< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 193 OF 194 ·
|Jun-27-12|| ||talisman: <Petrosianic> Notice no one has responded to your post? i like it.|
|Jun-27-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: In general if the chess world perceives that qualifiers that allow weaker players more 'lucky' chances of getting a title shot, the more the institute of the world chess championship gets devalued. This is why it is important that the World Cup two rounder KO format be changed back to Interzonal style formats that worked quite well from the 1950s to the 1990s. |
The very top players naturally know of the chancy nature of the World Cup. They know quite well that an unlucky break, even in the first mini-match, will knock them out without giving them a chance to recover. Any one, including Carlsen, Aronian, and Kramnik can lose an 'unlucky' game; and if this happens say in the first mini-match with the white pieces, all their opponent has to do is to channel the second game into drawish opening variations. In a round robin or Swiss qualifier, they can recover from an early loss.
This reasoning, and past experience with this format, probably led them to skip the World Cup. FIDE, whose governing body is populated by astute politicians, probably would have seen that a Candidates without all of the above three would inevitably result in a Challenger with no credibility in the eyes of most chess fans, and so provided an alternate route by seeding the top rated players directly into the Candidates.
Personally I would like to see everyone earn their berths in the Candidates through OTB battle in a qualifier, but this assumes that the qualifiers are fair and credible. Thus while FIDE insists on the World Cup as a qualifier, I have no problems with directly seeding the top 3 in the rating list into the Candidates.
However, if FIDE decides to bring back the Interzonal formats, I believe that Carlsen, Aronian, and Kramnik should earn their places in the Candidates like every one else, through honorable battle in the Interzonals.
|Jun-27-12|| ||Blunderdome: <Shams> See Sutovsky's letter here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...|
I believe Gelfand was not on board and thus the proposal was never submitted. I don't know if there were other holdouts. I'll see if I can find that anywhere.
|Jun-27-12|| ||Eggman: <<Personally I would like to see everyone earn their berths in the Candidates through OTB battle in a qualifier, but this assumes that the qualifiers are fair and credible.>>|
I must disagree on this one point. I think it's great that the rating system is finally being used for the candidates, and I think its a shame that this wasn't done decades earlier. What fan wanted to see someone like Tal, who was tied for second in the world rankings, excluded from the 1974 candidates because of a bad interzonal tournament, which, incidentally, followed an 86 game unbeaten streak? Meanwhile another player, after a series of relatively mediocre results, finishes *third* in *one* tournament, and suddenly they have a place in the candidates at the expense of someone who is ranked second in the world?
Ratings are earned, OTB as you say, over the course of many competitions. Once we had a rating system, we ought to have used it. I think that only the winner of the interzonal should have qualified for the candidates, with the remaining qualifiers being the two top finishers from the previous cycle, and then the top players from the rating list. This would be fair and would give (have given) fans the candidates series that they would most want to see.
|Jun-28-12|| ||Petrosianic: Ratings were fairly new then, and nobody knew how much stock to put in them. When Petrosian asked why they should have to qualify when the rating system existed, it was a joke.|
In hindsight, yeah. Everyone wanted to see Tal in, and he had the rating. On the other hand, Robert Byrne not only qualified from this interzonal, he came pretty close to qualifying from the next one too, so he wasn't exactly a fluke.
|Jun-28-12|| ||Eggman: <<On the other hand, Robert Byrne not only qualified from this interzonal, he came pretty close to qualifying from the next one too, so he wasn't exactly a fluke.>>|
To be clear, I didn't want to denigrate Byrne, which is the main reason I didn't mention him by name. But still, this is the championship of the world that we're talking about, and if Byrne (or anyone) wants to get into the latter stages (i.e. the candidates matches), it's not too much to ask him to either win the interzonal outright or to achieve the kind of results overall that would put him into the top 5-8 players in the world rankings.
|Jun-28-12|| ||Bureaucrat: <Eggman: I think it's great that the rating system is finally being used for the candidates, and I think its a shame that this wasn't done decades earlier.>|
Agree 100% with your post.
