Also the context is Magnus wasn’t best at this tournament. He was somewhere in middle in table and had less chances of converting. He has history of throwing tantrums when on tilt (Seinqfield 2022)
He was 2.5/3 the day he was fined (then forbidden to play) for his dress code violation, and was around rank 25 after game 8, one point behind first place. Not a winning performance but not particularly bad either.
Why would you protest against enforcement of the rules that everyone was aware of and agreed to by participating?
I agree that rules against jeans make limited sense. It makes more sense to forbid worn down or shabby looking attire. But one should abide by the rules one signs up to.
> But one should abide by the rules one signs up to.
If it's the only competition in town, and the rules are unjust, and the organisation in question considers you #1 chess player in the world… I can hardly imagine better circumstances for civil disobedience.
Luck is an interesting way of phrasing what can be simply described as pure neurological deficiencies. Your opponents brain forgot to go down a crazy sacrifice line which was actually M6. Is that luck?
Or is it a comparative grey matter evaluation in time and pressure constraints?
there is atill hidden information in chess, and thus luck when you take a guess at what it is.
you provide an example, but the luck is in guessing what the opponent would check or not check.
a clearer example is trying to play out of your opponent's prep. you dont know what lines theyve prepared, and youre taking a gamble with each move on whether theyve prepped it or not. they cant prep every possible line in the available time, regardless of how long (ding wasnt prepared for most of gukesh's attacks, with months to prepare)
theres also luck in that your opponent may not have slept well the night before because a car alarm went off at 2AM, so their comparative grey matter evaluation in time was lower than usual, or they just played a tiring long game where they lost, right before this game.
With our current understanding of biology, if I model outcomes probabilistically (luck) and you model them any other non-equivalent way then I'll be more successful predicting those outcomes. The philosophy behind it is interesting, but "luck" isn't a bad way to describe what's happening to a layman when Carlsen loses.
His edge in rapid/blitz is generally seen as much larger than in classical.
One of the biggest examples of this was in his title defense against Caruana. Every game of that match had been drawn, and in the final game Magnus had a very promising position where he could squeeze with basically no risk.
Instead he offered a draw which was immediately accepted. That sent the game to rapid tie breaks where he casually butchered Caruana 3-0.
The tie breaks were rapid, not blitz. And rapid is where Magnus' gap over #2 is the largest.
And no great player is bad at any time control - they're just 'less good'. Except Magnus - since he's #1 at everything he's just more or less dominant.
Sure, but he's not invincible like in Classic; those 7 wins aren't consecutive (he lost in 2021 and won 22 & 23), meanwhile he's won every classical championship since 2013 (until he stopped playing in 2023).
