World Championship 2018 - Closing Ceremony LIVE

by ChessBase
11/28/2018 – The moment we've all been waiting for! Live games (for Premium members) from the 2018 World Championship match in London. Every two games will be followed by a rest day until Game 12 (if necessary) on November 26th which will be preceded by an additional rest day. All rounds start at 15:00 UT (London time) / 16:00 CEST / 10:00 EST. If needed there would be a rapid tiebreak match on Wednesday, November 28th. | Photos: Patricia Claros

Chess News

ChessBase Account Premium annual subscription ChessBase Account Premium annual subscription

At the airport, in the hotel or at home on your couch: with the new ChessBase you always have access to the whole ChessBase world: the new ChessBase video library, tactics server, opening training App, the live database with eight million games, Let’s Check and web access to


Closing ceremony

Magnus Carlsen won the tiebreak match 3-0 to reclaim the World Championship title. Here the players receive their awards:

All World Championship reports and stories

Final match score


Press conference

Round-up shows

ChessBase commentators break down the day's action in a free live video. The show is available on-demand for replay any time with a ChessBase Premium account.

Click a prior game in the video list to switch


There were be four rapid games in which the players received 25 minutes plus a 10-second bonus per move starting from move 1. 

Live games


Login via the "Chat & Info" box, or in the upper right of the page or at to see live moves!

First 30 minutes of the Tiebreak

Commentary by GM Judit Polgar and IM Anna Rudolf

ChessBase is an official partner of the organiser, World Chess, and ChessBase Premium Membership gives you access to watch the live games, either via your Fritz program on the server or on

ChessBase readers can also get 25% off the official World Chess Premium Broadcast by using this promo code at checkout:


World Chess Premium Subscription Includes:

World Chess logo

  • Official Broadcast
  • Exclusive Live Video from the World Chess Championship
  • Commentary by GM Judit Polgar, IM Anna Rudolf as well as other guests
  • Multi-camera view
  • Advanced chat capabilities
  • 20% of the subscription fee goes to increase the prize fund of players

Game 12 summary

All game summaries

GM Daniel King provides a 5-minute look at the main events of the day:

Click or tap the menu icon in the upper left corner of the player to select additional videos

All games


Schedule and analysis plan

ChessBase will be publishing extensive annotations, both in video and written form with an all-star team of analysts:

Friday 09.11.2018 Game 1 Yannick Pelletier / Jan-Krzysztof Duda
Saturday 10.11.2018 Game 2 Yannick Pelletier / Jan-Krzysztof Duda
Sunday 11.11.2018 Rest day  
Monday 12.11.2018 Game 3 Yannick Pelletier / Jan-Krzysztof Duda
Tuesday 13.11.2018 Game 4 Yannick Pelletier / Michael Adams
Wednesday 14.11.2018 Rest day  
Thursday 15.11.2018 Game 5 Yannick Pelletier / Aryan Tari
Friday 16.11.2018 Game 6 Lawrence Trent / Efstratios Grivas
Saturday 17.11.2018 Rest day  
Sunday 18.11.2018 Game 7 Yannick Pelletier / Daniel Fernandez
Monday 19.11.2018 Game 8 Yannick Pelletier / Wesley So
Tuesday 20.11.2018 Rest day  
Wednesday 21.11.2018 Game 9 Erwin l'Ami / David Navara
Thursday 22.11.2018 Game 10 Erwin l'Ami / Sam Shankland
Friday 23.11.2018 Rest day  
Saturday 24.11.2018 Game 11 Lawrence Trent / Boris Gelfand
Sunday 25.11.2018 Rest day  
Monday 26.11.2018 Game 12 Erwin l'Ami / Wesley So
Tuesday 27.11.2018 Rest day  
Wednesday 28.11.2018 Tiebreak Yannick Pelletier / Daniel Fernandez


Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/27/2018 04:12
@ richard0391:

- "When Wesley said "I think this is one of the best matches in recent years". I think he was talking about an even match."

The full quote from Wesley So is: "I think this is one of the best matches in recent years, in many years. I see a lot of ideas. I know people will be really shocked to hear that!"; I don't see from what you deduce he was "talking about an even match"...

