< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 27 ·
|Jun-20-11|| ||sevenseaman: Carlsen-Karjakin is a top board game tomorrow. It could well be a pointer of temperaments as well as a future trend. A draw here, if it is a fighting one, could also be of great interest.|
|Jun-20-11|| ||Refused: <frogbert: <At the time FIDE announced rating qualifiers for the last Candidates tournament it was by no means certain that Kramnik would go on the good run he did >
polarmis, you are (acting as) a journalist much of the time. then you should try to be truthful to some well-known facts:|
1) fact: fide did not announce "rating qualifiers". they announced 1 (one) rating qualification spot.
2) fact: at first only uep (universal event promotion) delivered an acceptable bid for the previous candidate matches.
info: uep has generally been known as "kramnik's organizer" - and the "system" had one organizer spot. people assumed kramnik would get it, with uep as the organizer.
3) fact: originally it was left to the organizer to decide between a double round robin and a cup-format for the candidates.
info: everyone assumed that cup would be better for kramnik - and that uep would choose cup.
4) fact: at the <exact same time> as the deal between uep and fide fell through (and fide started to look for other organizers), two noteworthy things were changed, by fide:
a) fact: it was no longer only one rating qualifier; one spot was "taken" from the wcc and made into a 2nd rating qualifier
b) fact: the organizer could no longer choose format for the candidates, it <had to> be cup format.
i'm surprised if you're unable to see how "convenient" all of the above was for kramnik.
whether anybody could "guarantee" or not that kramnik would go on a "good run" as you put it, is quite irrelevant: the changes made by fide left a realistic <opening> for kramnik, and he snatched it with quite a good margin. hence, he could've got it even with a less "good run", as things worked out. but he wasn't anyway near catching carlsen for the <original, single> rating qualification spot.
so how my <speculation> above makes an "odd argument historically speaking" is beyond me. in which direction were you looking when all this took place in front of our eyes? now, as people pointed out: it <is> very odd to rush the rating list criteria for the next cycle, basically starting out with much of it known in advance (the general tendency for the july 2011 list - who benefits and who doesn't). choosing january and july 2012 seemed like a much more natural and <fair> thing to do. whether kramnik plays much or not in the next 6 months is only semi-relevant - getting a good start with the july 2011 rating might be what eventually will make the difference.
in short: it's allowed to connect the dots. is there any particular reason why you think all of the above simply was very convenient for kramnik - "by chance"?>
Hum, I thought UEP and Kramnik ended their relationship after the Match in Bonn.
|Jun-20-11|| ||Blunderdome: If Carlsen only needs a draw to win the tournament a get the #1 rating, I wonder how much fight he'll have.|
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: <Frogbert, <facts> is a little strong for what was simply speculation - e.g. that UEP would pick Kramnik as a nominee>|
polarmis, i suggest that you read my post a little better if we're going to debate this. show me where i claimed that it was a fact that uep would pick kramnik, or go back to square one and write your reply to me one more time. this time based on what i actually wrote.
i don't have time to play silly games.
|Jun-20-11|| ||polarmis: <Blunderdome: Which is why he put it under "info" instead of "fact.">|
Granted - though Frogbert quoted a factual statement by me and accused me of not being "truthful to some well-known facts" (throwing in a cheap jibe about being a journalist). Then he presented "facts", with "info" (i.e. speculation/assumptions/unwarranted generalisations) included within the numbered facts.
Only <fact 1> apparently contradicted what I said - except it didn't, as I already explained.
And it turns out that <fact 4> is totally wrong as well: i.e.
Frogbert: <4) fact: at the <exact same time> as the deal between uep and fide fell through (and fide started to look for other organizers), two noteworthy things were changed, by fide:
a) fact: it was no longer only one rating qualifier; one spot was "taken" from the wcc and made into a 2nd rating qualifier
b) fact: the organizer could no longer choose format for the candidates, it <had to> be cup format.>
Except if you look at FIDE's board from March 2009: http://www.fide.com/component/conte...
