Hacker News Reader

Comment by nomilk | Hacker News Reader

I was struck by Ding's thoughtfulness, objectivity and humility when asked how he felt after the match (while clearly utterly dejected):

> How do you feel?

> I think I played my best tournament of the year. I think it was a fair tournament in the end. I have no regrets.

> Any message for fans?

> Thank you, I will continue to play, I hope I can show strength like this time.

Gukesh was equally as objective, humble, and gentlemanly in victory.

These attributes are what makes chess and its superstars so appealing.

View on HN

> These attributes are what makes chess and its superstars so appealing.

I would say that what you just described is usually called "sportsmanship" and is pretty common in most sports (with exceptions of course, but at least most would agree that it's an ideal worth aspiring to)

A lot of exceptions sadly. But with the amount of neuroticism you see with top athletes that's to be expected I suppose

I disagree. I think what you're saying are "a lot of exceptions" are primarily going to be in what are historically referred to as "revenue sports" in the US -- football & basketball -- and also in individual sports where personal marketing is key to financial success (e.g. sponsorships).

I don't see it as unexpected for there to be big egos and boisterous personalities in sports where individuals are hugely rewarded for personal success. From an athlete's point of view, creating a commercial persona is almost as important as performing at their best on the field/track/bike/pool/course/etc.

I agree, but some people, that are just 100% driven by success really become cunts that way, even in non-commercial sports.

Never seems to be the best of the best though, more those in 2-3rd place or really narrow 1st place, something about the uncertainty of staying on the top, or never quite reaching it...

Ah yes, Hikaru.

Even in the revenue sports it’s mostly great sportsmanship. Actually surprisingly good considering how much punishing physical contact they have between them.

Trust me, there are plenty of real jerks in chess as well - at the top as well as at your local chess club.

The biggest problem is, unlike most sports, there are lots of under 10s who can easily decimate you and haven't yet learned how difficult wining gracefully is.

In addition to playing chess, I go to the climbing gym – the 10-year-olds there destroy me as well! (But the culture of indoor climbing is vastly more positive than chess culture.)

Google Bobby Fischer. Chess has its share. Hard to tell if it's greater or lesser per capita.

Gukesh then added: “You can’t hook the rook, you can’t fight the knight, black or white, I am the GREATEST OF ALL TIME! Which one of you punks is NEXT?”

Not when Hans or Hikaru are playing.

Ding's was not objective neither thoughful, Ding was completely melted down after the interview and the interview was a reflection of that. Chess is a drawn game and the gist of playing chess is to be more resilient, blunder less and exploit as many of the chances you got in your game. Matches and games are won exactly because the opponent doesn't make the best of his chances. This is the cruel nature of the game. A player like Carlsen, Karpov , Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Topalov or any other world champion would have felt entitled to win the last game playing White after Gukesh missed a crucial chance to close the match the game before. But no, Ding played to draw and swap pieces even when he had the initiative in the 14th game. And he lost the game with a club player blunder because he still insisted on exchanging pieces when down a pawn. It's basic knowledge that pawn endgames are decisive and you have always to calculate them exactly when entering one, that when one is down material he has to exchange pawns but not pieces, and that in general rook endgames are slighly easier to play than pawn endgames. Any master would have insisted on shuffling the rook and would have never thinked of exchanging pieces in that situation. The fact that he exchanged the rook is a reflection of Ding's terrible form.

TIL there are armchair quarterbacks for chess

I believe the term is armchair grandmasters.

I reckon Ding would probably beat you in chess, even if you had 2 hours and he only had 10 minutes.

In a normal game yes, but he won't beat me in the ending that he has lost. I can draw that against Stockfish for all that matters.

Chess and its superstars are often anything but humble and modest. Magnus Carlsen's commetary for this match was riddled with derogatory statements. since he wanted to sit out this championship he should be gracious and respectful toward the players who fought for the title in his stead but he has been anything but that.

The interview (quotes at 2m10s; watching from 0m33s captures more emotion/context):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmYAvrJjWsY&t=33s

I'm not a constant follower of chess and only see events now and then, but its great to see some new faces on the block.

Absolutely.

