on top most of the rest of the way, though North Carolina briefly went up 69-68 with 1:41 remaining. Even after shooting 19-33 (.576) from the field in the second half, Kansas shot just 29-66 (.439) from the field overall, including 6-17 (.353) from three point range. North Carolina shot just 11-40 (.275) from the field in the second half, including 2-12 (.167) from three point range, finishing 23-73 (.315) overall, including 5-23 (.217) from three point range.

There are many reasons that the quality of play at the highest levels of college basketball is not as good as the quality of play in the NBA. The first, most obvious, and indisputable reason is that in no field of endeavor would it be reasonable to expect apprentices to outperform seasoned professionals: an apprentice craftsman is not superior to an experienced craftsman, and apprentice basketball teams/players are not superior to experienced professional basketball teams/players. The second reason is that there is very little continuity in major college basketball because the best players leave school after just one season; this is not to suggest that players should not be allowed to leave or that they should choose not leave: the point is that the best college-age basketball players in the world are, for the most part, playing in the NBA, not in college. The talent drain of young players going to the NBA means that every year the best college teams are rebuilding, which in turn means that rivalries--at least in terms of individual player matchups--cannot be sustained, and it also means that the best teams do not have a chance to build chemistry or work much on skill set development. Each college season consists of a breathless race to determine which group of talented freshmen can gel as quickly as possible to peak during the one and done NCAA Tournament before the best players jump straight to the NBA. This is the basketball version of fast food, not gourmet cooking, and that is why we see unwatchable games with wretched field goal percentages.

There is no question that the worst NBA team could beat the best NCAA team by at least 20-30 points. Not only are the NBA players more athletic, more talented, and more fundamentally sound, but they are coached better. 

The NCAA Tournament is very popular and generates much passion, but popularity and passion should not be confused with mastery of basketball fundamentals. 

Further Reading:

Baylor Dominates Gonzaga to Win the 2021 NCAA Title (April 2021)

Separating the Grownups From the Kids in Basketball (November 2018) 

Heels Stomp Spartans (2009 NCAA Championship)

C(h)alm in the Clutch: Kansas Defeats Memphis in OT, 75-68 (2008 NCAA Championship) 

Early Entry Players Have Diluted Both College and Pro Basketball (March 2008)

Cleveland Browns Players and Coaches Often Reach the Super Bowl--But Only After Leaving Cleveland

The Cleveland Browns have never played in the Super Bowl, though the franchise has won four AAFC titles (1946-49) and four NFL titles (1950, 1954-55, 1964). However, many Cleveland Browns have played in the Super Bowl--as members of other teams. Even a partial list of former Browns who have played in the Super Bowl is a depressing reminder for Browns fans of just how inept the team's owners and general managers have been for the past several decades:

Len Dawson: Played for the Browns from 1960-61; won Super Bowl IV MVP after leading the Kansas City Chiefs to a 23-7 win over the Minnesota Vikings.

Paul Warfield: Played for the Browns from 1964-69, and helped the Browns win the 1964 NFL championship as a Pro Bowl receiver during his rookie season; won two Super Bowls with the Miami Dolphins.

Greg Pruitt: Four-time Pro Bowl running back with the Browns in the 1970s before earning one Pro Bowl selection and a Super Bowl XVIII ring with the L.A. Raiders.

Lyle Alzado: Played for the Browns from 1979-81, earning one Pro Bowl selection; joined Pruitt on the Raiders' Super Bowl XVIII championship team.

Earnest Byner: Played for the Browns from 1984-89; made two Pro Bowls and won one Super Bowl after the Browns traded him to the Washington Redskins in 1990.

Bernie Kosar: Played for the Browns from 1985-93, leading the team to three AFC Championship Games; after the Browns released him, the Cowboys signed him and he completed 5 of 9 passes for 83 yards and a touchdown while replacing the injured Troy Aikman in the NFC Championship Game. The Cowboys won that game en route to winning Super Bowl XXVIII. Kosar took a kneeldown on the final snap of the Super Bowl.

Shaun O'Hara: Played for the Browns from 2000-03; won Super Bowl XLII with the Giants, and also earned three Pro Bowl selections as a Giant.

