A black day at the Women’s World Knockout Championship. Yesterday, we saw many upsets. Today, in the second round, we are witnessing a bunch more including the defending champion GM Stefanova, the #1 rated player GM Humpy Koneru and former European Women’s Champion GM Pia Cramling.
Mr. Ilyumzhinov, please stop the insanity. It is acceptable if the winner of this knockout would be seeded in the Women’s World Championship. This format is great for the World Cup or other tournaments, but not for the World Championship. You did the right thing by abandoning it for the men. Please do the same for the women next time. Please protect the integrity of the World Championship.
Below are the upsets of round 2:
Radziewicz, Iweta (POL) 2421 3 – 1 Stefanova, Antoaneta (BUL) 2499
Sebag, Marie (FRA) 2415 3 – 1 Koneru, Humpy (IND) 2537
Peng, Zhaoqin (NED) 2407 1.5 – .5 Cramling, Pia (SWE) 2515
Hou, Yifan (CHN) 2269 2 – 0 Zhukova, Natalia (UKR) 2432
Ju, Wenjun (CHN) 2290 2.5 – 1.5 Dzagnidze, Nana (GEO) 2452
Irina Krush lost to Tatiana Kosintseva by the score of 1.5 – .5.
Who will be the next favorite to fall? 
Susan, It may seem that I’m picking on you today, but that’s not the case. Anyway, as far as “Ilyumzhinov” is concerned, let’s hope there is no “next time”.
At least this time he didnt hold it in Libya. Please all chess federations vote against Adolf Ilyumzhinov.
Agreed. I checked the results over at TWIC before heading here and the first sentence in my mind was ‘this tournament is a real JOKE’! Though I am a fan of some of the remaining players (AK, XP to name a few) it’s going to be impossible to regard this ‘title’ with any credibility.
DanG
I believe that everything should be working toward picking a challenger to the champion. then a Match should take place between the challenger and the Champion.
to pick a challenger the low rated players should not be included. everything needs to be working toward the best way to pick the best challenger who then faces the champion in a proper match.
If a low rated player were to win the championship then it will destroy the prestige of the title.
Players have high ratings because over a long period of time they show that they win games against the best of the best. High ratings show that they are not simply lucky in one tournament.
My heart really goes out to all the top rated women who have lost out. it is just the format and it has to change. I hope and pray that we get a new FIDE President in May.
I also hope that one of the higher rated women wins the title to maintain some credibility and prestige.
What’s wrong with lower rated player to win the tournament? All players were given a chance to prove their worth. If the higher rated players lose to lower rated players its their fault.
Stefanova disappointed me. These things can only happen in 1900-2500 (womens) chess.
Susan, with the greatest respect and humility in the whole world, I am sorry but I fail to see where you are coming from on this. As another poster has said, why shouldn’t lower rated players have the chance to prove themselves against their ‘superiors’. In most sports big titles are decided by knockouts, where the best go up against the lesser mortals.
Also, I have not viewed the games yet, but I believe (from reading the report on Chessbase) that Stefanova walked in to mate to lose her match, and Humpy lost a rook endgame where she was 2 pawns up. Shocking end results, yes, but also a shocking failure on the players side, would you not agree? Let us not makes excuses, they faltered, as human’s do.
Ok, so no one likes a world (chess) championship settled in this way, we would prefer two contenders going up against eachother in a long match. Rather than blaming the format for the player’s performance, though, why don’t we be fair and say that they (who have chosen to compete in this tournament, and have accepted its format) let themselves down and so lost out on the day. That was certainly the case in the examples already mentioned.
Please allow me to explain:
Once upon a time, when you mentioned the names like Botvinnik, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, etc., chess players look up to them. They were fixtures to our chess community.
Because of the new knockout system, things changed. Most chess players cannot even remember who’s the champion. The world championship crown became a joke.
I have no problem if a 2200 qualify. My problem is 2 games = nothing. I do not have the time to go into details but 2 games are not enough to separate the strong from the weak. In addition, my next problem is the rapid then blitz playoff. Humpy is a good classical player. She is not in rapid. I have the same complaint about the US Championship.
FIDE finally admitted that this format is ridiculous. That is why they changed to the winner of the knockout will advance to the world championship matches for the overall title. Aronian became the first to earn a spot by winning the world cup.
So in this case, why didn’t FIDE change for the women? Many players spoke out against this format.
