Chennai, April 27: Chess maestro Viswanathan Anand has termed his recent victory in Linares and subsequent allocation of the World No.1 status as “magical”.
“The victory in Linares was pretty magical..Winning a tournament on a day and becoming World No.1 on the same day.. it’s very sweet,” he reporters on the sidelines of the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of the Tamil Nadu Chess Association.
On the controversy surrounding the ranking, the chess wizard said, “it’s very funny it happened that way.” “(I) Don’t want to rehash that story. Done is done.” International Chess Federation on April 3 bowed to widespread pressure and crowned Anand as the world’s number one player, after initially depriving him of top position. “There are no more innocent times in chess, at least for me,” Anand said.
Anand said he was looking ahead to the world championship in Mexico later this year.
He also said that the information explosion in chess, with over 30,000 games being added to the database every year due to the advent of technology. Anand also said he would like to see the tournament format for the world championships.
Here is the full article.
“Anand also said he would like to see the tournament format for the world championships.”
I can’t blame him. Tournament play seems to be where his strength lies, much like Topalov. A tournament championship would suit someone like Anand much better than someone like Kramnik.
That said, as much as I respect Anand, I disagree with his view that a WC Tournament is the way to go. If there is an annual tournament to establish chess supremacy, there will be nothing but chaos, and almost assuredly a new champion would arise every year. In my opinion that cheapens the value of the title itself. Much more appropriate, I perceive, is to use a series of tournaments to determine the challenger to the current champion. The winner of that tournament will then play the champion in a one-on-one match.
My reasoning is this: I believe a champion should have the right to defend his/her title. Tournament play does not allow this to happen in a clear-cut fashion. Even world champions have bad games once in awhile, and in a tournament, one bad game can mean the difference between first place and shared second. In a proper match, there is a struggle and the challenger and champion have numerous chances to redeem themselves if they should suffer a loss early on.
What good is giving out a title that cannot be defended properly? The title then merely becomes a piece of paper that is destined to be passed around to different hands every year.
An alternative suggestion would be to establish a new title called “Tournament Champion”, but the TC would not necessarily be the WC.
I’d rather see the old format of a challengers tournament, followed by a match with the World Champion, perhaps on a two or three-year cycle.
Go back to the ways of candidate matches etc. Aside from being better to produce a challenger, they will produce all around higher quality games.
I think they should scrap the World Championship Matches and Tournaments altogether and just use the player’s ELO ratings.
This will make it much simpler and avoids all the contoversy.
If this was the system in place then the fiasco at Elista would never have happened, nor the Kasparov split with, nor the dropping out of Bobby Fischer from the chess world.
This one is easy.
ONLY a Match Champion can be a World Champion.
Who is the better chess player. Player A or Player B. There is one and really only one good way to find out. That is to sit down A and B and have them play each other and see who wins. Everything else causes people to argue.
For example Topalov lost to Kramnik and people argued some but bottom line the Topalov fans were forced to accept the fact that Kramnik won the match.
Next mathematics will always prove that the match is the way that eliminates chance and produces the highest expectation that the best player will win. After all we want the best player to be the World Champion and the Match produces the Best Player with the highest probability of being correct.
My initial reaction to reading Anand’s comments is that Anand does not have confidence in himself in a match. He lost to Kasparov in 1995 and now appears to be afraid to meet Kramnik in a match. Maybe this is why he never challenged Kramnik while Topalov came immediately back with a challenge match.
I have always been an Anand fan but this is the first time I have been really disappointed in him. Disappointed because his statement shows fear instead of confidence in himself.
Elo ratings have a big cloud of uncertainly surrounding them. They only show a general strength. They are also very manipulated. It is very easy to manipulate the elo ratings. No one will accept elo as a sign of the world champion.
the top elo for the world champion is nice however. The big problem is that if the elo were made to determine the world champion then all kinds of manipulations will immediately begin to happen. everything will get distorted.
>>I think they should scrap the World Championship Matches and Tournaments altogether and just use the player’s ELO ratings.
