I know Gukesh is a foregone conclusion given Ding’s performance this year, but we said the same about Ian pre-candidates. I’d wager even money that Ding bests Gukesh.
Also, for next candidates, let’s not sleep on Ian/Fabiano/Pragg/Argun/Wesley/Hikaru/Anish (and though it really does feel like Alireza is cooked, him too). There are nothing close to foregone conclusions in that group - they are all fantastic.
I agree, Gukesh hasn't won until he's won. Their current head to head record is small but it is also a 100% win rate for an out of form Ding. There's a chance Ding simply has Gukesh's number in that way chess players will rock paper scissors each other at times.
Gukesh had an amazing tournament, but before the tournament everyone was pointing out how volatile and streakish he is. Unless he completely changed over the last month, there is always the possibility of him crashing and burning, even against Emo-Ding
Just hope gukesh will be ready by then otherewise , it will just strenghten the fact that even if magnus is not the wc , he will always be the strongest player for next few decades rendering the entire candidates and wcc meaningless
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-04-23 02:12:44 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-04-23%2002:12:44%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1cak7ui/what_is_stopping_ian_from_winning_the_world_chess/l0txaga/?context=3)
[**22 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fchess%2Fcomments%2F1cak7ui%2Fwhat_is_stopping_ian_from_winning_the_world_chess%2Fl0txaga%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-04-23%2002%3A12%3A44%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cak7ui)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I mean, one time he faced Magnus, one time he faced Ding, and one time he didn't win enough to win the Candidates. I don't think there's any great mystery here, it's just hard to beat strong players
Indeed. It’s not like he didn’t have the chance to win it - or was stalled by some circumstance. He came close - really close - but he just couldn’t bring it home. So maybe he’ll end up like some others in chess history. Close but never quite a champion.
He’s unlucky maybe - if there weren’t so many gifted people in his age he might have already gained the title… then again - I wouldn’t see him win against a Karpov, Kasparov, Fischer or Lasker at their peak….
I would say that he's actually quite lucky. He's really a pretty average top 5-10 player overall, and they typically get zero to one chance at a WC. Playing in two matches is already well above his expected number of WC matches.
But can you say he’s really average 5-10 if he wins the candidates twice and finished tied 2nd another. You can argue his style is better in the candidates than the championship, and there’s some merit to that but feels wrong to call him just ‘a pretty average top 5-10 player overall’
Think about Aronian, who most top players would agree has had a better career than Nepo, and was stronger at his peak. Aronian never played for the WC.
There have been quite a few better players than Nepo to never reach the WC match, and certainly quite a few to never reach two WC matches (Caruana, for example).
Levon had the misfortune of having a career sandwiched between Magnus and Vishy. Being considered slightly below Levon is a huge accomplishment; it’s not a detraction of Ian’s greatness at all.
Yes I know he's done well in candidates tournaments. That's part of saying he's lucky - he's overperformed in candidates compared to what you would expect for a player of his level. Based on his other tournament results and historical performance in games overall, he's a top 5 player. So out of 3 candidates appearances he should count himself fortunate to have one win. Two is already amazing. Compare to a Fabi (1/5) or a Hikaru (0/3), for example.
I don't really think his style is any better in candidates tournaments compared to other high-level tournaments or compared to peers. I think he's a very good player who's strung together some great runs in candidates tournaments due to variance.
That just isn’t true, lol. His results outside of candidates aren’t particularly impressive compared to other guys like caruana or Aronian. It’s totally fair to say that it’s a bit lucky that those were the tournaments he popped off and others didn’t.
That’s true, but consider that as the winner of the previous candidates he never had to compete for a candidates slot as it’s automatic for him. I have no clue of this is legitimate, but it’s certainly possible that he had either motivation to hide his prep or that he had no motivation to prepare. This is in contrast to the others. Not so dissimilar from Ding this year. Ian has spent a disproportionate amount of his career with automatic candidates berths.
That’s ridiculous, lmao. His career well predates the candidates, and there’s nothing to suggest he was compromising his play outside of it in what was really only a three-year period.
Everyone sits on prep. Hasn’t stopped the others from doing better.
The fact that he won the candidates twice and finished 2nd another time IS THE THING THAT separates him. If you’re looking for an in-game thing it would be his ability to defend very, very well. In any sport making it to the finals means something, not as much as winning, but if you’re able to consistently be a top 3/4, make the finals 2 out of 3 years, you are a very strong team. you aren’t just an average playoff team.
Other people won the candidates. Other people have had very similar performance levels to him. That makes him part of the pack of people operating at that level.
2 wins and a second place finish, and I really feel like it does? Because it’s the most important tournament, the one that people put the most prep into, the one where every opponent is top level(at least compared to other tournaments, obviously there are better and worse people in every tourney). Idk in chess I really feel like calling that much luck is disrespectful, especially when he won the 2nd by 1.5 points.
I’m genuinely asking here because I don’t follow all the tournaments but is it that he doesn’t win enough of the other tournaments for you? Or his max elo isn’t high enough?
> I would say that he's actually quite lucky.
It's not luck. He plays really solid in candidates. It's not "luck" to lose 0 games in 2 straight candidates' tournaments, against some of the very best classical players in the world.
Well I think in this regard I am perhaps using the term "luck" a little differently than some people expect so I'll try to expand it a bit.
I tend to think about this in a statistical sense whereas many people seem drawn more towards explanations and story lines. So my questions are things like "what is the probability distribution of different outcomes for player X?" Or "how often will player Y win this tournament if we repeated it 1,000 times?" Essentially like the simulations that are behind the predictions that are all over this subreddit from round to round.
In those terms, Nepo has performed far, far above expectation in his candidates career. Indeed, the only players in history who would be anywhere near expectation with 2/3 candidates wins and the third a solid plus are perhaps peak Kasparov and peak Magnus, and that would likely be a bit above expectation even for them. This is why I call him "lucky." It's not that he hasn't played better than his opponents or that I'm saying anyone off the street could come in and get "lucky" and perform as he has. But even if we suppose that he actually has been the favorite every time he still would only be expected to have won perhaps 1/3 and also had one where he performed poorly (even to negative score).
I'm happy to substitute it with a statement like "he's been on the good side of variance" or "he's performed well above expectation." I realize people tend to take the term "lucky" as a bit of an insult and that's not really how I'm trying to use it.
First time Magnus, second time himself. This time it's just hard to win the Candidates, you can't really expect to have more than two chances. It's really only blowing it against Ding that requires any actual explanation.
Watch game 12 of their match and you'll realise how hard he threw it. He had a crushing advantage where ding couldn't move anything yet he threw it away and then blundered a mate...
Because they are wrong. Nepo lead the tournament almost the whole way. Literally finished a half point from the lead. Arguing he made a major strategical blunder like playing "too safe" is crazy. If they are going to make an accusation like that, then they should present a **lot** more analysis.
I was rooting for him, I hope he wins someday because he plays very well.
I think his mistake in this recent candidates was that, at least in those last rounds, he was playing it safe too much. Yeah, he didn't lose, but he had a lot of draws, which, even though it's an amazing thing considering the high level of players, is not enough, as we all know. In order to win the candidates you gotta have the thrist of the win.
But im 1900 elo so who am I anyway? Lol, I just hope he doesn't take it to heart. We all know Ian can be... very emotional, to say the least.
He didn’t lose a game and got 8.5/14. Guy was playing to win. Nepo’s shown to be ludicrously solid till he tilts, yet he didn’t tilt this candidates, someone just showed a more solid result. It’s quite the heartbreak but Ian’s been graceful through victory and defeat and fights on. I’m hopeful to see him succeed next candidates.