Mike Adams: Played for the Browns from 2007-11; played in Super Bowl XLVIII for the Denver Broncos, who lost 43-8 to Seattle. He also played in two Pro Bowls after leaving Cleveland.

Alex Mack: Played for the Browns from 2009-15, earning three Pro Bowl selections; Mack signed with the Falcons in 2016, and he continued to be a Pro Bowl player while also playing for the Falcons in their Super Bowl LI loss.

T.J. Ward: Played for the Browns from 2010-13; after leaving Cleveland, he played in Denver's Super Bowl 50 win. 

Jabaal Sheard: Played for the Browns from 2011-14; won Super Bowl LI with the New England Patriots.

Mitchell Schwartz: Played for the Browns from 2012-15; won Super Bowl LIV with the Kansas City Chiefs.

Josh Gordon: Played for the Browns from 2012-18; won Super Bowl LIII with the Patriots.

Dion Lewis: Played for the Browns in 2013; after spending one season with Indianapolis, he joined the New England Patriots and played in two Super Bowls, including the Patriots' Super Bowl LI championship.

Danny Shelton: Played for the Browns from 2015-17; won Super Bowl LIII with the Patriots.

Jason McCourty: Played for the Browns in 2017; won Super Bowl LIII with the Patriots.

At least three former Browns are members of this season's two Super Bowl teams. Larry Ogunjobi will not play in Super Bowl LVI due to injury, but he played a big part in the Cincinnati Bengals' success this season. Guard Austin Corbett, who the Browns traded to the L.A. Rams for a fifth round draft pick, started all 16 regular season games for the Rams this season. Odell Beckham Jr. is of course the most famous and most outspoken former Brown who will be playing in Super Bowl LVI, and he played a key role for the Rams after the Browns traded him. He has the necessary talent and big play ability to win the Super Bowl MVP.

Again, the above is just a partial list, largely off the top of my head. I remember that Tony Grossi wrote at least one article with a larger list of former Browns who reached the Super Bowl after leaving Cleveland, but I could not find that article online.

In addition to players making Super Bowl appearances after leaving Cleveland, many coaches and assistant coaches have gone to the Super Bowl after finishing their time with the Browns. Here is a partial list:

Forrest Gregg: The Browns' head coach from 1975-77 before coaching the Bengals to Super Bowl XVI.

Bill Cowher: Played for the Browns from 1980-82, was an assistant coach with the Browns from 1985-88, and then became the Steelers head coach from 1992-2006. He led the Steelers to two Super Bowl appearances, including a win in Super Bowl XL.

Bill Belichick: The Browns' head coach from 1991-95 before coaching the New England Patriots to a record six Super Bowl titles.

Kyle Shanahan: The Browns' offensive coordinator in 2014 before coaching the San Francisco 49ers to Super Bowl LIV.

Bruce Arians: The Browns' offensive coordinator in 2001-03 before winning two Super Bowls as an assistant coach with the Pittsburgh Steelers and winning one Super Bowl as the head coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Not only have many former Browns advanced to the Super Bowl as individuals, but the former Browns team has won not one but two Super Bowls: Baltimore partnered with Browns owner Art Modell to steal the Browns from Cleveland, and the renamed Baltimore Ravens went on to win two Super Bowls, the ultimate slap in the face/punch to the gut for loyal Browns fans who have received many slaps to the face and punches to the gut since the Browns won the 1964 NFL Championship.

Tom Brady Ends an Unprecedented Career on His Terms

Tom Brady, who just announced his retirement from the NFL after 22 seasons, won more Super Bowls (seven) than any single NFL franchise. If NFL titles from the pre-Super Bowl era are counted--and they should be--there are still only three franchises that won more championships than Brady: Green Bay Packers (13), Chicago Bears (nine), and New York Giants (eight). If AAFC titles are included--and they should be--then the Cleveland Browns are tied with the Giants. 

Speaking of the Browns, Brady is often described as the greatest quarterback ever based on how many championships his teams won, but Browns quarterback Otto Graham played 10 seasons (four in the AAFC followed by six in the NFL) and his teams appeared in the championship game 10 times, winning seven titles. Graham passed for 174 touchdowns, and he scored 44 rushing touchdowns; he led the league in passer rating (retroactively calculated, as passer ratings had not been created yet) five times, and his 112.1 passer rating in 1946 stood as the single season professional record until Joe Montana broke the mark in 1989. Graham ranked first in career passer rating for over 40 years until Montana surpassed him. I do not put much stock in passer ratings, but it is notable that Graham's passer ratings were so high that it took decades before anyone broke his single season and career records.

