There was context and a given explanation (while at least according to arbiters and others not an excuse) for the Dubov-Nepo "creativity": an earlier round had been delayed by an hour, thus it was already well into the evening local time - many players were "not amused"(maybe Carlsen was least affected because he could rest between rounds in a comfortable private lounge). GM Andrew Hong had lost on time against Yu Yangyi, claimed a malfunctioning clock and it took that long to decline his appeal.
Otherwise, nice analysis mainly of some non-Carlsen games, and nice summary on how/why Carlsen won both events. Even in the blitz game against Rapport, he benefited from rather big opponent mistakes in response to "pseudo-threats": 16.-a5? may have also been to prevent a4-a5-a6, which wouldn't have been such a big deal. Neither was 23.-Qxf5 24.Qxb6 - 24.-Qd7 and black will lose the a-pawn but is reasonably fine with some sort of a fortress. The direct 20.Bxa5 (20.-Bxf3 21.Bxb6, while engines even like 21.gxf3) seemed more accurate but here black can't go "as wrong" as in the actual game.
Fedoseev-Carlsen in rapid was also called a masterpiece, Dennis seems initially less impressed and I agree. Here a4-a5 would have been good for white, when Carlsen finally prevented it he was immediately "rewarded" with 15.h5?! (such white kingside advances also eventually backfired in some other games against Carlsen). Carlsen let Fedoseev back into the game several times, only after 31.f4? (another kingside pawn move) the subsequent conversion was smooth.
In the more tactical blitz games, Carlsen was more vulnerable (it doesn't surprise me, it's not his typical style). But also here he got analogous mistakes: 21.Rxh7?? from a FM, 35.-Rxb2?? from Vokhidov and the "in-between" 34.-Rd2?? from Sarana (suddenly playing for a win and completely neglecting his own king safety?). Fact is that Carlsen had squandered his earlier advantage that arose from an objectively insipid "anti-Sicilian" setup.
Sure, I get that they were annoyed. So they should have done a repeat of Dubov-Artemiev, getting out of there ASAP while avoiding double-forfeit worries.
You're not saying that I didn't mention the Tsaruk ("a FM"), Vokhidov, and Sarana games, though it reads as if you're offering "news" there. Did you miss them in the list? One comment about the Sarana opening: "objectively insipid", perhaps, but a decent one-off trap. In the 6.Be2 Najdorf [edit: in both the 6...e5 and 6...e6 Scheveningen varieties] White often plays a quick a4 to prevent Black's queenside expansion with ...b5, so it's easy to think - even for a strong GM like Sarana, apparently - that 5...b5 would give Black an improved Najdorf in case of 6.d4. In this case, he was badly mistaken.
Everything I wrote - but my first paragraph - was about games you selected. Else I would also have been reluctant to give specific moves, if other readers don't have easy access to the games. I wrote "a FM" because few people will be familiar with the name Maksim Tsaruk, while the two others are relatively well-known GMs. "FM Tsaruk, GM Vokhidov, GM Sarana" (and before GM Rapport and GM Fedoseev) would also feel a bit weird, best might have been "Tsaruk (Belorussian FM)". Actually he just became IM, but I found out this (and that he, playing under the FIDE flag, is Belorussian, not Russian) only a few minutes ago. Similar for Dominguez' two draws at Sunway Sitges - at least Europeans may be familiar with GM Pranav from India, but not with American FM Laddha.
Also for me (on the black side), Sicilians where white delays d2-d4 (without +- giving up on it with d2-d3) can be tricky - you never know if and when it will happen, you have to be (mentally) prepared for open and closed Sicilians. My database impression: in the -e5 variety, black rarely goes for -b5 before finishing development (with the bishop on e6) anyway, and Sarana always played 6.Be2 e5 with black.
Dubov-Nepo was meant to be an _obvious_ protest on how FIDE had handled the earlier situation - right or wrong, funny or not .... some people may argue that this played a role in the arbiter decision and denying their appeal. It was the penultimate round of day 1 but punishment happened only after the round that followed (initially the game was considered a draw), only delaying pairings for the first round of day 2. Something like this probably won't happen again in a tournament game, and also not the fastest possible stalemate (10 moves) in an OTB game as happened in Belgium in 2006 https://lichess.org/ttzZb8FV#19 (probably agreed hours rather than minutes before the game, time required to look up and memorize the moves).
Para 1: My main issue was the oddity of mentioning the games. What did that add to the post? Also, as a member of Team FM, I want my name mentioned if I get a winning position against Magnus Carlsen! (Unless I blow it in some humiliating way. In that case, anonymity is better.) But seriously, if you're going to mention the other two players, mention the third - especially since you're referring to games given in the post, and there's nothing in the post that says "FM".
Para 2: Sentence one: yes, that's the point. Sentence two: correct - and the game was a nice illustration of why Black shouldn't play ...b5 too quickly, even though it's generally desirable.
