| Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018) |
|
The 2018 World Championship between reigning champion, Magnus Carlsen, and challenger, Fabiano Caruana, a 12-game match organized by FIDE and its commercial partner Agon, was played in London, at The College in Holborn, 9-28 November. Caruana qualified as challenger at the World Championship Candidates (2018). The time control was 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 50 more minutes for the next 20 moves, and 15 more minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30-second increment per move from move 1. Colors alternated between games except after game 6, so the same player played with White in games 6 and 7. Draw agreements were not allowed before Black's 30th move. If the match was tied 6-6 after 12 games, tiebreak games would be played on 28 November to determine the winner, starting with a best-of-four Rapid match at 25 minutes per player with a 10-second increment; if still tied, up to five two-game Blitz minimatches at 5 minutes per player with a 3-second increment, the winner of any minimatch winning the championship. If still tied, an Armageddon game to determine the champion. All Classical games, and the first Rapid tiebreak game, began at 15:00 UTC (10:00 USA/Eastern). Ten-minute breaks between tiebreak games were stipulated in the regulations but could be waived by the chief arbiter Stephane Escafre. After 12 consecutive draws in the Classical games, Carlsen won the first three Rapid tiebreak games and defended the title for the third time. Elo Classical Rapid
Carlsen 2835 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 9
Caruana 2832 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 0 6
Official site: https://web.archive.org/web/2018113...
Regulations: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/...
Scheduling: https://worldchess.com/tournament/1...
Chess.com 1: https://www.chess.com/article/view/...
Chess.com 2: https://www.chess.com/article/view/...
ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnu...
chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew...
FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament...
Previous: Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship Match (2016). Next: Carlsen - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2021)
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 133 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-12-18
 | | Richard Taylor: <Billy Vaughan: I don't know why everyone tries to insinuate that Caruana isn't American. Yes, look at his middle name, wow, what Italian ancestry! And Sam Shankland should really be representing the German federation, shouldn't he. Really there aren't any Americans at all, are there, given that even the Natives came across the Bering Strait if you go long enough back> Reductio absurdum we could abolish nations as we are all descended and related to the Big Bang. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | Jambow: <I have my opinion and you have yours, but that's all they are, opinions. So let's keep the nonsense of whatever type where it belongs, in the ether.> You should have just started there <AylerKupp>. Instead you jumped in and accused me of making political comments when I lambasted <HeMateMe> for his. Your logic, and I'm giving you a lot of latitude here in calling it logic, was that since I lambasted someone for political comments is that I was therefore making political comments? Seriously? I know you completely realize this isn't correct. Now it is everything is an opinion and nothing is factual? Is this the avenue you go down to avoid just being honest and saying yes it was your approach that bothered me and you really were not at all being political? If you can show me the politic comment in my response to <HeMateMe> I would be glad to admit where I erred. Good luck with that one. I don't know your History in the past of admitting when you were wrong, I know what it is in this particular case however. I also know you have ripped into other people for not reading your posts and it appears you didn't read mine in direct response to yours. Again if you confront someone who is trespassing on your property and say vandalizing does that make you guilty of being a trespassing vandal? You can give your "opinion" or simply say of course not. I don't desire to be this pedantic since I know you are a very intelligent person. Yet if you apply that same logic about confronting someone for bringing politics to this forum page, does it then make those posts political? That wasn't me just repeating I'm right you were wrong <AylerKupp> like you posted. I think I just demonstrated that fact logically yet again, although I shouldn't have too. |
|
Nov-12-18
 | | alexmagnus: <AylerKupp>
If you read my previous posts, you'd know I oppose even blitz as a tiebreak (but do support rapids), but consider it a small evil due to its rarity. My own tiebreak after the four 25+10 games are drawn is an "inifite" match of pairs of 10+10 games until one dich pair is decided. |
