William Stewart’s honest opinion
As opposed to most of my articles which are more objective and focus specifically on the game of chess, this article is more of an objective rant. I want to be honest. I know my opinion is a little bit late to the party, but I wanted my say as well. Honestly, the most interesting aspect of the 2011 World Championship Candidates Match was how tearfully boring it was. There were a total of 3 victories in the classical time control (1 by Kamsky, and 2 by eventual winner Gelfand). Grischuk made it to the finals by employing an interesting strategy, based on drawing out of the classical games to make it to the rapid and blitz tiebreakers – where Grischuk apparently felt he was stronger. It’s impossible to blame him, as he was simply trying to make the most of the current format that encourages strong blitz players to play to their strengths. Many top players have expressed disgust with the current WC Candidates system, with world #2 Magnus Carlsen even going so far as to boycott the event entirely. Vladimir Kramnik was not that extreme, however he is certainly not impressed by FIDE’s implementation of the current format.
How to make the tournaments result in more classical chess
In a recent interview with Chessbase, Kramnik stated “But if it is a classical chess Candidates tournament I think we should be playing mainly classical chess. Of course in case of a tie it is unavoidable from time to time to have a rapid match to find the winner. But it should be the exceptional case and not happen all the time…. So this is a serious problem: I think there must be much more classical chess in a new format, and that can be done with a round robin tournament. If two players share first place they can play a rapid match to decide who is the winner. But that would be just four rapid games vs very many more classical games. For example, In the Kazan tournament I personally played more rapid or blitz games than classical, which is kind of strange.”
How we can make these tournament’s better (I agree with Kramnik)
I entirely agree with Kramnik on all points. The World Championship is the most prestigious event in chess, and this year’s Candidates tournament was decided primarily by rapid chess. That would make sense… if it were the Rapid WC, not the real thing. I like Kramnik’s suggestion of a round robin tournament. Every participant would equally play each other, so there is no nonsense about avoiding opposition (Topalov said he would boycott the event in place of playing a Russian in Russia – a funny thing to say as Topalov has played many important matches in his native Bulgaria….) Also in this proposed round robin format, spectators would witness much more exciting chess as players would be forced to fight it out until the very end – an advantage this format boasts over the tournament system used in San Luis in 2005, where Topalov built an insurmountable lead in the first half of the tournament and was able to coast to the finish with diminishing interest.
Danailov’s shocking statement
Topalov’s manager and current European Chess Union (ECU) President – Silvio Danailov – issued an abrasive statement on May 25th stating “Conclusion: The WCOC who is responsible for this system failed, and should resign immediately.” Personally I’ve never been a fan of pointing fingers, and prefer leaders to suggest solutions. Good one by Danailov – placing manipulation, self-preservation and political aspirations above the common good (once again). By sheer coincidence, Danailov recently publicized his next attempted career move.
FIDE Deputy President Georgios Makropoulos responded publicly 2 days later ““A couple of weeks ago Mr. Danailov also announced his intention to run for FIDE President in 2014. Seeing the opportunity to promote his own political agenda, Mr Danailov abused his position as ECU President and FIDE’s desire for feedback from its top players, to attack through his reply whom he views as “political opponents”, instead of participating constructively in the on-going dialogue for the future World Championship cycles. Mr. Danailov has not understood yet that he has been elected to the position of ECU President, with a monthly salary accompanying it, in order to serve all European chess players and not only his future political ambitions in FIDE”
Interesting stuff … however none of this nonsense resolves the current issue at hand – How can FIDE fix the Candidates format with respect to the best interests of the players and spectators? GM Emil Sutovsky, WCOC Member (World Championship and Olympiads Committee) sent out a questionnaire to the world’s top twenty rated players, asking their opinions on the current WC cycle and how they would like to change it. The WCOC is meeting this month, so hopefully this complicated topic will be addressed and an attempt at a balanced resolution will be made.
Thanks for reading.
Fore more on Why the chess rules need to be changed – an honest review of the 2011 Candidates Matches please visit Will’s webiste.
By NM Will Stewart
I would go tend to agree with the OP. But I would avoid any rapid play, suggesting a double round robin (one black, one white each). In the event there is a tie, why not resolve it with a match similar to the WC. After all, isn’t that what they are playing for. As for all the politics, I think, like most fans of the game, that all the political maneuvering and scheming is the tactic of those who are too cowardly to play an honest game. I think that the current champion should be given some discretion/veto power in regards to location, etc. (they have at least earned that by virtue of being champion in the first place), but nothing ridiculous like all the nonsense that took place during the 20th century.
Just my 2 cents as a strictly amateur player and big chess fan.
How about not have a candidates match and just let Carlsen play Anand by default? Carslen is as good as Anand and he’s half his age, so why humiliate him playing lower rated players in a candidates match?
“honest opinion” as opposed to “opinion” or “dishonest opinion”… honestly
“this article is more of an objective rant” oxymoronic
That sounds like a good improvement, but it has to prevent another Curaçao 1962.
Great article to revisit this issue.
My question is why not split the event to select for the cream of the crop? It would select for the very best, rather than the most lucky.
1st event: Quad round robin tournament between 4 players of 4 different groups for a total of 16 players, each playing 16 games.
2nd event: Take the 4 top finishers and match play 8 games. The top 2 from that finish with another 8 game match, for a total of 16 games for the winner.
OR
2nd event: Quad round robin between the top finishers of each group from the 1st event for a total of 16 games.
Round robin produces interesting games, but matches (between 2 players) can also produce interesting results, if
1. after say 6 draws the player who consumes less time is dclared the winner,
2. instead of 120 minutes for first 40 moves this time could be reduced to say 90 minutes for 40 moves. It is still classical chess but keeping with modern times less time is available and therefore increased chnace of a result.
I’ve never really understood the motivation of using tournaments to determine the WC (or challenger). Chess is a one-on-one game, and match play is its truest expression. We’ve all seen how players good at tournaments can make a poor showing in match play, and in any case they are often determined by who is having the best week.
This year’s format attempted to preserve the spirit of match play while still allowing more players to be involved. Unfortunately it failed because of two things — 1-point wins, and the immediate resort to rapid for tie breaks. Remove either one and this would have been a fine candidates’ determination.
‘William Stewart’s honest opinion’
Hey William, you’re on the wrong track. No one will listen to you, all have their own ideas and will never agree, hahaha.
Ben Finegold decides.
Hmm, sorry about that, yea i Meant to say subjective rant. – NM Will Stewart
Well, most of this seems like a joke, and probably will be for years to come.
Let the Gelfand-Anand match continue, have a Magnus-Aronian match take place, winner plays the winner of Gelfand-Anand. This probably is what would attract a greater amount of interest than the Kazan Candidate Matches.
But, FIDE as already provided a format that would make things easier right now. Use the World Cup has a means to select 8 players that will play a RR Tournament or Candidate Matches (like those of 1971-72) and the winner of that play the world champion. Downgrading the World Cup from 128 players to a sensible 64 or 32 players and elongating the number of games in each round. Considering that of all the 128 players the vast majority have no likely hood of really being a viable candidate for the World Championship.
It is interesting that Kramnik argues against the rapid format. Who here believes he gave his all in the regular classical games?
Looks to me his strategy was to go to the knockout stages.
Reading chess history, Candidate cycles was huge with colorful people. Even on camera, many of the players today appear so foreign to interviews that they wouldn’t be marketable in any other big sport. Can you imagine Kamsky, Gelfand, Ivanchuk and so on representing a brand.