|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 194 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-14-12 | | NGambit: <1. The qualifier was silly. > Well after <nearly two decades> there was at least a proper qualifier for WCC with fair chance for everyone. Nobody would claim it was perfect. But, that it was definitely better than handpicking the challenger (a la kaparov-Shirov-Kramnik episode). In any case there is always something to complain about. The next qualifier is a candidates <tournament>. How do people like that for deciding challenger for the world championship <match>. <2. There are a number of GMs who are stronger than the challenger.> And the fact that they either failed or ran away from the qualifier? |
 |
Jul-14-12
 | | keypusher: <Well after <nearly two decades> there was at least a proper qualifier for WCC > And that is what we call assuming the quod that has to be demonstrandum'd. Or begging the question, if we prefer to English our Latin. <But, that it was definitely better than handpicking the challenger (a la kaparov-Shirov-Kramnik episode). > Not much of a standard of comparison. Even so, Kramnik was a better challenger than Gelfand. <And the fact that they either failed or ran away from the qualifier?> And the fact that the qualifier was little better than a coin flip? I'm not going to criticize anyone for losing or running away from a coin flip. Look, there was a lousy qualifier, which produced a (relatively) lousy challenger and an extremely lousy match. At least they'll do it differently next time. |
|
| Jul-14-12 | | NGambit: <qualifier was little better than a coin flip?> so much for "standard of comparison" |
|
Jul-14-12
 | | HeMateMe: A lot of people have a mental block regarding the qualifying process for the most recent world championship. Carlsen decided not to play; Kramnik's results during the year weren't good enough. The rest were eliminated in matches, and Gelfand was the last man standing. Why is this so difficult to understand? |
|
Jul-14-12
| | keypusher: <He Mate Me>
<Why is this so difficult to understand?> It's not. Everyone understands it. The "matches" were jokes. Do you understand <that>? |
|
Jul-14-12
| | HeMateMe: only if you are a poor loser. |
|
Jul-14-12
 | | Shams: <HeMateMe> It's almost like you don't recognize that one format could ever have more or less integrity than another one. |
|
Jul-14-12
| | HeMateMe: I too would have preferred the matches be longer, 6 games, 8 games, and a longer final match. Apparently the playing hall was so valuable, it could not be held for another two weeks or so, for a chess match. I agree, in that sense. But I disagree with the constant bashing of Gelfand for dispatching his challangers, as though he wasn't worthy of playing a title match. No ond bashed 40+ Viktor korchnoia for winning the right to play 3 championship matches with Karpov--No one claims that it was a farce, that someone else should be playing Karpov. Just sour grapes. |
|
| Jul-14-12 | | JoergWalter: look at soccer. how do the teams qualify? by playing 2 x 30 minutes games with 8 players per team? No. the qualifying in chess should be through the same format that is used in the finals, imo. |
|
Jul-14-12
| | Shams: <No ond bashed 40+ Viktor korchnoi for winning the right to play 3 championship matches with Karpov> You don't really believe that anybody thinks quadragenarians are inherently unfit to challenge for the title, so why are you pretending people do? The point is, Korchnoi won the right to face Karpov through a candidates match format that has more integrity than this one did. That is all. It's not "bashing Gelfand" to point this out. |
|
| Jul-14-12 | | JoergWalter: The format has nothing to do with the players, their age etc..
