April Fuels

I agree with Mig with respect to the ridiculous situation of Kramnik (how he has guaranteed a lot of rights). I don't get it...

If this tournament is not the World Championship, but only the tournament to decide the next challenger, why Kramnik is going to participate if he is the World Champion?. Obviously it is more logical to give this place in Mexico to Topalov, or force him to qualify in candidate matches.

Now, Topalov does not have the right (as previous challenger or former champion, whatever) to fight for the title now and he has to wait until 2010 if he wants to be World Champion? (According to the system, he needs to play the World Cup and classify, then win in the candidate matches, then win the WC tournament and then win the match against the World Champion).

We are not talking if we like Topalov of Kramnik, because this is not the subject here. We are talking about and ill conceived system were some players have ridiculous privileges ad some others get banned from the option (not only Topalov, lets talk about Ivanchuk or others, for example).

Nobody has pointed out one very good reason for Kramnik to want to win Mexico: drawing rights. (not sure if I am using the right term--who retains the title in case of a final score in the match being a draw) Presumably the winner of Mexico would retain the title if the match Kramnik-whoever ends in a draw. This is especially significant because in the last two matches Kramnik played the score in classical chess was tied and had the drawing rights been with Kramnik's opponent he would have not retained his title.

People are underestimating Vladimir. Sure, his title is not ideally suited for many tournament victories but he has as strong a tournament win record as any active player today and has twice in the past year talked about desire to win as many tournaments as possible. It is only when he loses (Corus) that he starts mentioning that his style is not ideally suited for tournament play, blah blha blah. It's Vlad being Vlad. And Vlad Vlad has won Dortmund in 2001, 2003, 2006. Linares in 2003 and 2004. Finished half a point out of first in the last classical chess tournament he played. Considering his sick year, he probably has the second most impressive win record over the recent era in tournaments aside from Kasparov.

Why are you assuming that there would be draw odds in place in the 2008 match? That would be unlike FIDE, and I haven't heard anything about it. But I may have missed something.

"I pity anyone trying to set up sponsorship or news coverage who has to explain that the games occasionally end abruptly without a winner after a few minutes."

I am still waiting for a story of a sponsor turning away from a major tournament out of fear of draws...or of television stations who wanted to televise chess games, but only if Sofia rules were in place.

There has been one insance of new continuing chess sponsorship at top level found in the past five years (MTel) and that seems to have more to do with the existence of a major chess player in the sponsor's host country than any sort of rule proposals.

It's a good point, but I don't consider it so relevant because I'm not going to say Kramnik would intentionally not win the event. Just the possibility of having a direct influence on his challenger is the issue to me.

Kramnik's chances of winning Mexico aren't worse than anyone else's, certainly. I'd take Anand and Kramnik against the other six any time. It will, as usual, come down to form and who makes the most of their chances. There won't be another Topalovian +6 with Kramnik in the field.

Cause it's easier than another day to schedule and because Zhukov doesn't like the idea of non-classical tiebreaks.

Draw odds, yeah, thanks.

There is no way to prove that something we're not doing is a problem. It's one of those things there won't be empirical evidence for because there are too many other factors involved (see Gelfand's comment). I have only my hard and fast belief that one of the things on the menu for making chess professional is to ban the draw offer.

As for the media, I've been one of those people trying to tell ESPN or ABC or FOX Sports that no, we don't know when the games will end and that they can agree to a draw at any time by consent. The not knowing when is unavoidable, of course. But the draw offer part is very confusing and damaging. I refer you again to the last game of Kasparov vs Deep Junior. Oy.

Anand had some good thoughts about the cheating issue:

"5. Do you consider the possibility of cheating at high-level tournaments as a serious problem? What measures would you suggest to introduce to reduce such a possibility?

