Carlsen Drops Out of WC Cycle!
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
That is the privilege accorded to the World chess champion as he had also faced similar situations-- candidates, inter-zonal,round-robin etc to become a Challoenger and then only dethroned the then existing WCC. Challenging a system just to suit someone"s interests will ultimately ruin the very organisation. Even though Kasparov challenged the FIDE, he defeated the existing WCC Karpov duly following due process. Let Magnus become a Challenger first then let us see whether he becomes WCC.
Magnus's father Heinrik Carlsen on possible formats for a world championship:
"Magnus favours a knock-out system with for instance 64 or 128 players mainly coming from the preceding step. When there are eight players left in the knock-out stage, various alternatives are possible and we would like to mention three viable options.
The first is to continue with the knock-out matches, and the final winner is the new World Champion.
Another alternative is to proceed with candidate matches between the eight remaining players at other venues and shifted in time. After two rounds of candidate matches, the two remaining players would fight for the world championship title.
A third good alternative is to stage a double round robin World Championship tournament between the eight remaining players from the knock-out cup."
Anand on the ideal format:
"I think what we had in Mexico (2007) and San Luis (2005) are the best. (In these championships, eight qualified players played on a double round-robin format). First of all, it’s attractive to have four games (involving all eight players) a day. If you have one game and that fizzles out, spectators have to come back two days later. Not a dream format, in my opinion."
It sounds like they are in basic agreement.
The knock-out system is a joke, especially if it consists of only two games played under regular time control. It leaves too much to chance, one game lost and you're out. I'd love to see the old Zonal->Interzonal->Candidate Matches system reinstated. Today, there is nothing resembling the excitement of a Fischer-Petrosian or a Petrosian-Korchnoi candidate match, and they were just a build up to the final.
Armageddon and blitz chess games should be abandoned in the WCC qualifiers. If there is a tie, the players should play regular games until someone wins (sudden death). My two cents.
In order to determine who the better player is between the WCC and challenger... a match makes the most sense.
Anand draws a lot in tournament but never loses.. while Carlsens wins or loses.
Though if Anand vs Carlsen happens... draws are meaningless and as long as Anand wins one and draws rest, he retains the title. Carlsen or whoever... needs to crush Anand to prove they deserve to reign instead of Anand.
WCC is a big deal and a tournament of 8 people or so would just be odd... Although the system makes it difficult for the challenger... if the challenger does win then he gets to take it easy next year.
I like the current system except for that there are too many people in the cycle... maybe 4 is a better number than 8 for the candidates cycle... Carlsen, Kramnik, Aronian, and then probably Topalov.
Every system of tournaments, where 1 person have to win 1 match, and other person have to win 11 matches is unfair and completely wrong.
My suggestion, compromise for purists, system.
1. Every year there is a KO-system World Cup, 128 players. The main event of the every year.
2. Every 4 years there is World championship, consists of 16 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 4years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 3-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of 2-years old WC and 8 quarter finalists of the last World Cup. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.
Variation - 3-years cycle. Then
1. Every year there is a KO-system World Cup, 128 players. The main event of the every year.
2. Every 3 years there is World championship, consists of 16 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 3-years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 2-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of last WC, 7 from ratings and 1 from organisers. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.
(or 2. Every 3 years there is World championship, consists of 8 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 3-years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 2-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of last WC. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.)
This is a fair, interesting system and what is most important - it not pushing away for long time best players, like now. Also, purists likes long matches and big amounts of time between world championships - they have it! But also chess world have a super-event, main event- World Cup every year!
In 2-games KO system there is no space for draw-death talking, here it's impossible, because motivation for win is most high as possible! Every draw is big upset for one of players.
Also, please, compleately aggree with this article about big disadvantages of the round robin system, etc.
Greg on Chess: the Trouble with Round-Robins ( By IM Greg http://www.chess.com/js/tiny_mce/plugins/spellchecker/img/wline.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; cursor: default; background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat no-repeat;">Shahade June 14, 2011)
https://main.uschess.org/content/view/11247/632/
@Arlen
Arlen Walker
@uschess Greg is right. One reason I quit organizing events is I got tired of knowing the top 5-10 places (with scores) before the end of R3
echecs06 wrote:
I still regret that Carlsen withdrew.
well, in tournament he said "possibly" will play. But roundrobin stimulating players to cooperate, also not motivating outsiders to play as strong as they can.
One hit wonder. We knew this will happen.
Lol, when I saw this, I thought it meant he isn't going to defend his title! Thank goodness this is just someone reaviving a 3 year old topic!
FIDE didn't establish the championship. Steinitz did. That's not a generalization. It's a historical fact. The title passed on from one champion to another when a match was played with the title at stake -- the title was part of the winner's prize fund. Alekhine died while he held the title, as did Fischer, so in both cases other means were used to decide who owned the title after the death of the current champion (a tournament was held when Alekhine died and by default the FIDE Champion of the World of 2008 is the commonly recognized WCC today). But the ownership of the title never passed to FIDE.
Fischer made a distinction between a FIDE granted title and the WCC. He resigned his FIDE title, but he never surrendered the WCC.
"As I made clear in my telegram to the FIDE delegates, the match conditions I proposed were non-negotiable. Mr. Cramer informs me that the rules of the winner being the first player to win ten games, draws not counting, unlimited number of games and if nine wins to nine match is drawn with champion regaining title and prize fund split equally were rejected by the FIDE delegates. By so doing FIDE has decided against my participating in the 1975 world chess championship. I therefore resign my FIDE world chess champion title. Sincerely, Bobby Fischer."
FIDE didn't accept this resignation, but instead continued to negotiate with Fischer. So, in any case, Fischer's resignation is of no effect. The FIDE title was granted to Karpov by default when Fischer forfeited, not when Fischer resigned the FIDE title.
As we have seen when Kasparov broke away from FIDE, Fischer's distinction between the WCC and the FIDE title is more than an academic or philosphical difference. FIDE doesn't own the WCC and, until FIDE can win the title from the WCC under terms that the WC agrees to, FIDE will never own the WCC title.
As Fischers' letter states, he resigns the WC title and no longer, in his mind, has claim to it! It does'nt matter whether FIDE accepts it or not! Therefore it is up to the bodies that be to figure out how to continue.
The point is that Fischer resigned the FIDE WC title. He never gave up the classical WC title. Fischer insisted on his right as WC to choose when and where and against whom he would defend his title.
How did Fischer have that right ? His predecessor didn't. If Spassky had been making the terms, the challenger would probably not have been Fischer and the match would not have been played in Reykjavik. Fischer' title was obtained under the Fide auspices, it's not like the Fide suddenly came out of the blue.