Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Topalov-Anand WCh Postponed

| Permalink | 47 comments

I don't know how you postpone something that wasn't really scheduled, but if anyone can pull off the rare preemptive postponement, it's FIDE. The chances of this match taking place in 2009 dropped to nil when the Topalov-Kamsky candidates match was delayed for so long. Now they have "agreed to postpone the World Championship match between World Champion GM Anand and Challenger GM Topalov until the latest April 20th, 2010 and asked for bids for the match." Yes, bids would be good. More on the FIDE meeting at ChessBase and FIDE.

Of more interest: "In 2011, there will be a Candidate Matches/Tournament consisting of GM Kamsky, the loser of the Anand-Topalov match, two players from the Grand Prix series and one player from the World Cup, two highest rated players not already qualified and a player nominated by the organizer. The winner will play the World Champion in 2011." That's the out-of-thin-air kickback candidates event Ilyumzhinov dropped on us last year with no justification whatsoever. As I said at the time, he doesn't make this up unless there was already money in play. Ridiculous. Giving the same players chance after chance until one of them wins is corrupt hackery.


so Anand defends his title without a fight for another year!

I want a World Championship a week, with names drawn from a lucky bag. Think of all the benfits!

Yes, maybe even I could get a shot at the title (but well, I wouldn't even have the money to hire a second).

I would be your second. Let's go for it.

Before you start working together, also consider that FIDE would have the right of nominating players who have multiple copies of name in the bag; they would do the drawing in a dark room in an unannounced location and time, and only publish the result unexpectedly 3 months later.

Out of curiosity, back in the good old days (50s, 60s, 70s), when the challengers were decided by a series of knock-out candidates matches (if I understand it correctly), how was the original pool of candidates chosen? Were there flaws in that system too?

So if Topalov loses to Anand he will get ANOTHER free chance to qualify for a WCC. 2011, that will be 6 years after he won San Luis. Are you taking any bets on what will happen if he fails to beat Anand in 2011?

Absolutely disgusting.

There were interzonal tournaments run to decide candidates. Some players automatically qualified depenind on previous cycle etc and others qualified from the regional zonal tournaments. The system worked very well.

The way this looks, even if Topalov had lost to Kamsky he would still be in the 2011 "candidates". Then you could really complain about Topalov's priveleges. As it is, he will have been the WC challenger, so seeding him into the next candidates isn't as much of a stretch.

I really do not understand why we can't establish a system where our "classics" like Linares, Corus etc work as qualifiers for a candidate tournament/matches.

Instead "we" create these World Cups and Grand Prix's that face continuous problems with sponsorship.

I just don't get it! Let's make a Grand Slam of the best tournaments and have the results there be the basis for electing a challenger!

Marvol: [...] FREE chance to QUALIFY for a WCC [...]

An "ox" and a "moron" -- free or qualify, which one is it?

Blinded by hate you write stupid things. Disgusting indeed.


...and one wonders why chess can never make into main stream media...Answer: Ilyumzhinov

Sure , that ´s already happening , it wont be long after a tournament like Bilbao would decide the challenger for WCH.

Teacher Ilyumzhinov and his class marshalls decide who raises their hands and who gets to work at the blackboard. If you're not a teacher's pet, you sit and watch while they get an A for class participation. Students, organize or attend another school.

Thanks, Brian. I suppose there were at least clear selection criteria. (One obvious flaw with using Linares and Corus as qualifier tournaments is that participation in them is by invitation only -- and even that invitation isn't extended to players purely on the basis of chess strength).

Topalov by losing to Kramnik has more privileges tha n Anand who beat Kramnik!

Topalov is #1 in the world, and not just byu a little. If you're going to have a candidates event, it would be a total joke without him. That said, inviting Kamsky is pretty silly, given that he hasn't been top 10 in fifteen years. Affirmative action for Americans I guess.

There is nothing wrong for seeding the Anand/Topalov loser into the next candidate matches/tourney. Although I am a Topalov hater, I realize that there is about 50% chance that Anand might need/deserve that slot.

The thing that I don’t like is Kamsky’s direct seed. He does not deserve it (nothing personal, I was pro-Kamsky during the Sofia match) and he does not need it (Kamsky stated that he will play in the GP and WC, with an apparent aim for the candidate matches/tourney).

Replacing Kamsky with a third highest rated player is my take.

Another Kramnik fan in a deep denial state of mind.
Someone will seed Kramnik eventually , dont get mad .

