I don’t really understand this view. He had a superior position and Caruana was under a serious time constraint. Why give up a known advantage for some hypothetical one? The only reason I can think of is if he feared he might make a mistake in the final match, which speaks to Kasparov’s comment that Carlsen seems to be losing his nerve.
He had a superior position, but there is no guarantee that he will be able to make that work in the long run. Mistakes happen. Clearly he didn’t think his advantage was sufficient to ensure a win.
In the speed game, he’s much more confident that his mistakes, if any, will be unlikely to cost him the championship. He considers that more likely to produce a favorable outcome.
Hmmm, that still sounds like a worrying lack of nerves to be concerned about making mistakes from a superior position. He could easily make mistakes in the speed game too.
Also note that he gave up a potential 5% of the pot by letting it go to a tiebreaker. The winner/loser split is 60/40 in the regular match, but drops to 55/45 for a tiebreaker win.
My first thought is that, if true, that’s a problem with the game itself. Remedying it by forcing the players into a naturally more mistake-ridden format (speed chess) to decide the match is clearly saying that a high level of play is the problem, rather than the ideal.
There’s no doubt that, as you from competition at lower Elo ratings to competition at higher ratings, the proportion of draws goes way up, which certainly suggests that under perfect play by both sides, the result is a draw.
I would think that requiring a game win in order to win a match would be a better solution. It would force players at that level to be somewhat more aggressive in a normal time frame, rather than be more aggressive in speed chess because finding the right defense takes time that they don’t have.
I’m sure these two guys are a good deal better than, say, Petrossian and Spassky were in the 1960s, but despite the fact that both of their styles favored draws even more than most championship-caliber players’ styles did then, they had 7 non-draws in 24 games in their 1966 match, and 10 non-draws in 23 games in their 1969 rematch.
I have to believe that if the rules require that someone win a game, then someone will win a game. 
The rules are that they go from regular time control (100 minutes for the first 40 moves, etc.) to rapid chess and then to blitz. This seems extreme. Why not make the first adjustment 60 minutes for the first 40 and so on, reducing by about a third for four games, and then down to 50 percent for four games and so on?
It’s mostly just a practical thing. 4 rapid games at 25+10 is already several hours of play, and there could be blitz after that. That’s already a getting to be a lot for a single day of play.
Magnus won the first tiebreak game with white. Game two coming up.
And now Magnus has won game 2 as well. That does it, barring some major collapse now.
Magnus crushed Fabi in Game 2 with black. I guess the draw offer makes more sense now though I still think a win in classical play is more meaningful and Magnus should have backed himself to get it.
Bottom line: Magnus will remain champion but he has twice failed to beat players of his generation in classical match play.
That seems a bit ungenerous. I think I’d be more sympathetic to this view if he were gaining the title in this way, rather than defending it.
Well no question that Magnus is the best chess player in the world but at this point he is really competing with the greats of history. I think he belongs with the greatest of them in tournament play but not yet in match play.
Yes, I see that - the validity of your point relates more his personal legacy. It’s not as though “just” winning another WC proves anything.
And it’s done, Magnus won the third tiebreak game, after Caruana kept pushing in an equal position because of the match situation.
Overall it was an anticlimactic end to a well-played match. Three weeks of tension, and then Fabiano doesn’t find one move at the end of the first rapid game and that’s basically it. Still better than just giving Magnus the title after the drawn match, and at least he won the tiebreak decisively, but it’s a bit unsatisfying.
As far as his position in history goes, I don’t think drawing the main match will have much of an effect at all. Retaining the title is all that really matters. Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, and others all retained the title through drawn matches, and I don’t think it’s held against them.
I agree. And just as it’s accurate to say that he failed to win a single game in classical play, it’s also fair to note that he defended his title without losing a single game.
But I think the most memorable moment of the match was him passing up a good chance at a dramatic finish by offering the early draw in game 12.
I couldn’t disagree more. Slow chess is boring to watch and boring to play. How many people actually chose classical time controls when they’re playing for fun?
Before clocks the average game lasted nine hours. They had to do something.
For a match that had nothing but draws for the first 12 games, this was one of the most exciting chess duels I’ve ever seen. Some amazing chess, and Caruana definitely had the champ on the ropes in spots - Games 2, 6, 8 and 10; just convert one of those games…
I’m reminded of how Carlsen went for the win as Black against Anand a few years ago in the championships - offered a draw (that would have given him the championship) he declined and went for the win.
This time around he offered a draw in the last classical came with an advantage. Yes, I get that he’s an enormous favorite in the faster time controls - but it’s a striking change, in my view.
I’ve always loved Carlsen’s play, but his stature has dimmed a bit in my eyes. And I’m now a huge Caruana fan, hope to see him back at the championships soon.
Nowadays, I’d be surprised if even 1% of games people play for fun are classical time control. The Chess establishment needs to catch up with modern times. The “purity” argument doesn’t make sense now that computers are the strongest players. If you want Platonic Ideal Chess, turn to AlphaZero and Stockfish. But if you want a fun spectator sport between fallible human beings, Rapid Chess is more exciting.
One of the points I’ve seen made is that he didn’t want to expend the energy it would have taken to finish off Game 12 given the risk that, if he failed to win, he would then go into the speed games tired and with less prep time.
By offering the early draw, he saved his energy for the form that he excels at compared to his opponent.