The rules, playing styles, and playing conditions of the 1940s and 1950s are so different from the rules, playing styles, and playing conditions of the 2000s that it is not meaningful to compare Graham's individual statistics with Brady's individual statistics, but to the extent that winning championships is an important metric for quarterbacks Brady and Graham are on equal footing. To the extent that being an efficient passer is an important metric for quarterbacks, Graham stood further ahead of his peers (and even succeeding generations of quarterbacks) than Brady.

Brady spent the first 20 years of his career in New England, leading the Patriots to six Super Bowl wins in nine appearances, including the 2001, 2003 and 2004 seasons as the Patriots captured three Super Bowl titles in a four year span, a feat matched by only the Dallas Cowboys in the 1992-93 and 1995 seasons. The 2007 Patriots became the first (and still only) NFL team to go 16-0 in the regular season, but their bid for a perfect season fell short due to a Super Bowl loss to the New York Giants.

Other than an ACL injury that forced Brady to miss almost the entire 2008 season, he was remarkably durable, and he rarely sat out a play. Brady was not fast, but he had an uncanny ability to shift around in the pocket so that he avoided absorbing big hits. The only other quarterback that I have seen who was not fast but had a similar pocket agility was Dan Marino (prior to the Achilles injury that he suffered late in his career); Marino rarely scrambled, but he would move away from pressure to avoid the big hit and get rid of the ball. 

The final act of Brady's career took place in Tampa Bay, where he continued to play at a high level and set records while leading the Buccaneers to the second Super Bowl title in franchise history. Brady is not the first Super Bowl-winning quarterback to win a title with a second team--Peyton Manning won one Super Bowl with Indianapolis and one Super Bowl with Denver--but Brady won a Super Bowl in his first year with his new team, and Brady played at an elite level throughout the season and the playoff run, while Manning won in his fourth season in Denver as a caretaker quarterback who threw more interceptions than touchdowns during the regular season.

Brady was remarkably effective in high pressure situations throughout his career, conducting numerous game-winning drives. In his last game, he almost led Tampa Bay to victory after trailing 27-3 in the Divisional Playoff game versus the L.A. Rams, who survived and will now represent the NFC in the Super Bowl after defeating the San Francisco 49ers in the NFC Championship.

It is unfortunate that instead of appreciating the greatness that Brady displayed in Tampa Bay there are many commentators who feel obligated to treat the Buccaneers' title run as some kind of indictment not just of New England not making sure that Brady finished his career with the Patriots but of Bill Belichick's entire coaching career. Brady winning a Super Bowl in Tampa Bay has no connection with Belichick's legacy; Belichick was a great defensive coordinator for two New York Giants Super Bowl teams, in his first head coaching job he led the Cleveland Browns to their only playoff victory in the 1990-2019 time period, and in his second head coaching job he guided the New England Patriots to a record-setting six Super Bowl titles. Belichick's record more than speaks for itself, and he is not required to "validate" his Super Bowl wins by winning a Super Bowl with a different quarterback. Think about how foolish it would sound to say that Chuck Noll had to "validate" his four Super Bowl wins by winning a Super Bowl without Terry Bradshaw. No one says that because it is nonsense, so commentators should stop saying nonsense about Belichick; their resentment at his brief press conference answers to their ridiculous questions should not impact how they describe his legacy.

Is Brady the greatest quarterback of all-time? Brady has to be on the short list of greatest quarterbacks. He holds all of the important "counting" records, from Super Bowl titles (seven) to career playoff wins (35) to career playoff passing yards (13,049) to career playoff touchdowns (86) to career regular season wins (243) to career regular season passing yards (84,250) to career regular season passing touchdowns (624). He excelled in the biggest moments, he was incredibly durable, and he won big even when he did not have big name players at the "skill" positions. 

