The recent World Blitz Championship stage drew a sharp response from Russian grandmaster Alexander Grischuk toward FIDE’s decision to credit an equal title to Ian Nepomniachtchi and Magnus Carlsen. Grischuk called the move an absolutely shameful decision for FIDE and pointed to past patterns, invoking the phrase Soviet sport in a pointed critique of how the event was decided. He argued that sharing a world title can dilute the meaning of victory and suggested that leadership, including Arkady Dvorkovich, may have misread the true value of merit when a federation lines up two gold medals as if they were interchangeable with a single crown.
In his view the federation’s approach echoed a controversial moment from the 2021 Online Olympics, where the organization awarded two gold medals to Russia and India despite a decisive match outcome. Grischuk contended that two gold medals cannot replace a single world title, underscoring a concern that leadership decisions should reflect clear triumphs rather than diplomatic compromises. The remarks framed a broader debate about how authority should recognize exceptional performance in fast-paced chess formats and whether the integrity of a single champion can be preserved when co-titling becomes a possibility.
The final match itself unfolded with Carlsen seizing the early initiative by winning the first two games, only to have Nepomniachtchi bounce back with two successive victories. The following three games were all drawn, leaving the overall contest tied and prompting Carlsen to propose that both players share the world blitz championship title after an intense sequence of rapid duels. The atmosphere surrounding the result reflected a tension between traditional merit-based triumph and a newer, more flexible view of championship outcomes in rapid formats.
Shortly after the match concluded, the federation’s press service announced that for the first time in history the world blitz champion title would be shared between two grandmasters. The decision drew sharp reactions, including a critical take from American player Hans Niemann who described the situation as resembling a circus. The public discourse highlighted how the notion of a sole, undisputed champion in blitz chess can clash with evolving perspectives on competition and recognition in the sport.
Magnus Carlsen himself described the arrangement as a sensible decision, arguing that sharing the title acknowledges the level of play demonstrated by both contenders across a demanding event and reflects a spirit of sportsmanship in the face of a closely fought contest. His stance added another layer to the ongoing debate about how champion status should be allocated when performances are evenly matched and the competition resists a clean, decisive outcome.
In each round of the playoff phase, players confronted four games with a time control of three minutes per game and an increment of two seconds after every move. The rapid rhythm intensified the tension, demanding precise calculation, quick adaptation, and resilience under pressure as competitors chased every half-point with vigilance. The format amplified the drama of the conclusion and tested whether a shared title could fairly capture the day’s peak performances in the blitz arena.
Earlier, the chess federation faced criticism for its handling of victories by Nepomniachtchi and Carlsen, triggering discussions about governance, fairness, and consistency in how major titles are awarded. The episode has since become a reference point in debates about the evolving standards in speed chess and how best to balance competitive merit with the aspirations of fans and players around the world.