This will make it much simpler and avoids all the contoversy.>>
Oh yes, I noticed that on April 1. LOL.
>>If this was the system in place then the fiasco at Elista would never have happened,>>
Bad example. In fact, ANY case where a lower rated player beats a higher one is a bad example for you.
>>nor the Kasparov split with, nor the dropping out of Bobby Fischer from the chess world.>>
How would going by ELO ratings have prevented Fischer from sitting on his title? Makes no sense. If anything, it would have made it easier.
Why are we all obsessed over some mythical “best way to determine the best player.” Tournaments produce the greatest variety of play. Match play is boring. Everybody just tries to draw with black during match play. Tournaments are the way to go.
From Morphy onwards matches have shown who is the strongest player in the world. Tournaments just show who had best form and luck in a particular tournament. Tournaments are not a clear indicator of who is strongest as collusion may occur. The 1948 tournament was a farce as Keres obviously was forced to lose 4 games to Botvinnik to ensure his victory. The Candidate Tournaments allowed Russians to throw games to ensure a Soviet was always champion until the Candidate Matches did away with this. The FIDE Champions have been a farce and do not belong with the lineage from Morphy,Steinitz,Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik.
The FIDE Champions are just tournament winners, not the strongest player in the world as the World Champion should be. Everyone saw how FIDE Champion lost to Kramnik in match play even with his false accusation shenanigans. I have a feeling Anand would lose also.
Well, using the ELO ranking system to determine the World Champion is not so out of whack. In tennis there is the number one player in the world and 4 grand slam tournaments. This system seems to work for golf as well.
Why have a seperate world championship apart from the ELO rankings? Just my opinion.
The problem with match play is that there are only two people. The problem with tournament play is that players do not play enough games against each other to establish who is better. The problem with ELO ratings is that they are only approximate and the margin of error is not known.
For example, if the chess world consisted of only two players, A and B, and A has a 60/40 win/loss record agains B than A would have a higher rating and would be the best player.
Now lets expand our chess world to three people, A, B and C. A has a 60/40 w/l against B; B has a 60/40 w/l agains C and C has a 60/40 w/l against A. All players would have the same rating, but who is the best? Clearly, match play between only two players would not correctly settle the issue.
The best player is the one who can beat most, but not necessarly all, of the best players.
It’s simple: in chess or in any other event it is hard to call for a perfect way to determine the best! There is no ideal way for the simple reason people don’t play perfect every time. The method in place should be one that is consistent and fair.
A world champion is one who players consistently better than EVERYONE, not just the winner of a candidates’ final. By having a candidates’ final and then allowing the winner to challenge the so-called WC is one way, but not necessarily the best way. For e.g., the winner of a candidates final may lose to the same guy next time around even within a short time. That’s what happened between Anand and Kamsky in two different cycles. Also a 1-1 WC match could also produce different results when played more frequently.
There is a problem in the current WC tournament format too. How is different between other grand slams such as Linares, Wijkanzee, or Dortmund? All these produce different winner each time, so obviously San Luis could also produce a winner which is in no way different from other tournaments. How is it justified to call this winner a World Champion? That’s in fact, ridiculous! Therefore even a tournament play has problems.
So what’s the answer: Well, think about this: Allow the top three to be chosen based on consistent tournament performance for say 2 years. Select only these 3 players to play a round-robin World championship match, so it’s close to a 1-1 at the same time better than the current tournament set-up. To me the answer lies in bridging the gap and getting close to an ideal mtehodoloy.
Should we use the principle to the current situation, it could most likely lead to a 3 way match between Anand, Kramnik and either Topalov/Aronian, which would be very close to determining the best.
Of course, first chess world should take strict measures to avoid cheating. 1.) A thick glass wall that will prevent players from seeing anyone in the audience. 2.)Common bathroom with security. 3.) Tight electronic surveillance. 4.) A neutral venue. Not like the one in Sophia/Elista where it is favoring Topalov/Kramnik.
– Gans
gans_viswa@yahoo.com