ON CHESS
Phenom forsaking usual title route
Saturday, November 27, 2010 02:53 AM
The Columbus Dispatch
Chess and other competitive heroes often fight their most difficult battles away from the playing area.
So it might be for Magnus Carlsen, whose ascent to the top of the chess pyramid has been seemingly effortless – until now.
The 19-year-old prodigy has publicly waded into the murky realm of chess politics.
He has announced in a formal letter that he won’t take part in the upcoming world championship cycle of matches, to be played during a five-year period.
The format, he says, is onerous, favoring the world champion. He also takes issue with the seeding procedures and the length of the cycle.
He emphasizes that “The proposal to abolish the privileges of the world champion in the future is not in any way meant as criticism of, or an attack on, the reigning world champion, Viswanathan Anand, who is a worthy world champion, a role-model chess colleague and a highly esteemed opponent.”
Carlsen intends to continue to hone his skills on the tournament trail.
But, because of his decision to skip the championship cycle, he will lose at least five years in his quest for the world title – whatever the long-term result of his call for reforming a selection system that is widely acknowledged as cumbersome.
Shelby Lyman is a Basic Chess Features columnist.
There should be a match between Carlsen and Anand.
I agree! Carlsen should play Anand by default! I don’t really care about the world title anymore, it’s boring anyway. Matches are a boring format because everyone draws with black. I think the best thing Carlsen can do is play in tournaments and maintain his #1 rating.
Young son asked his father, a chess player:
– Daddy, who is Anand?
– My son, this player is the World Champion
– And Kramnik?
– This player was the World Champion
– And Topalov?
– This player thinks he was the World Champion
– And Carlsen?
– This player will never be the World Champion.
He has to win the championship first, if he want to have legitimacy to change de rules.
For me, the beauty of the championship series is trying to beat the champion in a disfavorable position.
There is no perfect system. In the past World Champions were even more favoured than at present. Anand has faced everything thrown at him and come up trumps. This was a golden opportunity for Carlsen to win the candidates and defeat? Anand. He lost confidence and has come up with a slew of excuses / reasons. If he is soooo great,is this not his best chance to win and become WC? There is a pale yellow stripe running down his back at the moment.
Carlsen doesn’t want to lose his high rating. He should take notes from Kasparov. To hell with the chess world. Dominate! Dominate! Dominate!
Then when you are old and weak, whine like a sad little dog until the next young phenom emerges.
The cycle continues. Carlsen is the current and Future Bobby Fischer.
I’ll go buy Magnus a baseball cap and a hobo suit. HE will make a great Fischer wannabe. Also, Magnus needs to work on his anti-Semitic rhetoric to be just like Robert.
L. Evans
Kasparov went nuts playing with politics.Now Carlsen follows his mentor.Sad and pathetic has been Kasparov’s coaching.
Don’t blame Carlsen. Blame Ilyumzhinov – he is the real cause of the problem.
Why was it decided in the first place to make this Candidates format these idiotic knockout mini-matches instead of a logical double round robin?
As the strongest player, Carlsen is penalised by these mini-matches because they increase the element of chance.
So who gains from this mini-match format? Who used influence to make it this way? The role of certain personalities from Russia should be looked at.
Also, we know that Gelfand torpedoed the 6-6-8 proposal, claiming ‘no more changes’. A lie, like his lie over the Carlsen withdrawal from the Grand Prix. The real reason for Gelfand’s action is that as one of the weakest players, it increases his chances.
But in fact Gelfand may just be a stooge, doing someone else’s dirty work. Ask yourself: Who is Gelfand VERY friendly with? (Hint: the guy who insisted on the very similarly formatted Dortmund 2002 ‘Candidates’.)
Carlsen is a great player but he is chicken-hearted. Anand is a great player and he is lion-hearted!
Mathur
Carlsen’s move is not so easy to explain.
On the one hand he knows that he is the only show in town in chess and that he at the moment makes good money out of that even without the world title.
On the other hand, the world title should be the obviuos goal for him and it would definitely also boost his market value.
Unfortunately, FIDE made a complete mess out of the once highly esteemed world championship cycle. At the moment, the world title bears no significant meaning or value. After players like Khalifman, Kasimdhzanov and Ponomariov wearing the title of ‘world champion’ this title has been significantly de-valued and I personally think that it is now high time to come up with a good solution for the future, otherwise the ‘world championship’ will be just an event like other tournaments at best.
@Anonymous 4:16
Few people regard Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov and Ponomariov as real World Champions. The real World Champions are regarded as Kramnik, Anand, and maybe Topalov. Thus in this respect the World Title has not been devalued.
What has devalued the World Title is having matches of only 12 games every two years – making it almost a throwaway.
Further damage done by the two-year thing is that the World Champion is on a virtually constant treadmill – when does he get a break??
You think the old system was ‘highly esteemed’? Not by the players who had to go through it at the time! It was universally regarded as too long-winded.
Spassky complained how much the 1965 and 1968 matches exhausted him. Stein was excluded altogether and Korchnoi missed out on the 1965 matches. Absurd.
It was ridiculous that a player such as Fischer had to play in Zonals, for goodness sake.
You want a good solution for the future? See my next post.
Continuing from my previous post:- a good solution for the future:
This solution is based on two principles:
[1] That the World Champion is not given any privileges over his closest competitors;
[2] For the top players, the system is not too long-winded.
Also have a three-year cycle, so that players will not suffer burn-out.
So:
Hold Quarterfinal, Semifinal and Final matches of 10, 12, and 16 games respectively.
The World Champion is required to participate at the Quarterfinal stage; and the Final match is in fact the World Championship match.
The four top players other than the World Champion are also seeded to the Quaterfinal; and there are three qualifiers.
To become World Champion, the 4 top players above thus only have to play 3 matches instead of 1 or 2 tournaments plus 4 matches as under the old system.
The 3 qualifiers come from a 16 player round robin tournament. This consists of 12 seeded players plus 4 qualifiers. These 12 seeded players would cover any player with any sort of chance of becoming World Champion. These 12 thus have to play one tournament plus 3 matches to become World Champion. This is less than the old system which required them to play 1 or 2 tournaments plus 4 matches.
The 4 qualifiers come from a Swiss System Interzonal (which again will have many seeded players).
The only real reason to have Zonals plus Interzonal is to keep the theoretical possibility open for any player to become Champion. This boosts interest in the smaller chess countries who can have one or two of their number ‘in the World Championship system’
Only for these lesser players (for whom it is not going to matter anyway in realistic terms) is this system more long-winded.
There you have it. Pretty simple, and gets all the top players in at the right stage.
The World Champion in chess should be determined as it is in nearly all other games and sports. There is a championship tournament held periodically, say every 3 years. All top players should receive invitations to play, no one is exempt. Double round robin with the top point getters meeting in a dual best of 7. Draws don’t count. The winner is champion till the next championship.
@ Lynn Green
Unfortunately, you are suggesting things that have already been tried and failed.
In fact, I myself would ideally prefer the Candidates to be a double round robin tournament.
But in this case how do you prevent the possibility of collusion/cheating?
We all know what happened at Curacao 1962 and this was the very reason the system was changed to matches. I have not seen anything since that would solve the collusion/cheating problem in a tournament. Have you? If so, your solution would be most welcome. Otherwise you have to go with matches.
Your suggestion of a first-to-seven wins match would be even more unworkable. Hell, Karpov and Kasparov couldn’t make it to six after 48 games in 1984/5.
Plus it would be impossible for an organiser, not knowing how long the event would last.