Graham's name is too often left out of this conversation, probably because he played so long ago and because he played the first four years of his career in the AAFC, but he led the Cleveland Browns to the NFL title in his first NFL season (1950), disproving any notion that the Browns' four consecutive AAFC championships were less valuable than NFL championships. Graham won three NFL championships in just six NFL seasons, and he was a big threat not only as a passer but also as a runner. He and Peyton Manning share the quarterback record for most All-Pro First Team selections (seven; four of Graham's selections were in the AAFC, but those four are included in ProFootballReference.com's list, as they should be). Brady earned three All-Pro First Team selections in his 22 season career. The quarterback position is often stacked with a lot of talent, so it is unusual for a quarterback to earn more than three All-Pro First Team selections. Dan Marino, Joe Montana, Steve Young, and Brett Favre join Brady on the list of quarterbacks who received the honor three times.

Graham is the all-time leader in winning percentage among starting quarterbacks, and he is the all-time leader in yards per attempt, which is remarkable considering that he played in an era when the rules did not favor the passing game. Brady ranks second in winning percentage, but he barely cracks the top 30 in yards per attempt; in general, Brady ranks number one in almost every "total" statistic, but he is not at or sometimes even near the top in percentage statistics. Brady deserves credit for playing such a long time at a very high level, but his peak value in a given season or game may not have been the highest ever.

Johnny Unitas held the records for career passing yards and career passing touchdowns when he retired. He earned All-Pro First Team honors five times, trailing only Graham and Manning at the quarterback position. Unitas' Baltimore Colts won three NFL titles in the pre-Super Bowl era, and they added a fourth title in Super Bowl V. In 2004, The Sporting News ranked Unitas as the greatest NFL quarterback of all-time, ahead of Joe Montana.

Montana tied Bradshaw's record by winning four Super Bowls, a mark that stood until Brady broke it. Montana was the modern day Graham, an efficient passer who also had mobility that enabled him to be a threat to roll out and either pass or run depending on how the defense reacted.

Unitas and Montana were probably the consensus choices as the two greatest quarterbacks of all-time prior to Brady's emergence, although there is no objective reason for Graham to be ranked below them. It is fair to say that Graham was the best quarterback of the 1940s/1950s, Unitas was the best quarterback of the 1960s, Montana was the best quarterback of the 1980s, and Brady was the best quarterback of the 2000s. The 1970s and 1990s are more difficult to assess. Bradshaw won the most championships in the 1970s, but Roger Staubach was a more efficient passer and better runner than Bradshaw while winning two Super Bowls. Dan Fouts was the most prolific passer of the late 1970s/early 1980s, but he never played in a Super Bowl. Dan Marino was the most prolific passer of the mid-1980s/early 1990s, but he only played in one Super Bowl, losing to Montana. Troy Aikman won three Super Bowls in the 1990s, but he was not individually productive enough to be ranked among the very best. Brett Favre set many career passing records during the 1990s, but he was not as efficient as several of his predecessors, and he only won one Super Bowl.

If championships matter the most, why would Brady's seven in 22 years rank higher than Graham's seven in 10 years? If Graham had played an 11th season and won his eighth title would he be considered hands down the greatest quarterback of all-time? If not, why not?

However, if durability while maintaining a high level of play is the tiebreaker/decisive factor, then Brady lapped the field: no quarterback has played so well for so long, even if there may be a few quarterbacks who played better over shorter time periods.

Passer ratings are so skewed by the rules changes from the past 40 years or so (and other factors beyond the scope of this article) that they do not impact my rankings (they are only useful for comparing players who competed in the same era, but they are worthless for comparisons across eras). For the record, Brady's career passer rating is eighth all-time on the all-time list, just ahead of Tony Romo and just behind Kirk Cousins. With all due respect to Romo and Cousins, they do not belong in the greatest quarterback of all-time conversation--and passer ratings do not belong in the conversation, either.

