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

romualdo romualdo 11/25/2018 11:29
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 !
Denix Denix 11/25/2018 11:08
Pichy59 Pichy59 11/25/2018 10:20
The lowest ranked player to ever compete for the World Championship was Boris Gelfand. Gelfand was currently ranked 20th in the world; over the past decade he has averaged approximately 13th in the world (FIDE rankings). Nowadays it would be very hard for a 2700 player to qualify when the best 15 players above Karjakin are rated over 2750 competing to Qualify.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 11/25/2018 10:04

Let's see the comment of Petrarlsen where you have "found" a "terrible argument":

"And it would also be a good thing - as many people already expressed it - to restore the "draw odds to the Champion" rule: it is very simple, would ensure that there would ALWAYS be a player who would really need to win, was used for years and years (for example, all the Kasparov - Karpov matches used it - apart from their first match), and seems to be liked by most commentators. Why would it be necessary to search complicated solutions, when a quite simple one would more or less necessarily work? "

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.

As about the other argument, which pointed out that there will always be a player who really needs to win you reacted sarcastically with:

"just give one an advantage before the match begins"

We are not "giving" an advantage. The advantage is "earned". And if the challenger wins a match against the champion who had draw odds, then next time the new world champion will have draw odds (because he earned it) against the challenger, who might happen to be the former world champion.


Can you explain how would a 3 points for a win, 0.5 for a draw increase the incentive to fight in a 20 games championship?
Pichy59 Pichy59 11/25/2018 09:51
20, or even 30 years from now, you can say to your children or grandchildren unless FIDE decides to have another rating inflation, that you watched on the computer the World Chess Championship with the two highest rated players ever if you take into consideration that GM Carlsen reached at one point 2889.2 and GM Caruana 2851.3. I know that GM Kasparov reached a higher rating than GM Caruana, but when he played versus the other Opponents for the title their combined ratings was not as high as in this match. At the moment GM Caruana is at the same level of GM Carlsen if they take .15 rating of a point from Carlsen for every draw 11 in total. Both players should be around 2833.1
Pichy59 Pichy59 11/25/2018 09:37
Men in chess make about 4 times more than Women in Chess, lets compare the Men's World chess Championship in London prize. There is a $677,000 prize for the winner, while the loser will walk away with $451, 000. Both players will also split 20% per cent of digital Pay-Per-View tickets. And I do NOT have to give you the figure that GM Ju got since you all know that. Now if they create a 2nd category World Championship for all players between 2500- 2700, Women, Boys Teenagers, Older players well whoever is between 2500- 2700, there will be more followers and the prize will increase, since the interest in watching young rising players from 16 thru 17 years all over the World will create a huge amount of fans. If you believe that it will not be interesting you might be judging wrong, because at the highest level ( GM carlsen-GM Caruana) 99.8 per cent of the World do NOT have a clue of the high level of Tactics unless they have Komodo, or SF and a computer.
ssakom ssakom 11/25/2018 08:42
A 20 games championship and 3 points for a win, 0,5 for a draw, 0 for a loss, and reactive the "Prix de Beauté" with a lot of money for each one!
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/25/2018 06:20
@ fgkdjlkag:

"(...) that something has been used "for years and years" is a terrible argument and has been used to justify all kinds of atrocities in history."

It isn't only that it has been used "for years and years", but that it was used for years and years AND that it works... and you know this perfectly well... (The four Karpov / Kasparov matches which used this system - their infamous 1984 match was their only match not using this system... - are quite a good testimony of this...)

No use to begin this argument one more time as we already discussed this at full length on this page:

And you don't seem to have convinced many followers; you seem to be more or less the sole opponent to this system on ChessBase...
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 11/25/2018 05:29
@Petrarlsen, that something has been used "for years and years" is a terrible argument and has been used to justify all kinds of atrocities in history.
Statement: there would "ALWAYS be a player who would really need to win" with a draw odds system
Translation: We admit that if both players were treated equally, there might not be a winner, so let's just give one an advantage before the match begins.
I propose we start the champion with 0.5 points while keeping the 12-game match. The advantage is that it would ensure that there would ALWAYS be a player who would really need to win.

@Offramp, the tiebreaks in effect has the same outcome as your proposal - by decreasing the time the players have to think, it increases the error rate. Is that really what we want? To reduce the quality of chess only to force a decisive outcome?