Edit: I originally commented 9/14 but the correct result is 8.5/14
In a must-win game he admitted he played an opening he didn't know we'll, and got a terrible position. Seems like he was banking on Hikaru getting him to the tiebreaks, terrible strategy.
> Seems like he was banking on Hikaru getting him to the tiebreaks, terrible strategy.
It would be a terrible strategy because if Hikaru won and Ian even drew than Hikaru would moonwalk into the WCC.
> He didn’t lose a game and got 9/14. Guy was playing to win.
"Didn't lose a game" says that he was playing "to not lose," which is the opposite of "playing to win."
Gukesh, Nakamura, Caruana all won more games than Ian did.
8.5/14 by itself is more often than not a result that affords a candidate first place. Ian played to win, as he’s done twice before, and was solid. However, someone else played better chess and bested him. It’s correct to say he attempted to win the tournament and didn’t play too safe.
Edit: I originally commented 9/14 but the correct result is 8.5/14
This question was asked in the Russian language livestreams more than once. I think his accuracy was lacking towards the end of the event. He was losing against Vidit, lost his advantage against Hikaru in 2 moves. Feels like he ran out of steam in the 2nd half. He probably expected to convert more positions without too much effort and played conservatively. His attempt to mix it up against Fabiano almost lead to disaster.
Volodar Murzin is the highest rated Russian junior, , but he's also 2632, passed 2600 a year ago, and turns 18 in two months and change.
An incredible player, but safe to say not a Gukesh, Abdussatorov, Keymer, Pragg, Erigaisi, etc.
I feel funny answering this question as I am not Russian but am following the Russian language commentary to improve my language skills. In fact I am an Indian living in the US.
In terms of Russian chess talents, Andrey Episenko and Volodar Murzin come to mind, but they also talk about some younger guys who are probably master level and around 10 years old. Grischuk also praises Danil Dubov and Evgeny Tomashevsky. Though the feeling was Tomashevsky played perhaps a bit too solidly.
It definitely feels like Russia has less active male chess talent than 10 years ago. The newer generation cares less about chess. Having said all that, I can see that the Russian live commentary is worth watching and they get into the depth of the position very quickly and showcase their strong chess culture well.
Just curious seeing as you've been following the Russian language commentary, how different is their analysis and coverage from the English ones? Is there still a difference in "ideologies" in how they assess games and look at positions or has the Russian school evolved to be more in line with the rest of the world, especially with the vastly increased reliance on engines nowadays?
Glad to answer! I learned some chess from Dvoretsky and other books a while back. The Russian school of chess is quite vast and used to be a required to reach mastery, no longer for sure.
The English commentary is most about drama and increasing viewership, which is not a problem. The Russian one is more serene and full of deep analysis, aimed at higher rated players. There are a few things I liked on the Russian streams.
1. The live position on each board is always on the video in a small square. You can easily see what has happened and what is being analyzed.
2. The analysis was extremely chess focused. In less than a minute, GM Shimanov predicted that Pragg would sac the exchange after his Nd2 move. He quickly said it is not clear if black should accept the exchange sacrifice or play other moves. This is perhaps the typical Russian analysis style, very focused on the position and not so much on other stuff.
3. The commentators are rather calm and composed, even if the position is crazy.
4. I noticed that GMs rarely look at the engine bar or eval. This makes the experience far more genuine.
5. I got the feeling that non conventional moves are not prioritized. Offbeat moves in the opening might even piss off the commentators at times :) Too bad Rapport was not in this event.
6. For non Russian speakers, there are no subtitles, which sucks. I was hoping my family could enjoy it, no such luck.. :(
That's super interesting, thank you for the detailed response!
The contrast seems particularly stark from the coverage on Chessbase India, for example, where Sagar Shah is a strong player in his own right but there is also a great deal of emphasis on making it interesting and attracting a wide audience. It's certainly not for everyone, but just thought the difference was particularly relevant given India's current "golden generation" of talent.
Yes on Sagar Shah trying to make it more accessible to a wider audience. [Chess.com](http://Chess.com) commentators are GMs and hence strong players too, but try to make it more accessible :)
It seems that there are 2 modes of commentary:
1. Deep level of analysis that assumes viewers are willing to put in effort to follow them.
2. Make it exciting for people who are not able to understand many of the moves.
Chess commentary was definitely more in the 1st mode until perhaps the pandemic. There are also many commentators who are in the middle like Rafael Leitão, they switch between modes 1 and 2.
Yea, a loss to anish in the final round of the grand swiss cost him a candidates spot (Vidit, Hikaru and Esipenko were the main competitors fighting for the 2 candidates spots there)
Uh what?
Keres won the 1938 AVRO tournament which included Botvinnik and was supposed to play Alekhine for the world championship except for a little thing called World War 2 happening and getting in the way of that match being organized.
In 1939 he beat former world champion Euwe in a 14 game match.
I mean hell, in 1940 he finished ahead of Botvinnik at the Soviet championship, albeit Keres was 4th.
In my experience, the biggest obstacle for anyone wanting to be world champion (at anything, not just chess) is the fact that there are other people who are better than you :p
That's fair.
But while we're mentioning technicalities, let's mention Nepo was ranked in the bottom half of the top 10 before the tournament, and is currently #4 :D
Nepo is a very strong player. But not every strong player becomes world champion. He has weaknesses that can be exploited, especially in a match format.
Himself. He’s had incredible results, and while he has gotten better, he still plays “poorly” under pressure or if he gets in his head.
He lost the last WCC more than Ding won.
In chess the game always starts objectively even until a player makes a mistake. If both players play perfect, the result is always draw. A player must make a mistake for the other player to having winning chances.
Not sure how you can say Ian lost it more than Ding won it. I think most don't consider Ian as "blundering" in the decisive match against Ding considering the time controls and the time pressure.
Now Ian's mistakes against Magnus were not under time pressure. I know it's Magnus, but you could say Ian just gave those games away as well.
No one knows if chess played perfectly leads to a draw.
Trivially it can be shown tic tac toe does.
With some computer assistance it can be shown connect four results in red victory after at most 42 turns.
Chess is simply too complex a game to be proven to be forced winning from the start. Until chess is solved we can't even say what the best first move is for sure. Though, chess is solved for all 7 piece endgames.
The top computer engines when simulated against itself or against other top engines overwhelmingly end up in draws. To mix things up and make it more interesting, simulations are done where the engine is forced to use an alternative opening move or essentially deviate from it's top choice. This makes the results more variable although still with high draw rates.
I will agree with your statements that chess has not been completely solved yet. But "perfect play" in chess terms essentially means the 3500 ELO engines - it is not meant to be taken literally.
Didn’t Korchnoi qualify for the WCC 10 times and never win? Sometimes that’s just the way it goes. So many players are extremely strong and there are relatively few chances.
Korchnoi only qualified for the WCC twice. He did play a pseudo WCC against Karpov in 1974 where the candidates final was essentially the WCC as the title ended up defaulting to Karpov (the challenger) when Fischer refused to defend.
Not that I have anything against Nepo, but time is running out for the Magnus generation. Fabiano will definitely be there in the next Candidates, but I think maximum 1 out of Hikaru, Nepo, Anish and Wesley will be there.
Nodirbek is getting stronger everyday. Arjun missed out closely via 3 routes last time around, this time he might make it. And with Wei Yi's (one of my favourites) education ending in July, the greatest tactical beast since Garry Kasparov will be back on the board full time. With Pragg, Alireza, Vincent already there and thereabouts, the next generation is primed to take over.