More than cheating. The thought that someone could cheat is more serious. Seconds should be prohibited from going on stage or into the player's area before the game. They should also not be allowed to enter the playing hall and leave and re enter during a game. It is actually a bit strange to police people. But in today's time where a mobile phone is more than enough to cheat we need to take these steps. Delay in transmission is one step."

Draws of any sort are unacceptable for any kind of televised chess event! If it is a Chess Match, such a GM X vs. Deep Junior, why not make EVERY game an Armageddon game? White must Checkmate Black, or force Black to resign--otherwise, it is Black who gets the full point. Draw odds would alternate between the two players, with the player having the white pieces being forced to play for the win. A real bonus is that White would practically be forced to play aggressive, risky chess.

Sure, this would bastardize chess, but few games can maintain "purity", whilst seeking to make it as a TV spectacle. Even World Cup Football often encounters the need to force a conclusion to the games by dint of the absurd Penalty Kick tie-breaks.

With respect to Kramnik and his participation in the Mexico World Championship, it is indeed a mess. Kirsan was forced to make these ridiculous concessions as enticements, otherwise Kramnik would probably have opted out. Kirsan seems extremely keen to break the precedent where the Unified Champion (and everybody outside of Bulgaria acknowledges the Kramnik is the undisputed World Champion) can simply await a Challenger to make it through a Candidate's cycle, and then refuse to play a FIDE sanctioned title defense, yet maintaining a claim to "his" title.

Topalov is expendable here; Kramnik is not. Had Topalov won, I'm confident that Kirsan would have provided him with even more favorable terms than Kramnik has received.

In essence, Kramnik has extracted a concession that guarantees him the chance to defend or regain his title through a match.

This is actually good news--if even not "fair"--since so many chess fans want to see World Champions determined by match play.

The big question (since Kirsan neglected to provide details) is: How long will these matches be? 12 games? Or a 6 game special?

Live translation on a major sports network is something that's still leagues off...people still don't understand, don't care and it's not enough of a spectacle, even with no draws.

I would think if banning the draw would really make the difference, there would be plenty of empirical evidence of sponsors who changed their mind once they heard there is such a thing as early draws or who changed their mind the other way once they heard the idea of banning them (or maybe even proposed such an idea themselves).

"Live translation on a major sports network is something that's still leagues off...people still don't understand, don't care and it's not enough of a spectacle, even with no draws."

I agree, and if Chess is televised, it would not make sense for it to be live. A chess game that is taped and edited would represent a much better package for television. It would make it possible to have better analysis and commentary, as well as various segments and features, rather than just coverage of the game itself.

Even given that, I don't think that chess would be a viable TV "product"--especially in the US. Following a Chess tournament on the Web, even with a half hour delaying transmission of moves, still allows for a superior experience, even without webcam coverage, since the spectator has more control, more options, and there is a greater potential for interactivity.

Televised Chess is somebody else's pipe dream, not mine. If you were bound and determined to try, it would be "forced" to make each game decisive. In other words, elimination of draws is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a successful chess broadcast.

Maybe the only thing that could draw a mainstream audience would be reaction shots of Kasparov's face, when he lost.

Or maybe a Brittney vs. KFed match, with Millions or $$ of divorce settlement money at stake

Why not start with chess on a cable channel? I don't have a dish but I understand there are 150-200 channels one can watch on a dish. Good commentary of course is needed. We kind of have cable events now but they are on internet via ICC or others. Just not the pictures.
I watched a bit of Shabalov-Sorkin from Foxwood via Monroi today. I chatted a bit with a fellow from Chicago. I guess Monroi is covering a number of tournaments.
Any one tried Seirawan Chess yet? I have made myself the two extra pieces the game calls for and now waiting for a sample game score from the 12 board simul Yasser did in Vancouver BC on March 31 to be sure I understand the rules.

As much as Topalov and his team disgusted me with their behavior in Elista, I think the Bulgarian open letter to FIDE does contain a valid point concerning Topalov's participation in Mexico. Indeed, allowing Topalov to play would avert some of the ridiculaus possibilities which Mig points out.

