Can you please at least try to show a little bit of class and not quote me while cutting off what I say, completely changing the meaning in the process. I said specifically: "Saying Gelfand played the best at the candidates is ridiculous when he didn't have to face a single top player." The candidates tournament wasn't exactly the highest quality chess with every player petrified of losing given the tournament format rather than being able to focus on just playing their best chess. It Just so happens that Gelfand's best chess is already a play-not-to-lose style.
It's amusing comparing his life record to somebody like Kasparov's:
He isn't a remotely comparable player yet his normalized loss rate is only 0.34 points below the most dominant player of all time. It would be interesting to develop a simulator to compare their expected results (vs an aggregated field) in these 4 game micro-match knockouts. I'll get on that later today.
that will be interesting, i'm certainly looking forward to it. Although "somebody like Kasparov's" strikes me a bit odd because there isn't somebody like Kasparov except the man himself. I would be more interested to see if Gelfand's draw/loss ratio is comaparable to players of the same strength and era or significantly higher than that.
sry for cutting your sentence off, but i don't think it makes much difference. Gelfand did get to play who he got to play. I also adressed your top player comment in the same paragraph. Show a bit of class yourself and don't exaggerate. I also may not always hit the nail on the head because english isn't my first language.
In the context of this thread and that post, it's very very reasonable to think Mclovin is talking about a world championship match. To the point where, if that's not what he actually meant, he phrased it pretty poorly.
And yeah give me a Carlsen vs Anand/Aronian/Nakamura (not because he particularly deserves it, but because he's an engaging player, signed Biased European) match which means something and I'll be happy.
I don't speak in riddles, I post literally. Like I said, if I wanted to state "world championship match" I would have done so. If posting literally is phrasing something poorly, then I guess I'm a poor phraser guy.
How about (if one is unsure) just asking a poster what they mean before jumping down their throat? Sounds like a good policy to me. :shrug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir_Desir
the post he seconded called the qualification method ridiculous. Then he off-handedly suggested a match featuring Nakamura, who doesn't have any achievments whatsoever in the qualification cycles and also hasn't proved that he can hold his own in a match format against a top player. He also compared the winner of this match to Ponomariov or Khalifman which isn't appropriate because of the much longer matches at much longer time controls and the much better standing Gelfand or Anand have compared to those two.
If you want action, watch tournaments, of which there are plenty. The WC match is, and always has been, a different kettle of fish.
To state that chess is dead is simply a claim that no one who understands much of chess would ever make.
lol @ off-handedly, I made a stand alone statement - people do that all the time. Dude calm down and stop doing this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir_Desir
i think for the first time in many years there is a credible system to determine the challenger of the world champion. Of course, longer matches would be nice but apparently there isn't enough money in chess atm to run them. It's a huge difference to the knockout WCs that produced Kasimdzhanov or Khalifman, firstly because the matches are MUCH longer, secondly the time control wasn't 90/g+30s and thirdly because it wasn't boycotted by the world's elite plus Israel.
You totally fail to address the crucial arguments against a round-robin qualifier, which is that players without a chance at the one qualifying spot can massively influence the final outcome.
It's a pity that Carlsen dropped out, but that's his fault. His proposals, including abolishing the seeding of the WC into the final match, weren't anywhere close to having the support of a majority of the chess world.
You and McLovin are making the huge statements ITT without much substantial to back it up. I simply say: We do have a cycle now which may not be perfect, but is pretty fair and transparent. Let's see what happens. Now Gelfand won but you're still claiming (if i get your sarcasm right) that he didn't deserve even this win.
Yo, yo, yo Desir. All I did was type "+1", I didn't make any (omg) huge statements.
Do It Right is a poster who usually "Does it Right", just take a look at his handle. I liked what he wrote in that post, read most of it actually, so I quoted it and +1'd. I never made any huge statements further defending "his" viewpoints in "this" thread. Slow ya roll player.
Speaking of rolls:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGarrett
He didn't say that Nakamura deserved a shot at the world title, he said he would be interested in seeing Nakamura play a match against certain people, as would anyone with a player who had a personality and was highly-competitive, or with a player with whom they share a local connection. That knee-jerk bigotry/nationalistic response is highly incorrect and inappropriate and it reflects poorly on you.
See chess folks, this is a poster who "gets it". Thank you very much EGarrett. Other posters just assumed what I meant and put words in my post that weren't there. You get a gold star for today.
Heck, I even threw Aronian's name in the interest list for a match (any match - gotta be super clear for the Assuming Assumers out there) and last time I checked I'm not Armenian.
Thank you also for pointing out the inappropriate manner with which Mr. Desir replied to me. Respect, is always a preference. The lack of which when communicating with others over mostly "fun" topics, speaks volumes about who one is.
Just played through game 7. I'm a little surprised that all classical games aren't going to be drawn. I concur with the poster who said that the games *should* get more interesting now, as Anand has something to try and win games for now.