<The PB acknowledged and accepted the bid from UEP for the World Chess Championship Cycle 2010-2011. In 2011, there will be a Candidate Matches/Tournament consisting of GM Kamsky, the loser of the Anand-Topalov match, two players from the Grand Prix series and one player from the World Cup, two highest rated players not already qualified and a player nominated by the organizer. The winner will play the World Champion in 2011.>
i.e. they accepted UEP's bid while adding an extra rating qualifier and still leaving the question of a tournament or match open. The failure of the UEP deal was announced in May.
Frogbert's only other direct response to my statement was:
<whether anybody could "guarantee" or not that kramnik would go on a "good run" as you put it, is quite irrelevant: the changes made by fide left a realistic <opening> for kramnik, and he snatched it with quite a good margin. hence, he could've got it even with a less "good run", as things worked out. but he wasn't anyway near catching carlsen for the <original, single> rating qualification spot.>
But of course it's entirely relevant to the claim that the system was changed just for Kramnik if it didn't give Kramnik that good a chance. The January 2009 list, before the change was announced, had Kramnik in 8th with 2759:
1. Topalov 2796
2. Anand, 2791
3. Ivanchuk 2779
4. Carlsen 2776
5. Morozevich 2771
6. Radjabov 2761
7. Jakovenko 2760
8. Kramnik 2759 (11. Aronian 2750)
Kramnik wasn't playing before the July list (to be counted by FIDE), so he essentially had half a year to improve his rating and hope others fell back. Ivanchuk and Morozevich collapsed, which you might have predicted (though hardly a certainty), but if you're going to change a system just to help Kramnik I think you'd want to give him better odds than he had at the start of 2009.
Of course the following statement can also be disputed:
<he wasn't anyway near catching carlsen for the <original, single> rating qualification spot.>>
Firstly, Carlsen was by no means sure of the rating spot himself at that point (if only because Ivanchuk was ahead of him!), so allowing 2 qualifiers was at least as much in Carlsen's interest. Secondly, by January 2010 Kramnik reached 2788 i.e. 12 points above Carlsen's January 2009 figure. Sure, Carlsen improved his rating over the same time-frame, but it was hardly inconceivable that his rating could also have gone in the other direction.
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: if karjakin wins against carlsen tomorrow, kramnik will have some catching up to do in order to have a fighting chance at <qualifying> for the next candidates.|
- he's not playing the world cup, so those 3 places are gone
- he's not the losing wc finalist
- he's currently only in 4th place in the rating rat race, trailing an ever improving karjakin
the chances for a russian organizer of the 2012 (realistically: 2013) candidates are getting hotter by the minute! :o)
ps! as i wrote earlier today: ivanchuk and rating qualification is a poor match...
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: <Except if you look at FIDE's board from March 2009>|
polarmis, can you show me/us a published <press release> in some other media than fide's own web site, properly dated, about what the presidential board decided in march 2009?
fide has edited and re-edited "press releases" on their own web site on numerous occasions. it's a totally <un>-professional organization that's totally unaccountable.
what do you think will happen with the current edition of the "2011-2013 regulations" if/when it will be changed? will there be any numbered/revisioned archive anywhere, showing when and how it changed?
fide doesn't do normal "press releases" about their "regulations" or "presidential board meetings". the fide web site can basically not be used as "documentation" of anything. all documents there are "living documents" - they change without notice or evidence of the change. you must have noticed, polarmis. or haven't you?
|Jun-20-11|| ||bharatiy: that is investigative journalism <frogbert>!!|
|Jun-20-11|| ||polarmis: Is ChessVibes's report from the next day, quoting the press release in full, enough for you? http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/r...|
FIDE's website can change, but they do actually tend to send out their press releases.
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: <polarmis, can you show me/us a published <press release> in some other media than fide's own web site, properly dated, about what the presidential board decided in march 2009?>|
this specific press release seems to be unchanged from its first publication, though. while i'm willing to believe a lot of things about fide, i don't think they have too much power over internet web archives.
hence, i must admit being <wrong> on the exact timings here - the change from 1 to 2 rating qualifiers indeed happened before the uep deal fell through.
however, the change that the candidates <had to> be organized with a cup system <came later>, and was announced more or less at the same time the uep deal fell through.