|
Nov-12-18
| | alexmagnus: <dich> such* |
|
Nov-12-18
 | | AylerKupp: <<Jambow> Instead you jumped in and accused me of making political comments when I lambasted <HeMateMe> for his.> I accused you of only making a political statement by responding to an inappropriate post about Trump and doing so in a vitriolic way. And if it's your continuing opinion that your post did not constitute a political statement, so be it. <Now it is everything is an opinion and nothing is factual? > I didn't say that. I said that it was my opinion that yours was a political post and it was your opinion that it wasn't. It was a very narrow comment directed at a specific situation. If you want to imagine that it was a general statement, so be it also. But do you see the difference? <I don't know your History in the past of admitting when you were wrong, I know what it is in this particular case however. I also know you have ripped into other people for not reading your posts and it appears you didn't read mine in direct response to yours.> I most definitely read your post in direct response to mine as well as other posts that have nothing to do with me simply because they interest me and I consider them to be well articulated. But I have <never> ripped into other people for not reading my posts. On the contrary, I have often commended them for their good judgment. So you're definitely right, you don't know anything about the history of my posts because you obviously haven't read them. And for that I commend you for your good judgment. <Again if you confront someone who is trespassing on your property and say vandalizing does that make you guilty of being a trespassing vandal? You can give your "opinion" or simply say of course not.> I thought that this was a discussion about our respective opinions as to whether your response to <HeMateMe>'s inappropriate political post was also a political post. I don't recall that we were discussing the situation of someone trespassing into my property and vandalizing it, but I really have no interest in discussing that. But I don't really understand the rest of your comment. <I don't desire to be this pedantic since I know you are a very intelligent person. Yet if you apply that same logic about confronting someone for bringing politics to this forum page, does it then make those posts political?> If you don't desire to be pedantic then just stop, no one is forcing you to be. But no, in my opinion (and that's all it is) if I confront someone just for making a political post without any additional elaboration or indication of my opinion of that political post then that's all it is, an admonishment. But if that confront someone for making a vitriolic response to an inappropriate political post and thus showing where they stand on the subject matter of that inappropriate political post, then, yes, that's also an inappropriate political post. In my opinion, of course. As far as my being an intelligent person, thank you, but the jury is still out on that one. But, FWIW, I think that you are also an intelligent person. <That wasn't me just repeating I'm right you were wrong <AylerKupp> like you posted. I think I just demonstrated that fact logically yet again, although I shouldn't have too.> You were the one who in Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018) (kibitz #908) first mentioned that my repeating my opinion that you made an inappropriate political statement didn't make that true. So, if you're not going to read my posts, at least re-read yours. <I think I just demonstrated that fact logically yet again, although I shouldn't have too.> Unfortunately, in spite of being an intelligent person, you are also delusional. You have no more demonstrated the "fact" that you didn't make an inappropriate political post than leaving me unable to respond as you said in Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018) (kibitz #989). The one thing that I will repeat in the hope of making it true (no lie!) is the recognition that we both have different opinions about whether you made an inappropriate political post and I doubt that either one will get the other one to change their mind. Sometimes that happens. So, once again, I suggest that we both let it drop and just enjoy the match. |
|
Nov-12-18
 | | perfidious: Politics have no place here, and idgaf what the origins of either player are, where they now live, whom they sleep with, etc. Let the political issues dominate the Rogovian morass; that is quite enough. |
|
Nov-12-18