|Jun-28-12|| ||Bureaucrat: <Blunderdome: <Shams> See Sutovsky's letter here:|
I believe Gelfand was not on board and thus the proposal was never submitted.>
Sutovsky talked about it in an interview that was published on chess-news.ru. I have only seen references to the interview, and I don't know if there exists a decent translation in English, but this page evidently has a google-translation:
<No, if it was not a majority. The fact that even then were the rules matches, and, accordingly, to change anything in the rules could be if everyone agreed. Most participants agreed, but, for example, Boris Gelfand just wrote that he opposes any changes to existing rules. You see, his intuition did not fail, and that under these rules in the shorter games (4-4-6), he won.>
|Jun-28-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Eggman> My assumption is that some players perform differently when they are in the WC cycle than outside it. In effect, if one would rate a player like Gelfand's WC cycle performance (just as an example) separately from his other competitive chess events performance, his WC cycle rating would probably be significantly higher than his 'ordinary' rating.|
On the other hand you do have good points. If Gelfand and a few others are exceptions, then most players' performances mostly stays the same whether in the WC cycle or in 'ordinary' competitive events. In such case, then ratings IMO may justify seeding into the Candidates.
In the latter case, every classical chess event that a chess player competes in, given that it is rated and given that ratings are a criteria for qualifying into the Candidates, becomes to a certain degree a qualifier too.
I recall that Kramnik seemed to have had put in extra effort in London 2011. Before the start of that tournament, his place in the Candidates was not yet certain. However, by putting up a tremendous performance in London, he would be able to raise his rating to such a degree as to ensure qualification. In effect, London 2011 may have been regarded by Kramnik as an event similar to that of an Interzonal. Thus we saw there what a highly motivated Kramnik can do.
Some 'caveats' in using ratings as a criterion for qualification.
1. From my profile: <Chessplayers are naturally arranged in populations partitioned by geopolitical regions & time periods that have infrequent contacts with one another. Within such a population, players get to play each other more frequently, thus forming a quasi-equilibrium group wherein individual ratings would tend to equilibrate quickly; but not with outside groups. With caveats & in the proper context, FIDE/Elo ratings are simply fallible descriptors & predictors of an active player's near-past & near-future performances against other rated players, & only within the same quasi-equilibrium group. As corollaries: the best way to evaluate a player's strength is to analyze his games & not his ratings; one cannot use ratings to accurately compare the quality of play of players from the past and present, or even the same player say a decade ago and today; & care should be taken in the use of ratings as a criterion in choosing which players to seed into the upper levels of the WC cycle. All the above often entail comparisons between players from different quasi-equilibrium groups separated by space and/or time.>
2. As I have mentioned above <some players perform differently when they are in the WC cycle than outside it.>
3. It has not happened yet, but in the future a player might theoretically be able to use the rating system to cheat his way into the Candidates. For example, a strong Eastern European national championship is held just before the rating criterion is used to seed players into the Candidates. A 2700s player who is in 'only' top ten may approach his countrymen and convince them to allow him draws whenever he is losing. The result is that he gains a lot of rating points and thus qualifies into the Candidates.
Perhaps the most politically accommodating way is to do what FIDE just did- allow 4 routes into the Candidates. 1. Three qualify from the World Cup. 2. Three qualify from ratings. 3. Loser of the previous WC match qualifies. 4. Wild card in order to satisfy the sponsors.
No one seems to be complaining about the make-up of the upcoming Candidates- Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik, Radjabov, Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Svidler, Gelfand. Officials inside FIDE seem to be making the politically right moves after all.
Nonetheless, the credibility of the WC institution IMO would be enhanced if the World Cup is changed back into one of the old Interzonal formats, and if the the WC match itself is lengthened to 16 to 24 games with no quick game tie breaks. My preference is still for champion's draw odds or sudden death classical game in case of a tie.
|Jun-28-12|| ||Kinghunt: <visayanbraindoctor> I would address your points as follows:|
1. The top 20 players in the world have regular contact with each other. They certainly don't play in events based on "geopolitical regions." And given that we're taking about players <at the same time>, I have no idea what time periods have to do with selecting participants in the Candidates.
2. I find this claim debatable. It's not that some players play inherently better chess in the WC cycle, but rather that they put more effort into WC cycle events. Surely, making all tournaments indirectly part of the WC cycle and forcing them to constantly put in that same effort can only be good for chess.
3. Game fixing would be a problem no matter what the format. For example, players could donate half points in an Interzonal instead, with the same effect. We can only trust that there will be sufficient oversight to prevent this from happening.
That said, I agree that the system for the upcoming cycle is not bad at all. In my mind, any method of selecting the Candidates must satisfy two main criteria:
1. It must ensure that players recognized as the best in the world are included.
2. It must be open, such that everyone in the world has a chance to qualify.
Requirement number 1 is satisfied by selecting players by rating, while requirement number 2 is satisfied by also including the top finishers from the World Cup. Personally, I might be inclined to change the balance between the two a little bit (say, top 4 by rating and top 2 World Cup finishers), but I think it's a more or less satisfactory system as is.
