< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 186 OF 194 ·
|Jun-19-12|| ||voyager39: I totally agree with Visayan. And for me, Tal Memorial was an excellent reminder as to why neither the World Champion nor the best player can ever be decided through a tournament. |
The next qualifier is going to be a tournament and Magnus will reap what he has sown. I sincerely hope he wins, else it would be a disaster wherein we all would be subjected to some new crazy logic as to why even this wasn't good.
Sponsors however have and will continue to put serious money on the table for the WCC matches including in 2013. They sure ain't doing so for tourneys anymore despite Spohia rules, football scores and other desperate antics. You want to go Fischer Random - we can start looking for sponsors in the local pawn shop.
For me, the only people crying against the match format are those who are scared of climbing the high mountain. They want life easy and subsidised where luck and circumstances count more then merit and hard work.
|Jun-19-12|| ||AVRO38: <alexmagnus:Patented maybe, but it was not Fischer's idea. Fischer only popularized it.>|
Fischer didn't just popularize an idea, he actually designed the time increment clock used in the Fischer-Spassky II match.
Having an idea is one thing, but creating a workable model, like Fischer did, is something completely different.
|Jun-19-12|| ||RookFile: Well, 10 years from now, we'll probably be playing Fischer Random chess, and then folks can say that Bronstein had a similar idea.|
|Jun-21-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I do not know if <alexmagnus> is actively propagandizing for the World Cup two rounder KO format or otherwise trying to justify it, but if he is, I am much opposed to what he is doing. Nothing personal on this; I would oppose the activity of any chess fan that aims to popularize this silly two-rounder KO format. In my firm opinion the two rounder KO format as a major qualifier in the world championship cycle is bad for chess and degrades the credibility of the institute of the chess world championship. |
I would expect that chess fans who actually want to give lesser importance to the institute of the chess world championship would be the likely ones to try to advocate such a chancy KO format.
Instead of making multiple explanations justifying each KO winner, here's mine, following Occam's razor.
FIDE World Championship KO winners since 1999
Chess World Cup
What do we have? Inconsistency or most probably randomness. No single player has won this format twice. Every World Cup produces a different winner.
Given the empirical observation of non-repeating winners for the KO format from among the top 20 or so players of the world; my hypothesis is that the two rounder KO format (whether named FIDE World Championship or World Cup) gives random winners from among the top 20 or so players in the world because luck plays such a large role in such a format.
This hypothesis, unlike other explanations, is testable. If this is a valid hypothesis, it would predict that future two-rounder KO formats would continue producing random winners from among the top 20 or so players of the world. Perhaps a repeat winner may show up, but if we would have 20 straight World Cups, there would probably be something like at least 15 different winners. Or who knows, maybe 20 different winners. Randomness prevails.
(Although this randomness would not extend to include relatively weak chess players; one would not expect someone who is rated number 100 in the world to win the World Cup.)
From my subjective point of view as a chess fan who gives much importance to the cycle for the chess world championship, such a format is absurd and should be changed, preferably back to the Interzonals.
Ideally I would like to see the Candidates not to have any seeded players; that every one should qualify into the Candidates by earning it in battle. However, because of what I regard as the absurdity of the present World Cup format, I side with those who think that the top three in the FIDE rating list be seeded, as they were in this cycle. The rating system gives an alternate route to the Candidates, outside the World Cup format.
|Jun-21-12|| ||NGambit: <What do we have? Inconsistency or most probably randomness. No single player has won this format twice. Every World Cup produces a different winner.>|
Do you think that different set of players participating in many of these events might have something to do with it?
|Jun-21-12|| ||King Death: <Petrosianic: <What the hell is all this stuff about "real" world champion?>|
...When the Cardinals won the World Series in 2006 with a .516 winning percentage, did anybody dare say "they're not really the champions because they didn't impress ME enough."? Nah. Because even sports fans don't take themselves that seriously. Some chess fans, on the other hand...>
Cards fans are a pretty sharp group of people, at least many of those I've known and they're realistic enough not to say "ha ha ha, my team was nothing but they won..." But I'd put some New York Giants fans up against a few chess fans though. Especially after last year. They need a reminder that that team was 7-7 and one dimensional before somebody turned on the switch.
