He's Filipino.
All good Murican chess players are foreigners. The best player born in Murica is about 2600, I beat him on chess.com a while ago.
He's Filipino.
All good Murican chess players are foreigners. The best player born in Murica is about 2600, I beat him on chess.com a while ago.
great man you beat him that is excellent🐦
Sure, but I would never beat Wesley So, cause he is actually good. I guess the reason is that people become stupid after they have lived in Murica for some time. This seems to be the reason why Muricans are so bad at chess.
Its highly unlikely that the best challenger will survive the bizarre candidates system FIDE uses. So it really doesn't matter who the best challenger would be.
Is it really that bizarre? I mean, its more unlikely that the rightful WC would win a playoff format that they used before....and also, Magnus won the candidates when he was expected to...i dont think its as highly unlikely that you make it out to be
As for whether it was better before - that depends what system you are refering to. There have been several playoff systems used "before".
Carlsen happened to win the candidates tournament, by a lucky tiebreak system. But that does not mean it is kicks out the strongest challenger. Jeff Sonas is a statistician he and he analyzed different formats.
In the end he finds that having qualifying matches is the best way to get us over a 60% chance of having the best player win the championship. That Is why I propose a system that is heavy on matches. Here
The current format is so bizarre in who it includes, and in including rapid and blitz games, that I am fairly sure he did not analyze it.
So your system simply takes the top 12 players by rating as the qualified candidates. I must say that I strongly disagree. I think the ability to win when it matters - i.e. in a tournament with qualification spots for the Candidates' - should be rewarded (although in the case of the World Cup I think allowing the winner alone to qualify would be sufficient - no need to also take #2). I'd rather see a world #25 who won the World Cup in the Candidates' over a #10 who has not won any major tournaments over the past year.
The top twelve outside the champ. So almost certainly the top 13. Now the top 13th is about 75 points lower than the top rated player. I think if you asked svidler he would say he was not as strong as Carlsen. In the same token kramnik was about 75 points lower than Kasparov when they played their match and Kramnik pretty clearly demonstrated he learned how to handle kasparov. Kramnik was still the second rated player (perhaps other than Anand who did not agree to play) at the time their match was arranged.
Here I think the problem is how many people can we include and on what basis. If we want to include number 100, then why not number 97 or 96 or 95 etc. And if we wan to include all of those players then how can we get the cycle done in 2 years? I think that proposal draws a decent line of both of those concerns. The current cycle where fide just literally picks people to sit in the tournament is really not legitimate.
But your concern about someone who has a high rating but is not active is legitimate and could be addressed. We could put requirement that a certain number of games be played within a certain number of years.
Or he didn't analyze it because it didn't exist.
And just picking rating is not a good option because then you have to set min amount of games, a time frame, etc. So even then there is no gaurentee that you will come away with the best players. BTW, Agon's pick in the last candidate, Aronian, did better than a rating qualifier, Topalov. In fact, with a measly 4.5/14, everyone did....
Its highly unlikely that the best challenger will survive the bizarre candidates system FIDE uses. So it really doesn't matter who the best challenger would be.
Is it really that bizarre? I mean, its more unlikely that the rightful WC would win a playoff format that they used before....and also, Magnus won the candidates when he was expected to...i dont think its as highly unlikely that you make it out to be
As for whether it was better before - that depends what system you are refering to. There have been several playoff systems used "before".
Carlsen happened to win the candidates tournament, by a lucky tiebreak system. But that does not mean it is kicks out the strongest challenger. Jeff Sonas is a statistician he and he analyzed different formats.
In the end he finds that having qualifying matches is the best way to get us over a 60% chance of having the best player win the championship. That Is why I propose a system that is heavy on matches. Here
The current format is so bizarre in who it includes, and in including rapid and blitz games, that I am fairly sure he did not analyze it.
So your system simply takes the top 12 players by rating as the qualified candidates. I must say that I strongly disagree. I think the ability to win when it matters - i.e. in a tournament with qualification spots for the Candidates' - should be rewarded (although in the case of the World Cup I think allowing the winner alone to qualify would be sufficient - no need to also take #2). I'd rather see a world #25 who won the World Cup in the Candidates' over a #10 who has not won any major tournaments over the past year.
