The 2020 Candidates Tournament is an 8-player double round-robin that will decide Magnus Carlsen's challenger for the World Championship match that's set to take place in Dubai this November. The 14-round event is being played in the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Yekaterinburg, Russia from 17 March to 3 April 2020. The prize fund is 500,000. ... [more]
Player: Fabiano Caruana
| page 1 of 1; 8 games
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 59 OF 59 ·
|Apr-05-20|| ||perfidious: <Diademas>, lol; I should note that I never played that line with either colour.|
|Apr-05-20|| ||Clemens Scheitz: <Ulhumbrus>,The only solution that would make it "difficult and impossible" for the players to disagree with, is my old and tired idea of having Radjabov play the other 8 in a matter of 2 or 3 weeks and then resume the tournament with 9 players. The fact that there would be a bye in every round and that the competition would take a little longer are minor inconveniences compared to the fairness of the proposition and if a little more money is needed for this, I'm sure it could be found. In fact, I see it as so perfectly fair from a chess standpoint that no meeting with players or representatives should even be required.|
I am so proud of my idea that I'm risking ending up as the recipient of the unwanted " beat a dead horse" award
|Apr-05-20|| ||Petrosianic: <devere>: And sleazy, slimy Gary Kasparov cheated Shirov out of that sole consideration.>|
You said yourself "It's one thing to disagree, and another to just lie". The match fell through because Shirov refused to play for the small sum he was able to raise, not because Kasparov refused to play him.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Petrosianic: <fabelhaft>: <That is a rather convenient logic though. The top four on the rating list were Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik and Shirov.>|
That was the order in 2000. The order in 1998 was
1. 2825 Kasparov
2. 2790 Kramnik
3. 2770 Anand
4. 2740 Ivanchuk
5. 2740 Topalov
6. 2735 Karpov
7. 2720 Kamsky
8. 2710 Shirov
So by Devere's own reasoning, which he'll splutter about, but not deny, (and then get angry when it's pointed out that he didn't deny it!) Shirov had no business being in that match to have a chance to win it in the first place. Therefore, Shirov's victory did not count, just as Kasparov's defeat didn't count, ergo Kasparov must still be champion. You mistook this as a defense of Kramnik, but as you can see, the logic leads in a completely different direction.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Sokrates: <Diademas: <No offense, <[xxx]>, but [...]>
No sentence starting like this, in the history of mankind, has ever been interpreted as anything but an offence... ;)>|
Ah, spiritual guidance. Wonderful.
|Apr-05-20|| ||beatgiant: <Clemens Scheitz>|
I can't agree with the fairness of your proposal. Every player planned their tournament strategy based on the initial conditions of 8 players and 14 rounds. From that, they estimated what score they would need to win the tournament, made a lot of decisions on how to pace themselves, when to make extra efforts to press for wins, etc. We can't just add a 9th player in the middle like this.
In my opinion, if we want to restore Radjabov to his place, the only fair way to do it would be to restart the tournament from the beginning. Restarting from the beginning would also address the differential treatment that impacted the Chinese players.
But yes, it does mean FIDE and the organizers would need to come up with more money.
|Apr-05-20|| ||perfidious: <beatgiant....it does mean FIDE and the organizers would need to come up with more money.>|
Shortest way home there is to continue with the programme Ilyumzhinov elevated to an art form: fees, fees and more fees.
Even a weakie like me would have to pay a decent amount if I ever switched federations--gets a lot more expensive for those who can really play.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Petrosianic: <beatgiant>: <In my opinion, if we want to restore Radjabov to his place, the only fair way to do it would be to restart the tournament from the beginning.>|
And they've already announced that that isn't happening. So, that would seem to be it. If giving him a spot in the next Candidates would be unfair, there's no use pursuing that option at all.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Clemens Scheitz: <Beatgiant>
I believe that the importance of the aspects of strategy that you describe is a lot less significant than you do. A general strategy of the sort would invariably need to be reevaluated after each individual round, taking into account your results and the results of others, and by the third round whatever ideas you had at the beginning would be buried by how things are stacking up, and more so in a tournament where only the 2 top places have any major significance. I estimate that the more decisive and influential considerations take part in the last 3 rounds or so. With 9 games ahead of them, having to rethink a bit their approach should not be an impediment nor an excuse for players with that kind of mental ability.
|Apr-05-20|| ||AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> I never heard of Von der Lasa>|
I had. But if someone were to ask me to name a chess player I doubt would have named Von der Lasa.