The case for calling Brady the greatest quarterback of all-time is strong, but not definitive. However, it should be clear that--contrary to assertions by Dan Shaughnessy--Brady is not the greatest athlete in Boston history. Shaughnessy, who covered the Boston Celtics in the 1980s, should know better. As great as Brady was, he did not come close to matching what Bill Russell accomplished: Russell led the Boston Celtics to 11 championships in 13 seasons, including a run of eight championships in a row. A football team has 11 players on the field at a time, and it has been decades since players regularly played offense and defense (Deion Sanders being the notable exception), but a basketball team has just five players on the court at a time, and all five players play both offense and defense. Russell's direct impact on team success was greater than Brady's; that is not a shot at Brady, but just a statement of fact recognizing the difference between being a great basketball player and being a great football player. Bill Russell is the greatest winner/champion in the history of major North American team sports, and he is without question the greatest athlete in Boston history.

Brady's career is unprecedented in many ways: he went from being the 199th pick in the draft to being the NFL's greatest winner during the Super Bowl era, and he played at a high level for 22 years. It was  a treat to watch him play, and it will be interesting to see what he does now that his playing days are over.

Nadal Stands Alone at the Grand Slam Summit

Rafael Nadal bounced back after trailing two sets to none to defeat Daniil Medvedev in five sets to not only win the Australian Open for the second time, but also become the first man to win 21 Grand Slam singles titles, breaking a tie with Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. In 2008--at the height of Federer-mania--I deemed it premature to label Federer the greatest tennis player of all-time: "Considering that Nadal is almost five years younger than Federer it is entirely possible that he will eclipse what Federer has done; after all, five years ago Federer had just won his first Grand Slam, while Nadal already owns four Grand Slam titles, beating Federer along the way each time."

As I predicted, Nadal has eclipsed Federer--but Nadal's accomplishment may not silence his critics, who have always been vocal:

1) "Nadal is just a clay court specialist."

Nadal is a great clay court player--he has won a record 13 French Open titles, shattering the mark of six held by Bjorn Borg from 1981 until Nadal captured his seventh Roland Garros crown in 2012--but even if you ignore those 13 championships only seven players have won more total Grand Slams than Nadal's eight "other" Grand Slam titles. Nadal's eight "other" Grand Slam titles match the total career Grand Slam wins posted by Fred Perry, Ken Rosewall, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi. 

Nadal and Djokovic are the only Open Era players to win the double career Grand Slam (winning each Grand Slam at least twice). The notion that Nadal is strictly a clay court specialist could not be further from the truth. If Nadal had never set foot at the French Open he would still rank among the top 10-12 players of all-time. 

2) "Nadal's hard-charging style will cause his body to break down, so he will have a short career."

In 2020, Nadal dominated Djokovic in straight sets to win the French Open and tie Federer with 20 career Grand Slam singles titles. Nadal also broke Borg's record by winning his fourth Grand Slam title without losing a single set during the tournament, and Nadal became the first Open era player to win six Grand Slam singles titles after the age of 30--keep in mind that Don Budge, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg each won six Grand Slam singles titles in their entire careers! Nadal, who will turn 36 in June 2022, is on his way to becoming perhaps the greatest "older" player of all-time.

What can Nadal's critics say now? 

Nadal owns the career Grand Slams record, he maintains a decisive head to head advantage versus Federer (24-16 overall, including 10-4 in Grand Slams, with Nadal beating Federer at least once in three of the four Grand Slam events), and he only trails Djokovic slightly head to head (30-28) while leading Djokovic 10-7 head to head in Grand Slam matches. 

Nadal's Grand Slam winning percentage is .333 (21 titles in 63 appearances), and his Grand Slam match winning percentage is .879. Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage is .247 (20 titles in 81 appearances), and his Grand Slam match winning percentage is .860. Djokovic's Grand Slam winning percentage is .303 (20 titles in 66 appearances), and his Grand Slam match winning percentage is .875. 

In the Open Era, no player has won a single event more often than Nadal has won the French Open. Nadal also owns second place and third place on that list, with 12 Barcelona Open wins, and 11 Monte Carlo Masters wins.

Is Nadal the greatest tennis player of all-time? That is not an easy question to answer, for several reasons. 

First, it is very difficult to compare tennis players from before the Open Era to players from the Open Era because of rules changes, equipment changes, and changes in tennis' organizational structure that impacted which tournaments players could enter/which tournaments were the most lucrative and/or prestigious. The most obvious and significant difference is that before the Open Era began professional players could not participate in the Grand Slam events. Rod Laver won all four Grand Slams in 1962 as an amateur, and then after he turned pro in 1963 he was not eligible to participate in those events until the 1968 French Open, when the Open Era began. Laver dominated the Pro Slam events from 1963-68 with eight wins and six Finals appearances in 15 events, and there is no doubt that he would have won many Grand Slam titles during that period had he been permitted to compete.

