< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 182 OF 194 ·
|Jun-11-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <MORPHYEUS: <And it was Kasparov that talked Carlsen into backing out of the Candidates>
The reverse is true. Kasparov wanted Carlsen to play.>|
That's kind of funny, considering Kasparov's refusal to play in Dortmund 2002.
|Jun-11-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <Petrosianic>
Yes that's also true. I wasn't speaking against <laserlight>'s idea, but <HeMateMe>'s. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make much sense to believe Vishy wanted Magnus out of the cycle.
|Jun-11-12|| ||Mr. Bojangles: <Furthermore, if the world #1 does not play, there is concern that he might try to create a breakaway world championship ...>|
Well he would be playing with himself, as no one would follow him.
The chess world has no appetite for breakaways ... not now or anytime soon.
|Jun-11-12|| ||voyager39: Whatever the decision - Carlsen will be remembered only for its outcome. |
Benefit already accrued is in terms of FIDE incorporating his suggestions. This presumably gives him a better and fairer chance to qualify in 2013.
Loss already accrued is that he couldn't fight for the crown at all in 2012.
I think if Carlsen qualifies next cycle and goes on to win WCC - the decision would be judged as a profitable one. Else a big blunder.
The cost of this gambit is extremely high.
|Jun-11-12|| ||Petrosianic: <Well he would be playing with himself, as no one would follow him.|
The chess world has no appetite for breakaways ... not now or anytime soon.>
And besides, he has no claim to the title that he could build a match around, anyway. Unless he tried to claim that being rated #1 somehow made him world champion. But that would be nonsensical too. Why have a match to prove what his rating is when we can just look at the rating list and see? He could lose a match by a point, and still keep the #1 spot. And if his "championship" title derived from having that spot, and he kept the spot even though he lost a match, would that mean he retained this imaginary championship? None of it makes any sense. It's the kind of thing that people on the internet who haven't thought it out might suggest, but could never actually happen.
|Jun-11-12|| ||voyager39: Three likely scenarios emerge and I will state them as per their percieved probability...|
1. Carlsen qualifies, becomes Champion - Carlsen proves that his decision to withdraw from the 2012 cycle was good.
2. Carlsen qualifies, Anand wins - Past decision turns out to be bitter but sensible. If he can't win in 2013/14, he presumably couldn't have done it in 2012 either.
3. Carlsen fails to qualify - Major setback.
Scenarios 1 or 3 would be major turning points for Carlsen's career and legacy.
|Jun-11-12|| ||Petrosianic: 2 and 3 are reasonable enough, but #1 wouldn't prove that the decision was good. People would just say he could have become champion even earlier. And they might be right.|
|Jun-11-12|| ||Rachit: Don't bank too much on Carlson making it as challenger. Even if his chances of qualifying were 3 times compared to other 7 opponents individually, it gives only 30% chances to him to become a challenger while 70% chance that somebody else will qualify. And factor of 3 is of-course very optimistic so the real chances are even less.|
|Jun-11-12|| ||voyager39: <Petrosianic> Yes, Scenario 1 is the only positive outcome for Carlsen. And its not easy by any means. But then that's what being a true champion is all about. Nobody in history got a free ride.|
|Jun-11-12|| ||laserlight: <Petrosianic: And besides, he has no claim to the title that he could build a match around, anyway.>|
True, that thankfully is an advantage that Kasparov had that he doesn't have should he truly have nefarious breakaway dreams (though I recall Carlsen wanted a tournament, not a match, but that does not change the fact that he does not have a world title to play with).
<Petrosianic: Unless he tried to claim that being rated #1 somehow made him world champion. But that would be nonsensical too.>
Yes, that does not make sense. What he could claim though, is that being rated #1 makes his participation necessary for a world championship event to be valid, on a theory that there is some relationship between "strongest in the world", "world #1" and "world champion", although an event is necessary to actually win the title.
Not that I agree with such a theory or believe that Carlsen actually had such plans should FIDE prove too obstinate for his taste, but with a split having happened before, it seems like a point to note to me, however terribly unlikely it is to happen when he withdrew (and obviously could not happen after that because no one followed suit).
|Jun-11-12|| ||HeMateMe: <1. Carlsen qualifies, becomes Champion - Carlsen proves that his decision to withdraw from the 2012 cycle was good. |
MC would have been at least even money to beat Anand in a match--what's wrong with becoming world champion at age 21 instead of age 23 or 24? Does losing a WC match somehow "hurt his image"?
Spassky lost the first time around to Petrosian. Kasparov was down
5-0 against Karpov, before the match was halted by the pro-communist thuggery running FIDE.
In either case, certainly no one looks down on Spassky or Kasparov for having a difficult time, first time around against an opponent. In fact, they probably learned about their respective opponents and became better players for the experience.
