< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
|Jul-31-11|| ||Interbond: I wonder what Carlsen would think if he read your posts? Perhaps HeHateMe....?|
|Jul-31-11|| ||HeMateMe: I'm sure Magnus Carlsen has read many such comments. Probably more so on the Chessdotcom site than here.|
He turned his back on the sport that has made him a wealthy man, at a very young age. The Candidates matches are the olympics of chess, the very apex of this game/sport.
If MC has to play a tournament for a $3,000 appearance fee sponsored by Heinz Beans, in the near future, I won't feel sorry for him at all. Not one bit.
|Jul-31-11|| ||tpstar: <He turned his back on the sport that has made him a wealthy man> Carlsen is the one elite player that goes out of his way to promote the game - his insightful blog entries, his friendly interviews, his multiple simuls, and you could even include his fighting spirit here. He is doing more than his p.r. share; it is all of the other players who are way too passive, including WC Anand, as they would rather let the game come to them.|
Regarding the WC cycle, let's review what Carlsen himself said after the big announcement in November 2010:
Q: Magnus, you've got to feel a bit uneasy about this momentous decision?
Magnus Carlsen: It's been a difficult process. But now that the decision has been taken, I actually feel relieved.
Q: Even if that means you will be missing an entire World Championship cycle?
MC: The World Championship cycle will last for almost five years, and with constant rule changes. It takes too much effort to deal with the political part of the process. I would therefore like to focus my energy on developing my skills as a chess player, and to defend my position as number one in the world rankings.
Q: How do you think the chess public will react to your action? Many may think you are throwing away a golden chance.
MC: Well, I understand if they are a bit puzzled, but I have to make the decision that I think is best for me and my career.
Q: Does this mean that you will not participate in a World Championship in the future?
MC: No, no, absolutely not. I hope that there will be changes in the future. It is clear that I will be back in it then. The decision now applies only to the current world championship cycle.
Q: With your decision are you making a special point against FIDE?
MC: No, it is a personal decision based on what I think is best for me.
Note Carlsen specifically says he is not fighting FIDE here. although nine months later the "principled stance" spin by his fans rings hollow with no alternative WC cycle proposal from Team Carlsen anywhere in sight.
|Jul-31-11|| ||DrMAL: Magnus Carlsen is 20 years old. He listens to those older and wiser than him, the reason why he has done what he has lately regarding tournaments. What would he think when reading such criticisms? Nothing much I'm sure, maybe a chuckle to himself considering the wisdom of their source.|
|Jul-31-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <I've followed the careers of fighters like Korchnoi and Kasparov my whole life. Such people would never refuse a chance to play match(es) for the world championship.>|
hmmm Game Collection: WCC Index [Dortmund 2002]
|Aug-01-11|| ||HeMateMe: He walked away from the Candidates matches, the centerpiece of world chess, when corporate sponsorship is anemic. Chess needs its biggest stars to be active, playing, and be in the public eye. |
Especially, they should be playing in the Candidates matches, the most revered process in world chess. The game looked horrible when the FIDE two game mini matches were used to determine a yearly champion. Everyone wanted the Candidates matches, and a title match with a defending champion. Karpov said "When I was world champion, I could trace my lineage back to 1850. Now, no one knows who was world champion last year, and no one cares."
The Candidates matches, followed by a world championship match are important for the games fans/sponsors. Magnus Carlsen, the games biggest attraction, walked away from something this important.
Those are the facts, and they are indisputable.
|Aug-01-11|| ||Interbond: You are correct in your last post, but the rest of your posts about Carlsen ere with no doubt disputable. To say he turned his back on the sport is not correct he turned his back on FIDE. Magnus is still fighting in tournaments and risking losing some games. To say no to the candidate matches is not saying no to chess. But of course you see only what you want to see. The chess biggest star is still active, like it or not!|
|Aug-01-11|| ||Sokrates: Thanks, <tpstar:> for bringing substantial evidence into the debate here.|
Thanks, <Interbond> for setting things straight. I completely agree with you and I have no idea why HeMateMe wants to degrade MC's decisions and his importance as a sports man and chess-player. Most certainly Carlsen has done a lot for chess, simply by playing wonderfully and be the person he is.
And please have a look at the endless drawing games of this candidate tournament. Not exactly a recommendation of the system in use.
