[buzzdenver]

Felt like a boxing match where Carlsen knocked Nepo down in the 6th game, and after that he just wasn't the same boxer/chess player. The next 3 decisive games had blunders by Nepo that would be bad for even the #1000 chess player.

[colmvp]

One enthusiast on Reddit predicted Nepo would crumble after the first loss and Carlsen would win 4 games to 0. What was really frustrating was Nepo had plenty of time left on the clock during those blunders, almost like he was resigned to the fact that he wouldn't beat Carlsen.

It also really puts into perspective how impressive Caruana was in 2018.

[manquer]

Playing for draws is easier than playing for wins. At the world top level it is easier to try and draw games, so it doesn't that say that much really, Caruana's draws were not that remarkable or memorable as well.

He is a skilled player no doubt, and impressiven in his own right, but his 2018 performance is not a good way to gauge that .

[lofatdairy]

I think this comment underrates not only Caruana's strength but also Carlsen's ability to navigate the incredibly difficult positions Caruana placed him in. Sure, no game from 2018 can compare against game 6 from this year, but game 6 was a historic game, but it arose from a subtle position that just as easily could have been played in 2018. I think game 8 most easily demonstrates how Caruana fought incredibly hard to win, with at least 19 moves of preparation in a rare line of svenishnikov and making a pawn sacrifice for long term chances. Just because a game is even until the end doesn't mean that they're easy, at the top level it means that its balanced on a knifes edge the whole way through.

Furthermore, I think this comment simply cannot be true for the simple reason that in no world does it makes sense for Fabiano to play for a draw. While you're right that's obviously "easier" to play for a draw than for a win, playing to draw for Caruana would actually be playing to lose, not only because it's a weak mindset but also because Magnus is the undisputedly stronger player in lower time formats.

[manquer]

Players play not to loose all the time that is nothing wrong or unusual about it, if both players play not to lose most of the game you are going to likely have a draw at the top level.

Playing conservatively or defensively doesn't mean no prep or less work or less talent, it means only taking less risk.

Magnus is unusual for his aggressive playing style and makes piece sacrifices for activity while also being able to compute precisely better than most especially in the middle game.

The play styles become very different when same players play Armageddon ( black has draw odds , i.e. wins if it's a draw) so they can play more aggressively if they have more to lose .

IMO chess should default to armageddon if it wants to be better spectator sport.

[lofatdairy]

Again, while I agree that playing to not lose involves less risks, this doesn't characterize all the games between Caruana and Carlsen or Nepomniachtchi and Carlsen. Keep in mind that just because Caruana or Nepo aren't sac-ing a piece every game, doesn't mean they're not going for sharp positions and taking risks, that's just not how chess is played at the top level. The inbalances that they capitalize off of are nuances of position and structure, not necessarily just material.

You can thank alpha zero and Dubov for Magnus's willingness to sacrifice for activity, I think anyone watching a Carlsen game from before around 2018 would call Carlsen "aggressive", if anything Carlsen was known more to play into an endgame that he'd win off his persistence and accuracy. I also don't think this is accurate even for his more recent classical games. He'll take opportunities to go into inbalances that he feels are easier for him to navigate than his opponent, but he certainly isn't Tal and I think this mischaracterization also serves to downplay Caruana and Nepo's role in reaching sharp, lively positions in their matches, while overplaying Carlsen's. Again, all I am arguing is that Caruana's play in 2018 was both remarkable and admirable, and that it would be impossible for him to hold a drawn match against possibly the greatest chess player of all time if he only played to neutralize every position and didn't arrive with the mindset to win.

I disagree with your point about Armageddon for two reasons. 1. Draw odds means that one player is always playing to "not lose" which is exactly what you're critiquing. Sure white has to play aggressively, but black will be playing to neutralize all life in the position, and I personally don't watch to watch only Berlin defense games - it's bad enough that the Marshall has been reduced to a drawing weapon. 2. At lower time formats we see less deep lines and ideas and more mistakes. I personally enjoy high-quality chess and Armageddon isn't designed to produce that, it's designed to produce a decisive result. Plus, sacrifices aren't even unique to Armageddon, they might be rare, but queen sacrifices are still being played in top level chess, Dubov-Karjakin just last year comes to mind, and they're even more frequent in Rapid, Danyyil-Shirov being one that was extremely famous last year as well.

[busyant]

> Playing for draws is easier than playing for wins.

This is nonsense. Neither Caruana nor Carlsen were playing for draws.

[manquer]

Not playing for the win aggressivly enough ends up becoming playing for a draw ? .

At the world championship you would want to play conservatively , defensively and wait for a mistake to strike, there is a lot to lose if you try to force a mistake and play more aggressively.

It is not cheating or against the spirit of the game to do so, world championship matches have almost always been filled with draws.