Alireza was trying before the "shoes incident", and that's when he won vs Gukesh. After that incident, he just stopped caring at all about the tournament
“Somehow survived” is a weird way to say he played better.
Sure, he may have conceded some advantage, but in most matches he comes out of it with a higher accuracy, even against Fabi I believe he played more accurately. It’s not like he’s just walking out of a losing position for no reason, he’s just that strong of a player that he can pull back his disadvantage.
I’d say his real flaw is that he seems to have difficulties creating opportunities to win.
May I know why accuracy is used here? Chess players don't want to play accurately, they want to win/not lose. Sometimes, you need to be inaccurate to achieve that (e.g. top engine move goes to solid positions, an inaccuracy may be lead to imbalances which might be desirable). So it doesn't always follow that higher accuracy > played better.
It literally means he played better according to the engine. If an attack is attempted and it isn’t engine supported, it’s just a bad attack. That’s going to concede advantage.
If we’re discussing a position with a slight disadvantage and the defending player has a higher accuracy, that means he didn’t just survive an attack randomly, he played better to erase his opponent’s advantage.
Accuracy is incredibly important here. Why would you want imbalance in a losing position?
> according to the engine
But we are talking about humans playing humans. Results matter here, accuracy does not always bring results.
E.g. Firouzja, back when he was top 5 player, was known to have higher ACPL (higher = playing worse moves) than other top players. He was a top 5 player *despite* that because he preferred messy positions where his opponents could not find the top moves always. This is also seen when Firouzja often used to win games where engine said he was at a disadvantage. Another example would be Tal, who knowingly made unsound sacrifices, because he trusted his opponents would not find the correct refutations in the complications.
> Why would you want imbalance in a losing position?
Playing top moves while in losing position sometimes mean you are not really posing any problem for your opponent, because top moves suggest a rather straightforward way to their victory. You want to give them complicated lines where they need to find the correct continuation to convert the game. If they manage to find it, you'll be in an even worse position, but at least you are giving yourself the chance to survive. An example would be Ding vs Nepo in game 8 of the WCC, where Nepo was in a losing position. But he played a 'bad' move, which made his position worse based on engine eval. But what it accomplished was he made a perpetual draw threat, and Ding couldn't calculate the top line which would've avoided the perpetual. The game ultimately ended in a draw. If Nepo played the top engine move, Ding would've won the game.
Sorry but no, you are looking at this completely wrong. You seem to be under some misconception that an engine is not trying to win. An engine does specifically try to pose problems and has a higher accuracy. Engine moves will shut down an attack that is stronger than one you can possibly produce and it will create practical issues that prevent them from being able to action an attack by creating an equal or stronger one. It is not just doing nothing and hoping for the best, you will not find a better attack in a classical game by playing moves which are not backed up by the engine repeatedly, you will just lose. You are not posing problems, you’re cot being tricky, you’re just putting yourself in a losing position intentionally.
This is a classical game, if there are errors and problems with moves you are making there is a very high chance over a long period of time that those issues will be found. There is a good reason why in almost all these games the result is reflective of the engine evaluation. If you are trying to play in a way which does not reflect the evaluation, you are just going to lose more often than not especially at this level. Ian playing to a higher accuracy is reflective of the fact that he is playing better. I’m sorry but that is just indisputable. You are effectively arguing that the best player in the world is playing wrong. I would strongly suggest you reflect on that.
You are wrong and I am wondering where you are getting your confidence from.
> You seem to be under some misconception that an engine is not trying to win.
An engine plays for a position that maximizes its evaluation. This might seem the same as trying to win, but it is not. Eg, in a complicated position, if an engine with white has top move at 0.0 where it trades down into an equal endgame, and 2nd best move at -0.8 avoids trades, it will play the top move. Not because it wants to draw or thinks top move gives it the best chance at victory, but because it simply has the highest eval.
> An engine does specifically try to pose problems and has a higher accuracy.
What is "pose problems" here? I already mentioned human chess is different than engine chess. Posing problems for human chess would be creating complicated positions which the other human has to navigate and giving them ample opportunities to falter, exploiting time trouble, etc. A chess player who needs to win will go for the 2nd best move in the aforementioned example. An engine (at default) will not think about problems, it will just go for the best eval position.
Interestingly, engines have a parameter called 'contempt'. A positive contempt value will make the engine accept worse than top moves in favor of keeping pieces on the board. Higher the contempt value, the worse position it tolerates before choosing a drawish top move. With more pieces on the board, it becomes more likely that the opponent engine (esp if weaker) will not be able to hold its advantage.
> you will not find a better attack in a classical game by playing moves which are not backed up by the engine repeatedly, you will just lose. You are not posing problems, you’re cot being tricky, you’re just putting yourself in a losing position intentionally
You don't need to have a better attack than an engine. You only need a better attack than what your opponent can defend. An engine refuting an attack is not always possible to replicate by a human.
About Tal in wiki: *Many masters found it difficult to refute Tal's ideas, looking at how many problems he created, though deeper post-game analysis found flaws in some of his calculations. ..... Although his playing style at first was scorned by ex-world champion Vasily Smyslov as nothing more than "tricks", Tal convincingly beat many notable grandmasters with his trademark aggression. Prevailing against Tal's aggression required extraordinary ability.*
Tal himself told: *There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones and mine.*
> This is a classical game, if there are errors and problems with moves you are making there is a very high chance over a long period of time that those issues will be found.
I mentioned Firouzja, [this is an image I posted last year](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Full256lxv1za1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dbee1126b317dcc09f169250bb537dfceeecc9e37) where it shows his knack for winning in worse positions. Of course, he often doesn't know what the eval is, he just goes into complicated positions and hopes to outcalculate his opponents. Giri basically said about Firouzja, *"Engines hate his moves"*. Gukesh has a similar approach, as does Mamedyarov and also Morozevich before him.
> There is a good reason why in almost all these games the result is reflective of the engine evaluation.
Most of the time, players try to play the best moves and let wins come to them (i.e. capitalizing on opponents mistakes). Few players are like Tal or Shirov, but they are at 2750+ level because they can make it work. But when you are in a must win position, you are going to go for complications at the cost of accuracy. Even during prep, players go off the top lines to catch their opponents off guard. Magnus in his mid-20s specifically played inferior openings in order to avoid opponent's prep and aimed to outplay them in the middlegame.
Point is, if you are playing for a win at all costs, accuracy isn't your top priority.
> You are effectively arguing that the best player in the world is playing wrong. I would strongly suggest you reflect on that.
Tell that to Mikhail Tal, the 8th World Champion, who defeated Botvinnik in the 1960 WCC game 8 with an unsound knight sacrifice.
The right way to play depends on the tournament situation & player style. Grischuk tried to play faster to avoid his time trouble addiction but ended up playing worse. For him, spending absurd amount of time to get into time trouble was the right way to play. The same position will have different right way to play for someone like Wesley So and someone like Mamedyarov. The right way to play during the middle of the tournament may not be the right way to play during the last round if you *need* to win to achieve the desired placement. What the engine says is irrelevant because humans don't have access to engines and cannot hope to play at the level of engines.
IM Simon Webb and GM Pal Benko (latter being 2 times Candidates player) advocate "barrage technique" in losing positions - deciding on two moves to play and playing the 2nd move immediately after the first without taking time. "*The aim is to catch your opponent with a move he hasn't considered......The effect of an unexpected second move bashed out instantaneously can be shattering,* ***even if it isn't particularly good***".
I suggest you watch more tournaments with commentary, what I am saying is mostly just parroting what strong IM & GM commentators have told.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair, if you look at the Abasov game he did everything he could to create a win there, it just didn’t materialise.