A final note on FIDE criticism. Of course, we are both entitled to and even obliged to critisise the world chess organisation. For me it represents the worst of such international organisations - the corruption of voters from 3rd world voters, the weak acceptance by European/American nations, the unscrupulous urge for power by the CEO and others. Not our justified criticism, but their immoral actions make it hard to win sponsors for our noble game.
|Aug-01-11|| ||kappertjes: Indeed FIDE and FIFA are toe-to-toe on the @#$%-scale of sport organisations. On sponsors, the behaviour of FIFA and football players has little bearing on their sponsor money. This is because people will watch regardless.|
The situation is different for chess, I think, because sponsors are not aiming at millions of viewers but at creating an image of distinction, knowledge and precision. Add corruption and crony-ism to chess' image and the sponsors will look for different ways to create that image.
Ah well. I have the feeling this is a great time for chess with lots of interesting players who get paid very handsomely indeed. I'm not too fussed in other words.
|Aug-01-11|| ||nodraw: <The Candidates matches, followed by a world championship match are important for the games fans/sponsors.>|
If they're so fantastically important, maybe the process governing them should be transparent, fair and timely. Instead the process is amateurish at best, and highly corrupt at worst.
Carlsen is not anyone's slave. The fact that you believe otherwise and construe such motives says more about you than anything else.
|Aug-01-11|| ||HeMateMe: Anyone can grab a fat appearance fee and beat Peltier in a small tournament. Big deal.|
The world's most dynamic player was needed to play in the world championship tournament. This is what draws in the casual chess fans; a great world championship series can increase corporate sponsorship. Perhaps if Bobby Fischer had started playing in the Candidates matches, in the 1960s (instead of only in the 70s), Spassky and Petrosian would not have been playing a world championship match for $3,000.
<The Candidates matches, followed by a world championship match are important for the games fans/sponsors. Magnus Carlsen, the games biggest attraction, walked away from something this important.
Those are the facts, and they are indisputable.>
|Aug-03-11|| ||perfidious: <nodraw: <The Candidates matches, followed by a world championship match are important for the games fans/sponsors.>
If they're so fantastically important, maybe the process governing them should be transparent, fair and timely.>|
So long as Ilyumzhinov is at the helm, I don't see any of the three elements you name ever coming into play.
<Instead the process is amateurish at best, and highly corrupt at worst.>
Till forced out by vote or death, the tinpot dictator will have sway, same as Campomanes.
|Aug-03-11|| ||HeMateMe: Playing in A flawed system, lacking funds, is better than just quitting and not playing for the world championship. |
Think how big chess could have become had Fischer played for the world championship in the 1960s? His profile/public view is similar to that of the young Carlsen. Unusually talanted, very young, draws in more than the usual chess fans.
I can't see how walking away from the worlds championship was good for MC, or good for the game of chess.
If he does play in the cycle, in three years and wins it all, a lot of people will say he delayed his participation for three years because of his youth and being paranoid of losing a match.
No one will be able to prove we are wrong in this assertion.
|Aug-03-11|| ||nodraw: <I can't see how walking away from the worlds championship was good for MC, or good for the game of chess.>|
As he stated, the politics surrounding the WC cycle was a draining affair that made it ever harder to make long-term plans. His chess trainer was far too expensive to just keep "on hold", and if he was going to establish a new partnership with a different trainer, the "when" would still be important. Add to that a dip in form, a dislike of the chosen format, and the fact that months of prepping isn't his cup of tea anyway, it isn't all that hard to see why it didn't appeal to him.
<If he does play in the cycle, in three years and wins it all, a lot of people will say he delayed his participation for three years because of his youth and being paranoid of losing a match.>
So what? Talk is cheap on the internet. And haters will always find something to complain about regardless. Letting anonymous strangers dictate your choices isn't a recipe for success.
<No one will be able to prove we are wrong in this assertion.>
Cute. Your assertion is of course guaranteed to be correct because you're hell bent on doing the "paranoia routine" yourself... I've no idea what it's supposed to prove, though.
|Aug-03-11|| ||The Rocket: <"I can't see how walking away from the worlds championship was good for MC, or good for the game of chess.">|
Most definetely he felt the lottery of winning the matches given that they were so short, and did not want to hurt his ego by losing a match by such a system.
Of course as the tournament turned out he was right in his assumptions but that doesnt make it right that he chickened out.
I mean common put your name on the line regardless if its a lottery! Help promote chess!
|Aug-03-11|| ||perfidious: When Kramnik chose not to participate in the FIDE cycle eventually won by Karpov in the late 1990s, did he come under the same firestorm of criticism?|
|Aug-03-11|| ||HeMateMe: At the time, Kramnik was not the consensus World No. 1 player. And, the chess world already had a dynamic, standing world champion in Geri Kasparov. |
Chess doesn't have such intriguing people at the moment. Anand is certainly a deserving holder of the title, but lest face it: He doesn't garner the kind of interst in the game that Kasparov did, the sort of intrigue that Magnus Carlsen has.