Can somebody explain me how this transmission delay is suppossed to work to prevent cheating?
What is the idea, that somebody in the playing hall can receive in his cell phone computer analysis from an accomplice following the match at home, and then signal the best move to the player? Because if he can use his phone to receive info, he can easily use it to send the current position as well, making the delay useless. (If the game is important enough, there will even be reporting fans bypassing the delay via cell phone to provide real time coverage for some website).
The only way to prevent this leaking is to isolate the players in a closed room, with spectators seeing only the delayed transmission. But if the players are kept separated from the spectators then they can't receive signalling and the delay is pointless.
What am I missing?

Of course, there is no doubt that FIDE (Kirsan) is ridiculously incompetent. Actually, its lack of adjectives that limit my description of them..I've been shouting hoarse in previous threads for not having Kramnik at Mexico.

As far as cheating goes, I am not very comfortable with a delay in transmission. I'm someone who does all the time-zone conversions and logs-in to watch the first moves anxiously.. in my opinion, a simple solution would be having one-way mirrors in all major tournament halls. The glass will be transparent from the audience's perspective while it will be a mirror for the players.

Why is Topalov not included in the standings list for the current ACP Tour?

http://www.chess-players.org/eng/tour/tour_2006/standings.html

He has 549pts from Corus-A, Wijk aan Zee

And, since I have nothing better to do, I'd like to argue against Mig's phrase: "title for sale".

Although it is ridiculous to let someone not have to qualify for a world championship title match, I don't see how the title itself is on
"sale". The guy still has to beat the world champion to win. It is definitely not any worse than having a winner of a qualifying cycle (Shirov) being arbitrarily replaced by someone who got beaten (Kramnik) by that winner. I don't know how many will consider the Mexico winner to be world champion if he loses to Kramnik in a match. But if, say, Radjabov raises the cash and beats Kramnik in a match, I don't know if many will keep in mind too long that he didn't qualify (just like not many now do about Kramnik not qualifying to face Kasparov in 2000).

But maybe FIDE is so not confident of holding a simple qualifying cycle, they think this is the easiest way to get rich and feed the world with world championship matches. Maybe that is how hen-fights happen in Elista. People find it difficult to hold qualifiers to eliminate hunderds of hens and so offer the highest bidder a chance to have his hen fight the champion hen.

To zzz:

Because Topalov is not a member of the ACP.

Miggy, did you let your ACP membership lapse? Tsk tsk.

Yes Topalov dropped out of ACP.

@skeptic: probably about the (perceived) threath of transmission to the players.

Q

Did any of the top players other than Kramnik vote for the proposal FIDE ultimately selected?

Regarding the time control issue. While I never bought into the argument that rapid time control will attract sponsors, the truth of the matter is that it leads to more interesting games. IMHO Amber was far more interesting than Linares and rapid part of Kramnik-Topalov match was far more interesting than classical part.

Two usual argument in favor of classical time control ephasizes the chess quality. In a nutshell
1) there are fewer blunders and errors.
2) longer time control allows to discover original plans over the board and hence leads to more creative games. IMHO 10 years ago both were very valid points, but not in modern reality.

First of all, with computers being as strong as they are, the emphasis in human play is on the sporting side of chess. If I want a blunder free game, I can run Fritz against Rybka. What is really interesting to see in human vs human game is the battle of wills and wits, where tricks and traps play an important role. Looking from that angle, gambles and errors are a natural part of the game.

Secondly, in the good old days opening theory wasn't as advanced as it is now. Therefore people often played creatively from the very first moves and hence needed the time to work out the plans in unknown positions (which arised frequently). Today it's a different ball game. The preparations of most top GMs end up around move 20, with some variations going deep into endgame. The plans in the arising positions were also worked out at home. What longer time controls really do for the game, they facilitate refutation of risky (or just objectively second best) continuations. Effectively, this works against creativity in the modern chess. The caveat is that everything I said is applicable to TOP LEVEL chess, but not to the amateur chess.

