London chess classic 2012

Originally posted by kingshill
A few years back a number of players progressed through the first round of the candidates only for things to fizzle out. Money that was promised just disappeared. I'm sure he has better things to do with his time and preparation.

At the Turin Olympiad in 2006 there was a rival candidate up for election as President. All the delegates had watches and ...[text shortened]...
I've still got the crappy watch somewhere..!

I don't blame Carlsen for keeping away..!

Last Candidate matches did not match with your statements.

Originally posted by Pacifique
You claim the competition format wrong just because your favorite was afraid not to win. No wonder Carslen`s proposal (in his letter to FIDE) was World championship tournaments like in 2005 and 2007 - he is good at tournament play but he afraids not to be so good in match play. I remember some people claiming Kramnik, Gelfand & Anand not brave enough. So I ...[text shortened]... n or because of Carlsen refusing to prove that he is the best candidate to World Champion title.

At the time, i took a somewhat similar view of the situation as you are doing here, but on reflection I've changed my mind. The World championship match between Anand and Gelfand did nothing for chess.

I'm not knocking Gelfand, he performed brilliantly to qualify for that match! And when i say that, i don't just mean the candidates tournament itself, i also mean the World cup he won to qualify for it in the first place. That was an incredibly strong tournament!

But

Had Carlsen participated, it is likely that the four game mini match format for the candidates would have been adopted as the official process. This, imo, would be terrible for the game. In the past, when candidates had to go through gruelling 6-12 game qualification matches, chess theory was advanced significantly. You only have to look back at any pre 1990 World championship cycles to see there are hundreds of brilliant games. Fischer qualifying for the 1970 WC for example. What if Fischer had played under the system used in 2011?

The new system means that all the candidates will play 14 games.

Aronian, Radjabov, Mamedyarov and Topalov played just 4 classical games in 2011. How much preparation do you think they did for this? They had to prepare for every opponent. They had to pay seconds for over a year. Prior to the event they would have had to hide preparation, so it's quite possible their tournament results elsewhere would have suffered.

How does this help chess?

Gelfand defeated 3 people to qualify for the Anand match. I can think of no other sport where the challenger for the World title goes through such a short test. As i said before, the fact that this tournament was so short ruined the games. As a spectator, i was bored out of my mind. Did you follow the games?? With white the players pressed tentatively, with black they shut up shop completely.

It will be different this time. A loss won't be terminal this time. It is not possible to win a double round robin tournament without taking some risks.

Say what you like about Carlsen. I was shocked and deeply disappointed he didn't play in the last cycle. The World championship without the no1 player is no World championship imo, but if his withdrawal contributed to FIDE adopting this new system then i fully back his decision. After 20 years, it looks like we might finally have a System that chess can be proud of! You can be sure of one thing, whoever goes on to challenge Anand in 2013 will have been through the wringer, and will be stronger for it. I'm very excited about it and can't wait to see it kick off (especially as it's in London!)

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
At the time, i took a somewhat similar view of the situation as you are doing here, but on reflection I've changed my mind. The World championship match between Anand and Gelfand did nothing for chess.

I'm not knocking Gelfand, he performed brilliantly to qualify for that match! And when i say that, i don't just mean the candidates tournament itself, ...[text shortened]... very excited about it and can't wait to see it kick off (especially as it's in London!)

Anand and Gelfand did nothing for chess????

This is not a little biased, there were many instructive moments from that match.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Anand and Gelfand did nothing for chess????

This is not a little biased, there were many instructive moments from that match.

Biased no, i had no particular favourite candidate. As i said, Gelfand deserved to play, under the system in place he came first, you can't knock that. But compared to previous matches for the title it was rather boring. I followed it half heartedly, by the time it got to the rapid games i'd stopped following it completely. Ok that's just me perhaps. Personally i feel Kramnik should have been playing. His match against Grischuk just highlighted how faulty the selection was, Grischuk just played for a blitz finish, which was his only hope of winning. He knocked out a stronger opponent and the rest is history. When i say the Anand Gelfand match did nothing for chess, i'm including the candidates cycle too.. It was something of a lottery. If they'd played the whole thing over again after it had finished, any one of the other 7 players could have qualified. As a system to select the strongest player, it failed miserably...