Consider the additional benefits of this system: the limited number of dedicated FIDE events to select the Candidates (one) should free up resources to allow for an improved Candidates Event and Title Match. For example, instead of the six Grand Prix events held last cycle, there could have been three rounds of Candidates matches (say, all best of 10) and a 24 game title match. That's 54 game days for the Candidates + Title Match, which is much less than the 78 game days spent on the Grand Prix. The resources are there - they just have to be better utilized.
|Jun-28-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Kinghunt: the limited number of dedicated FIDE events to select the Candidates (one) should free up resources to allow for an improved Candidates Event and Title Match. For example, instead of the six Grand Prix events held last cycle, there could have been three rounds of Candidates matches (say, all best of 10) and a 24 game title match. That's 54 game days for the Candidates + Title Match, which is much less than the 78 game days spent on the Grand Prix. The resources are there - they just have to be better utilized.> |
|Jun-28-12|| ||maelith: <visayanbraindoctor: In general if the chess world perceives that qualifiers that allow weaker players more 'lucky' chances of getting a title shot, the more the institute of the world chess championship gets devalued. This is why it is important that the World Cup two rounder KO format be changed back to Interzonal style formats that worked quite well from the 1950s to the 1990s..>|
So true, these kind of chess formats in prestigious tournament like this, is like a NBA finals teams fighting for the championship for 1 minute only,or a three point contents shooting only two balls per player...
|Jul-12-12|| ||Shelter417: Why do people keep saying that both players were playing to draw the classical games? Isn't chess a zero-sum game? Say that the odds were something like 60% in favor of Anand in the classical games and 70% in favor of Anand in the rapids. Gelfand would have had no incentive to play for a tie (except in the final game, depending on his chances of winning that specific game.)|
Of course, one of the players might have under/overestimated his edge...but certainly one of the players was wrong to play for a tie, if that's indeed what they were both doing.
Oh, and I don't think there's a truly "democratic" means of selecting a challenger. It's unfair to say that ratings don't matter; although they're not the last word, they do reflect results. Effectively, a player ranked in the top 10 has "earned" his/her place via long-term results, as opposed to a victory in one tournament (arguably, the former is more impressive).
If ratings weren't used to SOME degree, you'd end up with top players being forced to play nobodies simply to knock them out of contention.
|Jul-14-12|| ||Karpova: Anand: <Yeah, some people who had experienced these things themselves understood, we were both trying hard and we had both prepared very well, we had prepared deep ideas and the lack of the breakthrough was simply because we were both putting in a lot of effort. And our teams were putting in a lot of effort. I mean, whatever else you were expecting, we were trying. Aronian got it, Kramnik got it. These guys got it. But in general itís frustrating if you have to explain 20 times a day, ďNo, Iím trying, No, Iím trying.Ē Then you just wonder what is really going on. And of course Kasparov was in complete over-drive. And he always comes up with eminently quotable statements which make them much worse. Again he is someone who could not bring himself to admit, his prognosis, that I would have been a favourite in this match had I been firing on all cylinders, was wrong to begin with. Even if I had been in top form, you still need an area to break through. So rather than admit he was wrong, he was simply doubling up his criticism. It wasnít just him.>|
|Jul-14-12|| ||Rolfo: It's hard to be on top|
|Jul-14-12|| ||HeMateMe: I think Kasparov was more criticizing their playing style, than the effort the two players put into a match. He doesn't understand that some players have a different idea on how to conduct a game. Few had his tactical ability. It's impossible for a player to change his overall style for a match like this; they just both play high percentage chess.|
|Jul-14-12|| ||NGambit: <I think Kasparov was more criticizing their playing style>|
Not really. His criticism started even before the first game of the match was played.
|Jul-14-12|| ||keypusher: As far as I know, there are three principal criticisms of this match.|
1. The qualifier was silly.
2. There are a number of GMs who are stronger than the challenger.
3. Overall, the match games were short, boring, and insipid.
It seems to me that all three criticisms are correct. And the first two criticisms could be made, and were made, before the match started. So, yeah, Kasparov's a jerk, but it isn't as if there wasn't anything to complain about before the match started.
|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.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 193 OF 194 ·