If you ❤ my videos do subscribe bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the supporting options through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through PayPal (links in the description)
Mr King i am really glad when you share your opinion like in this video and like in the WCC review. It's very different and original compared to the mainstream and as someone who has been in chess for over 40 years, you really give us great insight!
Incredible play by Nepo.. many are calling this game his "immortal" which I think is funny for a blitz game, but also kind of accurate at the same time.
It was a good game and a spectacular finish. To describe it as 'immortal' is nonsense and typical of the hype that goes on in commentary at the moment.
@@PowerPlayChess Fair enough, though having to win 2 games in a row (one with black) versus Magnus to remain in contention for the world champion title, and doing it successfully with an incredible game is quite a feat.
I don't comment often but I have to say that I really loved and appreciated your analysis of FIDE's agreement to the draw. You of course picked my interest greatly with the trousers controversy so I'll have to look that up. I think it could be really interesting if you made a video detailing some various workings and controversies in the chess world. Just an idea! Thanks for the great coverage and analysis as always!
I think it would have suited Mr. Dvorkovich much better to show a stronger integrity by declaring that if the players insisted on tying the match, they would tie for second place and first place would be left deserted.
@nilsp9426 , several. -It would have been a decision much more suited to the competitive spirit in sport. -It would have shown the world (not just the chess world) that Chess is a serious competition. -After jeansgate Mr. Dvorkovich did not appear in a very good light. I'm convinced that if in this behaviour of Magnus and Ian, FIDE president would have pressed the players to (for instance) play Armageddon or lose the first place, he would have been greatly vindicated and recovered a lot of respect. He lost that excellent opportunity. -It was the duty of Mr. Dvorkovich to exercise his authority as FIDE president to make sure chess don't become object of mockery by people or journalists of other sports. I'm sure there are deeper reasons to reject this incident, but those are some purposes I can think of in regards to your question. I don't want to be too harsh to the players who already were tired after a demanding day, but I see no reason to accept the "solution" it took place. Chess has resources such as Armageddon, which would have been a much better solution. I think Chess has lost some prestige due to this incident. I hope never again something like this happens.
@@JosueChoqueGutierrez Did I miss anything or did your explanation explain nothing? Why would it have been "in the competitive spirit"? Why is what happened so terrible? I would disagree and think it is a good compromise!
fide is playing too weak a hand for gratuitous aggression; they likely wouldnt survive a repeat of the pca split; sponsorship would evaporate or would be only from india
@@philipstevenson5166 "FIDE is not dominant enough" doesn't sound like a good argument to me. Isn't that exactly the criticism, that some old men removed from reality make terrible decisions at FIDE with impunity?
I am not surprised Nepo repeated a line he lost badly in. I have learned to expect this: the line the opponent is most likely to have studied well and improved upon is the line they have lost in.
Dear Mr. King, I've found nowhere such an analysis on the politics behind chess, which proves (again) how a valuable chess comentator you are. It is about chess, but it is also about culture and intelligence. Cheers!
Good analysis and unusual thoughts behind the unusual victory that was shared. Congratulations to Nepo, especially him because he fought back well and deserves to win too.
I really like the strategy of Nepo a lot, i've seen that idea against the advanced french defense with a3. I think it's very similar in this case here. The King looks reasonable secure, cause breaks like b3 never happen. In the meantime it's hard to make progress for white on the kingside without weakening the kings position.
I am so happy for Nepo. He showed great resilience after two losses. Especially with the history of the classic world championship match in mind, where he badly collapsed against Carlsen after losing a hard-fought game, this is a good sign!
An interesting closing view on the shared first. It pretty much looks like arm wrestling, or beefing about who's the dog and who's its tail. But actually the explosive part is missing which was their short exchange and gentleman's agreement to otherwise play quick draws until FIDE give in.
After 11:40 rxb7 it looks all over. No doubt Carlsen thought so. Still Nepo had to find the right sequence ne3!! before d4. After 'Jeansgate' FIDE understands where the money/power is. That 1975 Fischer dispute could never happen today because FIDE wouldn't want to lose untold $millions that way.
Happy new year Dan! I think this and jeansgate show that Carlsen is “bigger than the game”, and boy does he know it. Having said that, FIDE were a bit silly to turn down his offer not to wear jeans in future rounds if they let him play in them in the first round.