Therefore, faster time controls will benefit top level chess, while amateurs should stick to longer ones. Shortening time controls for PRO's is a good idea. However, the reality will be that PRO's will play classic chess in Linares, while the amateurs will play fast chess in opens, exactly the opposite of how it should be.

Speaking of bits and pieces: Mig, have you voted for Chess Oscar 2006 yet? Apparently journalists, GMs, etc can vote online, but for some reason they only have the voting screen in Russian:

http://64.ru/?/ru/oscar-vote/

I wonder if they will also send out personalized ballots.

Did Kirsan or Kramnik consider the opinions of other players like Anand?Why would Anand agree to such ridiculous advantages given to Kramnik?Infact Kramnik having match with Mexico winner itself was never conceived when this cycle was first announced.Since Kramnik winning the match we are seing all these changes once again and everything favorable to Kramnik.Just because a match is a better alternative to RR doesn't mean you can screw every other player but one.Why can't they make Mexico itself with having two finalists who will fight for WC in a match.?
Kramnik-Topalov unification is a one time affair under special circustances..Why should we perpetuate its results to influence subsequent matches?This one reason why even those who love Chess end up hating it.Forget about attracting new fans.Chess sucks big time.

Pavani, it seems like the best solution because this way Kramnik gets to win/lost the title in a match and Mexico organizers get their "World Championship" tournament. It would be better than immediate split in the chess world again. And Kramnik deserves to lose the title the same way he has won it - in a match. You are asking why the Mexico winner should get screwed, but if Mexico is to be considered world championship without Kramnik getting a shot at its winner, why should Kramnik be screwed by having to defend the match title in a tournament - something that none of the 13 worl champions before him had to do?

Besides, what makes you so sure there will be a match following the tournament. Kramnik's chances to win the tournament outright are pretty good so maybe noone will have to play Kramnik in a match afterwards.

Mr.Russianbear.
I am trying to understand the reasoning.What is a Chess world?.Does it include the players like Anand to 100th ranked player minus Kramnik.Do you believe thay consider the current proposal as best one?
If it is fair for Kramnik to loose his WC in a match than in a tournament...how about the so called fairness to other palyers who were told something and forced to go through something else.Did you recognise Kramnik has gone through 3 WC matches while never successfully going through a single qualification match.And now we are proposing why can't he have a fourth one while scores of others are languishing there for years for one single such opeertunity.
Kramnik is a great match player.Same time he couldn't even qualify in candidate matches.While he was rewarded for his match play, he was never put through the qualification matches for years.It has been seven years.He can loose in Mexico big time, but gurenteed a match immeadiately for a bigger purse.As a bystander and a Kramnik fan or pro-match system fan for WC, I can understand you can view this fair.
FIDE sucks.It is not a news not even history.May be it has been like this since pre-historuc times.Tournaments may produce a real WC.All agreed.But it is one thing to press for matches and completely another thing to shower previllages to Kramnik.

I speculate that Kramnik has already resigned to the fact that he will not be champion much longer. It is
natural behavior to get married "while still on top". He's willing to put up his title so quickly after defending it so that he can score some more
money before more or less retiring from super-top
competitive chess.

No, Russiabear, there is a diffrence between other Champions and current champion.We are living in modern times.Chess went through the schism for past 2o years.And Kramnik is a handpicked palyer for the WC match, some thing that was not recognised by the official body at that time.All these and many are unique and can not be compared with past.Bringing the past champions/championships into present conversation is ridiculous.Aim for a better system.That is match system.Same time club that goal with fairness to every player.
If Kramnik chance of winning Mexico are so good, he should be only on a Tournament champion according to your deffinition.In anycase it is not about chances.He is gaurenteed a match even if he looses is ridiculous.Instead one may push for Mexico format into a match of 8 games between the finalists.Fianlists come from the same tournament.Not from Mars.

