Over the years when anyone wins a tournament or two they have been backed as
the latest great hope to beat Carlsen. we have seen, Giri, Caruana, Nakamura,
Karjakin, Aronian, Wes So, MVL, Grischuk, Ding Liren, as favourites to beat him.
AT the moment he is still there (Nepo is not out of it yet, he now has to take the
chances that he had in this match, the game he lost he was at one stage possibly winning.)
Firouzja is the new generation, he is good enough to do it and time is on his side,
Hi byedidia,
"... but I think Carlsen will challenge Lasker for longevity as world champion. Only 19 years to go!"
That was in the days when a World Champion could duck and dive challenges.
Lasker defended his title over a 16 year period 5 times since winning it from Steinitz in 1894.
1896 v. Steinitz
1907 v. Marshall
1908 v. Tarrasch
1910 v. Schlechter
1910 v. Janowski
The he lost it to Capablanca in 1921.
(WWI prevented matches v Rubinstein and Capablanca.)
Carlsen has now defend it four times in 7 years since winning it from Anand in 2013.
2014 v.. Anand
2016 v .Karjakin*
2018 v. Caruana*
2021 v. Nepomniachtchi
(* = after tie break)
One more defence of the title and he ties with Lasker and Kasparov..
I think that is better to measure longevity.
This site is an excellent reference for world title matches. I have it bookmarked.
He might like the idea of losing the title and then winning it back again. Botvinnik
(twice) and Alekhine did this but both took advantage of a rematch clause.
Carlsen would be the first do it after winning a candidates. (there is more money
to be won doing it this way. The winner of the final received 60% of 2 million euros.
and for winning the previous candidates Nepo received €48,000.)
@greenpawn34said Hi byedidia,
"... but I think Carlsen will challenge Lasker for longevity as world champion. Only 19 years to go!"
That was in the days when a World Champion could duck and dive challenges.
Lasker defended his title over a 16 year period 5 times since winning it from Steinitz in 1894.
1896 v. Steinitz
1907 v. Marshall
1908 v. Tarrasch
1910 v. Schlechter
191 ...[text shortened]... rence for world title matches. I have it bookmarked.
https://lichess.org/page/world-championships
Chess was a different game when Lasker held the title.
No FIDE running things. No Russian Conglomerate funding things. Heck, Chess wasn't actually how most of these men supported themselves. Most of them had real jobs outside of Chess. Oh yeah, and they didn't have instant knowledge of what everyone else was playing.
For me, Carlsen already ranks up there with the Lasker and Kasparov. But I also realize that Chess, and what makes one a "Great" in the field has radically changed. Frankly, for me I'd rather have the championship determined via a tournament of the "New York 1924" style rather than the method used now. Women's Chess Champion is was determined via a knockout for three years and personally, I think this is a superior method to how it is done now. I mostly follow the tournaments and don't really pay much attention to the Championship matches, particularly since three of the last four have been, frankly, yawners.
@contenchesssaid One more WC win and Magnus is the GOAT. 🐐
Don't think that would be the case. Modern Chess is a whole different ball of wax than before the computer age. Hard to make comparisons with the differences between eras. Could modern players accomplish the same results had they operated like Capablanca and his generation did. What could the past generations done with computer analysis available (personally, I think computers have ruined Chess.
Not a big fan of championships being decided by blitz tiebreakers either. Kind of anticlimactic. Like the World Cup being decided by penalty kicks.
Frankly, if I had to pick a GOAT, it would be Kasparov.
@simianmusingssaid Chess was a different game when Lasker held the title.
No FIDE running things. No Russian Conglomerate funding things. Heck, Chess wasn't actually how most of these men supported themselves. Most of them had real jobs outside of Chess. Oh yeah, and they didn't have instant knowledge of what everyone else was playing.
For me, Carlsen already ranks up there with ...[text shortened]... to the Championship matches, particularly since three of the last four have been, frankly, yawners.
Knockouts produced "world champions" such as Khalifman and Ponomariov. Don't get me wrong; both were strong players, but not up there with the lineup from the classical WC's.
@bigdoggsaid Knockouts produced "world champions" such as Khalifman and Ponomariov. Don't get me wrong; both were strong players, but not up there with the lineup from the classical WC's.
Not talking a knockout. Talking bringing in the top 10 players or so, and having a round robin tournament where each participant played everyone else as black and white.
Knockouts you're talking about if I remember correctly had over 100 players in each. I'm not talking the Chess equivalent of the NCAA basketball tournament. I'm talking the best of the best (top 10-12 candidates). They already do that with the Candidate cycle. I'm just saying make the candidate cycle THE Championship.
Simple fact is the knockouts may not have produced the "best" champions, but I'd say they earned it more than two guys with months of prep time and a team of coaches with computers helping them. Or I should say programming them to play draws.
Firouzja!!
05 Dec '21 22:24
Back to Top