Dear All,
I was personally present in Kazan during the Candidates Tournament. These are my conclusions:
The current KO system (short matches) for the Candidates tournament is negative for chess.
The reasons are as follows:
1. So far we have 27 draws out of 29 games in classical chess, about 95% (!!). Many of these draws were very short – 12, 15, 18, etc. moves. Even in rapid games we have draws in 8 (!!!) moves. This is shame and disaster for the image of chess and FIDE. The question is, why didn’t the WCOC introduce the Sofia Rules on time?
2. Some of the players were making short draws on purpose, in order to decide matches in rapid chess or blitz. But the point is that if we have WCC in classical chess, why should we decide the matches in blitz? Knowing very well from the past experience that the KO system leads to and tempts with that, why does the WCOC recommend it?
3. The PR results of Kazan are very poor. With probably small exception of Russia, there doesn’t appear any interest from international Press for this event. This also hurts chess and FIDE.
Conclusion: The WCOC who is responsible for this system failed, and should resign immediately. The FIDE PB should appoint new WCOC on next meeting in Al Ain in order to avoid before mentioned mishaps and to improve the situation in the future.
Best regards,
Silvio Danailov
President of ECU
Source: Danailov
Am I the only one who enjoys seeing all these top-notch, concise ways of reaching a drawn position?
for the first time in my life i agree with danailov…
What he means is: Topalov didn’t make it, so let’s change the system.
Well, I have to say, for once this guy actually has a point. The candidates matches have been a total disaster from a chess interest perspective. Get rid of those responsible and get started on fixing it.
He doesn’t like it because his man choked.
Absolutely agree with him.
Susan, I’m curious what you think about this – the format, the short draws etc.?
Someone put this bugger out of his misery or shut him up for good. Congrats to Boris.
I totally agree with Danailov. He seems to agree with the views of many chess fans. It’s great that he’s speaking up and wanting change, to improve the spectacle and reputaion of professional chess. I’m very pleased to hear this. It’s a shame that such top players feel the need for early draws, you’d think they’d know better!
“…if we have WCC in classical chess, why should we decide the matches in blitz?…”
Exactly. Notice how many competitive games/sports are now decided by processes that only resemble the parent game…sudden death in football, the shootout in pro hockey. And that insane time bidding with draw odds in the American chess championship.
These are the ruin of sports insofar as the legacy of the sports are irrevocably altered.
Does anyone dare mention Grischuk-Gelfand in the same breath as Fischer-Larsen or Bronstein-Boleslavsky? No! The rich “history” of chess is no longer being made.
Sounds like sour grapes, because Topalov is a loser.
Come on now – his points are not related to Choke-alov.
These matches have been horrible from the chess interest perspective.
Whatever you think of Danailov, he is absolutely right on this one.
Sofia rules should be mandatory for these events.
This stupid Candidates format has been a disaster, predictably so. Nearly as bad a format as Kramnik’s Dortmund 2002 “Candidates”. Carlsen and Kasparov respectively were quite justified in refusing to play in these events.
I like pie and rubbish beards.
The rule of Sofia is good.
But other changes are absurd Danailov perversions.
Declarations of Danailov:
“A few things need to change. Firstly, Sofia Rules should finally be introduced into all tournaments, so there are none of the 14-move draws we’ve seen in a series of events. And if there’s a deliberate three-fold repetition in a position where it’s still possible to fight, the arbiter should penalise the players with a zero on the score table. Secondly, the football points system used in Bilbao and London – three points for a win, one point for a draw – [In the individual matches does not change anything] should be introduced everywhere. And finally, we need to reduce the time control. A game should last no longer than four hours. The 30 seconds a move increment (and any increment in general!) should be abandoned. That’s essentially deprived fans of the enthralling spectacle of time trouble.
“In addition, all tournaments need to be placed on a commercial footing. We can’t allow all sorts of sites to steal the text of games or pictures from the organisers, who’ve spent money on all that. All of us: organisers, players, trainers and journalists should realise that chess, in order to survive and develop in the world as it is nowadays, has to be stricter and more professional.”
Resignation accepted!
Best regards
Stef
Danilov is dead right on this one. This has been a disaster.