The top twelve outside the champ. So almost certainly the top 13. Now the top 13th is about 75 points lower than the top rated player. I think if you asked svidler he would say he was not as strong as Carlsen. In the same token kramnik was about 75 points lower than Kasparov when they played their match and Kramnik pretty clearly demonstrated he learned how to handle kasparov. Kramnik was still the second rated player (perhaps other than Anand who did not agree to play) at the time their match was arranged.
Here I think the problem is how many people can we include and on what basis. If we want to include number 100, then why not number 97 or 96 or 95 etc. And if we wan to include all of those players then how can we get the cycle done in 2 years? I think that proposal draws a decent line of both of those concerns. The current cycle where fide just literally picks people to sit in the tournament is really not legitimate.
But your concern about someone who has a high rating but is not active is legitimate and could be addressed. We could put requirement that a certain number of games be played within a certain number of years.
Or he didn't analyze it because it didn't exist.
And just picking rating is not a good option because then you have to set min amount of games, a time frame, etc. So even then there is no gaurentee that you will come away with the best players. BTW, Agon's pick in the last candidate, Aronian, did better than a rating qualifier, Topalov. In fact, with a measly 4.5/14, everyone did....
I don't propose that the candidate be picked solely on rating. Although I think rating should play a larger role than it does in the current system.
On Topalov, Im not sure I follow you. (I assume Topalov had a higher rating then Aronian when decision was made.) Are you saying that because many people had a better single tournament than Topalov, that means they are stronger than him?
I mean that is how the current system works, but I think most people who follow top level chess know that a single tournament is no way to choose the strongest challenger.
Its highly unlikely that the best challenger will survive the bizarre candidates system FIDE uses. So it really doesn't matter who the best challenger would be.
Is it really that bizarre? I mean, its more unlikely that the rightful WC would win a playoff format that they used before....and also, Magnus won the candidates when he was expected to...i dont think its as highly unlikely that you make it out to be
As for whether it was better before - that depends what system you are refering to. There have been several playoff systems used "before".
Carlsen happened to win the candidates tournament, by a lucky tiebreak system. But that does not mean it is kicks out the strongest challenger. Jeff Sonas is a statistician he and he analyzed different formats.
In the end he finds that having qualifying matches is the best way to get us over a 60% chance of having the best player win the championship. That Is why I propose a system that is heavy on matches. Here
The current format is so bizarre in who it includes, and in including rapid and blitz games, that I am fairly sure he did not analyze it.
So your system simply takes the top 12 players by rating as the qualified candidates. I must say that I strongly disagree. I think the ability to win when it matters - i.e. in a tournament with qualification spots for the Candidates' - should be rewarded (although in the case of the World Cup I think allowing the winner alone to qualify would be sufficient - no need to also take #2). I'd rather see a world #25 who won the World Cup in the Candidates' over a #10 who has not won any major tournaments over the past year.
The top twelve outside the champ. So almost certainly the top 13. Now the top 13th is about 75 points lower than the top rated player. I think if you asked svidler he would say he was not as strong as Carlsen. In the same token kramnik was about 75 points lower than Kasparov when they played their match and Kramnik pretty clearly demonstrated he learned how to handle kasparov. Kramnik was still the second rated player (perhaps other than Anand who did not agree to play) at the time their match was arranged.
Here I think the problem is how many people can we include and on what basis. If we want to include number 100, then why not number 97 or 96 or 95 etc. And if we wan to include all of those players then how can we get the cycle done in 2 years? I think that proposal draws a decent line of both of those concerns. The current cycle where fide just literally picks people to sit in the tournament is really not legitimate.
But your concern about someone who has a high rating but is not active is legitimate and could be addressed. We could put requirement that a certain number of games be played within a certain number of years.
Or he didn't analyze it because it didn't exist.
And just picking rating is not a good option because then you have to set min amount of games, a time frame, etc. So even then there is no gaurentee that you will come away with the best players. BTW, Agon's pick in the last candidate, Aronian, did better than a rating qualifier, Topalov. In fact, with a measly 4.5/14, everyone did....
I don't propose that the candidate be picked solely on rating. Although I think rating should play a larger role than it does in the current system.
On Topalov, Im not sure I follow you. (I assume Topalov had a higher rating then Aronian when decision was made.) Are you saying that because many people had a better single tournament than Topalov, that means they are stronger than him?
