Does anybody know what were the criterias for the starting field ?
Where are top players like Karjakin,Topalov, Nakamura, Mamedyarov, Caruana, .... ?
shame Nakamura and Karjakin would have been fun to see, especially Nakamura
These players could have tried for placing in the candidates had they chose to? (played & performed well in the appropriate matches)
Well, no.
Naka is a brilliant player, but he is not yet up to the level to dispute the superiority of Carlsen, Aronian or Kramnik. He is not still up to that level, mainly because the quality of his play is still fluctuating too much.
Karjakin- probably yes, but currently he has a few personal issues to solve. He has studied a hell of a lot, he has a very distinctive personal style, but he still lacks the knack of a world champion, and he must settle himself psychologically, after his recent divorce.
Maybe Caruana... but that boy really scares me. He is a chess monomaniac- he plays a hell of as lot, he has great potential, but apparently he is suffering from the "Kamsky syndrome". Gata got over it, and remained a formidable player, as well as a very interesting personality- but to achieve that, he had to give up on chess for almost a decade.
what is the Kamsky syndrome?? i thought he just quite chess to finish studies.
i would google it but google says : no clue
IM pfren, What is the "Kamsky syndrome?" Thanks for the explanation.
Oh, the Kamsky syndrome...
Google again, and use as query "Rustam Kamsky" (Gata's father). You will understand.
I think being "the favorite" is a tough position to start any tournament in any sport. I've always liked being the underdog because that way you can play with no fear of losing (since everyone is expecting you to lose anyway).
He is not too strong. Gelfand, Kramnik and Ivanchuk are better players.
You're in a very small minority if you really believe Gelfand or Ivanchuk is better than Carlsen.
People who have played all four are just about unanimous in saying that Carlsen is stronger than Ivanchuk and Gelfand. Carlsen and Kramnik are very close in skill, much closer than their ratings would suggest. But Kramnik's age is beginning to tell. I'm hoping that the field will be stronger than Carlsen this time and that Carlsen will come back to the next cycle hungrier.
Carlsen still hasn't reached his peak I believe....he is a monster.
Of course they are better than the kid. They have been around for decades.
Of course they are better than the kid. They have been around for decades.
Then I too must be better than the kid. I've been around for decades too. Such brilliant logic!
That was one of Kasparov's main gripes about Naka. He said he needed to spend more time on chess, and less time on poker.
Of course they are better than the kid. They have been around for decades.
You do have to know chess to tell, really.
You don't, so you'd better keep your useless opinion locally.
You do have to know chess to tell, really.
You don't, so you'd better keep your useless opinion locally.
It seems the crisis has killed even your notion for freedom. Keep pushing!Opa-Opa bikan ta gidia sto madri...!
Carlsen has such a huge rating that he is already used to having to play for a win against everyone in the world. It's not like something has changed. If this "make draws against Magnus, press for a win against everyone else" scenario was easy to implement, people would be doing it in every tournament.
He is not too strong. Gelfand, Kramnik and Ivanchuk are better players.
Bump.
(Chucky loses two games in 2 days, Carlsen has lost 2 classical games in, what, 18 months?)
'Ivanchuk and Gelfand.'
Look like the players for easy wins (well as much as any win vs a super GM is going to be 'easy') in the tourney. Perhaps Grishcuk too.
No-one is going to target Carslen, Lev or Vlad. Svidler seems on top form. Teimour is the unknown - he was just too wild vs Svidler from the off, but he demolished Chuk's Leningrad so impressively.
No one disputes that the match-tournament system of the '60s, '70s, & '80s produces a challenger better prepared for match play, the problem has been money. There simply is no sponsorship these days for the quarter- and semi-final Candidates' matches, even the final match isn't the desirable property it once was.
When the "matches" are reduced in length, like last cycle, they are more subject to chance. Note that Gelfand and Grischuk both made their way through upsets via tiebreak. Short matches are LESS likely than a tournament to provide a "true" winner.
Sure, a tournament where everyone plays everyone four times would be better. Come up with the money, and no one will argue.
YEAH, Estragon has described the past and present here very accurately (sigh)