Off topic, but Kamsky is playing in Foxwoods.

http://members.cox.net/tournaments/foxwoods/open.htm

I disagree with the notion of the Mexico tournament being the best transition towards a match title. You don't go South if your target is North.

The mess has to do with contractual obligation that the Mexico tournament is for the worldchampionship.

But if you want to go North if your target is North, then Mexico is a challenger tournament, and Topalov should play instead of Kramnik. In fact, that's what just about any chess fan on the street would have thought.

Pavani,

Yes, chess world includes Anand and other top 100 players. But, believe it or not, it also includes fans like me. Most top players may be blinded by what is on their agenda for today, so their opinion may not be considered the final authority on the subject.

You seem to want to discard the tradition and history and at the same time you can't let go of the fact that Kramnik was handpicked.I don't see the need to go through "Kramnik was handpicked" argument for 1000th time - Kramnik did beat Kasparov in 2000 so he clearly was good enough to be playing in a match for the world title. Yes, he was hand picked, but so were Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe. Anand was hand picked, too, he just decided not to play in 2000.

And yes, FIDE sucks. No argument here. They are responsible for a big part of this whole mess (with Kasparov/Short being responsible for the rest of it with their decision to leave FIDE in 1993). But under the circumstances, what other options are there? Declaring the Mexico winner the world champion would be nonsense, because Chess World championship title is a match title by definition. Another option would be for Kramnik to leave FIDE so that the match tradition is preserve, but this doesn't seem to have much sense given that the unification has just finished and starting another split right away would not be wise. So, the current compromise does seem to make sense. Us classical tradition fans get to see the match title live on and Mexico organizers are happy because they get their "World championship" tournament with the world champion participating. So everyone is happy. Chess fans get to see a great tournament, perhaps followed by a match between Kramnik and another very strong player. sounds like a good compromise to me.

Don't think of it as a Kramnik privilege. Think of it as New York 1927 tournament, which was kind of a Candidates tournament in which the reigning champion (Capablanca) participated.

You may view Kramnik being guaranteed rematch as ridiculous. But to me (not a Kramnik fan, btw), the idea that Kramnik (or any other Chess World champion) could lose the match title in a tournament is more ridiculous. In chess, "World champion" refers to a winner of a very specific sort of competition, namely a world championship match and such a title cannot be lost in a tournament. Even FIDE recognized that now, after the unification process has completed.

"While I never bought into the argument that rapid time control will attract sponsors, the truth of the matter is that it leads to more interesting games."

Not to me. To me, quality chess is the most interesting, which is why I don't for example watch 2200-level classical chess.

Considering the relative chess skill of average supposed viewer, I would say there is little chance they will be able to get more ratings with rapids than classical.

Interestingly, I suspect that the interest will depend not on time control or the game itself or even the players but mostly on the commentators. The finger of blame will be pointed straight at you, Mig.

"The only way to prevent this leaking is to isolate the players in a closed room, with spectators seeing only the delayed transmission. But if the players are kept separated from the spectators then they can't receive signalling and the delay is pointless.
What am I missing?"

Posted by: skeptic at April 6, 2007 00:47

I think you're missing one detail skeptic. "Isolated" visually does not mean isolated electromagnetically, unless the playing room is a well-constructed metal box with no gaps or holes (electromagnetic waves cannot penetrate perfectly conducting surfaces, but they can sneak through cracks, diffract around corners, reflect off walls, etc). So, with two-way visual isolation but no delay in transmission, a player could receive signalling via a concealed or implanted receiver. Even two-way visual isolation plus a delay is not quite enough, as a player could theoretically use a transceiver (transmitter plus receiver) to both transmit and receive moves with an accomplice, assuming he could do so without being too conspicuous. A very tiny camera might be used for example.

One-way visual isolation removes the delay safeguard and only prevents hand signalling, but surely keeps things more enjoyable for the playing hall audience.