- "I don't think your idea will result to a more exciting match. What you are saying is that the first few games will just be a sparring session and as the match goes near the finish line the challenger has find a way to win while the champion has the option of playing for a draw."

I think that this shows that, simply, we don't agree on what is an interesting match.

In my opinion, the present match was very interesting, chess-wise, but the fact that it ended without a winner (even a winner in a game, not only in the match) is a problem. So, for me, if the match-system would incite at least one of the players to play for a win, I would be completely satisfied.

You must consider that this match was boring.

So, I suppose that the best for us should be to "agree to disagree"!...
richard0391 richard0391 11/27/2018 03:50
@Petrarlsen: I don't think your idea will result to a more exciting match. What you are saying is that the first few games will just be a sparring session and as the match goes near the finish line the challenger has find a way to win while the champion has the option of playing for a draw.

When Wesley said "I think this is one of the best matches in recent years". I think he was talking about an even match.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/27/2018 03:04
@ richard0391:

"You are only talking about the last game in a match. If no one goes ahead then no one's gonna take a risk."

If you take the example of the present match, if there was no playoff and that the Champion would simply keep his title in case of a drawn match, after the 6th game, more or less, each game would have been one step further towards the abyss for Caruana, so it would have been absolutely necessary for him to change his approach. And to wait for the last game for this would have been absolute suicide; at this level, you cannot CHOOSE deliberately to risk all on One Single Game; "no-way"...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/27/2018 02:59
@ klklkl:

- "I don't buy this insistence today that this match has been 'of a very high standard'."

Wesley So, who was not long ago a 2800+ player, said: "I think this is one of the best matches in recent years, in many years" ( I think that he should know one thing or two about the quality of chess games...

And I think that if Carlsen and Caruana had cracked under pressure in three or four games and duly lost, no-one would criticize the quality of the games... and yet, objectively, the games' quality would have been lower than what it has been in the match...

- "Carlsen's cowardice today was disgusting."

Carlsen being 91 points above Caruana in Rapid and 172 points (!!) above him in Blitz, he has objectively EVERY interest to go in the playoff, rather than to take risks in the last classical games, in which his level is more or less the same as Caruana's level. Would you want him to commit hara-kiri just to please you? The problem isn't with the players, who do their best to win with the World Championship system that is given to them, but with the system itself; it isn't a good thing that in some cases, the interest of the players can be to draw their classical games, and then to go to the playoff.
richard0391 richard0391 11/27/2018 02:54
@ Petrarlsen: I don't agree with your logic. You are only talking about the last game in a match. If no one goes ahead then no one's gonna take a risk.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/27/2018 02:30
@ richard0391: "To have exciting games then both players must take the risk to win." I don't agree: in my experience (and I have followed very closely competitve chess for many years), when things go to an absolute "must-win" situation for one player, in general, the games are completely different from games in which a draw would suit quite well both players. And quite interesting.

I remember a game of the 2011 World Cup between Judit Polgar and Leinier Dominguez. It was the second game of the 4th round, and Judit Polgar was in an absolutely desperate situation: having lost the first game with White, she was in a must-win situation against Dominguez, who, being 2719 at the time, was rated higher than her (she was 2699 at this moment). And Judit Polgar managed against all odds to win this game!

And yet, for Leinier Dominguez, a draw would have been completely fine, and, as a 2700+ player, he should normally not have had much problem to force a draw with White... but, nonetheless, Judit Polgar won! (For those who would be interested to see this game, it can be found on this page:

This is only an example, but my general impression is that, when a player must really win, the game is nearly never uninteresting. And is frequently decisive, in one way or another.
Jacob woge Jacob woge 11/27/2018 02:04
If I understood correctly, the prize fund is split in case of a tie in classisal. How about reducing one third? Making it one third each, the last part only to be paid out in case of a winner.

