Carlsen or Nepomniachtchi – Who will win?

[Cornfed]

First, this match is not over, although Carlsen has a huge advantage -- not only on the board, but especially off the board.

Then, the CT is not a "chess" competition: it is a competition of nerves, poise, and preparation. Tal in 1959 and Fischer in 1971 were so better than the field that we could say they would win, while Kasparov, in 1981, was not only above the field, but he was the personification, the embodiement of the "system".

Since then, there is no dominant champion -- Morozevich -- the greatest talent since Tal -- never had a team (nor the nerves, or the inclination, it seems), Kramnik had serious health problems that cut short his champion's career (just like Misha Tal, although the illness was quite different), and Carlsen is in the second tier of champions.

The CT will be a dog fight, and the luckiest, the one that sleeps the deepest, and one who has the best seconds will win it. And let's not forget technique. Great technique is necessary to win, and technique requires experience. So, I guess Cornfed is right: Firouzja has 15%, just like the others. But if he continues to improve, in a few years, he could be the overwhelming favourite.

Finally, Carlsen is only 30. I would not be surprised if he remains champion in the foreseeable future.

NB: BTW, the youngest world champion was Ruslan Ponomariov. Let's have some respect.

Those knock out tournament winners are in some respect just aberrations. None of those winners were ever really 'the best' players of their time nor did they ever mount a challange with the traditional formats. You can only play in the format offered...and each won, but...

Fabi is a good bet. You are right, as it is a tournament, various factors will play a roll.

Moro "greatest talent since Tal"?? Well, I guess that depends on a narrow definition of 'talent'.

Also, how does Carlsen have "a huge advantage....off the board"?

[matejst]

Also, how does Carlsen have "a huge advantage....off the board"?

I meant psychologically -- he leads by two points with six games to go. He can remain calm, in good spirits, sleep well.

[Chessqueen]

Firouzja already qualified to the Candidates' Tournament next year. That is a tremendous achievement. Winning that tournament will not be easy, but he has a decent chance. He is currently higher by rating than all other participants.

And do you offer a percentage chance he will qualify to play (presumably) Magnus. I still think no more than 15% chance. Ratings are not the same as engines. He is too young probably.

Ratings are not the same as engines but they get ratings the same way as engines do by competing. Yes he is too young, but Kasparov and Magnus were very young too when they became champion without previous championship experiences, and if age is a requirement my father has been playing chess for over 65 years and he is 90 years old and he is not halfway as capable or prepared as Firouzja is, and there are a few people here over 70 that can tell you that age has nothing to do with ratings and chess knowledge.

[Milos]

First, this match is not over, although Carlsen has a huge advantage -- not only on the board, but especially off the board.

Then, the CT is not a "chess" competition: it is a competition of nerves, poise, and preparation. Tal in 1959 and Fischer in 1971 were so better than the field that we could say they would win, while Kasparov, in 1981, was not only above the field, but he was the personification, the embodiement of the "system".

Since then, there is no dominant champion -- Morozevich -- the greatest talent since Tal -- never had a team (nor the nerves, or the inclination, it seems), Kramnik had serious health problems that cut short his champion's career (just like Misha Tal, although the illness was quite different), and Carlsen is in the second tier of champions.

The CT will be a dog fight, and the luckiest, the one that sleeps the deepest, and one who has the best seconds will win it. And let's not forget technique. Great technique is necessary to win, and technique requires experience. So, I guess Cornfed is right: Firouzja has 15%, just like the others. But if he continues to improve, in a few years, he could be the overwhelming favourite.

Finally, Carlsen is only 30. I would not be surprised if he remains champion in the foreseeable future.

NB: BTW, the youngest world champion was Ruslan Ponomariov. Let's have some respect.

Carlsen is a second tier of champions, seriously?
Carlsen would wipe a floor with every single world champion in history taken at their peak.
The same as results from athletes 60 years ago are a joke compared to today, or of soccer players or tennis player or any other, chess players of today are far superior than chess players from the past. No it's not just rating inflation. It's preparation, training, better theory, chess skills development, access to better food, clean water, better health conditions, plus much tougher field, they all contribute to better intellect and better skill.

FIDE world champion of that time (of Ruslan Ponomariov) was a second tier irrelevant competition. So no, Ruslan Ponomariov doesn't deserve respect as a world champion. It's the same as Komodo doesn't deserve world champion title (and nobody in their right mind wouldn't call it so) just because it has won some irrelevant competition last couple of times.

[matejst]

Carlsen is a second tier of champions, seriously?
Carlsen would wipe a floor with every single world champion in history taken at their peak.
The same as results from athletes 60 years ago are a joke compared to today, or of soccer players or tennis player or any other, chess players of today are far superior than chess players from the past. No it's not just rating inflation. It's preparation, training, better theory, chess skills development, access to better food, clean water, better health conditions, plus much tougher field, they all contribute to better intellect and better skill.

While most of what you wrote is not false, I stand by my opinion: what makes a great champion is his level of dominance, and Carlsen is far from what Kasparov, and especially Fisher achieved. Otherwise we could hardly compare eras. [Otoh, I don't think there is hardly a difference of "intellect" -- forays in history reveal that people were as intelligent than they are today -- just read Montaillou, e.g.]

You mention here tennis: while there is no doubt that Novak Djokovic would beat Rod Laver 6-0, 6-0, what makes Novak the greatest player of all time are his results, and the results of his contemporaries, not their mastery of the sport.

So, yes, I am very serious.