Although Topalov's guaranteed rematch if Kramnik wins Mexico was a dumb idea, a promise is a promise, and it seems only fair to allow him the chance to play in Mexico now. Fitting also if FIDE is legitimately trying to operate in a more sensible way. Only problem is the absence of the loser from Mexico was written into the unification match contract wasn't it? If so, Kramnik could conceivably sue, and that wouldn't be pleasant.

It is obvious that the most fair thing to do is have Topalov play in Mexico instead of Kramnik and then have the Mexico winner play a WC match against Kramnik. The arguments against this have been that the sponsors want to have a "world championship tournament" with Kramnik. However, and I posed this question before and no one even tried to answer, who in their right mind will consider the Mexico winner to be the 15th world champion? Nobody... Thus Mexico tournament does not have any credibility to produce a new world chapmion and the sponsors as well as the players participating must surely know that

Although the Mexico tournament is not to my liking (I prefer matches) at all, I'd accept the winner as world champion. Probably the man in the street, who knows nothing of chess (the great majority), will do the same.

Furthermore, I think you overestimate the sponsors. These people are not experts on the royal game, they are businessmen who think their products will sell better because people hear about their product name in combination with the world championship of chess. That many, many chessplayers might not acknowledge the winner as a new world champion, they probably don't even know. If they knew, they probably wouldn't care.

Changing the tournament into a qualifying tournament would take away a lot of the media attention. Just check your local media, to see whether they gave more attention to one of those FIDE KO's or to a far stronger tournament like Linares or Corus. The FIDE tournament, eh? And why? Because it was a world championship.

Or ask yourself what would happen if one of your local players made a good result at a tournament somewhere, an IM-norm or even a GM-norm. Would he get as much publicity as a kid who won the Under 10 rapid world championship? Probably not. And why? Because the title "world championship" sells, because most people see only that, and do not know if it is a "real" world championship or not.

A better alternative would be to add Topalov and another player, to play a 10 player double round robin. Of course that variation has disadvantages as well.

Mig,

With "everyone" talking about the chances of Radjabov, Topalov, Mamedyarov, Invanchuk etc. of qualifying to play Kramnik (or some other Mexico champion) by winning the 2007 World Cup - can anyone please, PLEASE, _please_, tell my who will be the 126 players playing the World Cup?

Where are the detailed regulations for the World Cup 2007?

Why will the above mentioned players qualify for this tournament - or how can they be sure about doing so (based on their ratings, for instance) when no regulations have been published AFAIK?

What about the 19 players (16 in the candidates + Moro, Svidler, Anand, Kramnik - WC) NOT emerging as champion after Mexico (and maybe a Kramnik-match) - will they get a chance to qualify for the World Cup 2007? I can't see anyone of these players participating in the European Championship, and most of these 23 players are from Europe.

If it turns out that some of the players mentioned above actually HAD to play in the Euro Champs to make it to the World Cup, did they have this information in time for taking an informed decision about whether to play or not?

How many players from the European Championship qualify for the World Cup? Does anyone know? I only know of the 2005 regulations...

For World Cup 2005, it was like this:

2.3.5 The number of qualifiers for each continent is:

Europe 46
Americas 19
Asia 19
Africa 6

making up 90 continental qualifiers, and

3.1. Qualifiers - There are 128 qualifyers : World Champion + four (4) semi-finalists from the World Championship 2004 in Tripoli, Women`s World Champion, World Junior U-20 Champion 2004, twenty (20) rated players as described in 3.1.2, ninety (90) players from Continental Championships, eight (8) FIDE President nominees, three (3) organiser nominees."

This year, the latter has been shrunk to 126 players, but WHO?

I really wonder what kind of answer I would've gotten - if any - if I took Nigel Freeman's advice and sent these questions to the FIDE office in Athens and to some FIDE address of the Elista offices...

Small correction - it seems Mikhail Gurevich is playing the Euro Champs...