Nepomniachtchi and Grischuk have Russia as federation in their FIDE profile and in the world ranking list. Murzin and Svidler have FIDE as federation. What's the difference?
For me there a only two fair ways for a tie break. Either declare both winner or play two games until one gets 1,5 or 2. But Sudden Death or Armadillo are not fair. But the rules have to be declared before the tournament and not be changed by the players. So FIDE loses power.
Nepo deserves a lot of credit for how he played, and as a result I was less disturbed than normal by the "draw" agreement for the title. Winning twice in a row on command against Carlsen and drawing three in a row after, should be worthy of a title. Still, this is FIDE's fault for the poor rule creation and enforcement. One thing that really hasn't been brought up, is that from a fan's perspective, the change they made appears to be a FAILURE. There were A LOT of agreed upon draws by almost ALL of the top players, all afraid to NOT make the top 8. And some, who miscalculated and thought that was the ticket to getting in to the top 8. So, the fewer games with a qualifying round does NOT appear to be the way to go. And that's before we get in to the tiebreaker rules which clearly aren't good either. Maybe someday FIDE will learn how to run a championship event. I won't hold my breath waiting for that day, however. Thanks for the coverage, however! Love seeing your analysis and hearing your opinions on the matter.
I agree that FIDE needs to tighten up the rules regarding the tie-break to avoid this kind of shared first. Perhaps four extra sudden-death blitz games and if they are all draws then an armageddon game? Regarding the format to have an 8-player cut off and KO finish - I rather like it! As you describe very well, some players thought they could cruise in, but actually missed the cut - pure drama! I don't think a format exists that eliminates quick draws. Frankly, the draws don't bother me. There is so much entertainment in these tournaments anyway.
@@PowerPlayChess Your suggestion makes complete sense, which explains why FIDE didn't adopt it. There were too many draws at the end and one of the rounds was almost all draws from the contenders. That really worsens the viewing experience for spectators. If we can't get fights in blitz, what are we doing? Maybe something drastic like changing the TC from 3/2 to 5/0 needs to occur. Introduce dirty flagging to the equation to at least get results. Maybe just the last two rounds are 5/0 instead of 3/2. The end of the event needs to be a crescendo. We got a double decrescendo with a bunch of draws and then two guys who didn't want to fight for the title. You know if any of the "kids" had been in the final they would have declined Magnus offer and said "Let's play it out, old man." :)
Personally, I didn't sense any particular political motive by FIDE in allowing the title to be shared, and thus, a Russian player to be joint winner. I don't think they had any choice than to allow them to share. As both players agreed, they could have played on an indefinite sequence of draws by repeating moves. If asked to play an Armageddon, I bet they'd have refused, causing more embarrassment to FIDE.
FIDE had no other option than accept what the players wanted. Check the games in the first 4 boards, on last round of the Swiss, that qualified to this silly "American way of determine winners/champions", that is play-offs - all 4 equal GrandMaster Berlin Defense draws in 10-12 moves. All 4 boards the exact same game in less than 15-20 seconds. If Magnus and Nepo wanted, they can be doing the exact same game, over and over and over for hours. And that would be ridiculous. Just like the play-offs!
The Russian Chess Federation continues to organise tournaments in occupied territories and Karjakin actively promotes the Russian war machine. As I understand it, he received a six month ban, but that is long past. Dvorkovich has done nothing about these activities.
If you ❤ my videos do subscribe bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the supporting options through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through PayPal (links in the description)
Mr King i am really glad when you share your opinion like in this video and like in the WCC review. It's very different and original compared to the mainstream and as someone who has been in chess for over 40 years, you really give us great insight!
Great analysis. And I really didn't think of the Russian-angle on FIDE's agreement. Thanks.
Incredible play by Nepo.. many are calling this game his "immortal" which I think is funny for a blitz game, but also kind of accurate at the same time.
It was a good game and a spectacular finish. To describe it as 'immortal' is nonsense and typical of the hype that goes on in commentary at the moment.
@@PowerPlayChess Fair enough, though having to win 2 games in a row (one with black) versus Magnus to remain in contention for the world champion title, and doing it successfully with an incredible game is quite a feat.