Second, even within the Open Era there have been significant changes. To cite just one example, during the 1970s there were non-Grand Slam events that paid more prize money than the Grand Slams. This impacted how the players set their schedules, and how the players trained; it made more sense (not to mention more dollars and cents) to train with a focus on the biggest money events than it did to focus on the Grand Slams. Bjorn Borg won the Pepsi Grand Slam for four straight years (1977-80) when that event featured the world's top players and paid out a bigger prize fund than any of the Grand Slams: Borg's $100,000 first prize in the Pepsi Grand Slam was more than he received in 1976 for winning Wimbledon and the WCT Tour Finals--combined!

That is not to suggest that the Grand Slams were not important, but the near-obsessive focus on Grand Slam titles that exists now did not exist with the same intensity at that time. As proof, consider that Borg only played in one Australian Open, Jimmy Connors played in two Australian Opens, and John McEnroe played in five Australian Opens in a 16 year Grand Slam career.  In contrast, nine of Djokovic's 20 Grand Slam wins are Australian Open wins. Comparing Djokovic's Grand Slam win totals from playing four Grand Slam tournaments per year to the Grand Slam win totals of players who generally played three Grand Slam tournaments per year is not meaningful.

Is Nadal the greatest player of the Open Era? 

Perhaps the best way to frame this conversation/analysis is to note that Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis: like Koufax in baseball, Borg was further ahead of his contemporaries than perhaps any other tennis player has ever been. When Borg retired from Grand Slam play at just 25 he owned the career record for both French Open titles and Wimbledon titles. Federer now holds the Wimbledon record and Nadal now holds the French Open record, but during Borg's time he was literally Federer and Nadal in one package!

Think of the difference between NFL running backs Jim Brown and Emmitt Smith. Brown, who played nine seasons consisting of either 12 or 14 games each, held the career rushing yards gained record for over 20 years, but he now ranks 11th on the all-time list. Smith, who played 15 seasons consisting of 16 games each, has held the career rushing yards gained record for almost 20 years--surpassing Walter Payton, who broke Brown's record in 1984--but knowledgeable NFL analysts do not rank Smith as the greatest running back of all-time, because there is a significant difference between productivity and dominance. Brown dominated his era, while Smith was durable enough to be very productive for a long period of time. Borg is the tennis version of Brown, while the subsequent players who have been productive but not as dominant--most notably, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer--are analogous to Smith.

There is a difference between being the most accomplished player, and being the greatest player. There are many pitchers who won more games than Sandy Koufax, but few--if any--pitchers who I would choose over Koufax to pitch game seven of the World Series. If I needed a great running back to help me win one game, there is no one who I would take ahead of Jim Brown, including the players who have rushed for more career yards than he did. 

In my October 23, 2012 article Fun With Tennis Numbers, I listed some of the records Borg still held (or held jointly) more than 30 years after he played his final Grand Slam tournament:

1. Best career overall match winning percentage (.827)
2. Best career Grand Slam match winning percentage (.898)
3. Best career Wimbledon match winning percentage (.927)
4. Best career match winning percentage against top 10 players (.725)
5. Best career Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (.407)
6. Won at least one Grand Slam singles title for eight straight years
7. Only man to win three Grand Slam singles titles without losing a set
8. Only man to reach four Grand Slam singles finals without losing a set
9. Only man to defeat six previous Grand Slam winners in a Grand Slam final
10. Holds the record for most consecutive Davis Cup singles match wins (33)
11. Holds the record for most singles titles won before his 25th birthday (59)
12. Reached the finals in 11 of 12 Grand Slams entered during a four year stretch

Remarkably, nearly 10 years later Borg still holds (or holds jointly) nine of those records! Nadal now holds the records for overall match winning percentage, for winning one Grand Slam singles title for 10 straight years (2005-14), and for for winning four Grand Slam singles titles without losing a set. Borg not only dominated his peers, but he set some marks that remain unbroken more than 40 years after he played in his last Grand Slam event.

