[Upvoter33]

I wouldn't agree with the "deserves to win". If you look at the classical matches, probably Ian had the slight edge, and tbh, he could have wrapped up the entire thing in Game 13(I may not be remembering the exact game, but the one where he had a strong position but gave it away and lost, thus leading to a tie).

And, honestly, in rapid, they were really really even. Even one better move at the end might have tied it up.

I think the match showed that they were about equal, not that really anyone was better.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Well, yes he could have, but he didn't. And Ding simply played better than him and beat him in that game. And in the game before that he passed up chances to play for a win with white for an easy draw.

That's why I think the final game became sort of a microcosm of the match as a whole. Ian's concentration slipped and he was thinking of making a draw, and the match situation, and not the position at hand, and when Ding rejected the draw he was too flabbergasted by it to handle the position whereas Ding just kept calculating.

It was a very tight match, and both players would have deserved it had they won they tie break. But I think overall in decisive moments Ding was just a little bit more collected and concentrated, and that's why he ended up winning.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

It would be fair to say that it was the championship that Nepo lost, not the championship that Ding won. Game 12 was an insane blunder.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

I think these are nothing but quibbles. In the end, the player who makes the least mistakes wins, and that was Ding. Ian had opportunities he didn't take, and so did Ding, but in the end Ding took more of his opportunities than Ian.

In the end, if Ian deserved to win more than Ding, why did Ding win?