@ charlsethegreat:

For me, a draw can be quite as interesting as win, so I don't consider at all that it would be an improvement to have a decisive result each day (but, obviously, I also consider that changes in the World Championship system should be maid to - more or less - ensure that there would be at least SOME decisive results so as the title would be decided in classical games; as I already wrote it elsewhere, several systems would very likely allow this as SunriseK's system - on this page -, the system that I devised myself - cf. https://en.chessbase.com/post/world-championship-out-of-the-box/2#discuss -, or, very simply, to use once more the "draw odds to the Champion" rule).

To make the world championship more exciting , every draw in a world championship game must be followed by rapids , then blitz, then armageddon till a decisive result is obtained. This then repeats for each of the 12 classical games. Has this been proposed before ? It would bring a lot of tension and more viewers I think.

@ SunriseK:

The problem with the 2005 and 2007 World Championship tournaments was that the winner of the tournament was declared outright the World Champion.

Which wouldn't be the case with your system, as the tournament part would only determine: 1) the two match participants and: 2) the match participant who would benefit from the draw odds.

So the reasons for which these 2005 and 2007 World Championships were criticized wouldn't apply to your system.

@richardo391, who wrote <The first phase is like the FIDE World Championship where Topalov won the crown. This championship tournament was never repeated again and there is a reason why it never happened again.>

I frankly don't see such a reason: that World Championship Tournament was played in 2005 and in that period Topalov was very very strong, so he deservedly won that tournament (6 wins and 8 draws, with no defeats!), ahead of a very strong pack (in ranking order: Anand, Svidler, Morozevich, Leko, Kasimdzhanov, Adams and Judith Polgar). By the way, in 2005 Kramnik gave forfait (like Fischer, LOL) and so in my opinion Topalov should be considered the legitimate reunited World Champion for 2005, contrary to common opinion.
Anyway, if "my rules" would have been in effect, he would have had to play a subsequent World Championship Match with the 2nd ranked player of the tournament, i.e. Anand. De facto, those 2 players really had a match in 2010, which Anand deservedly won with 3 victories vs 2 (and 7 draws). So probably Anand would have also won a possible 2005 match with Topalov (against Topalov's draw odds given by "my system").
Consider also that such World Championship Tournament was even repeated (contrary to what you said!) 2 years later, in 2007. And it was deservedly won by Anand (4 wins, 10 draws, no defeats!), ahead of Kramnik, Gelfand, Leko, Svidler, Morozevich, Aronian, Grischuk in the ranking order), and (how surprisingly!) again Anand and Kramnik (1st and 2nd ranked players of the tournament, like if my rules were in effect) had in 2008 a World Championship Match who was deservedly won by Anand, with 3 wins vs 1 (and 7 draws).
Thus, in a certain sense, my rules already had been used two times (LOL!) and it seems they worked very well. ;-)

However, I don't pretend my system is the best; so if you have concrete and detailed better rules, I will be glad to read them from you.

"the rules are crystal clear and raising any doubt as to Carlsen's justified retention of the World Championship title is completely futile."

Of course it's justified. :) But it's WAY unconvincing... He's classical champion on a technicality, nothing more. Same as Botvinnik in 1951 and 1954. If he wanted to prove he was a deserving classical champion, he should have tried to win that last game. And even he admitted at the press conference that Fabiano also has every right to consider himself the co-best classical player in the world. (Or something to that effect - I don't remember the exact wording, but the video is out there for all to see.) For which he deserves praise, even though he's generally unnecessarily arrogant and not particularly nice. If he was more like this more often, instead, I could maybe start rooting for him. My respect for his skill has certainly grown, even as said skill has clearly declined over the last 2-3 years - simply through my better understanding his strengths. But it's impossible for me to ever actually root for him as long as he acts like a spoiled child.

"Carlsen has done better than (the more-or-less legendary) Botvinnik in this regard."

Baaarely... And let's see if he also regains his title twice once he loses it, before making final assessments! (Not saying he necessarily won't, even though I doubt it. He might...)

"Probaby rather a good sign for Carlsen; people wouldn't use so much energy to discredit him if he was just the next-door patzer..."

But he doesn't have to be the best ever to elicit this kind of reaction, either... :) (And he's not.)

"Now, bbrodinsky, that just doesn't make sense, when you consider that Carlsen has dominated chess in pretty much all formats for years now."