I cannot help but wonder if this twelfth draw, with black shying away from battle, may have had to do with securing financial gain. The responsibility of being a family earner. It’s in the bag, now for the title.
klklkl klklkl 11/27/2018 02:00
I liked Grischuk's suggestion of involving Fischer Random Chess, though instead of replacing classical chess in World Championship matches, perhaps it would make a more suitable tiebreak format, at classical speeds. Perhaps a repeating 2 game overtime period.

I don't buy this insistence today that this match has been 'of a very high standard'. Playing the engine's top choice in lifeless positions is all well and good, but 'high standards' don't show themselves in harmless passages of play, but rather in decisions made in critical moments. Rg3 (and many other winning opportunities in game 1), Qh5, Bxb5 were all missed in this match. Both players have played timidly, struggled when out of prep and in the rare moments when chances have arisen, they've been devoid of a cutting edge. It's an embarrasment to Carlsen that his only memorable piece of work in the entire match was his Karjakinesque defence in game 6. Meanwhile although I agree with Nakamura that Caruana has had the better of all three phases of the games, it is only by tiny degrees, and yet this has been the worst, most disoriented, insecure and flatulent Carlsen I ever remember seeing play. Besides this, in games where he was plucked from his prep, such as today's or game 1, Caruana has not played like a World Champion in waiting.

Even so, I hope Fabiano wins the tiebreaks. Carlsen's cowardice today was disgusting, It was a career-defining moment that should settle definitively the question of whether he is the greatest ever.
richard0391 richard0391 11/27/2018 01:01
@Petrarlsen: In Sunrisek's idea, only the second player is obliged to win whereas the first phase winner only has to draw and win. To have exciting games then both players must take the risk to win.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/27/2018 12:53
@ richard0391: I don't think we are arguing for different things. In my opinion, which makes possible a whole match without any decisive game like the present one is that, objectively, none of the players has a marked interest in winning a game in the "classical time control" part of the match with the present system: "if it isn't in Classical games, then it will be in the Rapids, and if it isn't in the Rapids, it will be in Blitz". Whereas, if an inbalance is introduced (as with, for example, SunriseK's system), one of the players HAS to win at one point, so he will be obliged, at least for certain games, to play for a win.

This because, in my opinion, there wasn't any problems with the contents of the games, in the present match; the games were well-fought and very interesting. The sole problem is that, at one point, the players begin to think more of the playoff than of the match; they don't think that it would be justified to take great risks in the classical games, as a playoff will follow. Whether, if there is NO playoff... then, the players are OBLIGED to try to do something before, or else, one of them will simply lose the match without having tried to do anything and I don't imagine at all a top-player chosing this "strategy"!!
richard0391 richard0391 11/27/2018 12:40
@Petrarlsen: I think we are arguing for different things. I am arguing to make the championship match more exciting and you are arguing for the best chess player to win the crown regardless of how the games are played. So you always disagree. FIDE has it own method of determining the best players to play for the crown. There is no question that currently, Caruana and Carlsen are the top two.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/27/2018 12:21
@ richard0391:

I don't agree with your last post; SunriseK's proposal resembles very much to the present system; the only differences (apart from the number of games, which is a detail; it can be adjusted in either direction) are that the Champion participates in the Candidates, that the Champion participate in the match only if he finishes first or second in the Candidates, and that the Candidates' winner would have the draw odds. Quite small differences, in fact. And if, for example, the Champion wins the Candidates, then the match will be exactly the same that a "normal" World Championship match which would use the "draw odds to the Champion" rule.
richard0391 richard0391 11/26/2018 11:47
@ Petrarlsen: SunriseK's proposal is like a world championships decided in the first phase and immediately having a rematch where the champion has the luxury of playing for draws just to retain the crown. 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.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/26/2018 11:12
@ richardo391:

"I think you did not fully understand my argument which is to discourage risk aversion in games and make championship chess games more exciting."

One can like or not SunriseK's proposal, but it DOES intend to solve this problem: as the draw odds in the "World Championship match" (...using the names I proposed...) would be determined by the results in the "World Championship tournament", there would necessarily be one of the two match participants who couldn't decide to draw all the games, because he would simply lose the match as a result. For example, a game as today's game would be quite impossible as one of the two players would be sure to lose the match in case of a draw...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/26/2018 11:03
@ genem: "It is time to seriously consider having a follow up game after each draw, where the players start the next game with only the amount of time they had remaining at the end of the first game; and so on until there is a nondraw outcome."