@@HunterBelkiran really quite a feat indeed, but not worthy of the title "immortal", I think Nepo would be the first to subscribe to that.
I don't comment often but I have to say that I really loved and appreciated your analysis of FIDE's agreement to the draw. You of course picked my interest greatly with the trousers controversy so I'll have to look that up. I think it could be really interesting if you made a video detailing some various workings and controversies in the chess world. Just an idea! Thanks for the great coverage and analysis as always!
I think it would have suited Mr. Dvorkovich much better to show a stronger integrity by declaring that if the players insisted on tying the match, they would tie for second place and first place would be left deserted.
What purpose would that have served?
@nilsp9426 , several.
-It would have been a decision much more suited to the competitive spirit in sport.
-It would have shown the world (not just the chess world) that Chess is a serious competition.
-After jeansgate Mr. Dvorkovich did not appear in a very good light. I'm convinced that if in this behaviour of Magnus and Ian, FIDE president would have pressed the players to (for instance) play Armageddon or lose the first place, he would have been greatly vindicated and recovered a lot of respect. He lost that excellent opportunity.
-It was the duty of Mr. Dvorkovich to exercise his authority as FIDE president to make sure chess don't become object of mockery by people or journalists of other sports.
I'm sure there are deeper reasons to reject this incident, but those are some purposes I can think of in regards to your question.
I don't want to be too harsh to the players who already were tired after a demanding day, but I see no reason to accept the "solution" it took place. Chess has resources such as Armageddon, which would have been a much better solution.
I think Chess has lost some prestige due to this incident. I hope never again something like this happens.
@@JosueChoqueGutierrez Did I miss anything or did your explanation explain nothing? Why would it have been "in the competitive spirit"? Why is what happened so terrible? I would disagree and think it is a good compromise!
fide is playing too weak a hand for gratuitous aggression; they likely wouldnt survive a repeat of the pca split; sponsorship would evaporate or would be only from india
@@philipstevenson5166 "FIDE is not dominant enough" doesn't sound like a good argument to me. Isn't that exactly the criticism, that some old men removed from reality make terrible decisions at FIDE with impunity?
I am not surprised Nepo repeated a line he lost badly in. I have learned to expect this: the line the opponent is most likely to have studied well and improved upon is the line they have lost in.
Interesting analysis of FIDE’s decision. Don’t forget that Volodar Murzin’s victory in the Rapid was also a boon to Russia.
Of course.
Dear Mr. King, I've found nowhere such an analysis on the politics behind chess, which proves (again) how a valuable chess comentator you are. It is about chess, but it is also about culture and intelligence. Cheers!
Good analysis and unusual thoughts behind the unusual victory that was shared. Congratulations to Nepo, especially him because he fought back well and deserves to win too.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the game analysis.
I really like the strategy of Nepo a lot, i've seen that idea against the advanced french defense with a3. I think it's very similar in this case here. The King looks reasonable secure, cause breaks like b3 never happen. In the meantime it's hard to make progress for white on the kingside without weakening the kings position.
I am so happy for Nepo. He showed great resilience after two losses. Especially with the history of the classic world championship match in mind, where he badly collapsed against Carlsen after losing a hard-fought game, this is a good sign!
Thank you very much.
Thanks for your wonderful content and commentary at the end. Spot on analysis!
Wonderful match, grazie, Daniel
Beautiful move! I, as I'm sure many others, got the rook sac but not the following knight move. Thanks for the lovely video as always Daniel!
Mr. King: clever comments on FIDE behavior. Thanks for sharing.
At the 7:12 mark nxp, rg1, ng7xp what happens?
True Chess Journalism at its best!.. Thank you sir! Cheers Alberto
An interesting closing view on the shared first. It pretty much looks like arm wrestling, or beefing about who's the dog and who's its tail. But actually the explosive part is missing which was their short exchange and gentleman's agreement to otherwise play quick draws until FIDE give in.
I wouldn't describe such a conversation as 'explosive', more predictable.
After 11:40 rxb7 it looks all over.
No doubt Carlsen thought so.
Still Nepo had to find the right sequence ne3!! before d4.
After 'Jeansgate' FIDE understands where the money/power is.