Not in classical... Not for the last 2-3 years. Definitely nowhere near dominating. Probably not even the actual best. Think about it: 2 years ago, Carlsen had 30 rating points more than Caruana. Now he has 3. Logically (I don't know if this checks out, and I'm too lazy right now to do the research, but it clearly should), this would mean that Carlsen has had a worse absolute rating performance over the last 24 months than Fabiano. (And there might be other players who have also had a better rating performance in classical than Carlsen in this time span.) So, if anybody has been dominant, it's definitely not been Carlsen... (But, of course, nobody has been dominant.)

In my view it would be better to organize a WC tournament with the best 10 players. Chances for someone like Caruana to win would be better. The games would be more intersting, Now we witnessed a boring drawish duel.

Not likeable? To whom? This is just ridiculous. Was Fischer likeable? Was he the best? Of course. We are talking about professional sportsmen here, not showmen. (And I personally have nothing against Magnus' personality. When playing soccer, he is a proper team player. In his interviews, he refuses to be hypocritical and pretend he is happy when he is really annoyed. Any problem with that?) I wouldn't have minded a new World Champion and Caruana is one great guy, but the challenger is the one that has to prove himself, not the incumbent. (It's the same as with world records. Getting the same distance in discus is simply not enough to be the new world record holder.)

It's not so much that Carlsen played cynically, made this one of the msot boring WC matches ever and took a big fat dump on classical chess because he figured tiebreaks would be his best chance of winning - he was obviously right about that. He didn't decide the format - FIDE should be criticized for allowing the WC to be decided in rapid/blitz games, not the player who took advantage of it.

The big problem with Carlsen as WC and the no. 1 ambassador for the game is that, unlike Caruana, Mamedyarov or Ding, he's just not a likeable person. Which is not something you can learn.

ssakom, please try again, will you? This just makes very little sense even if one makes an effort and deciphers the occult syntax. How, for instance, would 3 points for a win change the progress of a duel setup? How was Carlsen more "non-combative" than Caruana? Since when should a champion, rather than his challenger, prove their rightful claim to the "throne"? You have to admit that haters gonna hate. I would have preferred a clean victory of at least +1 =11 in the classical time-control games (for either party), but the rules are crystal clear and raising any doubt as to Carlsen's justified retention of the World Championship title is completely futile.

Botvinnik never won a WC match as defending world champion! He drew matches against Bronstein and Smyslov, then lost to Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian.

Carlsen has done better than (the more-or-less legendary) Botvinnik in this regard.

yeah this is a joke-if this is gonna be the REAL world championship which is classical then keep it that way. No more speed chess because they already have that as a champion. Not interested in chess I told u this was all overrated and now Magnus is smart-he knows how to save his title-he lessoned his legacy with this type of format-

Congratulations Magnus and Happy Birthday! You are the undisputed World Champion indeed and you have shown the importance of Rapid and Blitz preparations for all the chess players at all times. How about a ten game World Championship match and then ten game Rapid and 20 game Blitz tie breaks next time? These shorter time controls are the most exciting in all formats.

Carlsen is #1 rated player in classical, rapid, and blitz. To say he doesn't deserve to be champion because he wins within the rules set down by FIDE is ridiculous. I have more issues with Fabiano not taking more risks in the classical time controls when he knows they are not equals in shorter time limits. I don't like the rules either and there should be 18-20 classical games played, so that the players feel they can take more risks and be able to come back from a loss.
I don't blame Carlsen for knowing his strengths and playing it smart and remaining World Champion (the goal). They both played by the same rules.

Congratulation to Magnus Carlsen as again the World Rapid Champion

Carlsen did not fail at all. The rules are fully understood by both players going into this match.
Carlsen is already (and has maintained) the world champion.
If any one failed here it is Caruana, it is up to him To Beat Carlsen, the onus is on Caruana to Become world champion by beating the world champion. He failed to do so. Carlsen playing the way he did was pure sport. He thrawted his opponent using every means available. Bravo Carlsen. Both these players played on the same field.

Carlsen hasn't beaten a challenger at classical chess since the second Anand match. This has to stop.

No more rapid and blitz tiebreaks. They should continue playing classical games until there's a winner. No limit on number of games but--unlike the 1984 marathon match--no minimum number of wins. Just one win is all it would take. Let's have a clear classical champion.