| | AylerKupp: <<alexmagnus> If you read my previous posts, you'd know I oppose even blitz as a tiebreak (but do support rapids), but consider it a small evil due to its rarity.> You're right, I read your last post on the subject (Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018) (kibitz #1041)) a little too quickly. I apologize. As you know if you read my previous posts :-) I oppose <both> Rapid and Blitz games as a means of breaking a tie in a match conducted (at least initially) at Classic time controls and intended (but at least hoped for) to also be concluded playing games at Classic time controls. But the reality of a large number of these matches ending in a tie at the end of the Classic time control games (~ 23% since 1948), a tie break procedure is needed unless we are willing to accept that the players after a tie match are considered co-champions. And, at least psychologically, that's not the preferred conclusion since we typically prefer a winner. My preference if for the players to continue playing games at Classic time controls until there's a decisive game and the tie is broken. But I recognize that such a match of indeterminate length is probably not feasible, and I admit that I don't have any solution that would satisfy me. So I'll just have to accept tiebreakers at both Rapid and Blitz time controls as necessary evils while recognizing that you only consider the games at Blitz time controls to be necessary evils. Perhaps it would be less objectionable to the loser of the match based on faster time control games tiebreaker to split the prize fund 50/50 and play the tiebreakers only for the purpose of determining the title. Just a thought. But it might relieve some of the stress, certainly the financial one, during the tiebreakers and might lead to better quality tiebreaker games. Just a hope. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | jphamlore: This is brilliant strategy from Caruana and could well turn the match in his favor. This solves Caruana's problem that Carlsen could play anything and thus Caruana can prepare nothing in too much depth. Now this is similar to Alekhine vs Capablanca. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | devere: Fab doesn't seem to have any plan to try to defeat Magnus. He's just going to hope for a mistake. This could wind up being a boring match with 12 draws followed by speed chess. |
|
Nov-12-18
| | AylerKupp: <devere> Given Carlsen's superiority at the faster time controls, that doesn't seem to me to be a good approach. Particularly given their recent near equality at Classic time controls. |
|
Nov-12-18
 | | keypusher: <jphamlore: This is brilliant strategy from Caruana and could well turn the match in his favor. This solves Caruana's problem that Carlsen could play anything and thus Caruana can prepare nothing in too much depth. Now this is similar to Alekhine vs Capablanca.> Anybody here speak Hamlore? |
|
Nov-12-18
 | | MissScarlett: I think he's Chinese or something. #inscrutable |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | savagerules: Two games wasted with White by Caruana. At least in this one he's not fighting for a draw. I think this will give Carlsen some momentum in the next game. |
|
Nov-12-18
 | | HeMateMe: I think at the end of the match these two should play Bughouse with Short and Kasparov at String fellows night club. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | 5hrsolver: It seems like Caruana is unprepared for Carlsen's Sicilian defense. The Sicllian defense often gives black a good endgame position if he can survive the middle game. |
|
Nov-12-18
| | perfidious: <keypusher...Anybody here speak Hamlore?> Make every effort to avoid those high-flown pronouncements of someone whose understanding is very evidently superior to even the titans who are now duking it out for the title. |
|
Nov-12-18
 | | Sally Simpson: Game 3 drawn.
Caruana not trying to prove anything with White and has Black geared up to frustrate Carlsen or suck him into over-pressing just like Karjakin did when Carlsen cracked up, shunned a draw, lost and threw a wobbly at the press conference. Carlsen will not want to share the pot and become the champion in effect from a rapid or blitz again. Good match - hope game 5 is fireworks...I'll be there. Theses two probably on the exact same rating now. (yes?) |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | jphamlore: Caruana never loses these games where Queens are exchanged before move 30 as long as his position hasn't tactically collapsed by that point. Ever. This Alekhine strategy is interesting in a 12 game and not unlimited match. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | jphamlore: <Sally Simpson> I agree, for quite some time the best chance to beat Carlsen in this type of important event is to hope Carlsen overpresses as White. |
|
Nov-12-18
| | Richard Taylor: <Jambow: <Surely you're joking. Your comments were in response to comments about Trump. That surely makes them political.>