You only look bad when you walk away from a challange.
|Jun-12-12|| ||Lambda: Personally, I think that objecting to the governing body changing the rules half-way through is quite legitimate and principled, so I think better of Carlsen <and Adams> for putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak, regardless of whether they can become champion in the future, which makes it look like a good choice to me.|
FIDE ignored one of their most important responsibilities. Letting this pass and continuing to perform for the organisation just because they've got something you want, as most of the players did, seems a little lacking in self-respect.
And I think anyone who calls it "walking away from a challenge" is probably either misinformed or is being deliberately obtuse. And anyone who tries to pretend he was the only one doing it is definitely either misinformed or dishonest.
|Jun-12-12|| ||HeMateMe: Does this translate to other sports, as well? If an American football team find out, just four weeks in advance, that a certain home game has to be played in an alternate arena, should they just forfeit that game, because they have been inconvenienced?|
If Manchester City finds out, just two months in advance, that Man U gets to use the best area field for an upcoming match, and the Man city match will be rescheduled, should Man city just forfeit the game because they have been inconvenienced?
|Jun-12-12|| ||Lambda: What in the name of all creation is a "best area field"? |
Anyway, if you genuinely believe that such rearrangements are remotely comparable to telling someone that instead of qualifying for a final, they've now only qualified for a quarter final, then I really don't want to know what the inside of your head is like. I suspect you're just making mischief though.
The truth is, I just can't think of any comparable example from any other sport. FIDE is by far the least professional sports governing association that I know of.
|Jun-12-12|| ||HeMateMe: No, really, I think its lame for a top player to evade a tough challenge. I think Carlsen was afraid of losing to one of his competitors in the elimination matches, or to Anand in the final.|
I can't think of any other top player in a sport who would walk away from a chance to play for the championship. You seem to think chess is some sort of esoteric, mysterious excercise where the normal laws of competition and reward do not apply.
I liken Carlsen not playing to Manny Pacquio not fighting Floyed Mayweather. He was either a) afraid of being caught using hgh/steroids and getting suspended or b) was afraid of losing his positioning for high stakes fights, should he lose. Either way, he looks bad for not taking on the most difficult challange out there.
Sort of like a tennis player not entering a certain tournament because his closest competitor is also there, and and he is afraid of losing.
I know the Magnus fan boys hate hearing this argument, but it simply won't go away. If it would make you feel any better, I think Bobby Fischer was an idiot for not participating in/finsihing his zonal play opportunities in the 1960s. It's not only Carlsen who has wasted time.
|Jun-12-12|| ||Lambda: (Lasker/Korchnoi/Karpov/Kramnik fanboy here)|
|Jun-12-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: Someone smells trollish here.|
|Jun-12-12|| ||Petrosianic: <I can't think of any other top player in a sport who would walk away from a chance to play for the championship.>|
Can you think of another sport where the rules change as much? If an undefeated boxer were offered a chance to fight a 2 round title match, he might very well decline it to hold out for something reasonable. The fact that that would never happen in boxing merely indicates that boxing has its act together better than chess does.
|Jun-13-12|| ||HeMateMe: <Can you think of another sport where the rules change as much?|
Who cares if the schedule changes? This is what you do for a living. You Man up and try to win.
|Jun-13-12|| ||Shams: If boxing looks professional by comparison than chess is in much worse shape than I feared.|
|Jun-13-12|| ||Check It Out: If you saw Saturday's Pacquiao-Bradley fight and the judges' "decision" you might agree.|
|Jun-13-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <Petrosianic: <I can't think of any other top player in a sport who would walk away from a chance to play for the championship.>
Can you think of another sport where the rules change as much? If an undefeated boxer were offered a chance to fight a 2 round title match, he might very well decline it to hold out for something reasonable. The fact that that would never happen in boxing merely indicates that boxing has its act together better than chess does.>|
Or, that your analogy is bad. It's ridiculous to comapare what Gelfand accomplished to a "2 round boxing match."
|Jun-13-12|| ||Lambda: What you want to be comparing is what everyone else did to get knocked out, and losing a 2 round boxing match.|
But in any case, the really outrageous thing was the changing of the basic rules of the process while it was ongoing.
|Jun-13-12|| ||maelith: < HeMateMe:I liken Carlsen not playing to Manny Pacquio not fighting Floyed Mayweather. He was either a) afraid of being caught using hgh/steroids and getting suspended or b) was afraid of losing his positioning for high stakes fights, should he lose. Either way, he looks bad for not taking on the most difficult challange out there.>|
Out of topic, but you are getting wrong there, it's Floyd who does not like to fight Pacquiao, testing is no longer the issue, it's the new unfair 60/40 demand that Floyds wants that halts the fight. Floyd does not like to face Pac, he even admitted he is afraid to get hurt and is worried about his health. Floyd even told he is a rich coward(search google).
|Jun-13-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <testing is no longer the issue>|
But at one point, it was. Manny claimed he was afraid of needles.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 182 OF 194 ·