Para 3: Pretty hard to see how the protest is "obvious". Indeed, why see it as a protest at all, especially given Dubov's two-move draw with Artemiev three rounds earlier? I assumption was that Dubov didn't feel like playing his Russian buddies and was happy to make draws with them, and in this case decided to make a draw in a funny way rather than playing two moves or (e.g.) going for the Berlin repetition. It's hard to see why an arbiter would "get it".
Maybe a more clever protest would have been the same moves as an intro, followed by normal moves - even if resulting in a short draw. Then they could say that they were emulating the arbiters, who took forever to make a decision that could have been made far more quickly. Moreover, neither the result nor the post-repetition moves need to have been prearranged, so it would be harder (if possible at all) to award them a double forfeit.
This doesn't have to, and shouldn't "go on forever", but a few more clarifications-explanations: I mentioned those three games also for the funny fact that horrendous rook move blunders occurred in all three of them, vs. rook pawn move blunders/inaccuracies in some other games. Tsaruk did "blow it in some humiliating way" - if 21.Rxh7?? doesn't count, what would count? Interesting that both players spent considerable time (for a blitz game) on the short critical phase: 20.-Qb6? (32 seconds) 21.Rxh7?? (34 seconds, did he even consider 21.Rh4 ?) 21.-Kxh7 (54 seconds, verifying that he hasn't missed anything and doesn't have to bail out with 21.-Qxd4+) 22.Qh3+ Kg8 (both played quickly) 23.fxg6 (52 seconds, realizing only now that 23.f6 doesn't work).
I would have mentioned the player name if it had been familiar to me and presumably others - as for Dennis Monokroussos, Nate Solon (I recently, I think thanks to you, became aware of his blog) or in a German context some German FMs. Not giving it may well be a mistake - don't blame me for using other sources on the event. BTW I saw the full game Tsaruk-Carlsen only now, earlier only some comments on chess.com along the lines of "Carlsen wins with 1.e4 a6 at a world championship".
I often also see connections with my own chess: besides "delayed open Sicilians", my own experiences include playing -b5 when it was bad, and not playing -b5 when it would have been good (it's probably the case for Sicilian players of all levels). And coincidentally, just last Thursday I had outplayed a German FM (500 points higher-rated than me on Lichess) with black, to botch it when we were both down to 20 seconds. I am still reasonably proud of this game - I was out of book on move 3 and it was his repertoire. Not something outrageous, just a line where I only knew that it "exists".
Thanks a lot for putting in the work Dennis! Great insights and instructive notes.
There was context and a given explanation (while at least according to arbiters and others not an excuse) for the Dubov-Nepo "creativity": an earlier round had been delayed by an hour, thus it was already well into the evening local time - many players were "not amused"(maybe Carlsen was least affected because he could rest between rounds in a comfortable private lounge). GM Andrew Hong had lost on time against Yu Yangyi, claimed a malfunctioning clock and it took that long to decline his appeal.
Otherwise, nice analysis mainly of some non-Carlsen games, and nice summary on how/why Carlsen won both events. Even in the blitz game against Rapport, he benefited from rather big opponent mistakes in response to "pseudo-threats": 16.-a5? may have also been to prevent a4-a5-a6, which wouldn't have been such a big deal. Neither was 23.-Qxf5 24.Qxb6 - 24.-Qd7 and black will lose the a-pawn but is reasonably fine with some sort of a fortress. The direct 20.Bxa5 (20.-Bxf3 21.Bxb6, while engines even like 21.gxf3) seemed more accurate but here black can't go "as wrong" as in the actual game.
Fedoseev-Carlsen in rapid was also called a masterpiece, Dennis seems initially less impressed and I agree. Here a4-a5 would have been good for white, when Carlsen finally prevented it he was immediately "rewarded" with 15.h5?! (such white kingside advances also eventually backfired in some other games against Carlsen). Carlsen let Fedoseev back into the game several times, only after 31.f4? (another kingside pawn move) the subsequent conversion was smooth.
In the more tactical blitz games, Carlsen was more vulnerable (it doesn't surprise me, it's not his typical style). But also here he got analogous mistakes: 21.Rxh7?? from a FM, 35.-Rxb2?? from Vokhidov and the "in-between" 34.-Rd2?? from Sarana (suddenly playing for a win and completely neglecting his own king safety?). Fact is that Carlsen had squandered his earlier advantage that arose from an objectively insipid "anti-Sicilian" setup.
Sure, I get that they were annoyed. So they should have done a repeat of Dubov-Artemiev, getting out of there ASAP while avoiding double-forfeit worries.
You're not saying that I didn't mention the Tsaruk ("a FM"), Vokhidov, and Sarana games, though it reads as if you're offering "news" there. Did you miss them in the list? One comment about the Sarana opening: "objectively insipid", perhaps, but a decent one-off trap. In the 6.Be2 Najdorf [edit: in both the 6...e5 and 6...e6 Scheveningen varieties] White often plays a quick a4 to prevent Black's queenside expansion with ...b5, so it's easy to think - even for a strong GM like Sarana, apparently - that 5...b5 would give Black an improved Najdorf in case of 6.d4. In this case, he was badly mistaken.