|Jun-21-12|| ||Open Defence: <What do we have? Inconsistency or most probably randomness. No single player has won this format twice. Every World Cup produces a different winner.> but perhaps thats what FIDE wants.... new faces, different winners which open up sponsorship opportunities....|
|Jun-21-12|| ||achieve: New and different faces every other tournament certainly doesn't help the WTA tour in tennis, and sponsors are suckers for having the big names on the billboards and getting the well-known stars in the later stages of the tournaments.|
But I agree to an extent that fresh new faces and talents with a bit of buzz around them are also magnets. It's all about media exposure, nothing else.
|Jun-21-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <Open Defence: <What do we have? Inconsistency or most probably randomness. No single player has won this format twice. Every World Cup produces a different winner.>|
Actually Vishy won the first two knockouts he played in (Karpov wasn't part of the knockout) and reached the semi-final in the third one. 17 straight random mini match victories...
|Jun-21-12|| ||Petrosianic: <Cards fans are a pretty sharp group of people, at least many of those I've known and they're realistic enough not to say "ha ha ha, my team was nothing but they won..." But I'd put some New York Giants fans up against a few chess fans though. Especially after last year. They need a reminder that that team was 7-7 and one dimensional before somebody turned on the switch.>|
Yeah, and my baseball analogy is imperfect. The world chess champion is more like a boxing champion. He's the guy you have to beat to become champion. Baseball titles are more like a tournament champion. They expire every year, everything starts fresh, and you can win the vacant title without beating last year's champion.
On the other hand, baseball and chess both are very different from college football, where the championship is a beauty contest, decided by sportswriters, and the win/loss record doesn't do anything except advise those sportswriters about how to vote. Neither baseball nor chess is like that. The champion is the one who wins the championship. Not the one that writers or fans think SHOULD be considered the best.
The whole concept of a championship goes back to medieval knights, for whom these battles had higher stakes. The winner is the champion. There's no sense saying "Yeah, but I think that guy laying dead on the field was just unlucky, and should be considered the REAL champion instead."
|Jun-21-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Open Defence: but perhaps thats what FIDE wants.... new faces, different winners which open up sponsorship opportunities....> |
That's a plausible explanation for some people I guess, including FIDE officials.
On the other hand, from a second point of view, the World Cup has not been attracting more sponsors precisely because of the chancy random character of chess World Cup winners. If we are having different random winners every time there is a World Cup, some of the extreme critics would say, why not just get the twenty top players in the world in a single room, televise them world wide, pair them off and toss coins until there is one winner?
<NGambit: Do you think that different set of players participating in many of these events might have something to do with it?>
Many of the same top masters have participated multiple times in the World Cup; so I do not think your explanation is the most correct one.
The random character of the World Cup was especially glaring in the last one. More appropriately, FIDE qualified the top three participants into the Candidates: winner Svidler, and Grischuk and Ivanchuk. Yet none of them has ever won a previous edition, despite previous participation in this type of format.
Another peculiar thing: the non-winners Grischuk and Ivanchuk made chess history by qualifying into the Candidates whereas the previous 2nd and 3rd placers in the previous editions did not.
And this is particularly ironic. When Ponomariov won this two rounder KO tournament, while it was still called the FIDE World Championship, he beat Ivanchuk. For that he was named FIDE World Champion. Now that Ivanchuk beat him, Ivanchuk merely qualifies into the Candidates. I find this particular unfair to Ivanchuk because I think he is a better and stronger chess player than Ponomariov (with all due respect to Pono who is a very strong player).