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: <Is ChessVibes's report from the next day, quoting the press release in full, enough for you?>|
sure is. i also verified it by other means, as you can see from my previous post.
|Jun-20-11|| ||Blunderdome: BTW, the reason I originally said I wouldn't put too much faith in those regulations is that in the very recent Gelfand interview on chessbase, he said there were still 4 different proposals under consideration for the next candidates. One of those proposals was to make two groups of 6, have them play double round robins, then have a match between the two DRR winners.|
So, if a system which would take 12 candidates is still in play, they can't be "locked in" to the current rules, which only takes 8. At the very least they would have to create additional spots.
One curiosity about taking <3> players from the World Cup is that the 3 vs. 4 match will be more interesting to some viewers than the 1 vs. 2 match.
|Jun-20-11|| ||Blunderdome: I quote:
< I understand that there were four systems proposed…
<Yes. One is the system that was played in Kazan, the second is the 6-6-8 matches, third is the double round robin tournament, and then another one popped up, suggesting twelve players subdivided into two tournament groups of six, each playing ten games, and then the two winners playing a match. I think that all four systems are decent.>
Which system did you vote for?
<I voted for the 6-6-8, although I didn’t have time to give any thought to the last proposal, which was introduced very late, just after my matches were over. As I mentioned, the 6-6-8 has organizational problems, so I’m not sure it will be adopted. Fortunately, we now have four systems – for a long time there were none. So whatever system will be employed, it will still provide very good chances that the stronger players will win and qualify.>>
Gelfand's remarks are in the double brackets, and the interviewer's in single. Here's the article: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail....
Which is worth reading, by the way.
|Jun-20-11|| ||polarmis: <frogbert: however, the change that the candidates <had to> be organized with a cup system <came later>, and was announced more or less at the same time the uep deal fell through.>|
Thought you might mention that. Though I note you changed your fact about the <exact same time> to <more or less at the same time>.
The collapse of the UEP deal was announced on 12 May while the FIDE Presidential Board decided on the format on about 17 June (with details published on the 22nd, as far as I can see).
Of course, that doesn't stop it being rather ludicrous to put the change down to Kramnik. Not only is he on record as saying the format didn't matter too much to him (or ChessBase recently quoted him actually having said he'd prefer a round-robin for the Candidates), but at this stage he was far from certain of taking part.
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: <The January 2009 list, before the change was announced, had Kramnik in 8th with 2759>|
except that topalov and anand were irrelevant (as both were already qualified or champion), and jakovenko and radjabov had 1 and 2 points leads over kramnik, making his position more like a "shared" 4th than an 8th.
<much more important though> is the fact that at this point it was <not published or generally known which lists would count> for the rating qualifier - and what do you know - <when> this was made known (or decided - pick your choice) around june 1st 2009 (i don't remember the exact date), the first of the two lists chosen (july 2009) looked like this:
1. topalov 2813 (irrelevant)
2. anand 2788 (irrelevant)
3. carlsen 2772
4. aronian 2768 (gp qualification favourite)
5. jakovenko 2760
6. kramnik 2759
effectively a "shared 2nd place", trailing jakovenko by a single point.
no, it wasn't certain that aronian would qualify from the fide gp, but he was the favourite to do so.
and no, it wasn't guaranteed that kramnik would get a rating qualification spot, but his chances were very decent.
|Jun-20-11|| ||panzerkampf: Where can we learn the tournament performans ratings in this tournaments?|
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: < ChessBase recently quoted him actually having said he'd prefer a round-robin for the Candidates>|
which he said <after> having been knocked out of the cup by grischuk. surprise, surprise. if anything is quite trademark kramnik, then such a statement in retrospect is.