I mean that is how the current system works, but I think most people who follow top level chess know that a single tournament is no way to choose the strongest challenger.
you dont propose a rating only selection? sounds like you did when you said:
"Take the top 12 rated players beside the champ. Have the bottom 6 play a double round robin tournament. The top 2 finishers then play matches with the top 6 (8 total). So it would be 3 sets of matches to get your challenger. "
then you said: "But your concern about someone who has a high rating but is not active is legitimate and could be addressed. We could put requirement that a certain number of games be played within a certain number of years. "
but that is a problem too, because Topalov has even admitted that he doesnt prepare for tournaments and has little ambitions for contending for the WC (link to this below), and yet his rating was still high enough for the candidates last year. No matter what requirements are included, doing it solely on rating will result in players that shouldnt be there, hence why i brought attention to his perfomance. I compared that performance to Aronian's because you said "The current cycle where fide just literally picks people to sit in the tournament is really not legitimate." when in this case, Aronian was a far more approriate candidate than Topalov.
What it comes down to is that currently there is a good blend of methodologies in the current system. In the olden days, the player losing their crown would demand a rematch. This is represented with automatically giving them a spot in the candidtates. Then there are those that like to see a large playoff determine a champion. Strong finishers from the cup get spots. Some people think it should be those that demonstrate strong performance over a few tournaments: Grand prix spots. all of this culminating to a Double round robin and a match. It is a grueling gauntlet, and sure the "best" player according to rating at the time might not always make it through, but that player should atleast have the best chance to. The best teams in sports during the season dont always make it to the final stages either, but they get #1seed, with it the best chances.
http://chess-news.ru/en/node/19414
E.SUROV: Tell us how strong your ambitions are these days.
V.TOPALOV: Actually, not very big. I was very disappointed with myself last year in Khanty-Mansiysk. I have a great chance to reach this year's Candidates tournament on rating, but even there I'm not sure. If I do not like the contract, I do not even know whether I will take part. I am probably still going to play, but it is not one hundred percent certain. I have an offer simply go to South America and give some simuls, rather than to prepare for the Candidates tournament. So my only ambition in playing there would be not to make money, but to take first place and get the right to play a match for the world title. But if in my next few tournaments, I do not play well and it becomes clear that objectively, all I can hope for in the Candidates Tournament is some place in the middle of the field, it will not be a motivation to play. So maybe I should give up now. Although, again, while I am more inclined to accept the offer and to play, but it is not one hundred percent. At the same time we must also see who will play, what the prize fund is, and so on. ...
there is no threat
I'm hoping for Mamedyarov to make a breakthrough, he's always been good, but never had his name as shiny as players like so, carlsen, anand and other 2750+ players
Kasparov himself in a recent interview said So, Caruana, MVL in that order have the highest chances. He also said that if MVL can get over his pschycological issues he will have the best chances.
What psychological issues?
One of the problem is: if a player has a style that doesn't suit Carlsen, and would then stand a fair chance to win a match against him, that player would have first to qualify in order to become the official challenger. And that's a real problem, because "average" strenght of each of the top players is well reflected by their respective ratings. And the second strongest after Carlsen is not necessarily the fittest to beat him.
So, two solutions: the guy (or girl, who knows...) who has the best chances to beat Carlsen in a match, due to "style" (a bit like the "paper rock cissors" hand game) is "lucky" and qualifies, then is lucky again and win the match, or some new prodigy arises and proves stronger than Carlsen and everybody by a good 50-100 Elo, kinda Fisher-like. Until then, Carlsen shall remain World Champ until he loses health, youth, motivation, or has some heart issue with a girl. My opinion.
Whether you win or lose (and by "lose" I mean take second place or lower even due to tie break rules like Kramnik did when Carlsen won) a tournament often has just as much to do with games you don't even play in. So luck plays a large role.
This is also why collusion is a big concern. If you getting a draw with white against player A allows your friend player B better chances of winning than your non friend player C then you might play a drawing line against your opponent. If both you and your opponent both prefer Player B the draw may be all but agreed before the game starts. I would point out that Jeff Sonas's analysis doesn't seem to address this point which is even more reason to prefer matches.
I am not against having a swiss tournament that would allow some players to qualify for the candidates matches. But I also think it is unfair to bypass players who have played consistently strong chess over time and thus gained rating points because some guy had a lucky tournament. So I think any such tournament should not be used to disqualify people who are rated in the top 5 or 6 (other than the current champ). Maybe such a tournament or group of tournaments can be used to keep a couple of places open for the candidates matches.