When i say the match did nothing for chess, i am really talking about the World outside chess. As an advert for the game, it failed. It didn't make a single headline in the UK.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Biased no, i had no particular favourite candidate. As i said, Gelfand deserved to play, under the system in place he came first, you can't knock that. But compared to previous matches for the title it was rather boring. I followed it half heartedly, by the time it got to the rapid games i'd stopped following it completely. Ok that's just me perhaps. Per ...[text shortened]... ] chess. As an advert for the game, it failed. It didn't make a single headline in the UK.

yes i have misuderstood your intent, clearly the system was flawed, four matches is a
kind of lottery, but the Anand/Gelfand match did have some instructive moments, like
Gelfand sacking two pawns for activity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i have misuderstood your intent, clearly the system was flawed, four matches is a
kind of lottery, but the Anand/Gelfand match did have some instructive moments, like
Gelfand sacking two pawns for activity.

Yes ok, in purely chess terms it was a match. The draws were pretty dull though, I can't help feeling that the 'no draws' rule employed in the LCCC should be used in the World championship too. With the advent of computer aided opening preparation, separating the players when they barely make 30 moves is going to make matches very boring in the future. Players should be forced to actually find a drawn position. In the AvG match, every time a novelty was played the unprepared opponent went into ubber defensive mode and offered a draw so they could go home and run the whole thing through a computer. This does nothing for chess! Being well prepared in the opening does not make you the best player, you should be able to prove superiority through all phases of the game and that includes defending an unfamiliar position when you are surprised in the opening.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Yes ok, in purely chess terms it was a match. The draws were pretty dull though, I can't help feeling that the 'no draws' rule employed in the LCCC should be used in the World championship too. With the advent of computer aided opening preparation, separating the players when they barely make 30 moves is going to make matches very boring in the future. P ...[text shortened]... ame and that includes defending an unfamiliar position when you are surprised in the opening.

the London classic has been the best tournament that i have ever seen on the net, its
tone, its coverage, the matches, the presenters, Daniel King was totally awesome as
was Nigel Short, the format having one of the participants spend an hour or so talking
on their rest day, the cause, everything about it had a feel good factor. Its events like
this that made Britain Great! stopping for tea at 5.PM was just genius! I had thought
our English cousins across the border had lost their Englishness, no way, they were
awesome! right down to Gwain Jones public school boy accent.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
At the time, i took a somewhat similar view of the situation as you are doing here, but on reflection I've changed my mind. The World championship match between Anand and Gelfand did nothing for chess.

I'm not knocking Gelfand, he performed brilliantly to qualify for that match! And when i say that, i don't just mean the candidates tournament itself, very excited about it and can't wait to see it kick off (especially as it's in London!)

1) "The World championship match between Anand and Gelfand did nothing for chess."

What World championship matches should do for chess and what wasn`t done by Anand - Gelfand match? Which World championship matches fits to your criteria?

2) "Had Carlsen participated, it is likely that the four game mini match format for the candidates would have been adopted as the official process."

Speculation. Grishchuk (with his "anti-chess" strategy) in Candidates final was really good argument against this system.

3) "In the past, when candidates had to go through gruelling 6-12 game qualification matches, chess theory was advanced significantly."

In the past it was possible to find money for such a matches + also preparation did not took so important role as today. So 6-12 game matches today would be more tiresome for players with all negative consequences.

4) "You only have to look back at any pre 1990 World championship cycles to see there are hundreds of brilliant games."

And a few more hundreds "short" and "boring" (according to taste of some chess "fans" ) games.

5) "What if Fischer had played under the system used in 2011?"

I dont think Fischer would have a problems to hammer Larsen and Taimanov with 4-0. Petrosian would be defeated in tie-break probably. 🙂

6) "The new system means that all the candidates will play 14 games."

And the outcome will probably depend on ability to have points from the bottom like in 2007 championship tournament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2007

7) "Aronian, Radjabov, Mamedyarov and Topalov played just 4 classical games in 2011. How much preparation do you think they did for this? They had to prepare for every opponent. They had to pay seconds for over a year. Prior to the event they would have had to hide preparation, so it's quite possible their tournament results elsewhere would have suffered.

How does this help chess?"

And how does current system solves this problem? giving opportinity to play 10 games more per year?

8) "Gelfand defeated 3 people to qualify for the Anand match. I can think of no other sport where the challenger for the World title goes through such a short test."

What about Spassky and Fischer? They won only 3 matches too. 🙂

9) "As i said before, the fact that this tournament was so short ruined the games. As a spectator, i was bored out of my mind. Did you follow the games?? With white the players pressed tentatively, with black they shut up shop completely."

Yes I did follow the games and I can say that probably we looked at different competitions. Most boring games (with a few exceptions) were played by Grishchuk who played for win in tie-break and I was really glad to see his strategy failing. But it`s not reason to belittle games played by others.