One change that almost everyone agrees with is to extend the match beyond 12 games. While it is an improvement, it does not fundamentally solve the problem that it is always possible to have a tie after a match with an even number of games.
jsaldea12 jsaldea12 11/25/2018 05:06
If there is playoff, it would be good for TVs
jsaldea12 jsaldea12 11/25/2018 01:43
I think this is one of the best matches in recent years, in many years," he said. "I see a lot of ideas. I know people will be really shocked to hear that!" (GM So)

With just one classical game remaining, the chances are high that we'll see a playoff. Here are the regulations:

Playoff regulations

If the scores are level after the regular 12 games, four tie-break games will be played. These are rapid games with 25 minutes for each player with an increment of 10 seconds after each move.
If it's still equal, two blitz games will be played (5 minutes plus 3 seconds increment). If it's still equal, a second pair of two blitz games will be played. If there is still no winner after five such matches, one sudden-death game will be played.

But the law of success and failure is operating: He who is at the top too long will go down and he who is below will rise up. Just keep cool and play.
amarpan amarpan 11/25/2018 12:36
Its so nice to hear Daniel King speak. I am glad that the organizers appointed him as the mediator for the press conferences. I am also glad that Nigel Short is keeping away and keeping quite.
englishplayer englishplayer 11/25/2018 12:31
Kbala, How much time did the old champions get on the clock? Increments added?
kbala kbala 11/25/2018 12:27
@lajosarpad Yes. 24 games. If it is a draw, old champion retains the title. Already proven concept. End of story.
englishplayer englishplayer 11/25/2018 12:25
What were the time limits for championship matches back when Capablanca and Alekhine were champions?
AIekhine AIekhine 11/24/2018 11:48
I like what Petrarlsen wrote but I'll suggest 24 games and draw odds for the champion. (I don't think this is original on my part.)
Raymond Labelle Raymond Labelle 11/24/2018 11:44
" If it is drawn at 6-6, does it make sense to use rapid, blitz, and Armageddon to decide the winner of the "classical" world chess championship? If they went with Wallac's suggestion of the champion retaining the title after 6-6, does it make sense that Carlsen could not even demonstrate he is the superior classical player and yet he gets to keep his title? " fgkdjlkag

Good questions, on which I was silent on this page. That poses well some real problems. Only remains to find the solution(s).

Maybe to prolong a bit to 18 games, let's say, as mentioned by Petrarlsen, quoting Carlsen himself, would permit the players to take more risks.

The dilemma that I cannot resolve and that I did not see anyone resolve: if you arrange a formula by which a win is more significant, this proportionally, in exactly the same proportion, makes a loss more significant. Hence, no formula for encouraging to win would incite to fear less a loss and hence, incite less to prudence.
adbennet adbennet 11/24/2018 11:42
World Championship format should be decided by a committee solely composed of current and former world champions. Such a committee would by its nature be: conservative, evolving, knowledgeable, unbiased, respected.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/24/2018 10:53
And it would also be a good thing - as many people already expressed it - to restore the "draw odds to the Champion" rule: it is very simple, would ensure that there would ALWAYS be a player who would really need to win, was used for years and years (for example, all the Kasparov - Karpov matches used it - apart from their first match), and seems to be liked by most commentators. Why would it be necessary to search complicated solutions, when a quite simple one would more or less necessarily work?
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 11/24/2018 10:48
In my opinion, the best solution is to have a 16 or 18-games match. Carlsen himself said (in the press conferences) that he thought it would be a good solution, and that it would permit the players to take more risks.

As for the increment, I think that to keep it is a good thing; in my opinion, serious blunders really mar the games, and, without increment, extreme time troubles are always possible, which will nearly inevitably give rise to serious blunders, and I don't think that this would improve chess... I prefer to see, for example, a game like the 10th game of this match end into a draw, rather as it being decided by a big time pressure blunder; the global quality of the game would decrease considerably in this case, its interest following the same direction...
ArtfulPatzer ArtfulPatzer 11/24/2018 08:15
It is pretty obvious that something has to be done about "draws" because this is beyond boring and it will ultimately have a negative impact on sponsorship and funding (if it hasn't already).
SambalOelek SambalOelek 11/24/2018 08:15
Is the level of the players so high that chess is now reaching it's limits? Draw chances are close to 100% in most games..
Probably chess has been played out?
Black and White play at the best level there is, and the logical outcome is a draw.
Hopefully not the end and demise of chess...:(
tom_70 tom_70 11/24/2018 07:50
One thing is obvious. Carlsen certainly isn't the high wire act he was a few years ago. Still probably better than Caruana and the rest, but not demigod status anymore.
ssakom ssakom 11/24/2018 06:54
That's a dull parody of chess!
geraldsky geraldsky 11/24/2018 06:29
In game 11 why they keep moving it's already clear draw?
geraldsky geraldsky 11/24/2018 06:01
Carlsen is likeA beginner. Does he know it's already a draw? or he just want to play on until it become K vs. K?
geraldsky geraldsky 11/24/2018 04:53
Let Caruana win in the 12th game
Offramp Offramp 11/24/2018 02:59
I think a simple solution is to have either no increment for the first 40 moves or only a short one, say 5 seconds.
The total lack of time trouble is producing error-free chess which is good to look at, but you'll never get a result without an error.