That 1975 Fischer dispute could never happen today because FIDE wouldn't want to lose untold $millions that way.
Happy new year Dan! I think this and jeansgate show that Carlsen is “bigger than the game”, and boy does he know it. Having said that, FIDE were a bit silly to turn down his offer not to wear jeans in future rounds if they let him play in them in the first round.
Nepomniachtchi and Grischuk have Russia as federation in their FIDE profile and in the world ranking list. Murzin and Svidler have FIDE as federation. What's the difference?
Exactly. It's a bureaucratic muddle, but the point is that Russia is able to use the success of their players for propaganda purposes.
For me there a only two fair ways for a tie break. Either declare both winner or play two games until one gets 1,5 or 2. But Sudden Death or Armadillo are not fair. But the rules have to be declared before the tournament and not be changed by the players. So FIDE loses power.
ARMADILLO ??? I think you mean Armageddon LOL
@djgresearch This refers to a joke from GM Nigel Short who once called it so in a late live stream 😅
@@oliverangermuller9827 Ah right. Thanks!
Nepo deserves a lot of credit for how he played, and as a result I was less disturbed than normal by the "draw" agreement for the title. Winning twice in a row on command against Carlsen and drawing three in a row after, should be worthy of a title.
Still, this is FIDE's fault for the poor rule creation and enforcement. One thing that really hasn't been brought up, is that from a fan's perspective, the change they made appears to be a FAILURE. There were A LOT of agreed upon draws by almost ALL of the top players, all afraid to NOT make the top 8. And some, who miscalculated and thought that was the ticket to getting in to the top 8.
So, the fewer games with a qualifying round does NOT appear to be the way to go. And that's before we get in to the tiebreaker rules which clearly aren't good either.
Maybe someday FIDE will learn how to run a championship event. I won't hold my breath waiting for that day, however.
Thanks for the coverage, however! Love seeing your analysis and hearing your opinions on the matter.
I agree that FIDE needs to tighten up the rules regarding the tie-break to avoid this kind of shared first. Perhaps four extra sudden-death blitz games and if they are all draws then an armageddon game? Regarding the format to have an 8-player cut off and KO finish - I rather like it! As you describe very well, some players thought they could cruise in, but actually missed the cut - pure drama! I don't think a format exists that eliminates quick draws. Frankly, the draws don't bother me. There is so much entertainment in these tournaments anyway.
@@PowerPlayChess Your suggestion makes complete sense, which explains why FIDE didn't adopt it.
There were too many draws at the end and one of the rounds was almost all draws from the contenders. That really worsens the viewing experience for spectators. If we can't get fights in blitz, what are we doing?
Maybe something drastic like changing the TC from 3/2 to 5/0 needs to occur. Introduce dirty flagging to the equation to at least get results.
Maybe just the last two rounds are 5/0 instead of 3/2. The end of the event needs to be a crescendo. We got a double decrescendo with a bunch of draws and then two guys who didn't want to fight for the title. You know if any of the "kids" had been in the final they would have declined Magnus offer and said "Let's play it out, old man." :)
Personally, I didn't sense any particular political motive by FIDE in allowing the title to be shared, and thus, a Russian player to be joint winner. I don't think they had any choice than to allow them to share. As both players agreed, they could have played on an indefinite sequence of draws by repeating moves. If asked to play an Armageddon, I bet they'd have refused, causing more embarrassment to FIDE.
FIDE had no other option than accept what the players wanted.
Check the games in the first 4 boards, on last round of the Swiss, that qualified to this silly "American way of determine winners/champions", that is play-offs - all 4 equal GrandMaster Berlin Defense draws in 10-12 moves. All 4 boards the exact same game in less than 15-20 seconds. If Magnus and Nepo wanted, they can be doing the exact same game, over and over and over for hours. And that would be ridiculous. Just like the play-offs!
but before he came out against karjakin? more likely fide fears another pca, and losing all sponsorship
The Russian Chess Federation continues to organise tournaments in occupied territories and Karjakin actively promotes the Russian war machine. As I understand it, he received a six month ban, but that is long past. Dvorkovich has done nothing about these activities.
@@PowerPlayChess Dvorkovich was deputy prime minister in Medvedev's cabinet. It says all.