The main problem with this would be that, as there are much more than 50 % of draws at the highest level (probably around 70 %), globally, the match results would be essentially decided in accelerated time controls. So, more or less, the classical World Championship would become some sort of a second Rapid (or Blitz) World Championship...

And as I think that many other solutions can be found (and have been proposed), I don't think that this would be something positive...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/26/2018 10:56
@ SunriseK:

By the way, your proposal rather resembles imdvb_8793's own main proposal, the difference being that, in imdvb_8793's system, the Champion would participate in the match in any case, the draw odds being (as in you system) given to the player who would have won the tournament part (be it the Champion or any other participant). (In imdvb_8793's system, the match participants would be: 1) the Champion and 2) either the tournament winner if he isn't the Champion, or, if the Champion won the tournament, the player who finished the tournament on second place.)
richard0391 richard0391 11/26/2018 10:56
@Petrarlsen: I think you did not fully understand my argument which is to discourage risk aversion in games and make championship chess games more exciting. There are already lots of chess matches and round robin tournaments in the world that can determine who the best players are. There is the World Cup which seeds the two best players and other qualifying tournaments and seeding based on ratings. What is not addressed in world chess championship matches is the tendency for players to play it safe rather than taking risk and more exciting games.
Raymond Labelle Raymond Labelle 11/26/2018 10:49
Tiebreaks before classical? Each and every solution to try to determine best classical player otherwise than by classical game necessarily flawed. No escape. Why? Well, because ability in classical is determined by non-classical. Find the error.

In this case. The player who lost the tiebreak has a bigger onus before even beginning the classical match. Having to take more risks, he is more exposed to losing. We do not know if he would have had a different result had he that onus to start with. And that onus is attributable to non-classical games...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/26/2018 10:46
@ SunriseK: I think that your proposal is globally coherent.

But I don't understand why the match between the two first players of the tournament part of your system would be so short? In effect, it would exactly play the same role as the World Championship match of the present system, so I would much rather propose to make it longer, and not shorter; probably 16 or 18 games, in accordance with what Carlsen suggested.

And I would suggest having 10 players (including the Champion) instead of 8 in the tournament part (for a total of 18 games instead of 14), because 1) with the Champion participating in the tournament, there would be in effect one participant less, in comparison to the present system, and because 2) as this system could directly eliminate the Champion in the tournament phase, I think that a slightly greater number of games would be positive.

And I would suggest calling the tournament "World Championship tournament" and the match "World Championship match".
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/26/2018 10:36
@ richardo391: I think that you didn't understand fully SunriseK's proposal; in short, what he proposes is to make the Champion participate in the Candidates (which would have to be renamed - perhaps World Championship tournament?), and then to make the two best players in the "World Championship tournament" (ex-Candidates) play the World Championship match (reduced to 6 games).
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/26/2018 10:30
@ roheugel: I don't think at all that Kramnik is the author of this idea; to the best of my belief, the first to have proposed this was Sutovsky.
Pichy59 Pichy59 11/26/2018 10:20
Some people believe that for a Championship title match to be great there has to be a few wins, but remember that most of the wins happened because one of the player fail to see mate in 7 or 9 or because one of the player blunder. In this match there has NOT been any major blunders or missed mate in X thru 9 etc... Therefore since both players had played a great match so far we see 12 draw games so far. But GM Carlsen should had continue and get GM Caruana in time trouble.
rohuegel rohuegel 11/26/2018 10:15
I like the suggestion, due I think to Vladimir Kramnik, that the tiebreak match be played BEFORE the classical match begins. Obviously, someone will lose and that someone will have to take risks to really play for a win in the classical match. Kramnik's point is that this is the only way to get players to take more risks and to avoid this kind of result.
Raymond Labelle Raymond Labelle 11/26/2018 10:04
When you have an equal result after a match between two players in classical time control, who is the best player in classical time control?