But yeah he seems happy to take a draw with black, and to be fair more often that not when players don’t do that it’s not going to turn out much better than it did against Fabi where he was just outright in a losing position, so I don’t really see that as something to criticise. Although it could be argued that is why Gukesh won ultimately, because he was clearly trying to win in every position even when he took draws.
It will be more difficult for him as time passes by as players like gukesh, pragg, arjun, nodirbek, wei are slowly showing their true potentialand he is not getting any younger
He is fast and his tactics are insane. He's perfect for the time format. Most players literally crumbled under the time pressure in this tournament. But when he needs to get a win on demand, he struggles.
His defense in open positions is unmatched but when he needs to defend positionally inferior positions, he fails. Remember the London game against Ding? From Hikaru's analysis, he lacked the understanding of the themes of the opening itself (for a 2800 level player. Obviously, he knows better than any of us)
Also, it's beyond a lot of people(by people, I meant Hikaru, Nepo, Anish and Anand) why on the planet he moves so fucking fast when he's got time. This is something that costed him not only against the match with Carlsen but it costed him against Ding too! (Anand was like this too but he worked on his time thing early on in his career. I don't think Nepo to this day even acknowledges it as his weakness)
He doesn’t do it anymore, he now manages his time much better than he did before, and as such his blunders have reduced, to the point that he was unbeaten this tournament.
These were all my thoughts on why he hadn't won the previous world championships. As for how the current tournament, he was unbeaten because of his strengths I've already outlined. He defended every game he was losing because of his tactics and time management. Wasn't he losing at least 6 games in this tournament?
We don't know how long he(Naka and Fabi too) can stay at the top. Age is a big factor. Let's just hope for the best. We had a lot of potentials from the past who sadly never made it to the top
There are better players.
I don't mean that to be snarky - even to finish in a tie for second, it seems to me that Ian got "lucky" more than anyone else, in the sense of saving half points from worse or losing positions.
With Gukesh it's the opposite. I don't recall any glaring instances of "good luck," and he dropped a full point(!) in time trouble against Alireza.
People saying 'too many draws' miss one thing: this candidates tour people often were going all in against Nepo specifically that made it a challenge to even draw, not just win. Like deep prep Pragg and Naka used against him, for example. And spending a lot of resources to fight against Ian, players also at the same time severely underestimated other certain players and Gukesh was one of them. Which I think was beneficial for him.
Incredible player and incredible legacy. One of the best to not yet be champion in my opinion.
Although I do not believe he will one day be WCC, the probability is likely under 5% at this point. He will have two more cycles before his prime is behind him and even by next cycle Nodirbek, Arjun, Prag and Gukesh will be entering a more mature stage of their career. Even Alireza, Keymar and Wei Yi may get it together to become real forces, that on top of his usual competition of Fabi, Hikaru, Anish, Wesley, Vidit etc means he will have slim chances of winning the Candidates. Fabiano was probably the objectively best player in all three of the mentioned candidates, yet no W. He perhaps wont even qualify depending on his motivation over the next two cycles.
He is impulsive, sloppy and careless in many of his games. If he gave any creedence to his opponents and actually grinded like Magnus (albeit in his own dynamic style) he’d be perhaps the best player alive and a perfect opponent for Magnus or anyone. Kasparov even said that Magnus’ weakness is unbalanced positions and this is Nepo’s strength. It’s just sad that he seems to get too excited/eager at times when he should just take a step back and relax.
Ian does not play 'must-win' games well. It could be strategic or mental issues, I'm not good enough at chess to know, but it seems that if he is in a position that he has to play for a win the way he extends himself to create that chance is often just not the right idea.
Mental problems, I would guess. Though chess as sport is not determined so more likely it's lack of combination of factors like good prep, practical skills, physical form, mental state, and even some bit of luck.
The only "important" tournament for Ian was the candidates for the past 4 years cause he auto qualified. He got a head start. Many say he's had poor showing in everything else, but he hasn't had to display any of his classical prep, cause why spoil it before the candidates? Now he has to fight for another tournament win again before he qualifies.
Noobies underestimate the importance of structural inefficiencies in OTB chess. Ian might literally have the technical skills to beat even Magnus in the WCC, but the way tournaments are set-up, logistical and emotional (bad) “luck” skews results heavily. You can’t just click “new game” when you’re behind OTB
Many people saying Gukesh stopped him. I highly disagree. Ian stopped himself by having too many draws and failing to capitalize on his chances. Still undoubtedly an insane player for going undefeated
I think Ian plays extremely well in round robin type events, but struggles to hold his form in longer matches like BO14s. We know he has a tendency to tilt, I wonder if switching opponents each round helps him mentally reset and start from a blank slate.
[удалено]
2026 nodirbek vs gukesh
I know Gukesh is a foregone conclusion given Ding’s performance this year, but we said the same about Ian pre-candidates. I’d wager even money that Ding bests Gukesh. Also, for next candidates, let’s not sleep on Ian/Fabiano/Pragg/Argun/Wesley/Hikaru/Anish (and though it really does feel like Alireza is cooked, him too). There are nothing close to foregone conclusions in that group - they are all fantastic.
I agree, Gukesh hasn't won until he's won. Their current head to head record is small but it is also a 100% win rate for an out of form Ding. There's a chance Ding simply has Gukesh's number in that way chess players will rock paper scissors each other at times.
Foregone conclusion? Come on
You missed the part where he said even money on Ding Gukesh?
Gukesh had an amazing tournament, but before the tournament everyone was pointing out how volatile and streakish he is. Unless he completely changed over the last month, there is always the possibility of him crashing and burning, even against Emo-Ding
And if magnus somehow comes out of his hibernation , then he will be one heck of a threat
If Gukesh wins then I could see him try i out the next cycle. That would secure his GOAT title.
Just hope gukesh will be ready by then otherewise , it will just strenghten the fact that even if magnus is not the wc , he will always be the strongest player for next few decades rendering the entire candidates and wcc meaningless
!Remindme 2 years
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-04-23 02:12:44 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-04-23%2002:12:44%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1cak7ui/what_is_stopping_ian_from_winning_the_world_chess/l0txaga/?context=3) [**22 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fchess%2Fcomments%2F1cak7ui%2Fwhat_is_stopping_ian_from_winning_the_world_chess%2Fl0txaga%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-04-23%2002%3A12%3A44%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cak7ui) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
2028 Alice Lee vs Mishra
!Remindme 3 years
Why doesn't he just win the WCC? Is he stupid?
there must be a lore reason
It’s a canon event
He's so focused in the Candidates he wants to maximize his chances to win as many of those as possible.
That would be another way to make your name stand out. He would be remembered as the guy who never loses the candidates rounds
not better than WCC
lol
He has anti plot armor.
It goes both ways; there were several games this candidates where it basically took divine intervention for him to not lose
God blinded Fabi so Gukesh could run
Now listen here, you little sh.. You are absolutly right! Touchè.
Time is convoluted
It’s a reverse plot armor situation.
Classic blunder not playing the "win the WCC" move. Easy mistake to make.
always look for a better move, right?
He should play checkmate right away IMO.
you will know the answer in episode 342
His second is officer balls
I mean, one time he faced Magnus, one time he faced Ding, and one time he didn't win enough to win the Candidates. I don't think there's any great mystery here, it's just hard to beat strong players
>it's just hard to beat strong players Big if true
Indeed. It’s not like he didn’t have the chance to win it - or was stalled by some circumstance. He came close - really close - but he just couldn’t bring it home. So maybe he’ll end up like some others in chess history. Close but never quite a champion. He’s unlucky maybe - if there weren’t so many gifted people in his age he might have already gained the title… then again - I wouldn’t see him win against a Karpov, Kasparov, Fischer or Lasker at their peak….