In Federer, Nadal and Djokovic Reconsidered--and Why Borg Still Stands Alone, I wrote: 

Anyone who sees the larger historical perspective is amused by all of the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic talk, because none of those guys measure up to Bjorn Borg, who I described as the "Sandy Koufax of tennis." Borg outdistanced his contemporaries by a greater margin than any player in the Open Era. Consider these statistics:

* Borg was the youngest player to win the Italian Open, the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg's records for the French Open and Wimbledon have been broken but he is the only player who was simultaneously the youngest ever champion of all three events.

* Until the age of 21, Borg never lost to a player younger than he was.

* Borg achieved the French Open/Wimbledon double each year from 1978-80. No player before or since has accomplished this feat in three straight years, or even two straight years.

* Borg tied the all-time record by winning three Grand Slam titles without losing a set (1976 Wimbledon, 1978 French Open and 1980 French Open).

* Borg simultaneously held the record for most career French Open singles titles (six) and most career Wimbledon titles (five). While both records have since been broken, no other player in the Open Era has simultaneously held both marks. For half a decade, Borg was the best grass court player in the world and the best clay court player in the world. In other words, he was Nadal and Federer rolled into one, while competing against at least two players who should still be listed among the 10 greatest of all-time (Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe).

* Borg won five straight Wimbledon titles from 1976-80, a feat that had not been accomplished since the 1880s, when the defending champion was automatically seeded into the next year's Finals.

* When Borg retired from Grand Slam competition at the age of 25 he ranked second all-time with 11 Grand Slam singles titles, trailing only Roy Emerson. Emerson won 12 Grand Slam singles titles, but six of his were in his native Australian Open; until the 1980s, non-Australian players regularly skipped the Australian Open, and Borg only played the event once, as a teenager.

* Borg remains the youngest player to ever win 11 Grand Slam singles titles (25 years old).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (.407; 11/27).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam match winning percentage (.898; 141-16).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam five set match winning percentage (.889; 24-3).

* Borg remains the only player who posted five straight years with a Grand Slam match winning percentage above .900 (1977-81).

* Borg still holds the highest career Wimbledon match winning percentage (.927; 51-4).

* Borg still holds the record for consecutive Wimbledon matches won (41).

The main knocks against Borg are his lack of longevity and the fact that he never won the U.S. Open. The funny thing about Borg's longevity is that he won at least one Grand Slam title in eight straight years (1974-81), a record that stood alone until Sampras matched it in 2000. Federer achieved the feat from 2003-10, and Nadal now holds the record with 10 (2005-14). In terms of Grand Slam dominance--as opposed to mere Grand Slam participation--Borg enjoyed enviable and nearly unmatched longevity. Regarding the U.S. Open, Borg reached the Finals four times in nine appearances, and his Finals losses all came at the hands of Connors or McEnroe, two of the most decorated U.S. Open champions ever. The lack of at least one U.S. Open title is the only legitimate mark against Borg, and in terms of ranking the greatest players of all-time that one negative mark does not outweigh all of the positive marks listed above.

Borg remained solidly in second place with 11 Grand Slam singles titles from 1981 until 1998, when Sampras tied him. Sampras passed him in 1999 and retired in 2002 as the all-time leader with 14 Grand Slam singles titles. Sampras won 14 of the 52 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.269). He never made it to the French Open Finals, and he only made it to the French Open semifinals once in 13 tries. Sampras was not nearly as dominant as Borg. While Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have each subsequently passed both Borg and Sampras in terms of total Grand Slam event wins, no one has approached Borg's .407 Grand Slam event winning percentage or his astonishing 16 Finals trips in 27 appearances (.593). Borg on his best day could beat anyone from any era on grass or clay. That is clearly not true of Sampras, Federer or Djokovic, particularly regarding clay. Borg versus Nadal on clay would be an incredible spectacle but Nadal at his best is not beating Borg at his best on grass.  

You may ask, "What would Nadal--or any player--have to do to surpass Borg?" The answer is simple--but not easy to do: to surpass Borg, a player would have to dominate his peer group from a young age and continue to do so for an extended period of time in the most important events on a variety of surfaces. As noted above, Borg's simultaneous dominance of Wimbledon and the French Open has yet to be matched; it took two different players--Federer and Nadal--plus the passage of more than 20 years to break just some of the records Borg set. 