Would we be having this debate if Grischuk or Gelfand had decided not to play? Chess right now looks different than chess does when Kasparov was active.
|Aug-03-11|| ||nok: <At the time, Kramnik was not the consensus World No. 1 player. And, the chess world already had a dynamic, standing world champion in Geri Kasparov.>|
Well the '96 rating list sez Kramnik 2775, Kasparov 2775, Karpov 2770.
|Aug-03-11|| ||tpstar: <When Kramnik chose not to participate in the FIDE cycle eventually won by Karpov in the late 1990s, did he come under the same firestorm of criticism?>|
Kramnik lost Cazorla 1998 to Shirov for the right to face Kasparov in a WC match. In 1999, Kramnik declared that Karpov was the real WC, then Kramnik entered the Las Vegas FIDE WC event (won by Khalifman) where he was knocked out by Adams. Then Kramnik played Kasparov in London 2000 (instead of Shirov), won the match, and began lecturing the chess world about formal cycles and proper qualification. He has been criticized many times for these selfish, hypocritical positions.
I am not bothered by Carlsen's withdrawal from the WC cycle. I am disturbed that so many fans want to declare Carlsen the rightful Challenger due to his tournament successes and his high rating, bringing back the Imperial Model which ruined the last decade. It is too dangerous having the WC title in the hands of one individual versus under a set system, which is FIDE for better or worse. Fortunately FIDE remembers what just happened quite clearly.
|Aug-03-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <nok>
Yes, that was the case for one list. What's your point?
|Aug-04-11|| ||MindBoggle: A legend is, properly speaking, a story. When applied to a person, it is 'a person that people tell stories about'. Usually such persons are dead, and this is why we sometimes use the oxymoron 'a living legend'. This is applied in rare cases (like Fischer after he disappeared '72) when the number of stories is so great and the person so elusive, that the term 'legend' seems correct even if he is still alive. And now that he is dead, it definitely is.|
If Carlsen (God forbid) died in a car crash tomorrow, he too would become a legend, a tragic hero, like Schlechter. But let's hope he doesn't become legendary quite yet.
In the last decade, however, pop culture has hi-jacked the word legend (Legends of the Ring, etc.) and there has been a serious legend-inflation. According to this definition, anybody that somebody tells stories about is a legend. But that makes everybody a legend, so I don't give much for this modern definition.
A legend is a dead guy that people still tell stories about - except in very rare cases. Like Fischer, who was a true, living legend.
|Aug-08-11|| ||Everett: <MindBoggle> that is a legendary post! ;-)|
<HeMateMe> I think I see your point. Kind of the "with great power comes great responsibility" idea. Makes sense, yet Carlsen, like Fischer, may know when he is ready and when the time is right. Why should Carlsen subject himself to conditions where he feels exposed? In short, what is wrong with protecting one's ego? After all, unless you're some Buddha, it's all we got.
Did Kasparov "protect himself" from possible failure by eschewing Dortmund 2002? I think it is possible. On the other side of the coin, however, is Karpov, trudging through the candidates matches in '89-'90, defeating Anand but stopped by Short in '92, defeating Gelfand in '95.. , Kamsky in '96 and Anand in '98 (yes, we know Anand had no rest...) In this way, Karpov is one of the most resilient players in history. He remains the only ex-WC to qualify for a title match. No, no I'm not saying he's the best ever, so just relax everyone.
|Aug-08-11|| ||Everett: Besides Karpov (75 and 90), only Smyslov (54 and 57) Spassky (63 and 66) Korchnoi (78 and 81) and Anand (95, 98, 2008) have won through to the title match more than once. |
Should Topalov be added to this list? Was his journey the second time around arduous enough to count?
Either way, it basically a very rare feat.
|Aug-16-11|| ||Albertan: Impressions of the 2011 Biel Chess Festival
|Oct-17-11|| ||notyetagm: <CARLSEN TRAPS PIECES AT BIEL 2011>|
Carlsen vs F Caruana, 2011, Round 4
27 e1-e4 1-0> <trapped piece: c4-knight>
click for larger view
Carlsen vs Pelletier, 2011, Round 6
42 f7-c7 1-0 <trapped piece: c2-bishop>
click for larger view
42 ... c2-b1 43 c7-c1
click for larger view
So Caruana's Black c4-knight is <TRAPPED> because it has <NO RETREAT!> while Pelletier's Black c2-bishop is <TRAPPED> because it is <ON THE EDGE OF THE BOARD>.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·