Ok so his complaint is once a player is mathematically out of contention they will be less likely to put up serious fight, giving players who are still in contention and facing them in late rounds a potentially easier game than somebody who faced them in an earlier round?
That is reasonable, but it is not a given and we have to look at it contrast:
1. Double Round Robin: A top ranked player may end up having a possibly easier match against a lower ranked player than an ealier player late in the tournament did due to a lack of motivation on the lower ranked players part.
2. FIDE Knock Out: A player may 'win' the tournament without having to play a single game against the top half of the field.
What am I missing? This seems like a serious no brainer. I'm not being rhetorical. Am I missing something here or taking something out of context? Or do some people prefer option 2 as is?
why not just have about half a dozen regional swiss tourneys (heck, we could call it a zonal tournament), feed the top 8 from each through to a larger swiss event (we could call it an interzonal if you like), then the top 12 from that play matches (and by matches i don't mean the 4 game gayness that fide had for this one), with the top 4 obv getting a first round bye (we could call them candidate matches if you wanted). the winner could then roflpwn gelfand
I think this is basically argument about opinions and I am definitely not saying that one or the other is right. However, DIR, I find the arguments that you use to support your opinion kind of strange. I don't want to misinterpret anything you said so correct me if I am wrong somewhere:
1) Your main argument as I understood it is that challenger matches suck because it is possible for someone to win without playing the top seeds. True, it is possible. Just like in Wimbledon it is possible for Mardy Fish to win without playing vs Djokovic,Federer,Nadal,Del Potro if they all have upset losses in previous rounds. If that happens, does it mean that he was a undeserving winner? I think clearly the answer is no - he was the strongest player at that particular moment. This is exactly the case with Gelfand and candidate matches. Yes, he didn't face the top seeds, but that's because the top seeds lost earlier themselves, meaning that they were NOT deserving to win in that PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT. Can you argue against that?
2) Now I imagine how you will counter that last statement. "It is one tournament (matches), how can you judge their strength based on that one event, it is short term". Granted, you are right. However, let's move to your proposed double RR event. Apart from the argument that ND used about players being mathematically eliminated and therefore not caring (which you said is not a given - might I say it is not a given that the player will not face all the top seeds in candidate matches =] ), you somehow manage to miss the fact that the double RR tournament would still be short term, and according to you, one cannot judge anything from it, correct? In other words, whoever wins that double RR would be the strongest in that PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT. What does it matter if everyone will have to play everyone? The player who is in the best form/has some luck at that particular event, will win in BOTH instances. Not correct? Tell me why
In other words, you have your opinion and that is great, but you are constantly twisting arguments to try to "fit" and prove that you are "right" in an argument where there is no "right" in general. I am just wondering, if Aronian won the candidates, would you be saying the same thing? Highly doubt it. What if Gelfand luckboxed first in a RR? Bias ain't cool bro
As far as my opinion, I think that the system has to be EITHER some sort of a RR (to which people would still qualify via a mix of rating/some sort of a big knock-out event), or stay as it is now, with just one change - making matches much longer. Oh and another thing - in a WCC match, either play it to certain amount of wins (6 too long? ok, 4 or something), or at the very least remove the tie-break.. It is incredibly retarded IMO. For as long as I can remember, if the WCC match ended in a draw, the current champ held the title, which means the challenger HAS to win classical games. IMO they should get back to it.
Pressure changes things. It's easy to sit at a computer in your living room, or even play in a tournament where you aren't expected to win, but facing down being a favorite as the World Championship? It's much harder to deal with.
Also, it's not just a "may" that RR-tournaments could be influenced in some unfair way. According to a lot of contemporaries, every RR-candidates tournament from 2nd WW until Fischer's time was heavily influenced by outside shenanigans.
Yes, this is why we can't do Candidates anymore. It only takes one player to help rig, or to throw games to a friend of his, or for a nice payoff when they already have no chance to advance.
Let's just say Carlsen, Aronian, and Naka decided to all draw each other, and play balls-out vs the other 5 players in an 8-person old-school candidates.
1) It may be optimal strategy for them!
2) It is incredibly unfair to the rest of the field - Anand, Kamsky, Kramnik, whomever has to play 14-28 games with no 'free draws' vs the top players.
Many of the greatest match and tournament results start with the ultimate winner getting off to a terrible start. Fischer-Spassky is the obvious example.
He lost one game, hard to call that a terrible start. The forfeit had nothing to do with Spassky skill or Fischer playing bad, this is an awful example.
Quote:
Actually maybe Kasparov-Karpov 1984 is a better illustration since Kasparov was losing on the board. In the first 7 games he was: +0 =4 -3 and went on to not only overcome Karpov
He was down 5-3 after 48 games. In no way did he overcome Karpov [at the board] in 1984, and I'm as big a Garry fan as there is.
