I'm so happy for Ding, my favorite top player, who I think has a beautiful style. I've been rooting for Ding to be in such a match for a long time, since before the 2020 candidates, but the world seemed to conspire against him. Now he's won a lot of hearts along with the title of World Champion. What can one say of his odyssey? It's as if winds of fate were propelling him in the most unlikely ways; it's as if Pallas Athena were intervening on his behalf at crucial moments.

And Nepo--what an amazing recovery he made from a shattering match against Carlsen. It's so impressive. Passionate by nature, known for both natural talent and arrogance in his youth (Carlsen during their match: "he is not a modest man, and with good reason")--even having once been kicked out of a Russian group for his immature behavior--Nepo after the Carlsen match adopted a pervasive objectivity in his demeanor and statements. You could tell it was no PR move but the external sign of an effort at self-mastery. His subsequent results showed how deeply he had redirected himself. If under these immense pressures he lapsed into his ancient vice (reflexive rapidity), then so did Kasparov (reflexive aggression, e.g. pushing pawns forward when uncertain) and Karpov (reflexive energy-efficiency, e.g. releasing effort when ahead in a match). And Nepo never went into a prolonged tilt after a setback but kept battling.

The end of the last game was classic Ding. Caruana, commentating, didn't anticipate 42...Qe2!!, 43...Bb4!?, 46...Rg6!!, 48...Qd3!, or 51...Qg6! and praised all of those decisions except 43...Bb4!? for brilliance or quality.

Good read. I'm glad the media is giving him some love. He worked hard to earn it.

Kerangali wrote on 05/03/23 at 13:14:18:

I think Radjabov was third? http://candidates.fide.com/

I admit I am still unsure which mattered more, Ding winning it or Nepo losing it. But Ding won fair and square so he deserves it for sure. It certainly was a dramatic contest! Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Ding's ELO rating only bumped 1.4 points?

I am not kidding, I woke up this morning dreaming Ding opened Game 10 with 1.e3. 

Historical aside:  the N+3 vs. N+2 ending they now have reminds me of Geller-Portisch, Portoroz Interzonal playoff 1973. Geller, with the extra pawn, lost on time. He thought the time control was at move 84, when it was actually 88. As a result, Polugaevsky, not Geller (for whom a draw would have sufficed), made it into the Candidates.

Dink Heckler wrote on 04/18/23 at 19:08:45:

Kavalek wrote that in any tournament where Petrosian was playing, Petrosian would agree to a quick last round draw and very soon after all the other games would also end in draws. Only if Fischer or Larsen was also playing would it be different.

I think it's fair to say there are a small number of strong characters who will do their own thing regardless of what others are doing, and a large number of weak characters who will decide what to do based on what others are doing. Whether doing your own thing, regardless of what others are doing, is a good or a bad trait is open to debate. Some people might prefer to reverse the labels of strong and weak.

On a different axis, both the strong players and the weak players are least likely to change their behavior based on others; it's the ones in the middle who will look around before deciding. This may be rational behavior, or it may be how they became strong or weak in the first place.

So I think everything matters. Take the same players and put them in a different format, or take the same format and plug in different players, the results will be all over the place. Then take different formats and different players, and now people can say almost anything they want about it, and who really knows?