@Petrarlsen I cannot agree more with you.The legacy of Carlsen as a classical world champion will always remain questionable. So far he has failed to beat Karjakin and Caruana both of who are his contemporaries within a classical contest.

Rapid games were one sided. No resistance from Caruana, lost like Amateur.
Cangratulations Carlsen for retaining title again.

@ dumkof: "We have 2 classical world champions now (...)"

I wouldn't go that far.

The rules are bad, but we can't criticize the players to play with the rules that are given to them; the current system is what it is; Carlsen won with this system; he is the Champion.

But I very much hope that this trend to have the World Championship matches decided in Rapid games will quickly encourage FIDE to suppress these Rapid and Blitz playoffs (...as FIDE just scrapped the absurd Women World Championship system that was used until this year, we can perhaps hope that things could go in the right direction...).

"Magnus forfeits his best ever claim (if he ever had a valid one). He slunk, backed into winning the Candidates tourney, then beats an over-the-hill Anand twice. Can't beat the next 2 guys in regular chess, barely even tries. Intentionally heads for rapids. Has to win in speed chess. Lacks chess courage at crucial points. He's no Kasparov, that's for sure. Don't even mention those 2 in the same sentence henceforth." (bbrodinsky)

If this isn't a pure anti-Carlsen rant which doesn't even try to hide what it is, I wonder what could be...

Probaby rather a good sign for Carlsen; people wouldn't use so much energy to discredit him if he was just the next-door patzer...

Congratulations to both Caruana and Carlsen for winning the classical chess championship together, with equal scores. We have 2 classical world champions now, with even scores and even ratings.

An additional congratulations to Carlsen for winning the second rapid mini-match convincingly.

I realise that organisers/sponsors may balk at the idea, but extending the match to 18 or 24 games would probably obviate the need for play-off, and even encourage more adventurous or innovative chess.
Although there were some memorable games in the classical section, I can't help thinking that all they've done is crown the world's best rapids player.

This feels like a Grischuk, where Carlsen just waited through the classical games and went for it where he knew he had a clear advantage. Faster chess is exciting for us fans, but the games just aren't of the same quality. I do not think this is the right way to decide the world champion of classical chess. Now, bbrodinsky, that just doesn't make sense, when you consider that Carlsen has dominated chess in pretty much all formats for years now.

Magnus forfeits his best ever claim (if he ever had a valid one). He slunk, backed into winning the Candidates tourney, then beats an over-the-hill Anand twice. Can't beat the next 2 guys in regular chess, barely even tries. Intentionally heads for rapids. Has to win in speed chess. Lacks chess courage at crucial points. He's no Kasparov, that's for sure. Don't even mention those 2 in the same sentence henceforth.

Congrats to the World Speed Chess Champion..and Co-winner of the Worlds's Chess Championship.
Marathon runners do poorly against 200 yard sprinters and sprinters do poorly against 5 mile runners. The two should not mix.

I don't have a problem with the outcome. The goal was to find the world's best. They couldn't be separated after 12 classical games, so they did a playoff under faster conditions, and there Magnus showed he was better. Certainly a far fairer outcome than deciding a soccer World Cup on penalties.

I don't accept that Magnus was aiming for the playoff all along. He was in the last game, but that is all. And Magnus had easily the best winning chance (as a human, not by computer evaluation) in Game 1.

But they've got to look at longer matches in the future. 12 games was even shorter than the Candidates.

@ Ajeeb007: In my opinion, the numbers are quite crystal-clear about the situation: at his peak (May 2014), Carlsen was 2882, with a 67-points gap with the World n° 2, this gap being the same as the gap between the World n° 2 and the World n° 17 at the time (https://ratings.fide.com/toparc.phtml?cod=305).

Today, yes, he is still World n° 1, but with only a 3-points margin with the World n° 2; and the 67 points gap he had with the World n° 2 in May 2014 would be, today, the equivalent of the gap between Carlsen and the World n° 10.

So, in my opinion, this shows that Carslen has been a very dominant player, but that, today, as you said, he is only "the best among equals".

The most pathetic world championship in the history of chess.