The beauty of the old system was that every chess player everywhere could take part. It started at the local level. The local winners would go on to the regional level, then the national, then the Zonal Tournaments. The winners of the Zonal Tournament would go to the Interzonal, and from there to the Candidates' Tournament or Matches.

From my hazy recollection, with the zonal-interzonal-candidates sequence, weren't there quotas within each zone that disadvantaged people from countries with a lot of very good players (e.g., USSR)?

Topailov should not even be in the cyclus. He should have been banned a minimum of 3 years after Elista for unsportsmanship.

FIDE = Federation of Idiots, Dummies, and the Empty headed.

It's run by a bunch of crooks. Chess has no credibility while these malcontents are overseeing things.

Yes, three at most in the same Interzonal plus some pre-qualified, I think.
It was unfair because by playing strength maybe 50%-75% would have been Soviet players.
There were other issues, too: The Soviet players tried to help each other more or less obviously. That's why the Candidates' Tournament was replaced by Candidates' Matches in the 60s.
And it never was easy to find host cities outside the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.

Has there ever been another time when the WC and Challeger were identified over a year in advance? Seems like an incredibly long time for preparation. This World Championship had better set the standard for best quality of games and play ever...

I even cynical enough to guess the 'one player nominated by organizer' was the key that made FIDE decide on this crap. Someone said... hey my guy can get in there if we buy him a spot! So whoever the organizer ends up being... maybe the culprit! Of course I could just be grasping at straws too.

¨This World Championship had better set the standard for best quality of games and play ever...¨
You seem to not understand the meaning of preparing for a particular oponent.

Topalov-Anand is unknown yet to be a year in gap.

Amsterdam Candidates Mar-Apr 1956, Smyslov-Botvinnik Mar-Apr 1957, nearly a year of gap. Both the Botvinnik rematches had a gap of almost a year (see also the recent Anand-Kramnik "rematch").

Korchnoi-Hubner Dec 1980, Korchnoi-Karpov Oct-Nov 1981 was close.

In the FIDE mangle: Karpov-Kamsky qualify in Feb 1995 in Sanghi Nagar, don't play until June 1996.

"It was unfair because by playing strength maybe 50%-75% would have been Soviet players."
Yes this may be considered an injustice because strong Soviet players were eliminated earlier on in the cycle, whereas weaker players from other countries went further through. But for the final objective - finding a WCh challenger - it didn't matter: whoever came that far was the dserved winner of a transparent, long and gruelling qualification cycle.
Similar injustices are inherent to the Grand Slam system _from the very start_, cf. recent discussions about Dominguez and Wang Yue getting three invitations, with none for Jakovenko.
By comparison, the FIDE Grand Prix (despite/besides weaknesses of the system) has transparent qualification criteria: all players involved do (or should/would have) played four out of six tournaments, no bonuses or maluses for players just because they are from the 'wrong country'. I discard organizer's wildcards as relatively irrelevant here ... .

Did I read it right? They did not seed Kramnik? Well, that is news.

Countdown for the next change of rules, 10, 9...

Countdown for the match Anand-Topalov, 1.500.000.000.000, 1.499.999.999.999...

"Ridiculous. Giving the same players chance after chance until one of them wins is corrupt hackery."

And not only that. It's funny how superfluous it seems to even mention this at this point, but it's also the latest proof that Kirsan's pronouncements on these matters mean absolutely nothing, have no significance or value whatsoever. Remember the recent "I expect no changes to the current world championship cycle"? I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head, as if it matters.

Topalov's privileges flow from his win half a decade ago in San Luis. So Anand should keep getting rematches sometime until 2013, probably a match against Nyznk or someone.

What are you whining and moaning about jaideep? Topalov has had
exactly one cut to go his way -- to play Kamsky. You can't even call
it a privilege, as it was compensation for FIDE changing the rules on
them when they had the $2M to challenge Kramnik. [In retrospect he
should have taken the money and played in Sofia.]


No it was very good negotiating ability by Topalov, that doesen't make it any less unfair but thats how it is.

Jens P. wrote
I really do not understand why we can't establish a system where our "classics" like Linares, Corus etc work as qualifiers for a candidate tournament/matches.

That might be the germ of a good idea.
But those classic tournaments are by INVITATION ONLY.
In practice that means ELO rating plays a very large role; perhaps distastefully large if used as a choke point for who gets any kind of opportunity to compete for the WChessChamp title.

