😂

😂😂

he's not pleased at all, he's very angry I would say

It's a great joke he made to be fair!

He made a Witty remark and knows it.....he deserves to be pleased after that...😅

​@@danial_aminiyeah he so mad bro

I love how pleased with yourself you are at this comment. (With good reason🙆)

Yup.... that was pure Wit right there....,👌🏻

Not enough points for an Armageddon win. Should be a whole point

@@Dadaadad268 I suppose they wanted to emphasize the fact that the tournament is classical and give larger weight to classical wins. That being said, it might have been better to have 1.5 for classical draw, and 0.5 more for winner of Armageddon.

Nope.. with no practical time increment after time control it turns a classical match into blitz

@@rkk15 It's called time management...

​@@eufrosniad994 I don't agree. This will make hard for others make a comeback

He’s -14 on the event. Dropped below 2840. Fabi and Hikaru are only about 45-50 points below him now.

And has won soo many Armageddons..... He's rusty in Classical due to lack of playing time and motivation.....and it's showing clearly, but his speed play has been pretty good.... Tomorrow is the perfect setup for a Carlsen masterclass with white pieces.....but this tournament has not gone his way at all, so I'm not gonna get my hopes up.....

He's at his best after his losses

@@sneakyvictorsneakyvictor7658 he, at one point, was 90+ over World #2. He went from 2889 to 2836 in a couple of years, meanwhile, all other top 10 players have catch up.

I m sure hes still gonna win the poker championship tho

in the candidates it was the other way round. Players just stupidly jumped on Nepo resulting in ridiculous losses

Idk about the format. For the players, i don't think the top level players aren't intimidated by Fabi cause they have all the reasons to be. They compliment & are anticipating Fabi all the time esp in classical format tournaments but with Magnus you almost can never seem to have a "gotcha" moment, he's too masterful at any way be it going out of prep or fully in prep in any time control. It makes sense why the fear isn't in the same level with other players. But obviously nobody is downplaying Fabi especially these past 2-3 years since he started mastering shorter time controls which means less memorization

I agree. 10 mins vs 7 mins is better than 5 mins vs 4 mins, but it still favors black.

I think "betting the time" is better. That way it's more fair.

it's not about time, rule that black wins at draw just doesn't work it's all about forcing exchanges and repetitions then

Imagine if Wilhelm had anal beads to go with the coke?

Why? Classic is harder to win so it's fair. If it were old 0.5 and 1.0 then the person winning would also be uncatchable

This would be a fantastic way to discourage drawish chess in the WCC. I like the idea

nobody cares magnoob karen , chess is chess dont change the format just for fantasy , if you dont like classical format then play blitz , but classical should stay classical

@@Doubting_Thomas1 It doesn't really encourage ambitious play in a head to head match though. In a wide field it makes you need to fight harder in the classical section because you care much more about how many points you earn than the number of points your opponent earns so 1 win and 1 loss in classical is better for you than that same split in armageddon games. Head to head matchup changes the 2 to be equivalent. The main thing the change would do is openly change the WC from a classical to a mixed event rather than it theoretically being a classical event and then usually not decided that way (at least recently)

2 is too little. No less than 2.5. Win in classic should be more valuable than win in blitz. Otherwise you could be magnus - winning getting a lot of points without winning classic.

I loved the format that was in the Superbet Grand chess tour last month that Fabi won: 100 minutes for 40 moves, 30 minutes added after move 40 is reached, with 30 second increment from move 1. We play this exact tempo in our leagues and tournaments in my country and I find it ideal. Proper classical chess which will not be decided by flagging or random blunders in time pressure, but it rarely ever lasts 6+ hours. Of course no stupid armagedons.

@@miroslavjanecek9993 For classical I care more about the increment than anything else. I think they should be getting at least 30 seconds after whatever move number. With only 10 seconds it's much more likely that games will be decided by silly blunders which just doesn't seem in the spirit of the classical format. The Nordibek/Fabi game this round was decided by such blunders in time pressure. I would actually rather see players given less starting time and be given a higher increment, let's say 45 seconds, for example. No matter how much starting time people are given, there will be many players that use all of it anyway. I don't like Armageddon. It almost feels like a variant it's that different. It's entertaining as hell, but I don't think it has any business deciding classical events except in the most extreme circumstances of endless draws. I understand that organizers want decisive games, but I think adjusting the point structure alone could do that. Just make a win worth much more than a loss or draw while also making a loss just a tiny bit worse than a draw. Although on second thought, it could be problematic since ELO doesn't reflect that so people concerned only with ELO would care more about avoiding losses while players looking to win the tournament would care more about getting wins. I dunno, I just dont' think Armagaddon is the solution.

@@cwjalexx I agree, personally for me draws are no problem as long as they are hard-fought and no short ''grandmaster draws''. So Sophia rules definitely an option.

its worth 0.5 and makes perfect sense. 1 point for armagedon would be to much.

Coz it's a Classical tournament after all ..... Armageddons are just there to force a result and avoid ties completely..... 1 point for Armageddon would dilute the Classical victory too much....

@@w.s6124 It would mean the players share 3 points, just like when one side wins. And why would 1 point be too much? To me it makes more sense to be worth 1/3 of the classic rather than 1/6.

It was something like that in 2019 and everyone agreed that it incentivised quick draws into Armagedon. Basecly in a normal tournament a Draw is worth half a Win. In the scoring you're proposing draws are even better becouse they are AT LEAST half a Win, so more then normaly. The way It is in Norway Chess, a Draw is worth AT MOST half a Win, so less then in a tradicional tournament. PS. 2 points were used in 2019, everyone complained, Ding had the second best classical result but ended poorly placed while everyone else was going for quick draws and banking on Armagedon.

yeah having the sum of the points conserved seems more elegant.

Why

Without such aggressive formats, 2700+ GMs will just draw most games and make it boring for the viewers. This format forces them to go for the win.

its bitter sweet, definitely fun to watch tho

i love it. More decisive games. They have to go for the win and risk smth to come out on top.

FINALLY I found someone with the same opinion. I love chess so I watch but I absolutely detest the format. Seems most people like it though, cannot understand it.

Why would Hikaru fans hate this format?

HUH?