< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jan-31-13|| ||twinlark: <Jambow>
Actually if you examine the arguments closely, you'll find that you agree with me. <HeHateMe> is saying Ushenina's not really the World Champion because he thinks the FIDE system sucks.
Be that as it may, these are two completely different and unrelated issues.
Even in the open world championship, we have a champion that almost everyone acknowledges is not the best player in the world, yet no one disputes he is the actual official world champion, now that the title has been unified.
The World Championship is a formally agreed process of elimination under universally recognised and acknowledged rules, and the last person standing is the world champion, officially and indisputably.
On the one hand, people (eg Carlsen) complain about the "privileges" of the incumbent champion when everyone else has to fight their way through all the levels of competition for the privilege of challenging for the title in a match, while the champion is apart from the whole process until the title match commences.
On the other hand, when everyone is put in the same boat as in the knockout contest, it's too "random".
You can't keep everyone happy as the never ending discussions on the subject of the best format for the World Championship cycle shows.
But the point is there is <no dispute whatsoever> that Ushenina is the world champion. Anyone who doesn't recognise this fact is plain <wrong>.
|Jan-31-13|| ||twinlark: <FSR: <twinlark> I don't really think that Fischer, were he alive, could successfully give Ushenina rook or knight odds. But it is funny (albeit not to her, I'm sure) that she managed to lose a game after winning a whole piece on move 5.>|
I know what you're saying. Everyone can have a senior moment, including the likes of Kramnik when he conceded a mate in one. The numerous blunder collections on this site show how common they are, even amongst top GMs, eg: Game Collection: The Top 10 Greatest Blunders Ever
So I'm not sure it's really fair to single Ushenina out for one bad game.
In any case, she picked up from there. Later in the year, she was an undefeated =1st in the Women's National Championship, an undefeated bronze medalist at the Women's Olympiad, and then mowed down the opposition to win the world championship.
That wasn't an accident, that was hard work and preparation.
|Jan-31-13|| ||perfidious: Here's a well-known example where an even stronger player won a piece in the opening and lost the game: Tarrasch vs Bogoljubov, 1920.|
|Jan-31-13|| ||HeMateMe: <The whole Khalifman/FIDE KO argument does <not> apply, as that was entirely in the context of a split in the title.|
It applies, because the 64 player "lottery" is an inferior way of nominating a world champion. It matters not that this happened during the Kasparov provoked schism. It is an inferior process, regardless of the circumstances.
The men don't use this nonsensical giant tournament, and serious female chessplayers shouldn't be stuck with it, either.
Fortunately, Yifan will get a chance to remedy this.
|Jan-31-13|| ||HeMateMe: BTW, I think Anna U. played well to defeat all challengers, and she has earned a match with Yifan. I certainly am not making any negative comments about her; I just don't think the process which gave her the crown was a competent way for grandmasters to prove who is the best.|
|Feb-01-13|| ||FSR: <perfidious> Yeah, I know about Tarrasch-Bogo. 27...Qh6?? was a gross blunder, turning an easy win into a loss. Soltis mentions the game in one of his books (maybe <Catalog of Chess Mistakes>) together with another game with the same blunderful line, where White "only" drew: Uhlmann vs O Kinnmark, 1963.|
|Feb-08-13|| ||Jambow: Well I may be wrong but I don't consider Ponomariov a world champion either. Neither if a united body decided that coin tosses and beer drinking were the criteria for determining the champ would I consider that legitimate either. |
With that any champion chosen by a system that is not legitimate the outcome will not be so to me and many other chess fans. If they choose the F-1 champ by bowling the same applies. FIDE simply has cast doubt with the inferior methods used. Morphy never having the title officially is more of a champion in my eyes than Anand is currently. So champion to those who recognize FIDE and those who are lookig for the most worthy player are not the same. I like Anand BTW and felt he was a worthy champ just not now.
|Feb-26-13|| ||dx9293: <Jambow> You don't consider Ponomariov a world champion? Who do you consider the champion then (2002-2004)?|
If your answer is Kramnik, then please tell me how Ponomariov (or anyone else) was supposed to get invited to the Dortmund 2002 qualifier. Rating? Well, that's not a "world championship," if ONLY the highest-rated players can compete.
ANYONE in the World should theoretically have a chance to become World Champion. That is the strength of the Knockouts. No, it's not a perfect format, but to me it's definitely more legitimate than London 2000 and Brissago 2004.
|Feb-26-13|| ||keypusher: Nobody considers Ponomariov a world champion. Maybe Pono and his mother and dx9293.|
<If your answer is Kramnik, then please tell me how Ponomariov (or anyone else) was supposed to get invited to the Dortmund 2002 qualifier. Rating? Well, that's not a "world championship," if ONLY the highest-rated players can compete.>
If your answer is Ponomariov, why do a series of joke minimatches against mostly weak opposition make him a world champion?
And why does only having the strongest players make a world championship not legitimate? It is obvious to me that such a world championship would be completely legitimate (not claiming that Dortmund achieved that ideal), and the FIDE knockouts were a complete joke.
Hell, do a poll. Among the relatively small portion of chessplayers who even know who Pono is, not one in 50 would consider him a legit world champion.
|Feb-26-13|| ||alexmagnus: Pono was #6 in the world around that time. Same position as Anand now, btw :D|
|Feb-27-13|| ||dx9293: <keypusher: Nobody considers Ponomariov a world champion. Maybe Pono and his mother and dx9293.> |
Speak for yourself.
<If your answer is Ponomariov, why do a series of joke minimatches against mostly weak opposition make him a world champion?>
Joke minimatches? Even if you don't like that the matches were Best-of-2 (up to the Semifinals), the winner still has to win SEVEN such matches in a row.