The format is set up to what FIDE can afford financially - which is not much. |
|
| Jul-14-12 | | harish22: There does not seem to be anything wrong with the format. Gelfand just won it fair and square. It was not his fault that players like Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik did not make it. It simply proved that while some players are very good at playing tournaments , they are not good match players. Having said that i feel that Gefland is a top-10 player. However he has been in that position for more than 20 years. This is very unlike Carlsen, Aronian and Karajkin who have been there for last 5 years. The match was tough because of psychological factors. Anand and Gefland have known each other for 30 years. In late 80's and earlier 90's, Gelfand was better than Anand. And even though Anand scaled great heights, Gelfand was never far behind. It is not easy to play a ghost from the past. Gelfand may not have deserved the slot but he earned it. This is much better than treatment given to Kramnik. Kramnik was hand-picked by Kasparov. After he won the match he was allowed the benefit of a unification match and then a return match after he lost the title |
|
Jul-14-12
| | HeMateMe: <JoergWalter: The format has nothing to do with the players, their age etc.. The format is set up to what FIDE can afford financially - which is not much.> I think that hits the nail on the head. The world has changed, its a faster paced place than the chess world of the 60s and 70s. People and playing venues just cost a lot more than they did back in the day. FIDE did manage to get control of the title process again, and it WAS fair for everyone. They just don't seem to have the funds to make the matches a bit longer, to more absolutely ensure that the best players move forward. |
|
| Aug-11-12 | | 7he5haman: This may sound like a rather naive comment, but:
As far as I am aware, none of the players who played in the qualifier complained that the format was silly, etc., <even after they were knocked out of it>. Why then should the rest of us complain? If it was good enough for the competitors both during and after their participation in it, then what we think really pales into insignificance. |
|
Aug-11-12
 | | Kinghunt: <7he5haman> Can you imagine how it would be if Aronian and Kramnik complained about the format after being knocked out? No, the only chance they had to complain was before the event. Also, GM Sutovsky spoke with them before the event, and the majority stated they would like to see the matches made longer. Gelfand, however, wanted to keep the short mini-matches, and as contracts had already been signed, no changes could be made so long as any single person objected. Most of the players did not like the format, but simply accepted it as the best they were going to be able to get, and once they agreed to it, there was no point in complaining, especially after they were knocked out. |
|
Aug-11-12
 | | PinnedPiece: What kind of champion, or one who wants to be thought of as champion material, would say "I need many many chances to prove I am the best. And if I am not proved the best, then I wasn't given enough chances." It's up to the chess world to ensure the funding and fairness of the matches...it seems to me that a decent contender can't be expected to do so. I would redo the entire nature of the championship cycle, myself, with the current "champion" but one of the participants from the outset. . |
|
| Aug-11-12 | | csmath: The format is the way it is because there is no money for anything better. The championship match was the way it was because there were no better players to play it. |
|
Aug-11-12
| | Kinghunt: <csmath> There is money for more. Aren't FIDE/Agon about to stage a huge Grand Prix circuit? Turn two of those events into Candidates Quarterfinals and Semifinals, then change the 14 round Candidates we already have into a final match, and you're done. There is money for a better Championship system - it just has to be used where it matters instead of on an extravagant Grand Prix. |
|
| Aug-26-12 | | shivamshukl280: hye will anyone play a game |
|
Sep-12-12
 | | Ulhumbrus: Anand said that people had underrated Gelfand and that Anand had played as strongly as Kasparov had played at the London match in 2000. Gelfand still drew the match and came close to winning it which means that Gelfand also played as strongly as Kasparov had played at the London match in 2000. |
|
| Jan-01-13 | | tabul008: You can't choose challenger by just fide rating! |
|
Jan-11-13
 | | morfishine: Based on the assessments and opinions. its safe to say that clearly, Anand is no longer the player that he is... |
|
| Jan-11-13 | | voyager39: @morfishine Different situations require different character. Anand remains on the throne and we wait for a challenger to emerge. Hopefully it will be one of the youngsters so that the next generation can gain legitimacy and find its place in history. |
|
Jan-11-13
| | HeMateMe: Some would say that the younger generation has plenty of legitamacy. It's just that great players are hard to beat in matches, even when they are in their 40s. |
|
Jan-11-13
| | morfishine: <voyager39> I appreciate the reply; I have the utmost respect for Anand. My comment was sarcastic, interjecting the words 'he is' instead of the normal 'once was'... With that said, I think the 12-game format is too short and short-changes the chess viewing audience; the 24-game format allows for much more flexibility in openings. If nothing else, for that much money, the chess community deserves more games. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 194 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