In the old Soviet days, each country/zone gave LOTS of players a chance to compete for entry into the interzonal. That was good.

The big knockout type of tournament (that Kamsky won to earn his recent match against Topalov) has the advantage of giving lots of players a chance.

Sorry Manu, I don't follow what you are trying to say (?). I don't see how on earth you'd need over one year to prepare for an opponent... So I stand by my opinion!

Manu, isn't the issue less whether you'd need a year to prepare for a single opponent, than whether you could reasonably expect someone to go through the process (preparation, focus, sequestering, stress, recovery, etc.) twice in a year.

Sorry -- I meant to direct that at noyb, not Manu.

Sweetheart, learn to spell his name before you start banning him.

Here you seem wrong. Your ugly American Bobby Fisher BUYED his way (USA$$2000 from the UCSF to Benko) into this Interzonal for 1970 rather than play to his rightful Zonal. There were no grassroots, just like with in today.

I would prefer another match in between the tournament and the final match. Also I would want Kramnik and the challenger loser (Kamsky) to qualify (not rating qualify. playing qualify). If Kramnik were to play and win that tournament qualifier in 2011 and Anand were champion, then Anand will just scoot! No title challenge will be accepted within 3 years!! Censored! :) Or in a special case, Kramnik should show a $5 million guaranteed for Anand!

Yes, using Linares and Corus etc in their exact current shape wouldn't work. But if these tournaments received an even higher status by being a major part of the WCh-cycle, then maybe in return they could be persuaded to change their format a bit?

My ideal would be approx five major tournaments a year. Each comprising of ten players, single round robin. Arrangers forced to invite the top six of the latest ELO-list. Add to that two places for the top-players from last years B-group (like Corus B or in case of no B-group (Linares) an option to "lease" these two places to other tournaments). This leaves the arrangers with two players for themselves to decide completely.

The tournaments should preferably be played in the spring and summer (for example Corus, Linares, Sofia, Dortmund plus a non-European one in early fall). Late fall should be reserved for olympiads (year one) and WCh candidates tournaments (october) and WCh match (december)(year two).

To the candidates tournament I think I would be fine with only having the ten winners beating it out in a single round robin. (If less than ten winners, then fill the spaces with the best second etc.).

I'm strongly in favour of WCh-matches. Wouldn't mind candidates matches as well, but cannot help but find these less likely to work. However, if you like my model but fear arranged games in the final tournament, then ofcourse a model of matches between the cycles top 8 or top 16 would also be an alternative.

What I'm really looking for is a way to use what we already have and should be careful not to loose for historical reasons instead of exploring the unknown over and over again.


ps I would even love if Hastings and Reggio Emilia could be reinvigorated by being part of "my system". Let the Winners of these old tournaments recieve a seat in Corus A for example!

Very simple noyb , you imply that given that amount off time they should be playing the better chess ever (or something like that) , for the match.
That is wrong , the level played in a match depends on the momentum of the players , not only on their preparation.

I would like to point out that this is another change to the Candidates Event. When it was announced back in November 2008 it was the 2 finalists of the World Cup an 1 rating qualifier, now it is 1 player from the World Cup and 2 rating qualifiers.

There always have been backdoors for the well-connected. But those were exceptions.

I played my first local championship Kreiseinzelmeisterschaft Inn/Chiem in 1986. If I would have won, I would have qualified for the next higher stage. If I would have won that tournament either, and so on, I would have played Kasparov a few years later.

I've always found it inspiring to think: I just have to think straight and find the best move. Everything else will follow from it.

Nowadays everyone has to become a back-room-dealing politician to get a shot at the title. Kramnik, Topalov, Kamsky showed the way. Carlsen surely is considering if he should get involved in the wheeling and dealing, or just tells them to stuff it.

I like the idea of five "majors", like golf and tennis have, leading to a Candidates series and World Championship, which tennis and golf do not have.

In my perfect world, the WC match would be played every two years, with the Olympiad being played in the other bi-annual cycle.

I also never understood how draw odds weren't a bit more fair to the challenger - as in, the champion retains his title in a drawn match but is obliged by rule to play a rematch with the challenger. One guy draws a match and nothing changes for him, but the other guy, who proved himself equal to the world champion, has to start all over?

I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on March 11, 2009 3:19 AM.

    Go-ing Monte Carlo was the previous entry in this blog.

    Kasparov on Anand is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.