And these days, who needs 5 hours for 40 moves? Modern day life is quicker and the players are better than ever before.

So my lime limit would be:

40 moves in 100 minutes with no increment, then 40 minutes for the next 20 moves with a 10-second increment, then 15 minutes for the rest of the game.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 11/23/2018 10:46
@Peter B

Even best of 16 would be an improvement.
Pichy59 Pichy59 11/23/2018 08:44
Instead of deciding the title with Rapid or even Blitz after tie at the end of 12 games, they should instead play at 30 second per move no increment and if they run out of time and do not move within 30 seconds then they lose that game and that is sufficient time to male every single move.
Peter B Peter B 11/23/2018 05:59
Now after Game 10, we will almost certainly have a WC match with at most 1 decisive game. Surely the match needs to be longer next time. I can't see 24 game matches returning, but best of 16 should be feasible. A 12 game match is shorter than the Candidates Final!
jsaldea12 jsaldea12 11/23/2018 12:27
Both are now fighting, thrilling 10th round! but , just n case, this championship is heading for 11 classical draws, this modified play-off with enough time, (not rapid, blitz, bullet), is reiterated:
(a) 30 minutes each player for two games, if drawn
(b) 20 minutes each player for two games, if drawn
(c) 10 minutes each player for two games, if drawn, only but only then Carlsen can retain the crown
Masquer Masquer 11/22/2018 11:29
Blitz and bullet time controls should never decide a classical WC. Let them play a rapid match until there is a first winner [sudden death] who will win the match. The challenger should have the 1st White in the rapid tie-breaker to dissuade the champion from playing for a drawn classical match.
SambalOelek SambalOelek 11/22/2018 11:21
Carlsen is the best chess player at the moment. Even if he looses this world championship...Common guys, he has won the most games in recent history since Anand...common. Give me a break. What did Cuarana win? compared to Carlsen...
lajosarpad lajosarpad 11/22/2018 08:10
The world champion has earned his title, has already proven he is the best. However, if someone is the best in a given point in time, the person might not necessarily be the best years later. The person might become weaker, another player can become stronger. This is why the system regularly challenges the world champion's claim for the title. The challenge of the claim is impersonated by the challenger, who tries to prove that he is the best and the world champion is therefore no longer the best. Since the world champion has already proven previously that he is the best, now the challenger has to prove that he is better than the champion and therefore he should be the new champion. If the match is tied, then I do not think Caruana deserves to be the new world champion, even if he wins the tiebreak. I will of course accept the fact that he is the new world champion, but I will doubt whether he has ever been better than Carlsen, unless he beats him without needing a tiebreak. Draw odds to the champion would motivate the challenger to fight until he has the advantage. If the challenger has the advantage, then the world champion will be motivated to fight.
Pichy59 Pichy59 11/22/2018 07:01
I agree FIDE should change the rules for the Next match and imposes that in case the match ends up in draw after 12 games the current champions should keep his crown, and that is fair, that should be the advantage of being a champion, plus it will force the challenger to be more aggressive instead of looking for a way to force a draw in every game. It is the responsibility of the challenger to fight with all his will to win and NOT to draw, by implying this new rule we will be able to see a more fighting chess especially from the challenger who really needs to force the battle, since the Champion is already the Champion and does not need to take risks, but the challenger do. Another reason why the challenger does not take any risks is because FIDE has a current rule that if the match gets to end in a draw after 12 games the challenger gets a bigger piece of the pie, more money $$,$$$.00
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 11/22/2018 05:38
@Raymond Labelle, yes of course all the games have been extremely interesting, but that's not the point. This match already has set the record for starting draws. If it is drawn at 6-6, does it make sense to use rapid, blitz, and armageddon to decide the winner of the "classical" world chess championship? If they went with Wallac's suggestion of the champion retaining the title after 6-6, does it make sense that Carlsen could not even demonstrate he is the superior classical player and yet he gets to keep his title? Someone is going to say that he earned that advantage by beating Anand, but Anand is not #2 in the world right now, and why rely on the luck that Carlsen peaked before Caruana, especially since playing ability depends significantly on age at the top level.
KingZor KingZor 11/22/2018 05:24
Premium shmemium. I love you!
Petrosianic Petrosianic 11/21/2018 09:45
romualdo "It is sad. We expect a great match with both players with blood in their eyes and what we see are to chickens afraid to fight running the match to a bar blitz tye [sic] break."

Where on earth did you get the idea that the players weren't even trying to win? Did you make that up, or did you improperly infer it from the fact that they weren't winning?
Petrosianic Petrosianic 11/21/2018 09:40
LOL at "[41] a7 is the strong threat". I guess stating the incredibly obvious is one of the hazards of letting a prog annotate your games.