<I note you changed your fact about the <exact same time>>
which is quite natural when i already have admitted being wrong about the "exact timings". can i be any clearer about having been wrong in this regard, or do you need to score double or triple points on that?
i still haven't seen a similarly clear admission of your obvious straw man argument, with which you started your "rebuttal".
|Jun-20-11|| ||Blunderdome: TWIC usually has performance ratings, they're in the far right column here:|
|Jun-20-11|| ||siamesedream: <panzerkampf: Where can we learn the tournament performans ratings in this tournaments?> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...|
|Jun-20-11|| ||frogbert: < at this stage he was far from certain of taking part.>|
again, at no point have i claimed that fide has ever made decisions or regulations that <guaranteed> kramnik a spot, whether in this or the previous cycle. i'm saying and keep saying that fide's decisions and regulations have turned out to be <very convenient> for kramnik on several turns along the road. including the choice of the july 2009 and july 2011 rating lists - in both cases seemingly decided (there's <no> evidence to the contrary) at times when it was known that kramnik's chances would be good after such a decision.
of course, it can be argued that kramnik always has been highly rated and a natural favourite to any rating qualification spot. at any rate it will be interesting to see what happens if he's unable to get even the 3rd rating spot for the next candidates. can there be a candidates event without kramnik?!?
|Jun-20-11|| ||polarmis: <Frogbert: which he said <after> having been knocked out of the cup by grischuk. surprise, surprise. if anything is quite trademark kramnik, then such a statement in retrospect is.>|
No, if anything's "trademark" it's your attack on Kramnik. My grammar was deliberate (even if I should perhaps have made it even clearer) - in the recent interview Kramnik mentioned an earlier questionnaire (long before the matches):
<I personally have always preferred the tournament format, which became clear two or three years ago in a questionnaire [http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... which was made by ChessBase. It was originally planned to have a round robin tournament, but then somehow FIDE for some reason, which I do not know, changed it into a match format.>
It's up to you if you want to call a Kramnik a liar and claim he didn't answer the questionnaire as he says - but you should probably be sure of your facts first.
<Frogbert: Which is quite natural when i already have admitted being wrong about the "exact timings". can i be any clearer about having been wrong in this regard, or do you need to score double or triple points on that?>
Actually I was quite generous in letting your "exact timings" go - when you were actually exposed using false information to make a serious accusation against Kramnik, UEP and FIDE. (I consider my "granted" was a sufficient admission that I'd misread your loophole of including non-facts among the facts :) The argument was left unchanged.)
On Kramnik's chances in July 2009 - I agree, they were reasonable. There's still little justification for your presenting all the changes to the cycle as being about Kramnik. I could, with equally little justification, claim it was to ensure Carlsen was almost certain to qualify. You really should only repeat your claims if you can back them up - e.g. with statements from those who were involved in the decisions.
|Jun-20-11|| ||polarmis: <in both cases seemingly decided (there's <no> evidence to the contrary) at times when it was known that kramnik's chances would be good after such a decision.>|
You're seriously going to use <there's <no> evidence to the contrary> as an argument. I rest my case.
|Jun-20-11|| ||polarmis: And just to add:
<Frogbert: can there be a candidates event without kramnik?!?>
Your bitterness is absurd. Kramnik has nothing left to prove in chess, and hasn't shown any evidence of being unable to handle defeat.
Actually, to show that's not just me and get back to the topic of Karjakin joining Carlsen in the lead in Bazna... Here's Aronian from his recent Crestbook conference: http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1514 (I know I keep plugging it, but I doubt anyone will regret clicking on the link and reading it - and it did take a long time for all concerned to produce & for me to translate!)
<About Karjakin and Kramnik I can say that they both work a lot on chess and that given the right circumstances Sergey can develop to the level of Vladimir. There’s practically nowhere for Kramnik to develop further, except perhaps to reconquer the heights he’s already conquered before.>
|Jun-20-11|| ||AuN1: frogbert seems to be putting on an exhibition in revisionist history :-)|
after kramnik qualified, he has rearranged self-proclaimed "facts" to discredit volodya, and imply that fide made sure "their man" made it into the candidate matches.
what sort of concoctions will he come up with next time around if kramnik qualifies again?
|Jun-20-11|| ||Check It Out: <polarmis> Your translations are invaluable and free. Plug away.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 27 ·