| Noun | 1. |  chess match - a match between chess players
match - a formal contest in which two or more persons or teams compete
|
I think we need to clarify "match" - I am not too familiar with the qualifying process for the WCC, but when we talk about "match" we mean a series of games between two players, right?
Yes, the word has two chess meanings, in this context a head-to-head encounter between individuals is meant.
tricklev wrote-
Carlsen may be boxed in. He refuses to play until the rules change...and some of the top players do not support him. If enough top GMs favour the "match play" then according to FIDE, they will be forced to keep it after the current cycle. Thus, Carlsen will either have to "change his mind" ( and look like an idiot )...or remain on the fringe...
...either way this turns out...the kid really knows how to draw a crowd.
I'm not sure if you actually read the letter, no where in it is Carlsen mentioning the things you speak of. Refuses to play in a match? He didn't say, he only said he would leave the 2008-2012 cycle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to defer.
He has indicated to FIDE that he will not participate in the upcoming Candidates Matches which will lead up to the WCC. He has thus refused to play. He goes on to explain that the reason why he has decided not to participate, is because the current format offers the current champion an unfair advantage. Clearly, if the current format remains unchanged, then his reasons for not playing remains. He then proposes an alternative format which he thinks to be more acceptable. And, his last statement clearly says "My current plan is to continue to participate in well-organised top-level tournaments and try to maintain the no.1 spot..."
Clearly, you have a different opinion of what he said. Please share.
I think reading comprehension might be the problem here.
I won't take part in this WC cycle.
I will instead focus on keeping my Nr1 spot in the ratings.
Neither of the above quotes mean he refuses to take part in any WC cycle until his suggestions and preferences are the law.
Nanjing was a round-robin tournament.
lol you actually follow the tournaments.
Why is it funny that I follow the tournaments?
Yeah, what's funny about following the tournaments ? I follow the tournaments too, OK ? 
tricklev,
It is implied that he does not like the rule, and therefore chooses not to play...of course he can choose to play in the next cycle...nothing is preventing him from doing so. But clearly, if the rules are unchanged in the next cycle, then he will look like an idiot if he rejoins the Candidates...and nothing has changed in his favour.
In the interview he says:
Does this mean that you will not participate in a World Championship in the future?
No, no, absolutely not. I hope that there will be changes in the future. It is clear that I will be back in it then. The decision now applies only to the current world championship cycle.
It does sound like he is linking his future participation to the occurence of "changes", although being vague as to how much changes could persuade him to participate.
Magnus is coming across a bit like a spoiled brat imo. FIDE wouldnt make concessions to Fischer even after he became world champion, why should they to someone who isnt and hasnt even played a match for it yet ?
Magnus is coming across a bit like a spoiled brat imo. FIDE wouldnt make concessions to Fischer even after he became world champion, why should they to someone who isnt and hasnt even played a match for it yet ?
They didn't make concessions to Fischer, just not all of them.
You are coming of as pretty simple so far in this thread Reb, maybe you need to idolize less and think more.
Magnus is coming across a bit like a spoiled brat imo. FIDE wouldnt make concessions to Fischer even after he became world champion, why should they to someone who isnt and hasnt even played a match for it yet ?
They didn't make concessions to Fischer, just not all of them.
You are coming of as pretty simple so far in this thread Reb, maybe you need to idolize less and think more.
What I know is that changes were already made so that Carlsen would be included in this cycle , now he has withdrawn anyway because apparently he wants more changes. I also know he wants a tournament format to produce the champion which has proved vastly inferior in finding the best player than the match format. On top of all this he thinks the current champion should receive no perks/advantages over the others. I think the real problem is that he has no confidence in his own match play ability and he prefers his chances in a tournament format.
To sum things up:
Almost all parties involved, namely Gelfand, Aronian, Mamedyarov, Kramnik and Anand don't agree with Carlsen about his decision.
I wonder if he will back down and join the next cycle even if FIDE doesn't change anything? I certainly hope FIDE doesn't mess with anything just because Carlsen wants so.
Always when ilikesflags starts posting pictures I have no idea where he gets them from and what he intends to say. Is this Napoleon getting screwed in Russia?
Well my dude is a norwegian ski soldier. I think the guy who painted flag's picture did not enjoy Christmas shopping.
I know that what I have to say is far too complicated for words, it can only be expressed by a 200-year old dude skiing.
And what is the relevance of these two admittedly highly interesting pictures?
magnus carlsen clearly has his mind on skiing (as every good norwegian should)
(as every good norwegian should)
that sounds like a line from a Beatles song...
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.
How many peoples play in the matches ?