I get being disappointed about the inconclusive result (I'm ambivalent), but the two scenarios aren't similar. It really shouldn't require an argument, but here's one: there are competitions, including chess competitions, where allowance is made for shared first. We're all used to that sort of thing, which even happens in the Olympics, even if we'd prefer a single winner. No one complains that these events are somehow a bust, and that they would be similar to events where everyone shares first without even participating. Indeed, there are no competitions where everyone is granted shared first before the event begins and without anyone playing a game. (Now, if Carlsen and Nepo had played seven straight Berlin draws with Qd4-e4+-d4 the analogy would be considerably more plausible.)
By the way, if you'd like to break new ground and host such an event, please sign me up--especially if there's a nice prize fund. Invite Magnus, too - I'd love to have a shared title with him on my chess resume.
If I may chime in, I agree that high-level competitions that end in ties do exist, but the World Blitz has never been one, and the rules were written such that this year's edition also would not be one. I thought Magnus (and Nepo) short-changing spectators and fans and calling it a day on a whim (and FIDE agreeing to it) was emblematic of so much that is currently wrong with professional chess.
I recall that in the Olympics there was a tie for the gold in the high jump, and the rules called for a series of tiebreaking jumps. (Likewise in the women's pole vault in a recent world championship.) The athletes decided to share the gold instead - but maybe that was an option that was already in the rules, and they were just exercising an option rather than creatively coming up with something new. At any rate, this seems to me only a venial sin in the big picture of FIDE's rich history.
Anyway, Magnus is gonna Magnus, and until FIDE decides that they can do without him if they must, then the "rules" are going to be mere guidelines and suggestions if His Majesty doesn't like them. Frankly, they should have told Magnus and Norway TV to take a hike several years ago when they came up with the idea of enthroning him permanently on board 1 in the World Rapid & Blitz, but it's difficult to do that. The problem is that if you treat him like he's bigger than the game, then eventually he will be bigger than the game - or at least bigger than FIDE.
Next time, maybe the whole field will agree to share the title before round one, save everyone some trouble and the fans some excitement.
I get being disappointed about the inconclusive result (I'm ambivalent), but the two scenarios aren't similar. It really shouldn't require an argument, but here's one: there are competitions, including chess competitions, where allowance is made for shared first. We're all used to that sort of thing, which even happens in the Olympics, even if we'd prefer a single winner. No one complains that these events are somehow a bust, and that they would be similar to events where everyone shares first without even participating. Indeed, there are no competitions where everyone is granted shared first before the event begins and without anyone playing a game. (Now, if Carlsen and Nepo had played seven straight Berlin draws with Qd4-e4+-d4 the analogy would be considerably more plausible.)
By the way, if you'd like to break new ground and host such an event, please sign me up--especially if there's a nice prize fund. Invite Magnus, too - I'd love to have a shared title with him on my chess resume.
If I may chime in, I agree that high-level competitions that end in ties do exist, but the World Blitz has never been one, and the rules were written such that this year's edition also would not be one. I thought Magnus (and Nepo) short-changing spectators and fans and calling it a day on a whim (and FIDE agreeing to it) was emblematic of so much that is currently wrong with professional chess.
I recall that in the Olympics there was a tie for the gold in the high jump, and the rules called for a series of tiebreaking jumps. (Likewise in the women's pole vault in a recent world championship.) The athletes decided to share the gold instead - but maybe that was an option that was already in the rules, and they were just exercising an option rather than creatively coming up with something new. At any rate, this seems to me only a venial sin in the big picture of FIDE's rich history.
Anyway, Magnus is gonna Magnus, and until FIDE decides that they can do without him if they must, then the "rules" are going to be mere guidelines and suggestions if His Majesty doesn't like them. Frankly, they should have told Magnus and Norway TV to take a hike several years ago when they came up with the idea of enthroning him permanently on board 1 in the World Rapid & Blitz, but it's difficult to do that. The problem is that if you treat him like he's bigger than the game, then eventually he will be bigger than the game - or at least bigger than FIDE.