[dkappe]

Carlsen is a second tier of champions, seriously?
Carlsen would wipe a floor with every single world champion in history taken at their peak.
The same as results from athletes 60 years ago are a joke compared to today, or of soccer players or tennis player or any other, chess players of today are far superior than chess players from the past. No it's not just rating inflation. It's preparation, training, better theory, chess skills development, access to better food, clean water, better health conditions, plus much tougher field, they all contribute to better intellect and better skill.

One bit of hyperbole deserves another? Carlsen is very impressive, no doubt, but “wipe a floor?” I wouldn’t want to bet against Gary at his peak and with all the modern resources. Anand and Kramnik also would be very formidable. And who knows what phenoms like Fisher or Capablanca could bring to the table with all the modern conveniences.

Frankly, any one of the champions from the Soviet era (with the requisite support of an army of hard bitten Soviet GM’s packing leela and the latest NNUE, and the backing of the Soviet state) would be a nightmare.

[Milos]

Carlsen is a second tier of champions, seriously?
Carlsen would wipe a floor with every single world champion in history taken at their peak.
The same as results from athletes 60 years ago are a joke compared to today, or of soccer players or tennis player or any other, chess players of today are far superior than chess players from the past. No it's not just rating inflation. It's preparation, training, better theory, chess skills development, access to better food, clean water, better health conditions, plus much tougher field, they all contribute to better intellect and better skill.

While most of what you wrote is not false, I stand by my opinion: what makes a great champion is his level of dominance, and Carlsen is far from what Kasparov, and especially Fisher achieved. Otherwise we could hardly compare eras. [Otoh, I don't think there is hardly a difference of "intellect" -- forays in history reveal that people were as intelligent than they are today -- just read Montaillou, e.g.]

You mention here tennis: while there is no doubt that Novak Djokovic would beat Rod Laver 6-0, 6-0, what makes Novak the greatest player of all time are his results, and the results of his contemporaries, not their mastery of the sport.

So, yes, I am very serious.

What doesn't it mean to dominate competition? Carlsen is undisputed world champion already for 8 years in a row and all that at age of 30(31). He became the youngest nr. 1 in history and has this ranking for more than 10 years in a row. No other chess player in the history of the game was undisputed world number 1 player for 10 years at age of 30.
Carlsen is, to use tennis equivalent, Bjorn Borg of chess. But compared to Bjorn Borg, he didn't retire at age of 25.
Fisher is one time wonder that had 5 good chess years and that's it, and Carlsen is already in many stats better than Kasparov when he was his age. It is highly probable that Carlsen is gonna break virtually any relevant chess record by age of 40.
So yes, you have absolutely no argument when you claim that Carlsen is second tier coz he's already in top 3 chess players in the history of the game, and almost certainly will become an undisputed GOAT in chess.

[Milos]

Carlsen is a second tier of champions, seriously?
Carlsen would wipe a floor with every single world champion in history taken at their peak.
The same as results from athletes 60 years ago are a joke compared to today, or of soccer players or tennis player or any other, chess players of today are far superior than chess players from the past. No it's not just rating inflation. It's preparation, training, better theory, chess skills development, access to better food, clean water, better health conditions, plus much tougher field, they all contribute to better intellect and better skill.

One bit of hyperbole deserves another? Carlsen is very impressive, no doubt, but “wipe a floor?” I wouldn’t want to bet against Gary at his peak and with all the modern resources. Anand and Kramnik also would be very formidable. And who knows what phenoms like Fisher or Capablanca could bring to the table with all the modern conveniences.

Frankly, any one of the champions from the Soviet era (with the requisite support of an army of hard bitten Soviet GM’s packing leela and the latest NNUE, and the backing of the Soviet state) would be a nightmare.

This hypothetical "all modern resources" premise is the mother of all screw ups. One doesn't become suddenly much better because you gave them access to modern resources. Chess is a game of pattern matching and memory. You develop that as a young child. You can't take 30 y.o. Kasparov from 1993 to today with a time machine, give him all available resources and expect him to suddenly perform much better than he did in 1993.
You'd have to take a newborn Kasparov, put him in a time machine and transport him to 1990 and also transport him to Norway, because if he was born in Azerbaijan or Armenia in 1990, he'd probably be today in some mental asylum and never ever actually played chess. But then his Norwegian parents in 1993 wouldn't care at all about his chess skills, he might have never even developed any before it was too late.

Champions of Soviet era mostly dominated because they played team competition against individuals (and because chess was strongly supported by the state, so it was a way out of poor life for many kids, so you had a great base). Hundred Soviet GM's packing Leela and latest NNUE are still worse than a single very good ICCF player of today as secundants (they wouldn't simply have a clue what chess engines were suggesting nor how to use them efficiently), so that's totally irrelevant.

[dkappe]

Milos,

Now argue the other side and call your own angry argument “the mother of all screwups.”

It was your hypothetical, so I get to have an army of Soviet GM’s who have learned how to use ChessBase and the newest engines and the old Soviet state lurking in the background and spiking Magnus’ beverages.

How would Djokovic fare against McEnroe, both playing with wooden racquets?

[Milos]

t was your hypothetical, so I get to have an army of Soviet GM’s who have learned how to use ChessBase and the newest engines and the old Soviet state lurking in the background and spiking Magnus’ beverages.

Again, that wouldn't work in this millennium.

How would Djokovic fare against McEnroe, both playing with wooden racquets?

He'd destroyed him especially if McEnroe was born in 1987, coz upbringing means a lot, and McEnroe was a spoiled brat even being born in 1959. If he was born in 1987 he'd be probably something like Kyrgios today.
If, on the other hand, Djokovic was born in 1959 in US then it's really difficult to say, he probably wouldn't play tennis at all.