Also, let's see who Ponomariov eliminated: after facing the lowly Li Wenliang in Round 1 he eliminated Tiviakov, Ki. Georgiev (highest rank #9 in the world and #17 at the time), Morozevich (#4), Bareev (#9), Svidler (#17), and Ivanchuk (#7) (4.5-2.5 in the Best-of-8 final).
In fact, the ONLY TWO top players who didn't compete in Moscow were Kasparov and Kramnik, who had just staged their own "World Championship" about a 1 1/2 years prior. And we know Kramnik earned his place by beating Shirov in a 10-game match...oh, wait.
So much for Ponomariov's "weak opposition!"
<And why does only having the strongest players make a world championship not legitimate? It is obvious to me that such a world championship would be completely legitimate (not claiming that Dortmund achieved that ideal), and the FIDE knockouts were a complete joke.>
A real World Championship is open to everyone. A competition with only top players and no other eligible players is a supertournament.
Why did FIDE come up with the elaborate process of creating zones, then having Zonals, Interzonals, etc.? To open the World Championship up to everyone.
Yes, the knockouts weren't perfect, I give you that, but the spirit of INCLUSION was present at least, which is more than can be said for the "Classical World Championship" matches held in those years.
<Hell, do a poll. Among the relatively small portion of chessplayers who even know who Pono is, not one in 50 would consider him a legit world champion.>
Thank the various chess media for that. ChessBase and others have their favorites, and these players get promoted and marketed above all others.
Casual fans know that Kasparov was the strongest player in the world at the time, and that Kramnik defeated him in a match. They don't follow the politics and see how harmful such an arrangement was.
|Feb-27-13|| ||twinlark: The only reason the knockout tournaments didn't produce a universally agreed upon world champion was because of the Split, not because of the format.|
|Mar-02-13|| ||cro777: The Women’s World Chess Team Championship 2013 (Round 1) starts tomorrow (March 3) in Astana (Kazakhstan) at 15:00 local time.|
Anna Ushenina will play for Ukraine and it will be her first official event since she won the Women’s World Champion title.
Ukraine (4 players + 1 reserve player)
1 Ushenina, Anna (2477)
2 Lagno, Kateryna (2547)
3 Muzychuk, Mariya (2471)
4 Yanovska (Gaponenko), Inna (2405)
5 Zhukova, Natalia (2471)
Participants: China, Russia, Ukraine, India, Romania, France, USA, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey
|Mar-03-13|| ||cro777: In Round 1 Ushenina, on board 2, with the black pieces defeated IM Mohota Nisha from India. (Ukraine-India 3-1)|
|Apr-03-13|| ||cro777: Anna Ushenina to participate at the Russian Team Chess Championship 2013 which takes place 6-14 April in Loo, Sochi, Russia.|
She will play for Ugra, Khanty-Mansiysk. Natalia Pogonina, Baira Kovanova, Marina Romanko and Tatiana Shadrina play on the same team.
The women’s event is a team round robin with 6 teams.
|Apr-03-13|| ||perfidious: <cro777: Anna Ushenina to participate at the Russian Team Chess Championship 2013 which takes place 6-14 April in <Loo>....>|
Wonder what Danailov and Topalov think of this site.....
|Apr-03-13|| ||HeMateMe: Kramnik will be guest commentator...|
|Apr-03-13|| ||cro777: <perfidious: Wonder what Danailov and Topalov think of this site>|
The connection is quite obvious. Kramnik was born in the neighborhood of Loo (in Tuapse).
|Apr-04-13|| ||perfidious: <cro777> You missed what I thought was a fairly obvious joke: see definition 3 in the link below.|
|Apr-04-13|| ||hansj: Very nice picture of Anna Ushenina. I am impressed chessgames!|
|Apr-04-13|| ||cro777: <perfidious> On the contrary. The Britisch (and Croatian) "definition" of Loo is what I meant. It was allusion to Kramnik vs Topalov match. Incidentally, Kramnik was born in the neighborhood of Loo (that makes "the Loo connection" even stronger). I liked your post.|
Actually, the name "Loo" derives from the name of one of the greatest Abazin (an ethnic group of the Caucasus) feudal families.
|Apr-04-13|| ||waustad: <perfideous>That dictionary claims that the etymology for "loo" is unknown. A book I read about 40 years ago called something like "Clean and Decent, the History of the Toilet and Water Closet" claimed that the term came from a British mispronounciation of the French for "look out below" when people emptied chamber pots out the window.|
|Apr-11-13|| ||cro777: Anna Ushenina at the 2013 Russian Team Chess Championship in Loo, Sochi, Russia|
|Apr-11-13|| ||cro777: In the penultimate round match Yugra - ShSM "Nashe Nasledie", at Board 1, Anna Ushenina (the 14th Women's World Champion) met Alexandra Kosteniuk (the 12th Champion). The game ended in a draw.|
|Apr-13-13|| ||Alien Math: The first female Advanced Chess match in chess history | |
On April 2, 2013, the first female advanced chess match in chess history took place in Kyiv. FIDE Women’s World Chess Champion Anna Ushenina and the initiator of the All-Ukrainian Charity Foundation Olena Boytsun played a computer assisted game with the time control of 30 minutes + 5 seconds for each move.
Kyiv’s Radisson Blu Hotel hosted the nation’s first officially sanctioned advanced, or computer-assisted, chess match on April 2 between reigning women’s chess champion Anna Ushenina and women’s international master Olena Boytsun.
At the drawing ceremony, conducted by the International Arbiter Oleg Tovchyga, Olena Boytsun got to play white. The game lasted 38 moves and ended in a draw in the position with a little advantage for White, according to the estimation of Houdini chess engines.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·