It is not often that a caliber of Caruana will lose in chess….it is a privilege. The long and winding road to play-off is wearying, has taken its toll…physically and mentally. At his best, Caruana, could have given Carlsen the run of the money. Carlsen is especially energized, awaken, by the remarks of Kasparov and Kramnik. Congratulation, world chess champion Carlsen!!!,

"Great chess great fights" - which match did this fellow watch? Kramnik and Kasparov were right to criticize as they did. There are no perfect players. Carlsen took a very practical approach for someone simply wanting to retain the title at all costs, he played holding the draw in hand most games while inching towards his strong suit in the rapid chess arena (a different game from classical). This isn't the mark of a champion. Carlsen couldn't beat Karjakin and now he failed to beat Caruana in classical chess. He's not the best. He is, as Botvinnik put it years ago, a first among equals.

The starting position of chess is probably a theoretical draw.

1) If that's correct, a game of chess between two "perfect" chessplayers will allways be a draw.
2) You can't win a game of chess by playing brilliantly. To win a game of chess, your opponent has to blunder (to make a move that turns a drawn position into a lost position).
3) The better the players are, the less likely they are to blunder.
4) The best chessplayers of today (both Carlsen and Caruana) are very close to "perfect" chessplayers. Their rate of blunder is very very low.
5) The longer the time control, the lower the blunder rate will be.
6) I expect the top chess players to increase their playing strength year by year, which means that at the very top level, the blunder rate will decrease and drawing rate will increase.
7) So, if you want a WCC-match with several decisive games, the time control have to be reduced, since this will inevitably increase the blunder rate.

All meditations on format in case of a tie have to face three big hurdles:

- An incentive to win makes a win correspondingly as damaging for the loser in a relative manner, chess being a zero-sum game - hence, no win incentive can resolve the fear to lose and the incentive to play prudently.

- To resolve classical ability by non-classical tiebreak games poses a legitimacy issue - this is classical chess championship, not rapid or blitz championship.

- To decree a default rule when a result is equal is unfair (after all, both players did have an equal result).

More games may diminish the probability of a tie result, but does not eliminate it - and we cannot prolong too much - this is chess, not a physical marathon. But 18 may still be OK.

In case of equal result, why not question the assumption that having co-champions is not possible?

When this happens, the next champion would be the winner of what otherwise would have been the Candidates' tournament winner, to which the co-champions would have a pass.

Sharing the title and having to defend the title against 7 persons instead of 1 next time is a sufficient incentive to win alone the championship, for those who insist for having an incentive to win.

An absolutely disgusting way for the classical WCC to end two cycles in a row. Even more so this time after Carlsen offered his now infamous draw in game 12 from a clearly better position.

FIDE needs to completely rethink the WCC format. I suggest going back to a 24 game match. If its tied at 24, the champion keeps his title. If you must have a tiebreak, make it in sets of four games timed at G-90 with NO increment or delay. Play two games per day, no rest days until the match is decided by one payer winning a four game set. Have them play one set after the other with no rest days between four game sets. Let separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls.

@ decredico:

Oh; I thought that you didn't like at all World Championship matches ?!?!?

You wrote:

"Chess should go the route of other big money sports like Tennis and Golf and get rid of the World Championship because it's a joke. It's nothing more than a circle jerk at this stage.

Carlsen is correct that being the #1 raked player is a more significant achievement.

Dumping this farce would be seriously beneficial. If one cannot on their own accord see how and why then no explanation would get through that ignorance .... so none will be supplied." (https://en.chessbase.com/post/world-ch-preparation-counterpunch; post "11/11/2018 06:48")

For you, it doesn't seem to take long to change your opinions; less than a month: that's not bad for a beginning!...

All the games of this match were full of tension and exciting, with the only exception of game 11. Even game 12 was, despite its troubling premature ending.

Glad that football fans don't complain so much about penalties as chess players complain about shorter time controls...
Anyway, some suggestions:
more games (18) with slightly shorter time controls,
play the tie break first or decide for a winer in case of equal result before the standard games,
consider to give a half win to the player that stalemates his opponent (so many easy drawn endings will be fighting games until the end to decide if it is clear draw or half win)

michaelriber 10 minutes ago
"This match has been the worst possible "advertisement" for the game. In every conceivable way. Something really needs to change."

NONSENSE

Yes, what needs to change s people like you and the other cry babies that cannot adapt t the modern world.

This was the most viewed chess match in the history of the world, you fool.