Even in these things, there is no consistency. To ask a rhetorical question, if you were a patron, why would you bother to sponsor such a random and inconsistent event?
|Jun-21-12|| ||Open Defence: whats inconsistent is the formats over time... and thats what is hurting the WCC|
as a sponsor i would like to have comfort over the fan following, which is why Fischer - Spassky II probably could attract more money than Kasparov-Short
I would like the sport larger than the players so that if one or two players withdraw the marketability is not hurt...
as things stand if a leading player pulls out of the cycle it immediately impacts its credibility
these things impact the WCC more than just the randomness of a KO format...
|Jun-21-12|| ||Petrosianic: Fischer-Spassky II attracted so much money because the sponsor was trying to break an embargo on a criminal nation. Kasparov and Short could probably have gotten even more if they'd actually played a legit world championship match in Yugoslavia at that time.|
|Jun-21-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <SetNoEscapeOn> If you are trying to make a case that the two rounder is mostly not random, you not quite succeeding because aside from Anand, the history of this format beginning in 1999 is different winners all the time.|
As I have said, it is random to a large extent, which is not the same as totally random. Thus, a player ranked 100 will not be expected to win this format, as I have also mentioned. As a corollary, an exceptionally very strong player such as Anand may win it more than one time.
My prediction as stated above is that if we have 20 more straight World Cups perhaps there will be repeat winners, probably the very strong masters. But because of the random nature of the tournament, there could also well be 20 different winners.
Anand's case of winning multiple consecutive mini-matches is not unique BTY. Capablanca did something similar in his 1913 to 1914 European campaign, and racked up a better percentage score of won games than Anand, also against the strongest masters in the world. In an era where there was no world championship cycle, this was in his effort to prove to the chess world that he was worthy of a match with Lasker, and thus I believe Capablanca regarded these matches in the same way participants regard the World Cup, as a stepping stone to a Title shot.
In both Capablanca's and Anand's cases however, every one would agree that they are exceptionally strong players, two of the strongest in the history of chess.
|Jun-21-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Open Defence: whats inconsistent is the formats over time... and thats what is hurting the WCC>|
<these things impact the WCC more than just the randomness of a KO format...>
I agree that changing the formats repeatedly hurts the WCC.
I also maintain that so does the randomness of the World Cup format.
My proposal is that we go back to the Interzonals. There is nothing inconsistent with it in the sense that this was the consistent format before, and it worked consistently for several decades.
|Jun-21-12|| ||Open Defence: <My proposal is that we go back to the Interzonals. There is nothing inconsistent with it in the sense that this was the consistent format before, and it worked consistently for several decades.> its probably too long...|
|Jun-21-12|| ||Petrosianic: Even in the day, the interzonals had their critics. They were a giant quota system for the world. (Each zone got so many representatives whether they deserved them or not). It produced anomalies, like in 1962, when people like Schweber, Teschner, and Aaron were playing, while Smyslov was sitting at home.|
Still, I think that with all their flaws, the interzonals were better than what we have now. I wouldn't mind going back to that system.
|Jun-21-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Open Defence: its probably too long...>|
I have read some kibitzers proposing only one big Interzonal, a giant Swiss system tournament. It should tend to produce less chancy winners than two rounder KOs. We have had it before; and there were little complains, unlike against the present World Cup format. It can be made to be just about as long as the present World Cup
Another way, which I prefer, is the old 3 Interzonal round robin tournament system. In this case though, your point that <its probably too long>, presumably for potential sponsors, might be true. Gone are the days when Eastern European governments sponsored chess officially. On the other hand, if appropriate sponsors can be found, why not go back to this format?
|Jun-21-12|| ||dx9293: <visayanbraindoctor> Nearly everyone admits that the Knockouts were not the best format for determining the World Champion, but at the time, that's what there was.|
There was Kasparov's Classical title, but no other World Championship, since Kasparov's title was only available to hand-picked challengers.
That's why I have such a problem with the dismissal of Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov.
