Carlsen Hinting that He May Not Play in the Next World Championship
At least not unless Alireza Firouzja qualifies. (HT: Allen Becker) That would be a pity, for several reasons: he would miss out on the chance to break the record of successful title defenses held by Emanuel Lasker and Garry Kasparov, it would undermine the value of the World Championship title, and it might even undermine his brand. Casual tennis fans know if a player wins Wimbledon, and golf fans know who wins the Masters. Who finishes the season number one on the ATP or PGA rankings? Serious fans do, and the players do, but for most of us the answer is: Who cares? (And sometimes it's even worse. I remember a few years ago Serena Williams won two or three of the four Grand Slam events, while someone else - maybe Victoria Azarenka? - finished the year #1. The main effect that had was to lead to widespread criticism of the way tennis rankings were calculated.)
We'll see what happens. He'a grown man, and can do as he pleases. He wouldn't be the first world champion whose whims undermined the value of the title; indeed, those who didn't may even be in the minority. Before FIDE took over the title after Alexander Alekhine's death, champions often treated the title as if it was their personal possession, often making it as difficult as possible for challengers who posed a threat to get a shot at a title. After FIDE took over, it didn't get much better: there was the champion getting draw odds and rematches, for starters.
Anyway, we'll see what happens. Is it time for the World Chess Championship as we know it to be done away with? Or is the insitution fine, even if after eight years it has left Carlsen understandably tired of, and bored with, having to spend a third to half a year every couple of years preparing for and then playing these matches?
Reader Comments (5)
Carlsen has more than enough money, and given his passion for chess, I imagine that he is mostly thinking about what the most interesting chess challenge is, and sees defending the WC as just not interesting enough, given its evident opportunity costs and the fact that the selection process often does not select the strongest challenger.
To me, the more interesting part of the source article was one the post does not mention: that Carlsen is now thinking seriously about 2900 as his next challenge. It would be great to see some discussion of this: how would his prep change, what kinds of events / opponents would he target, would it (be regarded as) legitimate if e.g. he took part in team events and only played when he was white, how about arranging matches with players who are going to give him chances with black (e.g. Mamedyarov), with Firouzja's soaring rating, would a match with the youngster be on the cards, might Carlsen wait to look for opponents whose live rating has fluctuated above their actual playing strength?
[DM: I didn't mention it, in part because I wasn't sure how interesting a goal it really was. I mean, what better way to boost your rating than to play a bunch of games against the world's #2 player? And if you've got a desperate hankering for rapid chess, how are you going to boost your classical rating to 2900, unless FIDE decides to pretend that rapid chess is classical chess? Another reason I didn't mention it is that I was around when Kasparov became the first player to hit 2800. It was a big deal in some circles, but lots of old-timers and Fischer fans said "Bah, rating inflation, who cares?" while the wider world of casual fans went on their way, oblivious to the achievement. And think about how things are nowadays. When we ask who the greatest player of all time is, we ask about a player's peak rating, sure, but does anyone place a high premium on Kasparov's having been the first to 2800? We'll all ooh and ahh if and when Carlsen hits 2900 - and I will join in the oohing and ahhing! But to return to an analogy made in the OP, I'd rather win all the tennis grand slams in one year than set an ATP points record. In 30 years (it has been 30 years since Kasparov first hit 2800), assuming that others have broken the 2900 barrier by then, chess fans with some interesting in chess history will remember who was world champion from 2022 or 2023 on, and not who had what rating in what year. At least that's my best guess based on current attitudes towards old ratings, as far as I can determine them. But - as almost always! - I could be wrong.]
Judit Polgar was the world's highest rated woman--by far--for a long time and never pursued the women's world championship.
Before she became a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, Hou Yifan decided to stop defending her women's world championship title.
Has the women's world championship been devalued?
[DM: In answer to your last question, yes, obviously! It was from the moment Judit decided to avoid it. Likewise, the World Junior used to be an interesting showcase for young talent, but now that top juniors tend to skip it (the main one), it's also garners far less attention than it used to. In the last decade, I still recall Ipatov's victory because I played him OTB a couple of years later. And I remember that an American won (checks - it was Jeffery Xiong, in 2016). That's it.]
I think Carlsen is playing games here surely. Trying to put pressure on Alireza in order that he reduces his probability of qualifying and perhaps getting inside the heads of his other key rivals at the same time.
[DM: A little "four-dimensional chess" (pun intended) on his part? Interesting.]
If that's the case, and if it works, absolute "Gangsta" behaviour by Carlsen, taking the psychology aspect to another level!
Of course he may just have lost the motivation. Understandable considering he has probably spent 30-50% of his time, certainly in recent years, doing nothing but prepping for WC Matches.
Akin to the phenomenon when athletes finally win Olympic gold, for example, and then feel empty, having achieved lifelong dreams, what is left?
To follow on from my previous comment, I think 2900 is interesting because it represents a stupendous level of playing strength that is so difficult to achieve it's seen as far out of reach.
[DM: I agree that it's impressive, but then so was 2889. Fischer's mark was amazing, and then so was Kasparov's breaking 2800 and eventually hitting 2851 (his highest official rating, IIRC; 2856.7 unofficially), and likewise Carlsen's breaking that record. But whatever number Carlsen hits will be broken; rinse and repeat for the next record-breaker.]
I'd like to see Ken Regan chip in on this, but I thought he'd established that there has been very little rating inflation. And while I agree that by and large it's more memorable that someone was world champion than that he or she hit some notable rating, there are some barriers that are thought to be so difficult or significant that breaking them are achievements that really go down in history. Think the first to run a four minute mile, or climb mount Everest, or lift 500 kilos (a favourite of mine); 2900 seems in that kind of category.
On a side note, it's far from obvious that the best way for Carlsen to go for 2900 would be to play a long match with the second highest rated player. I don't recall his match with Caruana doing wonders for his rating!
[DM: If there really was something equivalent to the 4-minute mile in chess, then sure. But there isn't. If anything, it was Fischer's 2785 that looked 4-minute mile-ish, and it took about two decades before someone, Kasparov, as it turned out, broke it. And now, does anyone really care about 2800 as some sort of incredible benchmark? Not really. It took quite a while before the next guy hit 2800, but now that 15 players have done it it's still remarkable but nothing immortalizing. And I don't think many people think that the luster on Fischer's chess reputation is in some way lacking because he "only" hit 2785 as his official peak.
Indeed, it's possible to think about Fischer's 2785, and Carlsen's 2889 (or 2882, if we stick to the official number) more like Bob Beamon's long jump world record. There was no nice round number involved - he didn't reach 30 feet or even the more realistic 9 meter mark. But who cares? The way he obliterated the old record was so staggering that his mark became its own mythic number. (Interestingly, Mike Powell's record, which has now lasted longer than Beamon's, hasn't had the same aura, presumably because there have been a healthy number of jumps that are not that far short of it, while Beamon's leap was nearly two feet further than the previous record.
As for Carlsen's match with Caruana, it didn't help his rating, but it didn't hurt it, either: he broke even. He lost a few points to Karjakin, while he gained points against Nepo and the first Anand match. (Not sure about the sequel - I'll let someone else check on that. My guess is that he gained a tiny bit.)]
Rumor has it that Carlsen will quit chess entirely to play minor league baseball.
[DM: I wish him well, but suspect he'll come back in two years or so.]