10) "The World championship without the no1 player is no World championship"

Karpov did not become World champion according to your logic.

11) "but if his withdrawal contributed to FIDE adopting this new system then i fully back his decision. "

I`m glad that FIDE did not comply with all his wishes (abolishing World championship matches for example).

12) "After 20 years, it looks like we might finally have a System that chess can be proud of! "

Just because it increases chances of player you are fan of?

13) "You can be sure of one thing, whoever goes on to challenge Anand in 2013 will have been through the wringer, and will be stronger for it."

We will see what will be your opinion if it`ll be Gelfand for example. 😀

Originally posted by Pacifique
1) "The World championship match between Anand and Gelfand did nothing for chess."

What World championship matches should do for chess and what wasn`t done by Anand - Gelfand match? Which World championship matches fits to your criteria?

2) "Had Carlsen participated, it is likely that the four game mini match format for the candidates would have been what will be your opinion if it`ll be Gelfand for example. 😀

Ok you're reading something into my opinion that i clearly stated on more than one occasion...

1.I have no preferred candidate. Carlsen has to prove his superiority like everyone else. I would be just as happy to see Kramnik or Aronian win or anyone else for that matter. I just want them to be tested properly first.

2.Gelfand deserved to play Anand, i consider his performance in the World cup to be one of the finest tournament wins of the last ten years, by any player. It is not his fault the Candidates system was so badly thought out. But like you said yourself, Grischuks strategy eliminated a very strong player. Blitz should be a last resort, not a primary strategy. What about Radjabov? He was eliminated in rapid too, without losing a game. Having everyone play against everyone twice means that blitz really is a last resort, you have to score consistently against all of the competition first. That has to b better.

Please don't confuse my criticism of the candidates tournament with support or Carlsens stand on the matter. They are two separate issues. I have my opinions, Carlsen has his.

EDIT: I take your point about sponsors, things are difficult right now. But a well organised World championship can only help this situation. Having a protracted system with multiple events over several years is confusing. If you have to explain how it works to someone outside the chess world, you've lost your audience. Carlsen is a phenomenon, we haven't seen this sort of interest around a player since Kasparov in the early 80's. Chess has an opportunity to break out into the mainstream. Love him or hate him, you have to accept this point. If chess is going to attract more sponsors, he needs to be involved. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Ok you're reading something into my opinion that i clearly stated on more than one occasion...

1.I have no preferred candidate. Carlsen has to prove his superiority like everyone else. I would be just as happy to see Kramnik or Aronian win or anyone else for that matter. I just want them to be tested properly first.

2.Gelfand deserved to play Anand ...[text shortened]... chess is going to attract more sponsors, he needs to be involved. It's as simple as that.

Carlsen is phenomenon (like Fischer & Kasparov were), but it`s not the reason to subordinate World championship under their conditions, just because they want so.

Originally posted by Pacifique
Carlsen is phenomenon (like Fischer & Kasparov were), but it`s not the reason to subordinate World championship under their conditions, just because they want so.

Ok, you're well within your rights to have that opinion. It is one i shared at the time. It was only after the tournament that i changed my mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the London classic has been the best tournament that i have ever seen on the net, its
tone, its coverage, the matches, the presenters, Daniel King was totally awesome as
was Nigel Short, the format having one of the participants spend an hour or so talking
on their rest day, the cause, everything about it had a feel good factor. Its events lik ...[text shortened]... ir Englishness, no way, they were
awesome! right down to Gwain Jones public school boy accent.

Haha, i absolutely agree!! TLCC has set the bar REALLY high! I can see a permanent chess online channel coming around at some point. World chess needs a tour like we have in tennis. While these invite only events are great, i feel that lower graded players should be able to qualify to play against these super GM's.

While using grades to establish the strongest players is a pretty sound, i'd dearly love to see some sort of official path to the top to be established.

Look at the Snooker World championships. The first round consists of 32 players. The top 16 are seeded, the other 16 qualify. The first round is one seeded player versus a qualifier. Why do we separate our players into classes, it is almost impossible for a 2600+ player to break into the elite tournaments.

This World championship is a massive opportunity! FIDE really need to pull their finger out and realise that there is a MASSIVE online community out there that is thirsty for this sort of coverage.

->That means Advertising<-

Why can't we have the 'Party Poker' Tal memorial, or the 'Red Bull' World championships? Carlsen is a marketing dream, but it doesn't have to stop there. TLCC has experimented with delivery in a way that should be emulated across the board! Same goes for blitz and rapid competitions...