Each proposed solution to resolve that problem cannot not be flawed in a way or another. Nobody's fault: this is inherent to the problem. And the weight of how a solution is felt inconvenient or not as compared to another is greatly subjective.

What if we question the assumption that we must exclude co-championship?

What if, in the case of an equal result after the classical games, both challenger and champion are declared co-champions? Equal result in one precise thing – equal title in that same thing – that sounds logical.

When this happens, the next champion would be the one who wins what would otherwise have been the Candidates' tournament, with the co-champions having a pass to participate to that tournament.

Not sharing the title, and losing the privilege to necessarily participate in a two-person' match for the next title (a chance on two is better than a chance on eight) are strong enough incentives to try to win the title without sharing…
richard0391 richard0391 11/26/2018 09:45
@Sunrisek your proposal for a round robin championships has been done before and was never repeated. If a chess game is treated like a boxing match with a decision each round favoring the aggressive and risk rater then a computer can be beaten in a chess match. Like yours, this is my humble opinion.
SunriseK SunriseK 11/26/2018 09:15
I have no problems with those 12 draws, because draw is a fundamental element of the chess game (if one doesn't like this fact, he should quit watching or playing chess and head instead for e.g. basketball, baseball or similar non-drawing games/sports) and because they were 11 fighting draws (apart today!). But the big problem is that it's becoming increasing difficult for such super accurate (and very resilient!) guys to outplay the opponent, even when they have a clear edge.

So I have a humble proposal to revive things and get a more exciting future WCC: 1) to play first a double round robin tournament between 7 best Candidates plus the World Champion himself; 2) the winner A of this first phase (determined by points or Sonnerborn - Berger or direct results; in this order, like a normal round robin) plays a mini - match (say 6 classical games for example) with the 2nd ranked player B from the first phase; 2 bis) A should also have the right to choose if he wants to start playing White or Black in the first game of the second phase; then of course they will alternate colours. 3) in case A and B are still tied at the end of the second phase, the player A will get the title!

This way you could also avoid to play rapid, then blitz, then armageddon...
richard0391 richard0391 11/26/2018 08:36
Chess matches should be decisive. I prefer that each chess match game be like a boxing round. Each round should be decided by a panel of judges if the game ends in a draw. In this way the aggressor and the risk taker will have a better chance of winning. You can't have a sport played in a month without having a winner. After all, sports is an entertainment.
Raymond Labelle Raymond Labelle 11/26/2018 08:23
In the majority of the games of this match both players tried to win and the majority of the games were of an extremely high level.

It is not that easy to beat Carlsen or Caruana, even if you are Carlsen or Caruana. You try...

It is not because all the games resulted in draws that this was the intent of the players.

When player A intends to win, the objective that player A wins is not necessarily shared by his opponent, who will not necessarily cooperate. Big news....

I must admit however that I do not understand why Magnus offered a draw in Game 12: slight position advantage, those we think Magnus likes, significant clock advantage, game still quite alive. He must have his reasons - related to that game only and the results attained at that stage of the match. The question will probably be asked in the press conference.

