If an old champion has no motivation to defend his title, then he is weak. Like it or not, but the motivation and will to be the best for many years is one of the parameters that determine the strongest players. Carlsen gave up the title and the fight for the vacant seat is interesting by definition.
In addition, we can assume that the level of contenders for the title is approximately the same, so we will see a sharp fight and not the dominance of one side, as in previous matches.
lol, the internet judges
we have no idea what are the challenges in the guys life, 1 million things could be happening on his personal life and he already proved he's the best... what's the big deal on taking a break now and then?
These are not arguments from the internet, but simple facts: regardless of the reasons (physical, mental or otherwise), the one who cannot defend his title is obviously weaker than the contenders. Strength is a combination of factors, not just one factor. Carlsen came close to repeating Kasparov's period of dominance, but gave up almost at the very end, probably such a distance is extremely difficult in every sense.
I think the same, on the NFL we have also seen a period of unprecedented dominance with Tom Brady and he has stated that he will retire when he does not feel like going through the grind of preparing for the next season, Carlsen despite probably being one of the most gifted chess players ever is right now not willing to go through that kind of grind, now there could be many reasons for this, but the fact is he is tired of defending his title for now and if that is the case then he will be nowhere near his top game, and in that case it makes more sense to allow someone else to take his place on the world championship.
However this is not completely bad news, in boxing there is the concept of lineal champion, with Carlsen out for the time being whoever wins will have his legitimacy questioned as he did not beat Carlsen, this will raise controversy and eventually once Carlsen comes back and he is serious about chess again we will have a match between whoever is the current champion at the time and Carlsen, which in my opinion will be very interesting.
This is one of the advantages when champions like Carlsen can do it, all those who have not been able to beat him know that if they do not do it they cannot or feel that they will not advance, this is something that I do not know how to interpret, some call it "pitch "Others call it the need to beat the best, if I beat the best it is likely that new challenges will come that must win and not live under the shadow of a rival that they could not beat, and like boxing, all fans do that they "compare" and sometimes this is a mistake, there is always tension in chess players, it seems unbelievable, because chess athletes usually have an overly diplomatic attitude, but on a mental level the pressure is great.
If an old champion has no motivation to defend his title, then he is weak. Like it or not, but the motivation and will to be the best for many years is one of the parameters that determine the strongest players. Carlsen gave up the title and the fight for the vacant seat is interesting by definition.
In addition, we can assume that the level of contenders for the title is approximately the same, so we will see a sharp fight and not the dominance of one side, as in previous matches.
I wouldn't call Carlsen weak but it is indeed interesting that he vacated his title. In his mind, he has nothing to prove anymore as he is already a 5 time world champion and one of the greatest chess players of all time.
I hope that he can reach the impossible 2900 elo level as that would be some accomplishment!
Well, yes it is true, but we also do not know what situations he is going through, even so that will not take away all the mastery with which he plays chess, I would like to one day reach his level, but it would be with training almost 24 hours a day and that It would not be normal, in fact, it would be a great effort and I think that in the situations we are currently experiencing and with all the things that must be done, it is not very profitable, so perhaps he is going through a personal and very particular moment, but I don't think that has to mean that he is weak, I think that even with thousands of problems he will continue to win and be champion.
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but chess GMs have one thing different from other normal chess players like us- they are genetically born with it.
Imagine, Magnus Carlsen at a very young age can calculate lines in his head blindfolded. I remember watching a chess video where Magnus was able to defeat more than 10 players simultaneously blindfolded in an exhibition match. Even if we do train for 24-hours a day, which is seemingly impossible, I really doubt that we will be able to reach the height of these super GMs in the chess field.
Like what you also mentioned, Magnus does not have to prove anything to the chess world. He is undoubtedly, the best chess player in history especially in the era of chess engines.
This is true. No matter how hard you train to be a Super GM, or to be somewhat near their skill level, you'll still be inferior on what they can do because it is already wired in their brain and is within their genes. A lot of times, those who only strived to be the best can attain Super GM status and can even compete among the gods, but they can't win world championships and will always come in second. Magnus' chess knowledge and his ability to run lines within his head and come up with an extremely accurate outcome just like what the chess engines are producing is just insane. I know Ding Liren, Nakamura, and Nepo also have this ability, but to be able to do it on almost all your games is just incomprehensible to me.
Also, his decision to not defend his title is something I respect. Dude's been playing for that top spot for over a decade now. The best of the best does not need to prove himself to anyone, especially if a lot of people have tried to prove themselves against him and still not succeed.
Yes, you are right, you do not need to prove anything, and what you say about the study I agree with you, there are people who play chess almost by inertia and they do it very well, in fact the people who do it at a Masters level stay there in that level and they don't do anything else, they think that's as far as it goes, everything, but there will always be someone who is much faster and a better player, I know that through the study of plays you can have great success, even to be a grandmaster you need to accumulate many championships, but when it comes to simultaneous, I think that's where you measure who is who, that's something that must be taken into account, not everyone has that ability, I've never tried something like that.