Therefore, I would say that Borg is the greatest Open Era player, while Nadal is the most accomplished Open Era player.

Former MLB Player Doug Glanville Explains Why Barry Bonds and the Other PED Cheaters Should Never be Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame

I recently articulated my position regarding why PED cheaters should not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I rarely provide links to ESPN.com, for reasons that should be obvious, but once in a while the site provides a gem. Former MLB player Doug Glanville offered a passionate and well-reasoned argument about why he is OK with Barry Bonds not being elected to the Hall of Fame.

Glanville makes a great point while refuting the notion that not electing Barry Bonds and the other PED cheaters is wrong because the Baseball Hall of Fame is a history museum: the story of PED cheating can be thoroughly told without electing Bonds and the other cheaters, because there is a difference between telling history and honoring people who behaved poorly. Of course the history of the PED era should be told: instead of inducting Commissioner Bud Selig--perhaps the worst commissioner in major North American sports in the past several decades--he should have towered over the PED exhibit as the poster boy of ineffective leadership that permitted the cheaters to damage the game and destroy baseball's record book, which should now only be shelved in the fiction section of libraries and bookstores.

The whole article is worth reading (just mute the speakers on your device to spare yourself the agony of hearing "Screamin' A" Smith yelling that Barry Bonds should be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame--to find one "diamond" on ESPN.com you must traverse a lot of "rough"), but here are some excerpts to whet your appetite:

The most common argument for the inclusion of PED users in the Hall is that we can't ignore the past, and trust me--I hold no rose-colored glasses to the idealism of this game's origins. Throughout my playing career, I was always acutely aware that players who looked like me once could not even participate in that history. And yes, there are likely players who are in the Hall now who took PEDs and got away with it. Yes, there are players in the Hall who took amphetamines, whose behavior would not have lived up to the policies today. But why should any of that stop us from being better now?

We all accept that the Hall of Fame is a museum, tasked with telling the full story. But it is also a shrine. There should be a difference between being recognized in the Hall of Fame and being honored by it. I am represented in the Baseball Hall of Fame--or at least, my senior thesis from college is. Does that mean that I am a Hall of Famer? I doubt my .277 batting average and 59 home runs would have gotten me in. And I am fine with that.

I don't see why this distinction cannot be made who took PEDs and also had a record-setting impact. If we want to recognize PED users in the Hall, we can build them an exhibit, or even their own wing. We should acknowledge all of our history, both glorious and ugly. Like I am, with my paper, they can be in the Hall--as a fixture and as a recognition of their accomplishments. But I don't see why they need a plaque.

What we celebrate--what we enshrine--should have a different set of criteria. We cannot treat induction into the Hall as simply an act of historical graduation--automatic entry into the Hall because the numbers are in record books--especially when the inductees did not stand on the shoulders of their predecessors so much as trample them into the ground with glee...

With some of these players, their proponents make the argument that they would have been Hall of Famers whether or not they used. I have always been skeptical that anyone could know for sure when or if a player started taking PEDs. But more importantly, when you make a choice that artificially manipulates your performance and your future, it colors your past. Fairly or not.

We simply can't say what these enhanced players would do or be without the stuff. I was drafted in 1991, one pick in front of Manny Ramirez, a player some call the "greatest right-handed hitter of all time." Maybe he was; maybe he deserved to be drafted ahead of me. But I did not fail two tests and miss 150 games because of it. I do not know what kind of hitter he would have been without what he took. No one does. So talking about picking me over Ramirez is like comparing apples to oranges. We weren't even playing the same sport in the end. Good for him--he made his money, he won world championships. But does he need to be enshrined as an example of the best of our sport? The answer to that question is really up to us...

Nearly a decade ago, I worked on a task force with the United States Anti-Doping Agency. I was helping to evaluate a report on youth sports to understand what gives young people the fullest, healthiest and most enjoyable experience when participating in sport. Also in the group was an ethicist by the name of Tom Murray, and he said something that stuck with me: "You reward what you value."

If we are to reward players with induction into the Hall, it should be based on our values. We are the ones who need to decide the difference between being great and being consequential.