Nepo and Magnus seem to be cut from a different cloth, although Magnus has never had a moment where he could demonstrate whether or not he can be humble, because he has always just crushed.

Anish Giri kind of took a shot at Magnus (with respect to his retiring from classical chess) in his early commentary with Petr Leko a few days ago. People are funny, and one doesn't usually get to be where Ding and Gukesh are without having a bit of an edge to their personality. That's what makes Ding and Gukesh so special to me.

Magnus doesn't usually direct his frustration at others (except in the infamous Hans Niemann game) but he has been known to storm out of interviews after some of his bad losses.

He sometimes lets the chess speak for itself /s

Everyone looks humble compared to Hans, though.

He certainly has created a bit of buzz.

You are quite the Chess enthusiast; I enjoy reading your comments!

Thanks. My son and I first started watching together for Magnus-Fabi, so it's something we enjoy doing together. I enjoy the sporting aspect of it even though I've never been a particularly good chess player. I'm more interested in the human aspects of it, and I enjoy the commentaries by Leko, Bobby Chess (Robert Hess), Naroditsky, Giri, and Judit. I love learning from people who have achieved greatness.

It was evident to me from the beginning that Ding was struggling physically (he had an occasionally rough-sounding cough throughout) and, perhaps, emotionally. And Gukesh was locked in from go. What a struggle!

Magnus described Ding's abilities as a 4/10 in the lead up to the match. In match commentary he regularly called the games "baffling" (as in baffingly bad) and regularly said they weren't strong grandmaster calibre. He is definitely very conceited and resents not being the world champion, even if it's only because of his absence.

Magnus was just being honest man. You seem to succumb to a common thinking fallacy that people who express criticism or negative opinions about something or someone must be jealous, conceited or just negative people in general. Meanwhile he was just expressing what is obvious to any strong player: Ding's level of play was subpar coming to the match, a league below elite at least. His play during the match was way below his peak level as well. Ding made 3 amateur player level blunders (hanging a bishop, missing basic tactics and missing transposition to a basic lost pawn endgame) in this match. Carlsen himself made 0 of those during 5 matches. Among his opponents Anand made 0 blunders of this caliber, Karjakin made 0, Caruana made 0 and Nepo made 2 (or 3 if you count the last game in which he was already playing for nothing as the match was decided)

Gukesh underperformed massively in comparison to his recent level (at the Candidates and the Olympiad). I am guessing due to nerves. That made the match closer than it should be. At the end of the day much better player won but it was way closer than it would normally be.

Magnus blundered simple Nxe5 in better endgame in the 6th game of the second match with Anand. Anand missed it as well.

It wasn't even so much the blunders as the strategic decisions I think. Like, a blunder isn't in itself "baffling".

Unfortunately Magnus is 100% right. Some of the mistakes and choices that were made by Ding are at chess club level strength. Sad to say but this is the truth. The mistake on the final game is absolutely orrible, something never seen in a WCC before. Another example in game 5, Ding plays brillantly and gains a small initiative and gains a pawn then, instead of trying to press, he gives two pawns back with the intention of entering an opposite color bishop endgame. You are not supposed to play to drawn when you are better. And there are several other instances of this in the match. Gukesh deserved the win for the fighting spirit but honestly the games were not at WCC level. I believe that Gukesh will redeem himself as Karpov did after winning for forfait against Fischer but today it's a sad day for chess.

Magnus is literally ~50 ELO above Gukesh. Do you have any concept of how much that is at the very top?

EDIT: Just to preempt: This is not say that Gukesh doesn't have a very bright future or couldn't surpass Magnus' top rating. Gukesh could definitely do that... but currently neither Gukesh or Ding are even particularly close to Magnus' (current!) level.

Ironically, in the match that Gukesh won and that made him world champion, he lost rating points, inceasing his distance to Magnus.

Magnus is a stereotype of a prima donna. He’s always condescending and tried to destroy Hans Niemann’s career because Hans had the nerve to beat him once. I think he wants to be crowned World Champion without going through all the trouble of playing the games, and he’s annoyed that it’s not turning out like that.

Is it conceit if he's correct, though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com