Quote:
Saying Gelfand played the best at the candidates is ridiculous when he didn't have to face a single top player. ...Gelfand faced 0 of these players
Your attempted 'logic' gets more and more absurd. Carlsen opted out - his problem, not anyone else's. I don't know if he was afraid or what but he should be ashamed with his talent.
He had already beaten Karjakin and Jakovenko and Ponomariov to qualify for the Candidates. He then beat a top 10 player in Mamedyrov, then a top player and former FIDE WC finalist in Kamsky who is one of the toughest players to defeat in a match*, coming back from behind in Classical in the final game to win to push into Rapid where he won 2-0.
Topalov lost to the 'inferior' Kamsky. Aronian lost to Grischuk. Kramnik lost to Grischuk. Blaming Gelfand for beating the guy who beat Aronian and Kramnik is absolutely ludicrous.
[So-called 'stronger players' like Caruana, Morozevich weren't even in the top 25 back in May 2011. ]
Anand was the #1 player when this cycle started and is as strong as anyone in a match today, something he's proven time and again.
If Gelfand wins, he'll have beaten players in matches ranked #1, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18 when the Candidates started, with Kamsky being the weakest and whose rating has increased and rank has jumped to 14 since then.
* Match play: Kamsky has beaten Anand, Kramnik, Short, Carlsen, Bacrot, Svidler, Ponomariov, Carlsen, Shirov, Topalov, [Salov, et al]. Oh, and he won the World Rapid title in 2010.
Losses in match: Karpov, Topalov, Gelfand, Anand.
Last edited by NajdorfDefense; 05-21-2012 at 09:57 PM.
I think this is basically argument about opinions and I am definitely not saying that one or the other is right. However, DIR, I find the arguments that you use to support your opinion kind of strange. I don't want to misinterpret anything you said so correct me if I am wrong somewhere:
1) Your main argument as I understood it is that challenger matches suck because it is possible for someone to win without playing the top seeds. True, it is possible. Just like in Wimbledon it is possible for Mardy Fish to win without playing vs Djokovic,Federer,Nadal,Del Potro if they all have upset losses in previous rounds. If that happens, does it mean that he was a undeserving winner? I think clearly the answer is no - he was the strongest player at that particular moment. This is exactly the case with Gelfand and candidate matches. Yes, he didn't face the top seeds, but that's because the top seeds lost earlier themselves, meaning that they were NOT deserving to win in that PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT. Can you argue against that?
2) Now I imagine how you will counter that last statement. "It is one tournament (matches), how can you judge their strength based on that one event, it is short term". Granted, you are right. However, let's move to your proposed double RR event. Apart from the argument that ND used about players being mathematically eliminated and therefore not caring (which you said is not a given - might I say it is not a given that the player will not face all the top seeds in candidate matches =] ), you somehow manage to miss the fact that the double RR tournament would still be short term, and according to you, one cannot judge anything from it, correct? In other words, whoever wins that double RR would be the strongest in that PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT. What does it matter if everyone will have to play everyone? The player who is in the best form/has some luck at that particular event, will win in BOTH instances. Not correct? Tell me why
In other words, you have your opinion and that is great, but you are constantly twisting arguments to try to "fit" and prove that you are "right" in an argument where there is no "right" in general. I am just wondering, if Aronian won the candidates, would you be saying the same thing? Highly doubt it. What if Gelfand luckboxed first in a RR? Bias ain't cool bro
As far as my opinion, I think that the system has to be EITHER some sort of a RR (to which people would still qualify via a mix of rating/some sort of a big knock-out event), or stay as it is now, with just one change - making matches much longer. Oh and another thing - in a WCC match, either play it to certain amount of wins (6 too long? ok, 4 or something), or at the very least remove the tie-break.. It is incredibly retarded IMO. For as long as I can remember, if the WCC match ended in a draw, the current champ held the title, which means the challenger HAS to win classical games. IMO they should get back to it.
It's very simple. Playing 14 games, including against the best players in the world, is going to be, on average, a much more accurate test of skill than playing 14 games against the worst players who managed to qualify - as Gelfand did. Furthermore as you know there are plenty of 'triangles' in chess. It's not like one 2750 will score identically against a 2700 as another 2750 would. The classic one was for some time Kasparov > Shirov > Kramnik > Kasparov. In a knock out event, these sort of natural skill triangles that occur in chess massively unbalance the results.
There are flaws with double round robins as well but ultimately it completely negates almost all luck of the draw. If you win the tournament, it's because you, like every other competitor, played the the other challengers and came out on top. In a knock out, winning can often just mean you got the luckiest draw and got even luckier with the best players getting eliminated in micromatches - as happened for Gelfand.
If Aronian had gotten first, we would be having a real match today and not this mockery. My mind wouldn't be on "How the hell did this guy even manage to qualify - oh it was another "FIDE KNOCK OUT!!"(tm)" and instead on the world championship. If Gelfand managed to score first in a round robin including the best players in the world? That wouldn't happen so I don't really see the merit in discussing it. The only format you consistently get these completely ridiculous results in is knock outs.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