As someone who reached the pinnacle of chess, I can tell you that preparing for a 2-game match, 6-game match, 14-game match are all different. Longer matches with at least 6 games would be much more precise in picking the best players.
Doesn’t it say something when the top 3 rated women players in the world decided to skip the knockout? If FIDE can offer a serious format, I would certainly consider to play and I would pick up the phone to ask Xie Jun to compete as well. If the funding is adequate, I am confident Judit would consider it as well.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
I appreciate your explanation, Susan, and it humbles me that you have responded to my earlier post. Please don’t take anything the wrong way, I do not mean to disrespect you or attack you, but I do wish to discuss with you.
You are right, the world chess championship became a joke after 1993 (when Kasparov and Short split from FIDE to play the match under other auspices). There were so many different world champions that no one could keep up. FIDE since botched all re-unification attempts, and hopefully in September if Topalov and Kramnik do play, then that will be an end to that matter (shame it took 13 years to come about, but still).
Regarding the current situation with the Women’s World Championship, I agree with you. I would prefer to see it done your way too!
However, what I am saying is, let us stay relevant and not confuse things. 2 games might not be the best way of deciding the strongest player, but nothing should be taken away from being the strongest on the day. For example: Stripchenko said admirably that she is out of form, she lost. Humpy’s technique let her down on the day, (you place a lot of focus on the endgame in chess, can you really excuse her failure to convert such an advantage, even in rapid?) she lost. Stefanova walked in to mate on the day, she lost.
Whatever our opinions on FIDE and their failures, mis-managements, stubborness, in the World Championships, let us not be unfair to the competitors of this current tournament by down-playing or tarnishing their achievements.
Topalov beat Kasparov in his last professional game, but Kasparov is arguably the best player in history never-the-less. Does that take anything away from Topalov’s result? No, he emerged the better and strongest on the day. You of all people should know that chess is never so clean cut and simple. There are many factors involved, and when people play at the top level any of these factors can be the difference between a win/loss/draw and rating means very little.
If everything had gone to plan and the top seeds would all have won and Humpy would have won the title, would that speak in favour of the format? No way! Would you then say that the format was acceptable? Forgive me speaking for you, but I don’t think so.
This being said, then, lets not use shock results (and one player’s downfall is another’s achievement let’s not forget) when illustrating our opposition to it. Let us not confuse the two issues and let us not forget to give credit where it is due.
I think you have big problems with Jlyumzhinov…this championship is like the last ones so why bother? and only cause favorites fall so fast you have to talk words against the organizers? favorites can lose get real…I find it really ridiculous how you attack them cause the fav. fall out
this is shocking…
I have this idea….if the players are equal after first 2 regular games then they should play a third decider regular game on third extra day to decide the winner and even after that they dont come out with winner then they play rapid on the same third day…what do u guys think?
two games are nothing? come on…everyone can show his strength in two games…well you can’t!!! exclude luck in sport..it’s always there..if you do play 10 games or 2. The better player wins at the end..with luck or without. We don’t live in old times. And if stronger players can’t show they are worth their rating it has to drop like in every sport!
Yeah I haven’t even followed the “world championship” since FIDE went to this ridiculous format. I still consider Kramnik the men’s champion, and can only pray this match with Topalov goes through. Not that I’m rated high enough, but I would refuse to participate in FIDE-sponsored tournaments like this.
The winners won fair and square, no matter of the circumstances. Some players did not prepare properly and it showed. I am not taking away anything from the winners. I am only speaking about the overall system / format.
2nd game + rapid + blitz on the same day is absolutely ridiculous for the world championship. That is fine with another event or exhibition.
What if a player is sick? She / he can lose one game and recover for other games in a longer match. In 2 games, after you lost 1 game, it is over or nearly over. What does that have to do with skills? The players just have to pray that they have no bad day for whatever reason.
The question is if FIDE agreed that the format was bad and it ruined the respectability of the title, why not change it especially after they changed it for the overall world championship title?
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
wait…every sportsman has his off-days this happens..he/she has to live with this…no matter what..why shall they play 10 games or longer for one match…2 games are enough to find the winner…if someone is sick they don’t play that easy or they lose…we are talking about sports! if not chess is just a game
Two games? Spassky defeats Fischer 2-0 for the world championship (1972)!
I can accept a world championship tournament if the players have all proved their worth by being dominant. When Botvinnick won his title in a tournament in 1948, he finished ahead of Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky and Euwe; would anyone have felt that any of the other 4 players were not world championship caliber?
