|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 128 OF 152 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-17-11
 | | keypusher: <Mr. Bojangles: <<Grischuk: It’s very fashionable to criticise the qualifying system – but if you go back to the origins of competitions, the Olympics in Ancient Greece, and so on. They started off in order to identify the strongest person. But now people pick out the strongest at the beginning, for example Aronian, and then if, god forbid, he doesn’t win, the system’s considered bad.>
>
Damn right Gris...>
Horse manure. If FIDE selected its winners via coin flip people would be dissatisfied whether the favorites were winning the coin flips or not. The current format isn't quite a coin flip, but it's getting there. |
 |
| May-17-11 | | Akavall: <The current format isn't quite a coin flip, but it's getting there.> Why is this format close to a coin flip?
It has four classical games; this should be enough for a stronger player to win, as Gelfand - Mamedyarov showed. I think the real reason the results are what they are is that the favorites were in poor form. And I do think that we would hear a lot less complaining about the format if the favorites made it to the finals. I do think that 4 games is too short, and I would prefer 6 or 8 game matches. But saying that this even is close to a coin flip is harsh and not accurate in my opinion. |
|
May-17-11
 | | Mozart72: The future of chess relies on Chess960. Chess960 is the most down- to-earth chess variant I can think of. |
|
| May-17-11 | | Mr. Bojangles: <The future of chess relies on Chess960.> Well, we wont be following you to that future.
Safe journey! |
|
| May-17-11 | | newton296: I can't believe carlsen didn't even have the guts to play? this really diminishes this world champ cycle when the #1 player doesn't even particiapate! and I hate to say it, but it looks like carlsen is another mental case like fisher. I think carlsen has really hurt his career by choosing not to participate when he is the #1 ranked player. unreal! |
|
May-17-11
| | Mozart72: Well <Mr. Bojangles> Stay in the past then. "Position 518 is the starting position of orthodox chess." |
|
| May-17-11 | | jussu: It would have made sense to criticise the format before the event (as Carlsen did), but beginning to whine the moment our favourite player drops out is just pathetic. That said, I do think that the system is flawed. Not because of some silly coinflip rhetoric, but because, as practice has shown, most of the matches are decided in fast time controls. Rapid and blitz are chess alright, but they are other forms of chess, and this event was meant to be classical. So I would vote for an 8-player DRR next time, even with all the collusion possibilities, for those are just theoretical (unless they would use the football scoring which practicall calls for prearranging games). |
|
| May-17-11 | | Mr. Bojangles: <Mozart72: Well <Mr. Bojangles> Stay in the past then. > Oh Mozart, I will, trust me, I will. |
|
May-17-11
| | Mozart72: I sometimes get that gut feeling that classical chess is prearranged. |
|
| May-17-11 | | kappertjes: @Akavall
It is close to a coinflip because a 50 point (for instance) elo-difference tells us that the winning probabilities (long term) are 0.43 and 0.57. We do not know the drawing chances but at this level they are high. This makes me think the odds favouring one over the other are probably close to the 0.43 and 0.57 given. Slightly better than a coin toss, but only slightly. I know these kinds of 'calculations' should be taken with a grain of salt, especially in extraordinary circumstances, but the fact remains that with how close the top GMs are, 4 games do not establish anything (except maybe who had a bad day). I think we should have 4/6/8 candidates simply taken of the rating list top, excepting the champ. In this way people can work on their rating to qualify. The candidates should be 10 to 12 matches, sudden death if drawn. I can dream I guess (blue skies and 10 games Topalov-Aronian; 10 games Carlsen-Kramnik) |
|
| May-17-11 | | Troller: <bonniekathosh:><One fluke win and the second player has no chance to make a comeback.> What do you mean? It's not like the match is stopped when one player has won a game. <May be not exactly a coin toss, but its very close to being that.> If this was close to a coin flip, I would stand a fair chance of winning the event, at least almost as fair as the next one. Do you agree? I would also prefer longer matches, but there's no reason to be a drama queen, <murder of classical chess> etc, we have after all seen 24 classical games so far. If the players kept up the draw ratio, longer matches would not solve anything except drag the whole thing out. With his match strategy in mind, I can understand if people feel a bit uneasy of Grischuk. It reminds me of when Greece won the football EC; but well, you can't blame him for being unbeatable :) |