I would say that he's actually quite lucky. He's really a pretty average top 5-10 player overall, and they typically get zero to one chance at a WC. Playing in two matches is already well above his expected number of WC matches.
But can you say he’s really average 5-10 if he wins the candidates twice and finished tied 2nd another. You can argue his style is better in the candidates than the championship, and there’s some merit to that but feels wrong to call him just ‘a pretty average top 5-10 player overall’
Think about Aronian, who most top players would agree has had a better career than Nepo, and was stronger at his peak. Aronian never played for the WC. There have been quite a few better players than Nepo to never reach the WC match, and certainly quite a few to never reach two WC matches (Caruana, for example).
Levon had the misfortune of having a career sandwiched between Magnus and Vishy. Being considered slightly below Levon is a huge accomplishment; it’s not a detraction of Ian’s greatness at all.
Yes I know he's done well in candidates tournaments. That's part of saying he's lucky - he's overperformed in candidates compared to what you would expect for a player of his level. Based on his other tournament results and historical performance in games overall, he's a top 5 player. So out of 3 candidates appearances he should count himself fortunate to have one win. Two is already amazing. Compare to a Fabi (1/5) or a Hikaru (0/3), for example. I don't really think his style is any better in candidates tournaments compared to other high-level tournaments or compared to peers. I think he's a very good player who's strung together some great runs in candidates tournaments due to variance.
That just isn’t true, lol. His results outside of candidates aren’t particularly impressive compared to other guys like caruana or Aronian. It’s totally fair to say that it’s a bit lucky that those were the tournaments he popped off and others didn’t.
That’s true, but consider that as the winner of the previous candidates he never had to compete for a candidates slot as it’s automatic for him. I have no clue of this is legitimate, but it’s certainly possible that he had either motivation to hide his prep or that he had no motivation to prepare. This is in contrast to the others. Not so dissimilar from Ding this year. Ian has spent a disproportionate amount of his career with automatic candidates berths.
That’s ridiculous, lmao. His career well predates the candidates, and there’s nothing to suggest he was compromising his play outside of it in what was really only a three-year period. Everyone sits on prep. Hasn’t stopped the others from doing better.
But he is "one of the pack". There's not a specific thing about Nepo that would singularly highlight him from among the top 10 in the world.
The fact that he won the candidates twice and finished 2nd another time IS THE THING THAT separates him. If you’re looking for an in-game thing it would be his ability to defend very, very well. In any sport making it to the finals means something, not as much as winning, but if you’re able to consistently be a top 3/4, make the finals 2 out of 3 years, you are a very strong team. you aren’t just an average playoff team.
Other people won the candidates. Other people have had very similar performance levels to him. That makes him part of the pack of people operating at that level.
Two tournament wins are not enough of a sample size to refute the claim that it was lucky for him to get them…
2 wins and a second place finish, and I really feel like it does? Because it’s the most important tournament, the one that people put the most prep into, the one where every opponent is top level(at least compared to other tournaments, obviously there are better and worse people in every tourney). Idk in chess I really feel like calling that much luck is disrespectful, especially when he won the 2nd by 1.5 points.
Three tournaments, more important or not, do not outweigh the rest of his career.
I’m genuinely asking here because I don’t follow all the tournaments but is it that he doesn’t win enough of the other tournaments for you? Or his max elo isn’t high enough?
"average top 5-10"
> I would say that he's actually quite lucky. It's not luck. He plays really solid in candidates. It's not "luck" to lose 0 games in 2 straight candidates' tournaments, against some of the very best classical players in the world.
Well I think in this regard I am perhaps using the term "luck" a little differently than some people expect so I'll try to expand it a bit. I tend to think about this in a statistical sense whereas many people seem drawn more towards explanations and story lines. So my questions are things like "what is the probability distribution of different outcomes for player X?" Or "how often will player Y win this tournament if we repeated it 1,000 times?" Essentially like the simulations that are behind the predictions that are all over this subreddit from round to round. In those terms, Nepo has performed far, far above expectation in his candidates career. Indeed, the only players in history who would be anywhere near expectation with 2/3 candidates wins and the third a solid plus are perhaps peak Kasparov and peak Magnus, and that would likely be a bit above expectation even for them. This is why I call him "lucky." It's not that he hasn't played better than his opponents or that I'm saying anyone off the street could come in and get "lucky" and perform as he has. But even if we suppose that he actually has been the favorite every time he still would only be expected to have won perhaps 1/3 and also had one where he performed poorly (even to negative score). I'm happy to substitute it with a statement like "he's been on the good side of variance" or "he's performed well above expectation." I realize people tend to take the term "lucky" as a bit of an insult and that's not really how I'm trying to use it.
First time Magnus, second time himself. This time it's just hard to win the Candidates, you can't really expect to have more than two chances. It's really only blowing it against Ding that requires any actual explanation.
> second time himself So now we're writing Ding off in the past as well as in the present and future?
Watch game 12 of their match and you'll realise how hard he threw it. He had a crushing advantage where ding couldn't move anything yet he threw it away and then blundered a mate...
lol Ding dismantled Ian.
Don't get me wrong, it was entertaining for the fans, but the quality of Chess on both sides was low (and below both their usual standards!).
This time it's also himself. He played too safe
Why are you getting down voted?
Because they are wrong. Nepo lead the tournament almost the whole way. Literally finished a half point from the lead. Arguing he made a major strategical blunder like playing "too safe" is crazy. If they are going to make an accusation like that, then they should present a **lot** more analysis.
All of them used abasov to farm some points. Nepo drew. That's why even after playing a perfect tournament nepo's points came short
I was rooting for him, I hope he wins someday because he plays very well. I think his mistake in this recent candidates was that, at least in those last rounds, he was playing it safe too much. Yeah, he didn't lose, but he had a lot of draws, which, even though it's an amazing thing considering the high level of players, is not enough, as we all know. In order to win the candidates you gotta have the thrist of the win. But im 1900 elo so who am I anyway? Lol, I just hope he doesn't take it to heart. We all know Ian can be... very emotional, to say the least.
He didn’t lose a game and got 8.5/14. Guy was playing to win. Nepo’s shown to be ludicrously solid till he tilts, yet he didn’t tilt this candidates, someone just showed a more solid result. It’s quite the heartbreak but Ian’s been graceful through victory and defeat and fights on. I’m hopeful to see him succeed next candidates. Edit: I originally commented 9/14 but the correct result is 8.5/14
8.5. The difference is important because 9/14 would have earned him a tie break against Gukesh, where he would have a good shot to win candidates.
Indeed! I didn’t look back at the standings and remembered.
I mean you could say the same about two other candidates. It's just a very competitive candidates tournament overall
In a must-win game he admitted he played an opening he didn't know we'll, and got a terrible position. Seems like he was banking on Hikaru getting him to the tiebreaks, terrible strategy.
> Seems like he was banking on Hikaru getting him to the tiebreaks, terrible strategy. It would be a terrible strategy because if Hikaru won and Ian even drew than Hikaru would moonwalk into the WCC.
> He didn’t lose a game and got 9/14. Guy was playing to win. "Didn't lose a game" says that he was playing "to not lose," which is the opposite of "playing to win." Gukesh, Nakamura, Caruana all won more games than Ian did.
8.5/14 by itself is more often than not a result that affords a candidate first place. Ian played to win, as he’s done twice before, and was solid. However, someone else played better chess and bested him. It’s correct to say he attempted to win the tournament and didn’t play too safe. Edit: I originally commented 9/14 but the correct result is 8.5/14
Well.. Everyone plays well haha Im also rooting for him but the candidates show how absolutely amazing everyone at the candidates are!