And also Malakhov - I guess the rest of the european candidates are gambling that their rating will be enough to secure participation in the World Cup, if they'd like to play there... ?

I see that others (Zakki) has been wondering the same as I:

"There is supposed to be another FIDE World Cup this year, right? Does this event act as a qualifier for Europe? If so, how many qualify? How about the players currently preparing for the candidates matches, are those that don't make it to Mexico qualified for the World Cup?"

And he also found this info:

"Okay, I found this on the Euro 2007 page:
7. QUALIFIERS
The Individual European Championships 2007 and the Individual Women`s Championships 2007 are qualification events for the next Chess World Cup [...] According to FIDE's tournament regulations and the decision of the ECU Board, 33 players from the men's section [...] will qualify."

@Zakki: did you also find these tournament regulations, or documentation about the decision of the ECU board?

Even if 33 players qualify from the Euro Champs, it doesn't answer our question about the candidate players, right?

Miguel,

What you are saying makes perfect sense. Unfortunately in real life what makes perfect sense is not always what happens. Mexico organizers signed up to host a world championship. The winner will matter a bit more than a ladder knockout winner like Ponomariov or Khalifman and a bit less than the classical champion like Kasparov and Kramnik. But that's how much it will matter to us. To the Mexico organizers all that matters that the winner be officially recognized by FIDE as champion. The sponsors in this world seem a lot more willing to put on a dubious world championship than a real candidates tournament. We have had Libya, Moscow, Las Vegas, San Luis, now Mexico. As for candidates we had gimpy Dortmund and Kirsan scraping his own money for cycles this spring. Maybe the problem is that the sponsors don't to host anything but the final stage?

Again the ACP concentrates it's effort on a tree and doesn't see the forest.

ACP= Members are pro
FIDE= Members are Countries

So the logical and basic question is who should control Pro Chess FIDE or ACP?

ACP can easily create the title "Professional" it can control entry into professional ranks through the use of title tournaments. That ACP concerns itself with FIDE time controls and hotel conditions really is myopic to extreme and unambitious. If the pros can't see this then they deserve what they get from the scraos of the FIDE table. I wonder if it is the members from former Eastern block countries that Keep the ACP a weak and powerless Labour Union.

Again the ACP concentrates it's effort on a tree and doesn't see the forest.

ACP= Members are pro
FIDE= Members are Countries

So the logical and basic question is who should control Pro Chess FIDE or ACP?

ACP can easily create the title "Professional" it can control entry into professional ranks through the use of title tournaments. That ACP concerns itself with FIDE time controls and hotel conditions really is myopic to extreme and unambitious. If the pros can't see this then they deserve what they get from the scraps off the FIDE table. I wonder if it is the members from former Eastern block countries that Keep the ACP a weak and powerless Labour Union.

I initially thought that the FIDE World Championship was getting stupider by the minute, but the truth is that the current version makes a lot of sense.

Basically, to become the World Champion, you have to win a qualifier which is a tournament, and then beat the World Champion in a match. This is quite decent.

The only minor point is that the World Champion is part of the tournament. And if he wins it, there is no challenger, hence no match.

For the issue of tournament result manipulation, well, all players could do it, not only the existing World Champion. Obviously bottom-of-the-table players could purposedly lose (read: "overplay") or give an easy draw, to help some top-of-the-table players - and this is more likely to happen than Kramnik doing such thing. The solution to that, is that, if you want to qualify, you basically beat most players, Kasparov-style.

The guys from the bulgarian chess federation really annoy me. Of course Kramnik is the best and Topalov only complains. But what annoys me more is the topalov website. Why are they so self confident? Who is behind the site? Danailov? Topalov is not N1 sorry. It is Kramnik.