So, since you made me curious, I looked him up. His full name was Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa. No wonder he shortened it to Von der Lasa and apparently that's how he signed his letters. He even has a page on this site: Baron Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa but, again, I would not have thought to look for it but it showed up on my Google search.
And <chessgames.com> even lists 13 games between Staunton and Von der Lasa. From this limited data sample they were apparently fairly evenly matched; of the 13 games Von der Lasa won 5, Staunton won 4, and 4 were drawn.
Still, it's clear why Staunton has chess pieces named after him. Can you imagine if someone asked you what kind of chess pieces you had and you replied: "I have a set of Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa pieces."
This site also has 9 games between Von der Lasa and Anderssen, all decisive, with Von der Lasa again coming out slightly ahead, 5 wins vs. 4 losses. Too bad that Von der Lasa and Morphy never met. If they had I could visualize this conversation between Morphy and Staunton when the latter was trying to determine Morphy's qualifications for their proposed match:
Staunton: "Have you ever played Anderssen?"
Morphy: "Yes, he's no Von der Lasa."
Sorry about that, I couldn't resist.
|Apr-05-20|| ||beatgiant: <Petrosianic>
<And they've already announced that that isn't happening. So, that would seem to be it.>
So an organization announcing a position means <that is it>? Radjabov announced that it does have to happen. I don't think it's over until FIDE's lawers and negotiators are finished talking with those of Radjabov and probably a number of other interested parties as well.
<If giving him a spot in the next Candidates would be unfair, there's no use pursuing that option at all.>
My post only addressed the fairness of <restoring his place>, meaning in the current cycle. I'm not sure where you got the idea that <giving him a spot in the next Candidates would be unfair>.
In fact, if he can't be restored in the current cycle, I would argue fairness demands he does receive compensation in the next cycle.
|Apr-05-20|| ||nok: <if we want to restore Radjabov to his place, the only fair way to do it would be to restart the tournament from the beginning.>|
I have another idea. You'll love it. Have Radja play a match with Carlsen. The winner plays the winner of the resumed tournament.
You may say it's an unfair privilege, but it simply splits Carlsen's privilege between him and Radja. For the others it doesn't change anything.
|Apr-05-20|| ||beatgiant: <Clemens Scheitz>|
The question I raised was not <an impediment nor an excuse for players with that kind of mental ability>. The question I raised was <fairness>.
Fairness demands that (a) players have the same conditions as other players, to the degree possible, and (b) the targets of the contest are fixed in advance, not changed in the middle.
Adding Radjabov in the way we are discussing appears to violate both of those criteria.
|Apr-05-20|| ||beatgiant: <nok>
<I have another idea. You'll love it. Have Radja play a match with Carlsen. The winner plays the winner of the resumed tournament.>
Is that a joke or a rhetorical device? It doesn't work for me either way, much less as a serious proposal, but if you really want to discuss it, I invite you to my forum.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Clemens Scheitz: ..don't resist <AylerKupp>, don't withhold your ingenuity from us, that was very funny. And to think that perhaps in one obscure attic in a small town in central Europe, someone, trying to kill time during quarantine, has found the set of Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa chess pieces. Hopefully they will put them up for auction.|
|Apr-05-20|| ||Petrosianic: <nok>: <You may say it's an unfair privilege, but it simply splits Carlsen's privilege between him and Radja.>|
Carlsen has no privilege. He qualified for the 2020 championship by winning the 2018 championship. Radjabov did not.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Petrosianic: <beatgiant> <So an organization announcing a position means <that is it>?>|
When they also announced that the players agreed to this in advance, meaning it would require the consent of all of them to change it, then yes, that is probably it. Not 100%, but close.
<Radjabov announced that it does have to happen.>
And if even one of the other players announces that it can't happen, that's it. My interest in helping Radjabov, which was stronger at the beginning of this, is beginning to wane the more it seems that the people who want to help him have no interest in the rights of the other 9. (Carlsen included).