The point is that these guys are professionals getting paid effectively via sponsors. Never mind the fans deserving better, the people paying them deserve better. Sonething must be done to make it better.
One simple change, Sofia rules, would be a huge step forward.
Actaully I have quite a lot of sympathy for short matches (though 4 is ludicrously short, 6 should be the bare minimum) and rapid play deciders when the classical match is tied. It is about being realistic about costs, ability to gain sponsorship and providing a manageable cycle to the competitors who have to earn a living in between WC stuff.
But personally blitz does just does not seem acceptable.
Unfortunately..I agree;
Imagine that..Gelfand as a WCC finalist.the whole thing is stupid.
I mean, I think is basically why Carlsen stepped out of it. Whatever the results of it are, he knew that the 4 game matches would produce lots of strange results. And lots of draws.
I’m fine with players drawing a drawn game, but if they draw a game on move 10 or 15 or even 20, often times they are missing out on the chance to win. There have been lots of games where I’ve had an equal position but playing on it becomes decisive either by my playing poorly or my opponent doing so. You can see it happen at elite levels also.
I agree that there has been very little coverage of the Candidates matches. I don’t think Danailov is even particulary upset about Topalov not winning. Topalov wouldn’t win a tournament format either. He is just on a downhill slide ever since Sofia.
I’ll be interested in watching Gelfand-Anand, but I doubt that the wider world will care that much.
Magnus Carlsen (who needs no introduction) disagreed with the rules and decided not to play.
Topalov and his manageer, Danailov, wanted very much to have another crack at Anand. So they participated. But Danailov, disagrees now?
Does he have a point? Yes. I for one, found this Candidates match extremely boring. The players themselves, on camera would bore any spectator. Thus chess will continue to suffer greatly. I grew up reading about interzonals, Candidate Matches and it was simply amazing the story behind these matches.This cannot be said for this.
The constant bickering and changing of the world championship format is damaging to the very brand they are purporting to save.
Look at Soccer World Cup, or Wimbledon. Do they change their format all the time? Do they have a completely flawless system? They too have tie breakers, you know. But they have a brand.
If people keep attacking the brand, they are doing it disservice.
aside: if you want Black to have a chance, banish 1. d4, and 1. Nf3 🙂
Listen folks….the WCC does not mean anything without a fitting challenger. Not to insult Mr Gelfand…Shabalov..Ponomariov..but cmon..lets face it…It’s ajoke. And I think it does an injustice to Mr Anand who is only too happy with such an opponent.
It’s really a sad state of affairs.
Pathetic
ongrats to Boris!! Although why anyone actually thinks he’s wrthy of a title shot is beyond me! Haha..the Chess world is in a kerfuckle….and Anand must be laughing…sooo sad
Boris Gelfand……a world championship candidate?….um now I know the worlds insane.
There are at least 15 stronger candidates….Carllsen was correct in avoiding this…It’s bad for chess. Anand must be having fun looking at this stupidity.
Danailov likes to make irate comments. Should we listen to him at all? The best thing that can happen to chess is the resignation of Danailov. Why does not he understand the truth.
He should become an entertainer. Just think about how many replies he got in this blog for his remarks he made!!!
I don’t usually agree with Danailov, but he is right this time. That was a ridiculous format.
I think it is very strange that so many people here find Gelfand an unworthy challenger. I mean: this was a very, very strong event… and he came out victorious. What more do you want?!
That some people here would have wanted Aronian or Topalov to succeed, does not mean that Gelfand does not deserve to challenge Anand.
Furthermore, I think that both Gelfand and Grishiuk are probably very (!) tired at the moment… such a match as this takes its toll. So, why not have a little respect for that?
The problem of the Sofia-rules is that it is a very forced attempt to make chess more attractive. The problem with Topalov and Danilov is that they always make a quarrel… especially when it is not going their way. I do not like that and I think it is bad for chess.
Danailov is right, but Topalov should have the guts like Carlsen to step out of the competition to mark his point.
Complaining AFTER you lost make no valid point.
But we see it now, Carlsen. You were right.
“But we see it now, Carlsen. You were right.”
Carlsen was NOT right. Carlsen wanted a FIFA World Cup type system to decide the FIDE champion and would not have solved any of these problems.
How you can praise Carlsen for this saying he was right is beyond me.