|
May-17-11
 | | Turnip: How many games of classical chess has Grischuk won thus far in 2011? I know of one, but it may be more. I find it unsatisfactory that the classical chess World Championship Candidates can be decided by the outcomes of non-classical games. But that's just my personal "idealism" talikng. But Grischuk should be congratulated thus far as he's managed to beat the system (also for his good play when it mattered). |
|
May-17-11
| | Mozart72: I would like to see Grischuk play Chess960 against Anand. |
|
| May-17-11 | | kia0708: yep, we should not blame them, because Greece, and not our darlings, went all the way to the top and simply won it. <It reminds me of when Greece won the football EC; but well, you can't blame him for being unbeatable :)> |
|
May-17-11
| | Mozart72: Chess960 shall overcome! |
|
| May-17-11 | | jusmail: Which are the games worth studying from a learning perspective? |
|
May-17-11
| | Mozart72: Chess960 is terra incognita, remember. |
|
May-17-11
 | | alexmagnus: Terra incognita, LMAO. Different openings, but the further the game goes towards the endgame, the more familiar it is. More, probably even middle games are, from GM point of view, essentially the same. |
|
May-17-11
| | Mozart72: <alexmagnus> That is true. But it is in the openings thats that Chess960 rules. There are no Dragons, Petroffs, Bogo-Indians, etc. It's tabula rasa in this part of town. |
|
| May-17-11 | | Kanatahodets: After reading many posts here I came to conclusion that chess 960 can be an alternative which MAY provide fresh start for chess. New FIDE960 without problems inherited by FIDE can solve many problems which we face now. Most importantly we may have a continuous transition from chess to chess 960. Because strongest chess players are very good in 960 there is no problem for them. Finally, we can remove at least for a while computers dominance issue and restore (for couple decades) the humans' pride. |
|
May-17-11
| | Mozart72: Well said <Kanatahodets>. |
|
| May-17-11 | | Kanatahodets: I agree that it is terra incognita. I don't accept the statements that in the middle game it looks like a classical game; the game structure is predominantly determined by the opening position. That may be less relevant to the endings but who knows, we may have the hell of new ideas and configurations! It's pretty exciting. |
|
May-17-11
 | | tpstar: <jusmail> The two decisive classical games Topalov vs Kamsky, 2011 & Mamedyarov vs Gelfand, 2011 were both very powerful wins as Black. In the semifinals, Kamsky & Gelfand played great fighting chess, although all four games were drawn. One blitz game of interest is Kramnik vs Grischuk, 2011 where Kramnik loses on the White side of a Maroczy Bind. |
|
| May-17-11 | | ksr: <newton296: I can't believe carlsen didn't even have the guts to play? this really diminishes this world champ cycle when the #1 player doesn't even particiapate! and I hate to say it, but it looks like carlsen is another mental case like fisher.
I think carlsen has really hurt his career by choosing not to participate when he is the #1 ranked player. unreal!>
He is no longer world number 1. In the last 4 rating lists he was world number 1 only once. |
|
| May-17-11 | | csmath: There is s slight difference between using and abusing the system. Grischuk is abusing the system to his advantage gambling on his blitz abilities since he is one of practicians online. This is rather sad for chess itself and it should have been prevented. To have a man qualify for final match of candidates without winning a single standard length game and not even trying to win is something to be prevented. That Grischuk has no scruples is not surprise having seen him before doing similar stuff on regular tournaments and making arrogant comments in interviews. This kind of player should have no place in elite SPONSORED events. The fact that he thrives should not be a permit to abuse the game. What would one expect for example if such a thing occurs in other sports? You would have people fined for unsportsmanlike conduct. Only in chess this seems to be okay. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 128 OF 152 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
World Championship Candidates (2011)