Everything I wrote - but my first paragraph - was about games you selected. Else I would also have been reluctant to give specific moves, if other readers don't have easy access to the games. I wrote "a FM" because few people will be familiar with the name Maksim Tsaruk, while the two others are relatively well-known GMs. "FM Tsaruk, GM Vokhidov, GM Sarana" (and before GM Rapport and GM Fedoseev) would also feel a bit weird, best might have been "Tsaruk (Belorussian FM)". Actually he just became IM, but I found out this (and that he, playing under the FIDE flag, is Belorussian, not Russian) only a few minutes ago. Similar for Dominguez' two draws at Sunway Sitges - at least Europeans may be familiar with GM Pranav from India, but not with American FM Laddha.
Also for me (on the black side), Sicilians where white delays d2-d4 (without +- giving up on it with d2-d3) can be tricky - you never know if and when it will happen, you have to be (mentally) prepared for open and closed Sicilians. My database impression: in the -e5 variety, black rarely goes for -b5 before finishing development (with the bishop on e6) anyway, and Sarana always played 6.Be2 e5 with black.
Dubov-Nepo was meant to be an _obvious_ protest on how FIDE had handled the earlier situation - right or wrong, funny or not .... some people may argue that this played a role in the arbiter decision and denying their appeal. It was the penultimate round of day 1 but punishment happened only after the round that followed (initially the game was considered a draw), only delaying pairings for the first round of day 2. Something like this probably won't happen again in a tournament game, and also not the fastest possible stalemate (10 moves) in an OTB game as happened in Belgium in 2006 https://lichess.org/ttzZb8FV#19 (probably agreed hours rather than minutes before the game, time required to look up and memorize the moves).
Para 1: My main issue was the oddity of mentioning the games. What did that add to the post? Also, as a member of Team FM, I want my name mentioned if I get a winning position against Magnus Carlsen! (Unless I blow it in some humiliating way. In that case, anonymity is better.) But seriously, if you're going to mention the other two players, mention the third - especially since you're referring to games given in the post, and there's nothing in the post that says "FM".
Para 2: Sentence one: yes, that's the point. Sentence two: correct - and the game was a nice illustration of why Black shouldn't play ...b5 too quickly, even though it's generally desirable.
Para 3: Pretty hard to see how the protest is "obvious". Indeed, why see it as a protest at all, especially given Dubov's two-move draw with Artemiev three rounds earlier? I assumption was that Dubov didn't feel like playing his Russian buddies and was happy to make draws with them, and in this case decided to make a draw in a funny way rather than playing two moves or (e.g.) going for the Berlin repetition. It's hard to see why an arbiter would "get it".
Maybe a more clever protest would have been the same moves as an intro, followed by normal moves - even if resulting in a short draw. Then they could say that they were emulating the arbiters, who took forever to make a decision that could have been made far more quickly. Moreover, neither the result nor the post-repetition moves need to have been prearranged, so it would be harder (if possible at all) to award them a double forfeit.
This doesn't have to, and shouldn't "go on forever", but a few more clarifications-explanations: I mentioned those three games also for the funny fact that horrendous rook move blunders occurred in all three of them, vs. rook pawn move blunders/inaccuracies in some other games. Tsaruk did "blow it in some humiliating way" - if 21.Rxh7?? doesn't count, what would count? Interesting that both players spent considerable time (for a blitz game) on the short critical phase: 20.-Qb6? (32 seconds) 21.Rxh7?? (34 seconds, did he even consider 21.Rh4 ?) 21.-Kxh7 (54 seconds, verifying that he hasn't missed anything and doesn't have to bail out with 21.-Qxd4+) 22.Qh3+ Kg8 (both played quickly) 23.fxg6 (52 seconds, realizing only now that 23.f6 doesn't work).
I would have mentioned the player name if it had been familiar to me and presumably others - as for Dennis Monokroussos, Nate Solon (I recently, I think thanks to you, became aware of his blog) or in a German context some German FMs. Not giving it may well be a mistake - don't blame me for using other sources on the event. BTW I saw the full game Tsaruk-Carlsen only now, earlier only some comments on chess.com along the lines of "Carlsen wins with 1.e4 a6 at a world championship".
I often also see connections with my own chess: besides "delayed open Sicilians", my own experiences include playing -b5 when it was bad, and not playing -b5 when it would have been good (it's probably the case for Sicilian players of all levels). And coincidentally, just last Thursday I had outplayed a German FM (500 points higher-rated than me on Lichess) with black, to botch it when we were both down to 20 seconds. I am still reasonably proud of this game - I was out of book on move 3 and it was his repertoire. Not something outrageous, just a line where I only knew that it "exists".