But I do understand why Fabiano accepted the offer...
macauley macauley 11/26/2018 08:09
@lwquig - Sounds like a browser cache issue. I would try logging in from within the chat window in the game viewer or else from Should work. Contact support from the main link in the menu ( if you're still having trouble.
AIekhine AIekhine 11/26/2018 08:06
I know it is too late for this but I would prefer to take a page from 1980s history and suspend the match. Give them four weeks of rest. Then start again with 12 more classical games (for a total of 24 of course) with Carlsen retaining the title if the match is drawn.
romualdo romualdo 11/26/2018 07:49
It is hard being right. That´s the case and anyone was able to foressen how should be the behaviour of the players, Playing to drawn all the classical games and decide world chess championship in rapid or blitz games. Sad ! Both champion and challenger have performed a shame for chess fans, a waste of time and money for who believed paying to watch them in live broadcasts supposed to see great games, great moves. The only " Premium " earned were the one each player will get after the shame "match" an who charged chess fans to watch these guys.
genem genem 11/26/2018 07:28
There was action on the chessboard during this match. Yet there is no substitute for action on the scoreboard. This Match World Chess Championship match had zero action on the scoreboard, which is not okay. // It is time to seriously consider having a follow up game after each draw, where the players start the next game with only the amount of time they had remaining at the end of the first game; and so on until there is a nondraw outcome.
lwquig lwquig 11/26/2018 06:54
It won't let me on. Says I need a premium nembership. I HAVE A PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP!
Guess I'll go to the Guardian site where they don't harass me or lie to me.
sodacat sodacat 11/26/2018 01:06
Rapid or blitz games are no way to decide a world championship. A better solution would be the introduction of a rule after twelve tied games that the players cannot play the same first move that they have used in any previous game in the match and whoever wins the next game wins the match.
imdvb_8793 imdvb_8793 11/25/2018 08:40
Apart from my own proposal (which I first made two years ago, and which I will only restate briefly: the champion also plays in Candidates, if he wants to have a chance at gaining draw odds in the upcoming match, and fight for the top prize in the Candidates, the new challenger is determined by whoever finishes first among the other seven in the event, with the champion's results either counting towards that or not - either way seems fine to me, but some might have a preference for one or the other -, and draw odds in the match then go to the first place finisher among all eight participants, whoever that is, be it the champion or the newly minted challenger, and if there is a tie, rapid/blitz tie-breaks can be played there, thus not affecting the actual match), playing the tie-breaks before the classical match (I don't know, maybe even a month or two before, or whatever, to give the players time to readjust and decompress after that part of the championship, and get out of rapid mode, should they need an adjustment period) to determine who gets draw odds still seems by far the most logical and fair solution to me.

In any case, only solutions involving some sort of draw odds seem completely adequate to me. Classical is just too different from rapid and especially blitz, and we already have separate championships for the last two. There's no need to let them decide the classical champion as well. This is hugely inappropriate especially since we're getting an equal score in MOST MATCHES these days. Since 2004, assuming Carlsen-Caruana is also tied, 5/9 matches, so the majority, will have ended in equality in classical. With the players usually being so evenly matched, we may well get to the point where the classical champion will almost always end up being whoever is stronger in rapid or blitz, and this simply cannot be right. Even playing 'first to 3 wins', 12 games at a time, with a month of break in-between, until decided, might work... Anything but this.
mofai mofai 11/25/2018 04:52
It's still not clear, how to watch the official live streaming via chessbase premium account?
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/25/2018 04:36
@ lajosarpad:

- "Here Petrarlsen uses the fact that this was already in use before as a premise and not as an argument. The premise is a part of an argument, not the whole argument. Yet, you respond to the premise, ignoring the most relevant part of the argument, the conclusion, also, you categorize the premise as if it was the whole argument. The starting point was that this was already used. By this - in my opinion - Petrarlsen really meant to show that we have factual knowledge. As about the factual knowledge we have he summarized that this seems to be liked by most commentators. So, Petrarlsen is essentially telling us that the given system has a noticeable support, which would be improbable if it was not working."

I completely agree!

- "Please take a look at

fgkdjlkag has given us some "interesting" answers."

ddp1 ddp1 11/25/2018 02:06
While the draw advantage for the defending champion might seem fair in the very long run, it is not fair for the specific match, because it is based on a condition in the past that may no longer be valid. Moreover that condition is also irrelevant to the current match and out of its context.

My suggestion would be to keep playing till one has won 2 more games than the other.
Not just one. That way the side losing can have a chance to recover from a blunder.
A minimum number of games can be guaranteed if that is what is agreed between the organizers and the players. These players know better than me if they need a min number of games for it to work.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 11/25/2018 11:31

Please take a look at

fgkdjlkag has given us some "interesting" answers.
romualdo romualdo 11/25/2018 11:30
It is completely clear that the current match system is wrong since many years. Boring games between two books, one with the champion and other with the challenger, drawing games and wasting our time. No more discussion. Current champion keeps the title if a match with 12 games ends draw ( he have earned this advantage ). Challenger needs win it. That´s all an no more bullshits !