With all the players for the candidates chosen, a question arises whether the method followed is the right one or if an alternative one is more suitable.
So any candidates without Anand is not suitable? Is that what you are saying?
/ If it bothers you, explain what is wrong and your new proposal.
I think the method is fair for seven of the eight positions because they are based on a combination of the highest ratings and the highest performance in the most important events, but the organizers shouldn't be able to pick the eighth. In this case, they did pick the next highest avg. 2017 rating player,
They picked Vladimir Kramnik (7th in world in Nov.)
The other seven were fairly pick as follows (world ranking as of Nov. 2017):
The loser of the 2016 World Championship, Sergey Karjakin (14th)
The top two finishers in the World Cup 2017: Levon Aronian (2nd), Ding Liren (11th)
The top two finishers in the Grand Prix 2017: Shakhriyar Mamedyarov (4th), Alexander Grischuk (9th)
The top two 2016-avg. rated players who played in World Cup 2017 or Grand Prix 2017:
Fabiano Caruana (3rd) and Wesley So (6th)
Currently Maxime Vachier-Lagrave is the 5th ranked player in the world, but his avg. during each month of 2017 was lower. The same for Vichy Anand who is currently 8th.
Here are the monthly ratings for Jan. thru Nov. 2017. Clearly Caruana, So, and Kramnik had higher avg ratings than Lagrave and Anand:
Caruana 2, 2, 3, 3. 4, 4, 5, 3, 5, 4, 3
So 4, 3, 2, 2. 2, 2, 3, 2, 8, 7, 6
Kramnik 3. 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 3, 5, 7
Lagrave 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 8, 8, 2, 3, 5
Anand 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9,10,7, 9. 8
Both MVL (at World Cup) and Radjabov (Grand Prix) narrowly missed qualifying.
Radjabov at #17 in the world I don't really care about, but MVL:
- is #5 on the live list
- was out at the World Cup without losing a game (!)
- won the Sinquefield Cup ahead of Carlsen this year.
I think he was more deserving of the wild card pick than Kramnik who is
- lower on the live rating list
- hasn't won a major tournament this year
- is 42 years old.
I also think qualifying by losing last year's WCC match is not necessarily good (perhaps only if you were last year's WCC). Notice Karjakin is playing in the candidate's match, but
- he isn't even in the top 10.
- no major tournament victories this year.
All those who qualified through the World Cup, Grand Prix, or by rating I think are deserving. These are all extremely difficult ways to qualify, and show they have preformed better than their peers.
So I'm only displeased with Karjakin and Kramnik.
IMO better than both Karjakin and Kramnik would be:
Someone who has won a major tournament this year
Someone who is in the top 10
Someone who narrowly missed qualifying by rating, World Cup, or Grand Prix
Preferably all 3.
Pulling names out of the top 10, that gives us 4 candidates:
Kramnik Almost qualified by rating, 3rd round at WC, not in GP, no major tournament victories
Naka 3rd round at WC, #7 GP, won Gibralter ahead of MVL and Caruana
Anand 2nd round at WC, not in GP, no major tournament victories
MVL Semifinal WC, 6th GP, won Sinquefield cup ahead of Carlsen
Of these 4, I'd go witih MVL first, Naka second, Kramnik 3rd, and Anand, 4th.
Kramnik behind Naka because he finished behind Naka in the two tournaments they played together (Isle of Man and Altibox).
the method is really alien type. Even world champion
With all the players for the candidates chosen, a question arises whether the method followed is the right one or if an alternative one is more suitable.
So any candidates without Anand is not suitable? Is that what you are saying?
/ If it bothers you, explain what is wrong and your new proposal.
With all the players for the candidates chosen, a question arises whether the method followed is the right one or if an alternative one is more suitable.