Who is actually delusional? My comment was clearly not political simply because it was in response to political comments? This is a page for a world championship chess match and that being innapropriate. Don't confuse the message with the delivery just because the latter bothers you. <Is that how you try to justify your inappropriate responses? By saying that because others do it then it's OK for you to do it? Both sets of comments, yours and <HeMateMe> are inappropriate.> Here you go with your long verbose repetative comments where you utterly miss the obvious. Seems it might be a lifelong pattern? I didn't enter into a political discussion, you repeating it doesn't make it true. That you personally as an adult is either too obtuse or dishonest to acknowledge is on you not me. Again I purposefully mentioned nothing political, nor could you demonstrate that I had. My entire statement was a rebuke of <HeMateMe> for the pattern of bringing political nonsense out of the Rogoff page or his forum where it belongs. <No it's not. Why is it too hard for you to understand? And I'm not defending them, their comments on this page were just as inappropriate as yours. The only difference between their comments and yours was that yours were full of vitriol and personal attacks ("fecal matter escaping", "empty minds", "ignorant", "idiots", "stupidity"), and theirs was not It would have been most appropriate for you to simply indicate that <their> comments were inappropriate in this page and nothing more. Such a reasoned reply would not have elicited a post from me.> You say the only difference between my comments and his comments where ... See the point was obvious, is obvious and should be obvious looking forward. The major difference is I didn't make it political in any sense. While I was very deliberate in doing so I can't make you to deliberately not understand that, that is your own choice. Was it personal yep, already acknowledged that from the get go, now multiple times. See inspite of the fact that you came after me personally when you thought I was out of line, I can still logically anylize what you wrote. You would have to read with the intention of understanding what I wrote and not what you wished I wrote. I can't control that. So was it personal, mea culpa it indeed was, yet again. Everyone wasn't engaged in bringing political fecal matter out of the Rogoff page <HeMateMe> was. Do I think it is idiotic crap to do so? Indeed I do. <HeMateMe> has done it several times before or my response might have been more tepid. I could go on and on about how you don't read my posts, how you haven't bothered to read former posts etc... I'll leave that to you. End of the day as I already said you can write an essay but you are still just wrong. You didn't show where my post was political, nor could you because it wasn't, you simply made a poor attempt to equivocate basaed on my approach and frankly at this point I think you are aware that is exactly what you did. If a person forcefully confronts a person for tresspassing and polluting their property that doesn't make them guilty of doing the same thing sir and I'm fairly certain you have the capacity to comprehend that. You may disagree with my blunt method and get all sorts of emotionally distraught at my approach, but that doesn't make your innitial assesment anymore acurate does it? Sometimes you are just wrong sir, have a nice day enjoy the match.> But what you have overlooked here (and I address all involved in this great debate) is that Trump is the biggest a'hole that God ever unwisely shoved guts into and allowed to live. He is also one the ugliest bastards to be the President and a walking joke of a driveling excuse for a man, if he is a man... I thought this might shed some light on the situation pertaining. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | boz: C'mon Richard. I hear enough about "he whose name will go unmentioned" every day. Not here! |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | jphamlore: The weird thing to me is how Carlsen just forgets he is so good as White vs the Nimzo-Indian when he plays matches like this. This beating of Anand wound up in the newest English version of Journey to the Chess Kingdom: Carlsen vs Anand, 2013 And then a few months after their match, Carlsen remembers that Karjakin has never actually proved his Nimzo-Indian is impregnable and defeats him like this: Carlsen vs Karjakin, 2017 It's strange to me how this is the second world championship match in a row where seemingly Carlsen loses his faith that he can beat anyone once he gets them out of their comfort zone. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | paavoh: Not very impressed by Caruana's opening play with White so far. Quite solid, good pawn structures, but I do not see a great urge to put any pressure. Safety first, I guess. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | boz: According to Svidler and Grischuk, White was better out of the opening but Caruana did not seem able to do anything with his advantage. |
|
| Nov-12-18 | | savagerules: Fischer played 5 0-0 and soon got in d4 against Spassky in their second match in 1992 in two of the Rossolimo Sicilians they played. It seems more active than this quiet 5 d3 that Caruana seems to prefer. Maybe it's his version of the rope-a-dope strategy against Carlsen. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 133 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