Assigning a world title to the winner of a single event is tricky – they don’t even try this in tennis or golf; the number one player has proved their worth by being dominant in the sport over the course of a year.
Dan G.
Excuse me…
‘Two games? Spassky defeats Fischer 2-0 for the world championship (1972)!’
Hahaha! You can not seriously compare the two. Fischer knew he had scope to recover, (in that 21 game match…!!) which may explain the schoolboy no show in game 2.
Would he have done that in a two game match?
Would any player not try their best in a two game match?
Would any serious chess player sitting down to play a game of chess in a World Championship not try their best?!
I hope you are not a lawyer, knowing how not to make an argument is a good requirement.
Further more, are you saying that whoever wins the Women’s World Championship is not World Championship calibre? (I am assuming that you think your comment listing Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, and Euwe, to have some relevance?) Finishing above the likes of Humpy and Stefanova, Krush and Stripchenko, Lahno, is nothing? If so, you make a very bold statement indeed….
…..shame it’s credibility is somewhat lacking.
The credibility of a tournament like this is hugely debased when the top women players choose not to bother.
I think the actual problem here is the name of the tournament.
Calling it the Womens World Championship is obviously completely daft. If it was called the Womens Annual Knockout Chess Bun Fight, the title would more accurately reflect what was going on.
I actually think the system used in this years US championships has some merit. Put aside the unfair rapid “final”, play a best of three or five, over the same TC as the other games, between the winners of two seeded groups.
A nine round swiss gives enough time for the better players to rise to the top, it doesn’t automatically mitigate against weaker players, it simply asks them to prove it over more games.
I feel sorry for someone who travels to such a tournament, gets a bad nights sleep and is thus back on the plane 2 days later.
Phil, I am sorry that you have to be so disrespectful to the competitors of this tournament, in trying in vain to make a point….which I have not as yet worked out.
Yes, it is regrettable when people such as Susan, Judit, and others choose not to compete in events such as this, they have their reasons, and I for one agree with them — that this is not the way to settle things in a World Championship. I respect Susan, Judit, and the others for not taking part and for standing up for what they believe is right.
That is what I am doing too, with my messages on here. I am not a trouble maker, I am someone who believes that the cause is right, the principle is right, but that the way it is being illustrated is mis-guided and very unjust to the competitors (and eventual winner) of this event! I want to represent the women who are playing their hearts out in this tournament, everyone seems to be forgetting them in this!
I do not think it is right to be disrespectful to the competitors who HAVE chosen to compete in this tournament, down-playing or condescending their results or achievements, or such like. What have they done to wrong anyone? The quarrel is with FIDE, let us take it out on them, and not on people’s reputations!
Let us stay relevant!
As for someone getting a bad nights sleep, it happens in sport, not to mention life. Yes, it is regretable, but aren’t so many things? An athelete can train for years, hit a stone, and miss an olympic games. A footballer can get a flu and miss a world cup…it happens. No one then flames the competitors who made it there or doubts their metal.
Also, Phil, In making my points, above, I have not flamed anyone or anything, I have stated pure facts. Your ‘contribution’, has done nothing but label this event as a ‘bun fight’. Is that the extent of your expertise on this? How constructive!
I hope that you will reconsider your slur on the competitors of this event, and apologise for it.
Responding to the original question, I don’t think there are any favorites left except Kosteniuk, so I guess by default she’ll be the “next” favorite to falter.
I agree with Susan. Two games, then rapid/blitz doesn’t accurately determine the better player.
I would like to a permanent champion (look what many champions/ rotating champions has done to boxing). The qualifier should be a swiss composing of the top several player by rating, plus winners of major tournaments, including junior champs.
I like the odd players (as long as they are not rated 1667). I think should be an entry for “most active master” for US championship. It would reward activity.
anonymous said …
“I hope you are not a lawyer, knowing how not to make an argument is a good requirement.”
anonymous said …
“Phil, I am sorry that you have to be so disrespectful to the competitors of this tournament, in trying in vain to make a point”
anonymous said …
“Also, Phil, In making my points, above, I have not flamed anyone or anything”
Perhaps if anonymous was really prepared to stand by his so-called ‘points’, then he’d go by a name like many of us.