<My post only addressed the fairness of <restoring his place>, meaning in the current cycle. I'm not sure where you got the idea that <giving him a spot in the next Candidates would be unfair>.>
You said "if we want to restore Radjabov to his place, the only fair way to do it would be to restart the tournament from the beginning." If that's "the only fair way", it seemed to mean that all other things were unfair. But I see now that I misunderstood, and you only meant to exclude some of the nuttier ideas that have been put forth, like giving putting him in the second half with 3½ free points, or expecting all the other players to find free time to play him before the resumption. On that, we're largely in agreement.
|Apr-05-20|| ||beatgiant: <Petrosianic>
<When they also announced that the players agreed to this in advance, meaning it would require the consent of all of them to change it, then yes, that is probably it.>
I would agree with you if we could find good evidence that <the players agreed to this in advance> under an actual negotiation (i.e. not "Here are the new rules, take it or leave it"). But that hasn't been established yet.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Petrosianic: Well, FIDO announced it and none of the players have contradicted the claim by saying "Hey, we never agreed to that." |
But I'll admit that if somehow it's <not> true, that it might change the equation.
|Apr-05-20|| ||JustAnotherMaster: Buy teimor and his family nice gas masks and guarantee him a spot in thex candidates....problem solved.|
|Apr-05-20|| ||beatgiant: <Petrosianic>
The statements by FIDE have been very vague about what exactly the special rules say, and in what way they were agreed.
From the reporting I've seen so far, I believe the special rules exist, they were presented to the players before the tournament in a technical meeting, and at least they provide that if a player were diagnosed with the virus, the tournament would be suspended and restarted later with the scores intact.
Did the players agree to this in a legally meaningful way? In this context, it bears repeating that Wang Hao's delegation wasn't allowed to come with him, so he would not have had easy access to the advice of his manager about any such rule changes.
|Apr-05-20|| ||JustAnotherMaster: Oh Petro has come up with this idea...sorry missed it....seems most fair to me not, like he is in unbeatable form now.|
|Apr-05-20|| ||JustAnotherMaster: Oh and if he qualifies normally....no sponsor shenanigans he can roll it down the line....Petro I think ur idea makes too much sense...stay safe everyone.....great time to have chess...it was the only thing I could watch and bet on the last month :(|
|Apr-05-20|| ||AylerKupp: <<Clemens Scheitz>I am so proud of my idea that I'm risking ending up as the recipient of the unwanted " beat a dead horse" award>|
An interesting idea to be sure, but FIDE's announcement of the stoppage of the 2020 Candidates Tournament (https://www.fide.com/news/462) indicates that as part of the (unknown) "special rules" that the players somehow agreed to before the start of the event, "the results of the 7 rounds played remain valid, and the tournament will be resumed in the same composition starting with the games of the 8th round." So any tinkering with adding new players to the tournament is a no-go, as far as FIDE and the current participants are concerned. But at least additional horses will be spared.
Of course, FIDE can change its mind as they did when they initially said in response to Radjabov's suggestion that the 2020 Candidates Tournament be postponed that they didn't have the "authority" to do that. And two weeks later they somehow found the "authority" to do exactly that.
And referencing "beating a dead horse" is old hat. You should have said that "the dead cat is about as flat as it can get". See where I first introduced this concept to the chess world in Team White vs Team Black, 2012 (kibitz #4970).
Don't blame me. You foolishly encouraged by ingenuity in World Championship Candidates (2020) (kibitz #1504), although this concept was not original from me. But, like a chess opening, it's not who plays it first, but who popularizes it.
So, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to my search of obscure attics in small towns in central Europe in my quest to find a priceless chess set. If I find it I will put it up for auction and I will become filthy rich.
|Apr-05-20|| ||Clemens Scheitz: You are a pleasure to read my dear Cuban and I have to admit that I was worried when you and my other favorite writer Sven the Dane were thinking about moving your exchanges to some private, obscure, members only site.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 59 OF 59 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
- No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any gratuitous name-calling
of any members—including Admin and Owners—or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
- NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
- Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
- All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
- Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC