chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Magnus Carlsen steps out of World Championship cycle |
||
|
Good on Magnus Carlsen!! a] A tournament of the best and strongest; b] No 'Defending World Champion' privileges. I've not thought previously about the latter, but I like it already. That the World Championship ought to be decided by Tournament has been my belief for at least 35 years. I have even (somewhere) put the case in a GK forum. Magnus Carlsen for - oh, I don't know - king. Cheers, Ion |
||
|
maca 06-Nov-10, 02:00 |
... Regards, MaCa. |
||
|
What if in boxing there would be a regular tournament for World Champion and the last year's champ would start from 0, like everyone else? I think earning the title of the best in the world at something is no trivial matter and should entitle some respect. What I do agree is that 5 years is too much. Two, maybe three years max, should be the time lapse between World Championships. Old candidates matches were more than adequate, IMO. A tournament is very different from a match and there are many ways to fix the results there, when in a match, there is only one clear winner. I think everyone is entitled to do what he/she wants, but I feel sorry for the fact that the chess scene is losing a very strong challenger for the world crown. Somehow, I can almost feel Kasparov's hand behind this press release, aimed at the current FIDE leader. Even if it entitled, I would have still loved to see Carlsen duke it out with Kramnik, Topalov and eventually Anand for the title. |
||
|
|
||
|
baronderkilt 07-Nov-10, 19:00 |
blake |
||
|
I have two problems with this... The second is that a match must be boring for the players, especially the defender. The challenger at least has something to play for; in my view the defender's motivation is much diminished by having possession of the title. There will, I believe, be those who have studied this kind of thing who will agree that holding the World title is a demotivator. Yes, I know: the Champion has something to lose. But consider this. Having something to lose is apt, I believe, to make one risk averse. Why do you reckon several World Champions prior to WW2 seemed so reluctant to put 'their' title on the line? That Steinitz was very prepared to do so was due to his being the first, and presumably had some notion of what the Title should mean; Max Euwe allowed Alekhine a return match simply because Max Euwe was a sportsman (which Alekhine was not). Shortly after Bobby Fischer won the title, some US psychologist predicted he would never defend it - indeed that we would never see Fischer again. He felt that Fischer would never 'risk' losing his title. That he emerged briefly 20-odd years later for a return match with Boris Spassky is neither here nor there (I suspect Fischer thought he had something to prove). Since FIDE took it over, there has been less of that, though note that Bobby Fischer not only never fronted to defend his title (which didn't stop even some intellgent people claiming him as the 'real World Champion' long after Anatoly Karpov was awarded the title), but never allowed anyone the chance to 'beat the world champion'. Challengers, on the other hand, with something to gain, have very little to risk. All the same, the lengthy process of qualifying is for him - and no doubt for others - a deterrent. If one of the top players decides he is not interested in trying for the title, who already argues that for him the gain is not worth the special effort (and the cost of preparation in terms of tournaments and other events having to be given the go-by), then we have an event in serious trouble of losing its eclat. For mine, it lost it long ago. I haven't bothered to follow a chess match since I think the first Karpov-Korchnoi match to find Fischer's challenger. The sapient reader will of course observe that the same arguments might be put in respect of tournaments. To some extent, they would be right, but there are mitigating circumstances. For a start, with this form of decision, the holder doesn't really have as much to lose, since the title lapses (or ought to lapse) at the beginning of the tournament. Next, though one player might indeed feel 'risk averse', there will be several players with something to gain and therefore very ready to take risks (indeed arguably aren't risking anything). And don't let a great big money sponsorship (if one were forthcoming) fool you. In certain fields and certain circumstances, money - even lotsa money - can be as much a demotivator as otherwise. You'd be surprised! Sufficient. |
||
|
The Carlsen team clarifies |
||
|
|
||
|
... I don't have any problem with the sports analogy. He suggested football, a team sport, but he might equally have pointed to individual sports such as tennis or golf to support his case. No one is going to see in 2011 a whole cycle of tennis matches at Wimbledon just to determine who gets to play Rafael Nadal in a 'final'. Mr Nadal will be fronting along with everyone else to earn his spot as one of the finalists. And who would have it any different? If one wants a counter-example, boxing might be suggested - but you'd have to specify professional boxing. Amateur boxing (e.g the Olympics) is more in the nature of what Magnus Carlsen might be suggesting. I thought he might have been expressing a preference for a tournament to decide the Champion. Now I'm not so sure. Yet what else would you have? A possibility is to go back to the cycle system that saw Fischer achieve the title MINUS the Defender's direct entry to the final, or indeed into the Candidates' Matches series. It would go like this: Year 1: Interzonal Tournament(s) to find the Candidates. The current World Champion participates in this tournament. The top 8 go into the Match cycle. Year 2: Match cycle. Round 1 - Quarter finals Round 2 - Semi-finals Round 3 - Final: the Match for the World Championship Whether these matches were set up as a fixed number, or first to win 'x', I don't know. One possibility is this: First to 4 wins, or if the score reaches 3-3, the match continues until one player obtains a 2-game lead. The advantage of this system is that the winner is clear cut. The downside is the possibility that Fabian tactics such as played by Harry Kasparov in his first match with Karpov could drag the thing out indefinitely. You might have to include a cut-off point (20 games, say) at which the present leader gets the nod, or some other tie break system comes into action. But you would have a 2-year cycle, and a definite programme, the lack of which seems to be the gist of Carlsen's objection to the present system. Just by the way, this can degenerate easily into a fight between the sport at large and an individual. This would be bad for both. The individual can not be greater than the sport. But the sport can not afford to lose a player of the calibre of Magnus Carlsen, who, if he mislikes the manner in which the sport is run, always has the option of simply walking away. He wouldn't be the first! Cheers, Ion |
||
|
FIDE's reaction - Grischuk replaces Carlsen |
||
|
blake78613 10-Nov-10, 08:53 |
Deleted by blake78613 on 10-Nov-10, 08:54.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There is a very simple alternative... The Number One player on the ELO list as of 1 minute past 12a.m. (or 12p.m. - take your pick; both mean midnight) GMT 1 January will be the World Champion for that year. It makes about as much sense as any other method. |
||
|
Ion Also enjoyed Grishuk's reaction: www.chessvibes.com |
||
|
Kramnik's opinion |
||
|
Well, one thing's clear... Interesting to see FIDE's views on deciding the WC. But the tradition thay're talking about isn't so traditional, in my view. Steinitz used to select his opponents on merit, and in his 6 year tenure of the title played several matches. But Lasker tended to make his opponents wait a long time for a match and against poor old Schlechter imposed near impossible conditions. Capablanca just didn't want to know; Alekhine avoided anyone with a realistic chance of beating him... Hence the intervention of FIDE after Alekhine died. The title was in no one's gift but FIDE. At that it was challeged in the 1990s; various amendments in the cycles have been tried since 1963 (when Botvinnik lost his right to a return match)... That it has been tinkered with off and on for the last 50 years, near on, indicates that no satisfactory solution has yet been found. That Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand all favour matches has to be respected, but that does not imply they find the present system all hunky dory. OK then, have your matches, but you do have to streamline the selection system, and the World Champion should have no direct entree into the final. Actually, there is one possible solution that keeps the matches and streamlines the thing to Concorde proportions. And it assumes the title holder is one of the combatants. The holder 'owns' the title until defeated. Every calendar year, the holder 'selects' a challenger. The challeger he selects must be Number One on the ELO list, or, if the Holder himself is that person, the Number Two. Perhaps the thing ought to be worded as the 'Highest rated player who will accept the nomination as challenger'. Come to think of it, the supreme World Title should not at all be World Champion, but World Challenger, as of one prepared to take on the best the World has to offer. You won't have any cumbersome selection process, no interminable cycle... |
||
|
maca 11-Nov-10, 09:55 |
Regarding to the format of how to determine the challenger for the World Champion, I think that both matches and tournaments might work, provided that in a tournament, each challenger gets a chance to meet each opponent more than just once or twice. It follows that the number of players in an individual tournament would have to be quite small. Right now, the problem is that the candidates tournaments have far too many players, and for that reason, they're typically single or double round-robins which is IMHO not enough to determine players' common rank order in the present situation where the skill levels are so small. Instead, there could be a number of mini-tournaments, quadruple round-robins with only very few participants, played in parallel, and then the winners would advance to the next stage. If matches were to be used, I don't think they'd necessarily have to be very long, e.g. 6 or 8 games could suffice during the earlier rounds. One way to make a system like that more manageable would be to play all the matches simultaneously in one place. This type of 'Candidates Event' would be easier to market for sponsors than individual matches, and would reach a better media coverage. What about the final event? I'm personally on the opinion that it should be a traditional match against the World Champion, at least 12 games long. However, if we end up with a tournament, a multi-round-robin with no more than 4 participants should be used. At least 6 games between every participant is needed to guarantee the sufficient repetition. If one assumes a rest day after every 3 games, one sees that event like this could be completed in less than one month, so it wouldn't be that much longer than any of the recent World Championship matches and tournaments that we have seen. Regards, MaCa. |
||
|
Recall how the World Champion was decided in 1948 I gather that the thing was meant to be a 6-player meeting 4 times, but Reuben Fine couldn't make it for some reason. So the precedent is there! Imagine such a 6-player Tournament. This would be a big event, and each player is committed to no more than that required of a single 24-game match. Each in effect is playing a mini-match of 4 games against each of the others, but interest is kept game by game up as each opponent is met in turn. I like it already. You know, it might behove FIDE to poll GMs to discover their views on the present cycle, and perhaps canvass their preferences from a range of options. The old cycle took way too long: 3 years. Year 1 - the Interzonal (tho' personally I liked this particular tournament); Year 2 - the Candidates Tournament (superseded after 1962by the Candidates matches); Year 3 - THE Match. Quite a commitment! Imagine how Vasily Smyslov must have felt in the '50s, straining every nerve to achieve a shot at the title in successive 3 year cycles, finally grab the thing, only to find Botvinnik gets a free pass the following year to try and get it back. Did you know the Mischa Botvinnik never won a single match in defence of the World title? Two draws; three losses. Of the latter, he won both the return matches he was allowed. In effect challengers had to play a 48-game match for the title, carried over successive years provided the challeger was leading after 24 games, whereat he might wear the title of Champion for the second half. Denied this privilege against Petrosian, Botvinnik pretty much walked away from further participation in the WC cycle. Further tinkerings, tamperings (and trumpetings) have puntuated the event ever since. Recall we had for a while two Popes - I mean World Champions. But why on earth should there be all this rigmarole? Why a 3-year cycle, instead of a one-year? Who benefits? Why not something fairly short and sharp that can be played annually? It's not as if any further commitment in such a programme is required of players than is demanded now. |
||
|
baronderkilt 11-Nov-10, 12:03 |
Personally ... |
||
|
Danailov on Carlsen's withdrawal A: It’s a pity of course, personally I was very surprised by this announcement. However, according to my knowledge, nobody can replace Magnus by regulations. Article 3. 3. 3 says that "Any player who withdraws after the 15th of May 2010 shall not be replaced and his opponent in the first round is declared as winner." This means that according to the regulations Radjabov has to move directly to the second round. But maybe I am missing something, FIDE should know better. Of course, there are always possibilities to find a solution. The WCC cycle needs Carlsen and vice versa, this is clear to everybody. Right now I am preparing a proposal to the next FIDE Presidential Board, which in my opinion is the perfect solution to the problem. So, I am very hopeful that Magnus will play finally and everybody will be happy. source: reports.chessdom.com |
||
|
baronderkilt 12-Nov-10, 15:22 |
and |
||
|
|
||
|
I wonder, though... Were the Botvinnik-Keres results all that sus? All the games were decisive sure (compared with just the one Botvinnik-Smyslov game) and Keres one only one of the five - the last one. Keres got a plus score against Smyslov, OK, but also a negative score against Reshevsky. If Keres really was taking a dive, it seems to me he went above and beyond the call of duty, not even achieving second! My own suspicion is that GM Fine knew his best chance of winning the title had come and gone some 10 years before; and that he was never going to win a tournament of this strength whether the Russians collaborated or they did not. Against that, I have read somewhere that Keres once allowed that he owed Botvinnik a great deal... So who knows, for sure? Cheers, Ion. |
Log in 