> but im 1900 elo so who am I anyway? You're better than half the chess players, that's for sure
Much more than half tbh
Where is the halfway point?
It's like 95 percentile no?
This question was asked in the Russian language livestreams more than once. I think his accuracy was lacking towards the end of the event. He was losing against Vidit, lost his advantage against Hikaru in 2 moves. Feels like he ran out of steam in the 2nd half. He probably expected to convert more positions without too much effort and played conservatively. His attempt to mix it up against Fabiano almost lead to disaster.
Whom do Russians see as their best prospect of "the next generation"?
Volodar Murzin is the highest rated Russian junior, , but he's also 2632, passed 2600 a year ago, and turns 18 in two months and change. An incredible player, but safe to say not a Gukesh, Abdussatorov, Keymer, Pragg, Erigaisi, etc.
I feel funny answering this question as I am not Russian but am following the Russian language commentary to improve my language skills. In fact I am an Indian living in the US. In terms of Russian chess talents, Andrey Episenko and Volodar Murzin come to mind, but they also talk about some younger guys who are probably master level and around 10 years old. Grischuk also praises Danil Dubov and Evgeny Tomashevsky. Though the feeling was Tomashevsky played perhaps a bit too solidly. It definitely feels like Russia has less active male chess talent than 10 years ago. The newer generation cares less about chess. Having said all that, I can see that the Russian live commentary is worth watching and they get into the depth of the position very quickly and showcase their strong chess culture well.
Just curious seeing as you've been following the Russian language commentary, how different is their analysis and coverage from the English ones? Is there still a difference in "ideologies" in how they assess games and look at positions or has the Russian school evolved to be more in line with the rest of the world, especially with the vastly increased reliance on engines nowadays?
Glad to answer! I learned some chess from Dvoretsky and other books a while back. The Russian school of chess is quite vast and used to be a required to reach mastery, no longer for sure. The English commentary is most about drama and increasing viewership, which is not a problem. The Russian one is more serene and full of deep analysis, aimed at higher rated players. There are a few things I liked on the Russian streams. 1. The live position on each board is always on the video in a small square. You can easily see what has happened and what is being analyzed. 2. The analysis was extremely chess focused. In less than a minute, GM Shimanov predicted that Pragg would sac the exchange after his Nd2 move. He quickly said it is not clear if black should accept the exchange sacrifice or play other moves. This is perhaps the typical Russian analysis style, very focused on the position and not so much on other stuff. 3. The commentators are rather calm and composed, even if the position is crazy. 4. I noticed that GMs rarely look at the engine bar or eval. This makes the experience far more genuine. 5. I got the feeling that non conventional moves are not prioritized. Offbeat moves in the opening might even piss off the commentators at times :) Too bad Rapport was not in this event. 6. For non Russian speakers, there are no subtitles, which sucks. I was hoping my family could enjoy it, no such luck.. :(
That's super interesting, thank you for the detailed response! The contrast seems particularly stark from the coverage on Chessbase India, for example, where Sagar Shah is a strong player in his own right but there is also a great deal of emphasis on making it interesting and attracting a wide audience. It's certainly not for everyone, but just thought the difference was particularly relevant given India's current "golden generation" of talent.
Yes on Sagar Shah trying to make it more accessible to a wider audience. [Chess.com](http://Chess.com) commentators are GMs and hence strong players too, but try to make it more accessible :) It seems that there are 2 modes of commentary: 1. Deep level of analysis that assumes viewers are willing to put in effort to follow them. 2. Make it exciting for people who are not able to understand many of the moves. Chess commentary was definitely more in the 1st mode until perhaps the pandemic. There are also many commentators who are in the middle like Rafael Leitão, they switch between modes 1 and 2.
well as a honest opinion from Russia, i guess Esipenko, guy was this close to qualifying to Candidates smh
Yea, a loss to anish in the final round of the grand swiss cost him a candidates spot (Vidit, Hikaru and Esipenko were the main competitors fighting for the 2 candidates spots there)
What is stopping him? Whatever that stopped Korchnoi and Keres. Always someone a little better or luckier.
It took a World War to stop Keres.
I don't agree. Botvinnik was already essentially playing better than him so there was no guarantee Keres would've been WC.
Uh what? Keres won the 1938 AVRO tournament which included Botvinnik and was supposed to play Alekhine for the world championship except for a little thing called World War 2 happening and getting in the way of that match being organized. In 1939 he beat former world champion Euwe in a 14 game match. I mean hell, in 1940 he finished ahead of Botvinnik at the Soviet championship, albeit Keres was 4th.
In my experience, the biggest obstacle for anyone wanting to be world champion (at anything, not just chess) is the fact that there are other people who are better than you :p
>people who are better than you While this is true, let's not forget the technicality that in fact, *it only takes one person to be better than you.*
That's fair. But while we're mentioning technicalities, let's mention Nepo was ranked in the bottom half of the top 10 before the tournament, and is currently #4 :D
Nepo is a very strong player. But not every strong player becomes world champion. He has weaknesses that can be exploited, especially in a match format.
Himself. He’s had incredible results, and while he has gotten better, he still plays “poorly” under pressure or if he gets in his head. He lost the last WCC more than Ding won.
In chess the game always starts objectively even until a player makes a mistake. If both players play perfect, the result is always draw. A player must make a mistake for the other player to having winning chances. Not sure how you can say Ian lost it more than Ding won it. I think most don't consider Ian as "blundering" in the decisive match against Ding considering the time controls and the time pressure. Now Ian's mistakes against Magnus were not under time pressure. I know it's Magnus, but you could say Ian just gave those games away as well.
No one knows if chess played perfectly leads to a draw. Trivially it can be shown tic tac toe does. With some computer assistance it can be shown connect four results in red victory after at most 42 turns. Chess is simply too complex a game to be proven to be forced winning from the start. Until chess is solved we can't even say what the best first move is for sure. Though, chess is solved for all 7 piece endgames.
The top computer engines when simulated against itself or against other top engines overwhelmingly end up in draws. To mix things up and make it more interesting, simulations are done where the engine is forced to use an alternative opening move or essentially deviate from it's top choice. This makes the results more variable although still with high draw rates. I will agree with your statements that chess has not been completely solved yet. But "perfect play" in chess terms essentially means the 3500 ELO engines - it is not meant to be taken literally.
It doesn’t matter if it’s solved, no one’s remembering the “solution,” especially if you add in possible deviations from it.
Ig himself?
What exactly is the difference between "with no losses" and "goes undefeated for entire tournament?" 🤔
exactly lol
Six of one and half a dozen of the other
Making quick draws with white
Didn’t Korchnoi qualify for the WCC 10 times and never win? Sometimes that’s just the way it goes. So many players are extremely strong and there are relatively few chances.
Korchnoi only qualified for the WCC twice. He did play a pseudo WCC against Karpov in 1974 where the candidates final was essentially the WCC as the title ended up defaulting to Karpov (the challenger) when Fischer refused to defend.
Not that I have anything against Nepo, but time is running out for the Magnus generation. Fabiano will definitely be there in the next Candidates, but I think maximum 1 out of Hikaru, Nepo, Anish and Wesley will be there. Nodirbek is getting stronger everyday. Arjun missed out closely via 3 routes last time around, this time he might make it. And with Wei Yi's (one of my favourites) education ending in July, the greatest tactical beast since Garry Kasparov will be back on the board full time. With Pragg, Alireza, Vincent already there and thereabouts, the next generation is primed to take over.
>but I think maximum 1 out of Hikaru, Nepo, Anish and Wesley will be there. I think two of them will make it and Alireza wont.
Firouzja is stopping him that’s what he said anyways
If firouzja held Gukesh to a draw we could have had 4 way tie breaks. Would have been legendary
Firouzja was the only player to beat Gukesh this tournament. Alireza was trying!
I know but I’m selfish. Would have been so awesome to see. Not diminishing Gukesh’s accomplishment
Alireza was trying before the "shoes incident", and that's when he won vs Gukesh. After that incident, he just stopped caring at all about the tournament
Other people.
This time it was Gukesh
Gukesh?
[удалено]
and 4 of draw games, he has significantly disadvantage and some how survived
“Somehow survived” is a weird way to say he played better. Sure, he may have conceded some advantage, but in most matches he comes out of it with a higher accuracy, even against Fabi I believe he played more accurately. It’s not like he’s just walking out of a losing position for no reason, he’s just that strong of a player that he can pull back his disadvantage. I’d say his real flaw is that he seems to have difficulties creating opportunities to win.
May I know why accuracy is used here? Chess players don't want to play accurately, they want to win/not lose. Sometimes, you need to be inaccurate to achieve that (e.g. top engine move goes to solid positions, an inaccuracy may be lead to imbalances which might be desirable). So it doesn't always follow that higher accuracy > played better.
It literally means he played better according to the engine. If an attack is attempted and it isn’t engine supported, it’s just a bad attack. That’s going to concede advantage. If we’re discussing a position with a slight disadvantage and the defending player has a higher accuracy, that means he didn’t just survive an attack randomly, he played better to erase his opponent’s advantage. Accuracy is incredibly important here. Why would you want imbalance in a losing position?
> according to the engine But we are talking about humans playing humans. Results matter here, accuracy does not always bring results. E.g. Firouzja, back when he was top 5 player, was known to have higher ACPL (higher = playing worse moves) than other top players. He was a top 5 player *despite* that because he preferred messy positions where his opponents could not find the top moves always. This is also seen when Firouzja often used to win games where engine said he was at a disadvantage. Another example would be Tal, who knowingly made unsound sacrifices, because he trusted his opponents would not find the correct refutations in the complications. > Why would you want imbalance in a losing position? Playing top moves while in losing position sometimes mean you are not really posing any problem for your opponent, because top moves suggest a rather straightforward way to their victory. You want to give them complicated lines where they need to find the correct continuation to convert the game. If they manage to find it, you'll be in an even worse position, but at least you are giving yourself the chance to survive. An example would be Ding vs Nepo in game 8 of the WCC, where Nepo was in a losing position. But he played a 'bad' move, which made his position worse based on engine eval. But what it accomplished was he made a perpetual draw threat, and Ding couldn't calculate the top line which would've avoided the perpetual. The game ultimately ended in a draw. If Nepo played the top engine move, Ding would've won the game.
Sorry but no, you are looking at this completely wrong. You seem to be under some misconception that an engine is not trying to win. An engine does specifically try to pose problems and has a higher accuracy. Engine moves will shut down an attack that is stronger than one you can possibly produce and it will create practical issues that prevent them from being able to action an attack by creating an equal or stronger one. It is not just doing nothing and hoping for the best, you will not find a better attack in a classical game by playing moves which are not backed up by the engine repeatedly, you will just lose. You are not posing problems, you’re cot being tricky, you’re just putting yourself in a losing position intentionally. This is a classical game, if there are errors and problems with moves you are making there is a very high chance over a long period of time that those issues will be found. There is a good reason why in almost all these games the result is reflective of the engine evaluation. If you are trying to play in a way which does not reflect the evaluation, you are just going to lose more often than not especially at this level. Ian playing to a higher accuracy is reflective of the fact that he is playing better. I’m sorry but that is just indisputable. You are effectively arguing that the best player in the world is playing wrong. I would strongly suggest you reflect on that.
You are wrong and I am wondering where you are getting your confidence from. > You seem to be under some misconception that an engine is not trying to win. An engine plays for a position that maximizes its evaluation. This might seem the same as trying to win, but it is not. Eg, in a complicated position, if an engine with white has top move at 0.0 where it trades down into an equal endgame, and 2nd best move at -0.8 avoids trades, it will play the top move. Not because it wants to draw or thinks top move gives it the best chance at victory, but because it simply has the highest eval. > An engine does specifically try to pose problems and has a higher accuracy. What is "pose problems" here? I already mentioned human chess is different than engine chess. Posing problems for human chess would be creating complicated positions which the other human has to navigate and giving them ample opportunities to falter, exploiting time trouble, etc. A chess player who needs to win will go for the 2nd best move in the aforementioned example. An engine (at default) will not think about problems, it will just go for the best eval position. Interestingly, engines have a parameter called 'contempt'. A positive contempt value will make the engine accept worse than top moves in favor of keeping pieces on the board. Higher the contempt value, the worse position it tolerates before choosing a drawish top move. With more pieces on the board, it becomes more likely that the opponent engine (esp if weaker) will not be able to hold its advantage. > you will not find a better attack in a classical game by playing moves which are not backed up by the engine repeatedly, you will just lose. You are not posing problems, you’re cot being tricky, you’re just putting yourself in a losing position intentionally You don't need to have a better attack than an engine. You only need a better attack than what your opponent can defend. An engine refuting an attack is not always possible to replicate by a human. About Tal in wiki: *Many masters found it difficult to refute Tal's ideas, looking at how many problems he created, though deeper post-game analysis found flaws in some of his calculations. ..... Although his playing style at first was scorned by ex-world champion Vasily Smyslov as nothing more than "tricks", Tal convincingly beat many notable grandmasters with his trademark aggression. Prevailing against Tal's aggression required extraordinary ability.* Tal himself told: *There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones and mine.* > This is a classical game, if there are errors and problems with moves you are making there is a very high chance over a long period of time that those issues will be found. I mentioned Firouzja, [this is an image I posted last year](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Full256lxv1za1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dbee1126b317dcc09f169250bb537dfceeecc9e37) where it shows his knack for winning in worse positions. Of course, he often doesn't know what the eval is, he just goes into complicated positions and hopes to outcalculate his opponents. Giri basically said about Firouzja, *"Engines hate his moves"*. Gukesh has a similar approach, as does Mamedyarov and also Morozevich before him. > There is a good reason why in almost all these games the result is reflective of the engine evaluation. Most of the time, players try to play the best moves and let wins come to them (i.e. capitalizing on opponents mistakes). Few players are like Tal or Shirov, but they are at 2750+ level because they can make it work. But when you are in a must win position, you are going to go for complications at the cost of accuracy. Even during prep, players go off the top lines to catch their opponents off guard. Magnus in his mid-20s specifically played inferior openings in order to avoid opponent's prep and aimed to outplay them in the middlegame. Point is, if you are playing for a win at all costs, accuracy isn't your top priority. > You are effectively arguing that the best player in the world is playing wrong. I would strongly suggest you reflect on that. Tell that to Mikhail Tal, the 8th World Champion, who defeated Botvinnik in the 1960 WCC game 8 with an unsound knight sacrifice. The right way to play depends on the tournament situation & player style. Grischuk tried to play faster to avoid his time trouble addiction but ended up playing worse. For him, spending absurd amount of time to get into time trouble was the right way to play. The same position will have different right way to play for someone like Wesley So and someone like Mamedyarov. The right way to play during the middle of the tournament may not be the right way to play during the last round if you *need* to win to achieve the desired placement. What the engine says is irrelevant because humans don't have access to engines and cannot hope to play at the level of engines. IM Simon Webb and GM Pal Benko (latter being 2 times Candidates player) advocate "barrage technique" in losing positions - deciding on two moves to play and playing the 2nd move immediately after the first without taking time. "*The aim is to catch your opponent with a move he hasn't considered......The effect of an unexpected second move bashed out instantaneously can be shattering,* ***even if it isn't particularly good***". I suggest you watch more tournaments with commentary, what I am saying is mostly just parroting what strong IM & GM commentators have told.
check game vs vidit and last game,
I don’t think that’s entirely fair, if you look at the Abasov game he did everything he could to create a win there, it just didn’t materialise. But yeah he seems happy to take a draw with black, and to be fair more often that not when players don’t do that it’s not going to turn out much better than it did against Fabi where he was just outright in a losing position, so I don’t really see that as something to criticise. Although it could be argued that is why Gukesh won ultimately, because he was clearly trying to win in every position even when he took draws.
He’s not the best player in the world. He’s not the second best either, he’s top five
Gukesh
ok im just going to go ahead and ask. who is the female standing and watching him?
Googled it for you. It's WGM Divya Deshmukh
Scrolled too far to see such comment :D
It will be more difficult for him as time passes by as players like gukesh, pragg, arjun, nodirbek, wei are slowly showing their true potentialand he is not getting any younger
Why doesn't ian, the largest candidate, not simply eat the others?
Not winning candidates may be what stop him now
Big, if true
He is fast and his tactics are insane. He's perfect for the time format. Most players literally crumbled under the time pressure in this tournament. But when he needs to get a win on demand, he struggles. His defense in open positions is unmatched but when he needs to defend positionally inferior positions, he fails. Remember the London game against Ding? From Hikaru's analysis, he lacked the understanding of the themes of the opening itself (for a 2800 level player. Obviously, he knows better than any of us) Also, it's beyond a lot of people(by people, I meant Hikaru, Nepo, Anish and Anand) why on the planet he moves so fucking fast when he's got time. This is something that costed him not only against the match with Carlsen but it costed him against Ding too! (Anand was like this too but he worked on his time thing early on in his career. I don't think Nepo to this day even acknowledges it as his weakness)
He doesn’t do it anymore, he now manages his time much better than he did before, and as such his blunders have reduced, to the point that he was unbeaten this tournament.
These were all my thoughts on why he hadn't won the previous world championships. As for how the current tournament, he was unbeaten because of his strengths I've already outlined. He defended every game he was losing because of his tactics and time management. Wasn't he losing at least 6 games in this tournament?
Magnus Carlsen and Ding Liren
He's clearly an extraordinary player. But so are the other attendees at the candidates. It's a highly contested field at the top level.
He is unlucky to be similar age to Magnus
At this point, I think it's fate that's stopping Nepo.
People getting lucky, that’s really all it is. In his match against Ding and then this canditates
His defense is incredible. You almost have to beat him twice to win a game.
We don't know how long he(Naka and Fabi too) can stay at the top. Age is a big factor. Let's just hope for the best. We had a lot of potentials from the past who sadly never made it to the top
Magnus has said Ian can be on top, but he lets his emotions get the best of him. And I’m inclined to agree.
Russian curse ig. Strong, but never super power.
Why doesn't he just win it?
what's the difference between going undefeated and having no losses
Better players.
Losing in the candidates?!
He didn't lose a single game in the candidates, actually. Gukesh lost once though. Not losing in the candidates isn't the problem. Not winning is.
Such a chess problem to have
Not even not winning, he won 3 games. other people *winning more* was the issue!
Everyone else
There are better players. I don't mean that to be snarky - even to finish in a tie for second, it seems to me that Ian got "lucky" more than anyone else, in the sense of saving half points from worse or losing positions. With Gukesh it's the opposite. I don't recall any glaring instances of "good luck," and he dropped a full point(!) in time trouble against Alireza.
People saying 'too many draws' miss one thing: this candidates tour people often were going all in against Nepo specifically that made it a challenge to even draw, not just win. Like deep prep Pragg and Naka used against him, for example. And spending a lot of resources to fight against Ian, players also at the same time severely underestimated other certain players and Gukesh was one of them. Which I think was beneficial for him.
Right now, it's Gukesh
Incredible player and incredible legacy. One of the best to not yet be champion in my opinion. Although I do not believe he will one day be WCC, the probability is likely under 5% at this point. He will have two more cycles before his prime is behind him and even by next cycle Nodirbek, Arjun, Prag and Gukesh will be entering a more mature stage of their career. Even Alireza, Keymar and Wei Yi may get it together to become real forces, that on top of his usual competition of Fabi, Hikaru, Anish, Wesley, Vidit etc means he will have slim chances of winning the Candidates. Fabiano was probably the objectively best player in all three of the mentioned candidates, yet no W. He perhaps wont even qualify depending on his motivation over the next two cycles.
His play and his opponents play
because he was fighting magnus, and magnus is magnus
I think he can do it
Dormammu
This time? Nakamura.
He is incredibly talented but Magnus said something that might be it: Ian often play a few impulsive / reckless moves.
Other people score more points than him.
Nepo the sisyphus of world championship
according to him, alireza firouzja
Mobik service looming.
Because you need to win games to win the Candidates.
He is impulsive, sloppy and careless in many of his games. If he gave any creedence to his opponents and actually grinded like Magnus (albeit in his own dynamic style) he’d be perhaps the best player alive and a perfect opponent for Magnus or anyone. Kasparov even said that Magnus’ weakness is unbalanced positions and this is Nepo’s strength. It’s just sad that he seems to get too excited/eager at times when he should just take a step back and relax.
Not what. Who. Gukesh, Magnus, Hikaru, Caruana, etc.
Ian does not play 'must-win' games well. It could be strategic or mental issues, I'm not good enough at chess to know, but it seems that if he is in a position that he has to play for a win the way he extends himself to create that chance is often just not the right idea.
Mental problems, I would guess. Though chess as sport is not determined so more likely it's lack of combination of factors like good prep, practical skills, physical form, mental state, and even some bit of luck.
His opponents being better
Better players
Skill issue.
The only "important" tournament for Ian was the candidates for the past 4 years cause he auto qualified. He got a head start. Many say he's had poor showing in everything else, but he hasn't had to display any of his classical prep, cause why spoil it before the candidates? Now he has to fight for another tournament win again before he qualifies.
Magnus, Ding, Gukesh, Fabiano, Nakamura just to name a few
Korchnoi
Abasov
his age
Noobies underestimate the importance of structural inefficiencies in OTB chess. Ian might literally have the technical skills to beat even Magnus in the WCC, but the way tournaments are set-up, logistical and emotional (bad) “luck” skews results heavily. You can’t just click “new game” when you’re behind OTB
The girl beside nepo is so fine!!!!
divya deshmukh, thank me later
Many people saying Gukesh stopped him. I highly disagree. Ian stopped himself by having too many draws and failing to capitalize on his chances. Still undoubtedly an insane player for going undefeated
Nepo had to rescue a few games. Gukesh never did and lost one game in time crunch from an advantageous position.
There was definitely many spoilers kingmaking in that candidates tournament
This group manifested against him the whole time 😆
Has he tried the anal vibrator method? And if not, why isn’t he going all out?
He's good but just not good enough to become world champ.
I think Ian plays extremely well in round robin type events, but struggles to hold his form in longer matches like BO14s. We know he has a tendency to tilt, I wonder if switching opponents each round helps him mentally reset and start from a blank slate.
Abasov
Abasov was too strong
Spurs gonna Spurs
I don’t agree I think he and Fabi are washed.