I believe in freedom of speech, buddy, and I certainly know what I’m in for when posting on a public blog. ‘Flame’ all you want – but let’s be clear: YOUR POSTS ARE THE DEFINITION OF FLAMING. You are deluding yourself to think otherwise.
You can disagree with a position by offerring alternative positions or analyzing those positions already proferred – neither of these require personal attacks on the intelligence or veracity of other posters. You might want to just chill a little bit.
And, fun as it may be to defend my posts, it is not worth engaging you in a ‘flame war’, so I wont be wasting my time. Enjoy typing to the air, anonymous.
Dan G.
Rarely have I seen a point missed by such a margin.
My point was to suggest that the naming of the tournament was an attempt to lend it more gravitas than the format deserved.
The fact that I used a little irony to do so was obviously missed by anonymous.
If he was really offended by this, then I feel truly sorry….for him.
I didn’t insult anyone in my post, yet I drew an anonymous insult.
This was my first post here, and if this is the standard of correspondent, it might be my last.
I fully agree that a knockout format based on only a few games is inappropriate for a world chess championship. For the overall championship, (1) a return to the candidates tournament seems like a good idea. 4-8 of the best players, with first round matches of at least 6 games, better 12, or (2) A small field of competitors, and at least 4 games between each pair.
I also would like to see a brief “dinner adjournment” so that more attention could be paid to the endgame.
The KO format doesn’t make sense for the Women’s WC either. Down with Iljumzhinov!!!
Anonymous Frank
FIDE should do everything in its power to protect the integrity of the World Championship and the Women’s World Championship. They did something positive with the men. I hope they will change the format for the women as soon as this cycle is done.
I for one would not even consider in participating with the current format. I have spoken to Mr. Ilyumzhinov about this before but obviously nothing happened.
If the format is more credible and the conditions are adequate, I would seriously consider of competing again. No way with this format!
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
Phil, C’mon, stick around, you have to roll with the punches from time to time. On the other hand, if your looking for a congenial chess blog with a lot of nice, polite blogger’s, try Daily Dirt.com 😮
Come on, Susan, all you can do is complain. OK, if you like to complain all the time, and many people listen to you because they like to listen to you complain, great. But you are insulting the future women world champion with your words. 23 of the top 25 active players are participating and they know the rules and accept them.
why do you want me to go by a name, Dan G? (Of course ‘Dan G’ is really going by a name isn’t it?) What use is my name to you? Answer the points, and don’t get desperate when you are shown to be wrong and ill-considered.
Also, why is it that I am assumed to be male? Actually, I am female, and involved in chess like GM Polgar, but without her vast achievements and prowess.
That is exactly why I feel the comments made here are not in the least bit constructive to improving how this tournament is organised or how womens chess is seen.
Knock the organisation, not the players. And if I flamed anyone by my comment about lawyers, then I apologise for it whole-heartedly….at least I have the decency to.
Miss G
Ms. G, first of all, there is no need for an apology. I support the players. They are in a very difficult situation. Their job is to play chess and try to win. I do not blame the players.
I blame the organizers, whether FIDE or others. They MUST protect the integrity of the prestigious titles such as the National Championships and World Championship. Imagine what golfers or tennis players would think if the organizers change the US Open Golf or the Masters to a putting contest or the US Open Tennis, French Open or Wimbledon to just tie-breaks contests. How about the NBA championships based on free throws?
I said many times that I like the knockout system. It is fun and exciting. However, I do not like the current 2 game then rapid + playoff on the same day as the 2nd game for the World Championship. FIDE admitted that they were wrong and they changed it for the overall title. Why not for the women?
This is ridiculous. Stefanova, Cramling, Kosintseva, Koneru and now Kosteniuk are out. When was the last time this happen in a RR or other normal formats?
All I am asking is for FIDE and big organizers to respect this game and prestigious titles. I am not insulting the players or the winners. Whoever wins certainly deserves her victories. I guess some people just misunderstood my position.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
Susan, many thanks for your understanding.
I never thought you meant otherwise, and I did not misunderstand your position….but some do. All I ever wanted was clarification of your points. We all know how people involved in (chess) politics can twist things meant in the best possible way to mean something totally different. And let’s face it, there are many people out there who want to damage women’s chess, and will take any ammunition they get.
I have taken the liberty of suggesting to my friend that she and her daughter contact you (they had always been wanting to but people can be in awe of a hero) 🙂 I hope that after the tournament they do get in touch with you, as I think that you can all be of help to each other in this common goal.
Miss G