Actually, I think the format used for this past cycle was very good: World Cup, Candidates Matches, World Championship Match. The only change I would make would be to increase the length of the Candidates Matches, and the length of the World Championship Match to at least 16 games.
Next year's format, substituting a DRR tournament for the matches, I don't like as much.
|Jun-21-12|| ||Petrosianic: <There was Kasparov's Classical title, but no other World Championship, since Kasparov's title was only available to hand-picked challengers.>|
That's not exactly true. Both Short and Anand won a candidates series. And the third, Kramnik, actually won his match, which seems to make him worthier than the other 2. It's hard to argue with success.
|Jun-21-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <dx9293> I have even more problems with elevating Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov to Anand's level, and not doing the same to Aronian, Kamsky, Gelfand, and Svidler who have won in the same format. It is patently unjust to the latter four that they are not honored with the appellation of FIDE world champion when they have done exactly the same thing as the former three.|
I do not see a problem in calling Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov FIDE world champions (and even Bogolyubov who won a FIDE championship match against Euwe in 1928 which FIDE might have pushed as a world championship match if Alekhine were not so dominant), but I will never regard them as undisputed world champions, or champions of the traditional world championship lineage stemming from Steinitz, that pre-dates FIDE, and that has always been decided by a match.
<Actually, I think the format used for this past cycle was very good: World Cup, Candidates Matches, World Championship Match. The only change I would make would be to increase the length of the Candidates Matches, and the length of the World Championship Match to at least 16 games.>
I would rather change the World Cup to the Interzonals. Like you I would <increase the length of the Candidates Matches>.
<Next year's format, substituting a DRR tournament for the matches, I don't like as much.>
There are precedent Candidates tournaments. I can accept this. However, like you I much prefer matches.
|Jun-21-12|| ||Petrosianic: Anand is undisputed world champion. Khalfiman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Topalov never were.|
Bogoljubov was FIDE Champion, but they never dared or wanted to call him World Champion. He was the champion of FIDE, no more. Which is exactly what those others were, despite what they tried to call them.
I don't see anything just about not awarding the FIDE title to every knockout tournament ever played.
|Jun-21-12|| ||dx9293: Simple. When the Knockout became the World Cup, it didn't decide the World Championship.|
Agree about both titles being disputed 1993-2006.
|Jun-21-12|| ||AVRO38: <Petrosianic:That's not exactly true. Both Short and Anand won a candidates series.>|
You're missing the point. They won candidates series within Kasparov's own organizations. Kasparov could have refused to play Short or Anand the way he refused to play Shirov and still kept his phony title.
<Petrosianic:Fischer-Spassky II attracted so much money because the sponsor was trying to break an embargo on a criminal nation. Kasparov and Short could probably have gotten even more if they'd actually played a legit world championship match in Yugoslavia at that time.>
What a joke!
Fischer - Spassky II attracted so much money because of the return of Bobby Fischer. The match made front page headlines in every newspaper in the world, that's what attracts money! The Kasparov - Short match was a farce from the beginning. Nobody cared. If even a single game was covered in the press it was buried in the corner on page 39 or something.
<a criminal nation>
So, in your world, a country that is experiencing a civil war is a "criminal nation"? I guess the U.S. was a "criminal nation" from 1861-1865.
We see the same kind of mindset concerning Syria today. Turn on the news and you hear about Assad "using force against his own people." Didn't Abraham Lincoln use "force against his own people"? The point they like to leave out is that "the people" are conducting an armed rebellion. There is very little difference between what happened in the U.S. in the 1860's and what happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990's. Both countries had states that seceded and a central government that used force to put down the rebellion, but I don't expect mindless idiots like <Petrosianic> to see the big picture.
|Jun-21-12|| ||Petrosianic: <AVRO38> <You're missing the point. They won candidates series within Kasparov's own organizations.>|
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You tell lies, knowing that they are, not to get away with something, just to get attention. You know as well as the rest of us that Short won FIDE's Candidates series. Time to put you back on Ignore.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 186 OF 194 ·