Why shouldn't he deserve it? He will face Anand mainly because he won the tournament. Kramnik had his chances too, especially in the last round when both lost their games. You could argue that he got luck when he faced Radjabov and won a position that was clearly draw, but when you have alot of time left on the clock and the opposing player has nearly no time left. It is wise to push on and see what happens.
Carlson Doesnt Deserve A Title Shot?
Sort:
you clazy, mista mista
Many of us were rooting for Carlsen to win since he would provide chess with a more, er, interesting face.
Apr 2, 2013
0
#5
It kind of makes one long for the days of the Candidates Matches doesn't it? As Fischer said so many times, it takes a match, played head to head over as many games as needed to determined who is the best player. I think his words that he used on that old 70's 60 Mnutes segment with Mike Wallace was "somebody can get hot and win that isn't the best player" happens often in tournaments. Fischer wouldn't even play in the US Championship because of the short 11 rounds. So, not Carlsen's fault the rules were set going in, but really not the exact system for determing the a challenger.
Carlson surely does not deserve it, since he did not participate in the candidates tournament.
Apr 2, 2013
0
#7
In this case Carlsen was almost beaten by that very sytem in that Kramnick was the player that got hot late and made a run - head to head Carlsen vs Kramnick over say 12 games or I think in the day the candiadate final was even longer, who wins? I got to think Carlsen would be a fairly safe bet. So Carlsen backs in but had Kramnick stolen it so to speak I think we would have a worst situation to be talking about. As is, Carlsen vs Anand is the best match I can think of. Just my opinion.
pfren wrote:
Carlson surely does not deserve it, since he did not participate in the candidates tournament.
Stormstout wrote:
pfren wrote:
Carlson surely does not deserve it, since he did not participate in the candidates tournament.
He's pointing out the spelling error. Carlson did very well on WKRP in Cincinnati.
Apr 2, 2013
0
#10
Carlson doesn't deserve a title shot. I agree. Carlson? When did he compete in the candidates?
Looking up FIDE Carlson...
Ah yes, Magnum Carlson P.I.
Anyway it is odd how chess tournaments can end with disagreements like that. Surely there are better ways to make the result unquestionable.
paladin64 wrote:
It kind of makes one long for the days of the Candidates Matches doesn't it? As Fischer said so many times, it takes a match, played head to head over as many games as needed to determined who is the best player. I think his words that he used on that old 70's 60 Mnutes segment with Mike Wallace was "somebody can get hot and win that isn't the best player" happens often in tournaments. Fischer wouldn't even play in the US Championship because of the short 11 rounds. So, not Carlsen's fault the rules were set going in, but really not the exact system for determing the a challenger.
About Fischer and the US championship, oh really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#U.S._Championships
"Fischer played in eight U.S. Chess Championships, each held in New York City, winning every one. His margin of victory was always at least one point.
His scores were:
- 1957–58: 10½/13
- 1958–59: 8½/11
- 1959–60: 9/11
- 1960–61: 9/11
- 1962–63: 8/11
- 1963–64: 11/11
- 1965–66: 8½/11
- 1966–67: 9½/11"
If you disagree with the format, then that's one thing. But I haven't heard any serious players or commentators claiming that Magnus does not deserve to face Anand. It is more interesting to discuss whether the priviliges of the reigning world champion are fair.
I don't understand how you think it was a "cheap way to win". He was tied on points and had the the most wins, what's cheap about that? If you are referring to him losing on the last day, he was under extreme time pressure, forced to make I believe 10-12 moves in 2 minutes and 6 in just 10 seconds, which took him from a roughly equal position to losing. I don't think losing under time pressure in a single game is any reason to think he doesn't deserve a title shot.
And if I remember correctly the only reason Fisher ever turned down a US Championship was because he refused to pay taxes on his winnings and was wanted by the US Government.
Carlsen won the tournament; I think he deserves a shot. Yes, it was odd that he won despite losing the last game but don't forget that Kramnik lost too and over the course of 14 games, Carlsen scored better. My only grouch was the manner of his win over Radjabov but he was perfectly entitled to keep playing for the win and Teymour got himself into awful time trouble time and time again throughout the tournament.
Also, have you SEEN Carlsen's approach?! He doesn't aim for a big advantage out of the opening. He plays various different openings and aims only for a playable middle game position and then OUTPLAYS 2700+ players in the middle game. Consistently, over and over again. That's what I find most impressive about him. In an age where players spend a lot of time preparing specially for individual opponents, Carlsen evades anyone else's opening preparation and just looks for positions from which he can outplay his opponents and has only been beaten what? 3 times in the last year and a half? Against such strong opposition, that is honestly phenomenal.
thanks for the posts guys..very interesting discussion
Apr 2, 2013
0
#17
spanish_innovations wrote:
About Fischer and the US championship, oh really?
Yes, really. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but by the accepted rules of the day, Fischer should never have been able to play Spassky in 1972. In order to meet Spassky, he had to win the Candidates matches. In order to qualify for the Candidates matches, he had to place high in the 1970 Interzonal. In order to qualify to play in the 1970 Interzonal, he had to win the 1969 US Championship, which was the Zonal qualifier for the 1972 WCC cycle.
Fischer didn't even play in the 1969 US Championship, let alone win it.
In order for him to represent the US in the Interzonal the actual qualifier, GM Benko, had to give up his spot in favor of Fischer.
Whats so odd about losing the last game? Its not any more important than any of the other games.
Its a 14 round tournament. If only the last round mattered, then we should have skipped the first 13.
blueemu wrote:
spanish_innovations wrote:
About Fischer and the US championship, oh really?
Yes, really. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but by the accepted rules of the day, Fischer should never have been able to play Spassky in 1972. In order to meet Spassky, he had to win the Candidates matches. In order to qualify for the Candidates matches, he had to place high in the 1970 Interzonal. In order to qualify to play in the 1970 Interzonal, he had to win the 1969 US Championship, which was the Zonal qualifier for the 1972 WCC cycle.
Fischer didn't even play in the 1969 US Championship, let alone win it.
In order for him to represent the US in the Interzonal the actual qualifier, GM Benko, had to give up his spot in favor of Fischer.
No need to quote me out of context to make your point. If you'd quoted everything that I quoted, you'd see I responded to "Fischer wouldn't even play in the US Championship because of the short 11 rounds." This never said which year, in which case it would seem to refer to the US championship in general. Had he specifically mentioned the 1969 championship then everything you say is on point.
I really think that the Chess World championship should be done like the NCAA basketball tournament. Invite the 64 top rated players to compete every year. Single elimination to the the Final Four and then to the Finals! Who knows, maybe ESPN would pick it up that way! Hey, chess beat World Series of Poker IMNSHO.
What a cheap way to win the candidates tournament, don't you think? I felt Kramnik was more impressive since he only lost one game. On the other hand, Carlson vs Anand promises to be an epic battle. What do you guys think? Girls too?