Why chess is a ridiculous sport where the champion has only to wait a final challenger like boxing?.Why the socalled chess champ can not start from zero to prove he is the best?.There are only seven authentic champions who started from zero beating a whole opposition to get his titles SMYSLOV, TAL, PETROSIAN, SPASKY, FISCHER, KARPOV and KASPAROV. Everything before and after them is pure circus.We don't need champions produced just for beat a reigning champion in a arrenged matches even when they lost qualifier stages.We don't need champions who retained their titles just because they tied a match.Kramnik is the Botvinnik sucesor ,the last champ who was the first FIDE champion,the last champ produced in two prearrenged rematches without qualify to be a challenger.

Granda,
A guy beating someone else in a championship match is a tradition going back more than 100 years. That's why it is important in chess.
The alternative would be to make chess like tennis. No championship games, just a circuit with tournaments and a few grand slams. That would not be so catastrophic per se. We will still have lots of exciting games, which is what we all like about chess. Looking at tennis, nobody complains that Federer never played a championship game.

granda--

All those phony champions: Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Kramnik.

greg koster ,Botvinnik was the first FIDE champion produced in a tournament of five.Only the rematch rule helped him to become the champ. Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik and Kramnik are champs produced under selective and not sportive stages,just get a bag of money and take my title,my property,try to beat me.The Smyslov/Kasparov line is the only authentic way to show you are the BEST.Period.

Surely if you are the best you should be able to beat a phony selective champ?

Yes,to be the BEST you have to beat a selective phony champ AND also the rest of the opposition the same way Smyslov did it.

But then if you weren't able to beat one of your opponents, does not that mean you are not the best? In fact, isn't the person who beat you more likely to be better than you than the other way around?

Granda,

That quy who defeated Beliavsky, Korchnoi, and Smyslov to get his title shot; the guy who then defeated Karpov, Short, and Anand? Kramnik beat him. Most of us say that makes Kramnik the champion.

If it makes you happy to say that there has been no world champion at all for the last seven years, go for it.

Yuriy Kleyner, i don't understand your point.Try to explain better your position.For example Kramnik ,when he beat Kasparov he showed a superiority over him but not over the rest of the opposition.Everything failed in his whole life to become either FIDE or CLASSICAL champ til Kasparov gifted a match to him.Pure circus,the same Botvinnik circus of recover a title because a stupid rematch rule.When the rematch rule was abolished Botvinnik showed his real face.

greg koster,Fischer became the champ not only because he beat Spasky but Petrosian, Larsen, Taimanov, and Palma de Mallorca in a whole cycle.Kramnik beat Kasparov but he could not beat Shirov,really 14th phony champ.

Granda,

What if the reigning world champion fails to play the winner of his qualifying process? Or what if no qualifying process exists? How does one then become a legitimate world champion?

Granda, it's a very simple question. If you are unable to beat one of your opponents, does that not mean you are not the best? Doesn't that in fact mean that this guy is more likely to be the best than you? I guess that's two questions, but I don't think either is particularly hard to answer.

greg koster,if Kasparov failed to play a real qualifier winner his match was just a match and not a real world chess championship.If no qualifier process exist like before Botvinnik times chess was only a monarchy and not a sport.Steinitz belongs the same line of Philidor and Morphy even recognized or not by FIDE.

Yuriy Kleyner,in a cycle of a world chess championship you have to beat everyone in front of you to become a real champ.Its different talk about personal results against determinated player,for example Nietzhmetdinov has a better personal results against Tal but he never became a champ.

Greg: "What if the reigning world champion fails to play the winner of his qualifying process? Or what if no qualifying process exists? How does one then become a legitimate world champion?"

You cannot. Until reunification (Topalov-Kramnik), Kramnik had no legitimity over Anand. Kramnik was BrainGames WC in 2000, Anand was FIDE WC in 2000.

Granda, I am a little lost. You obviously consider chess matches to be a legitimate way of determining who is the best. Then if we have used such a match tournament( which invites everybody, you beat everyone in front of you, the tournament is held under sportive rules, etc.) to determine that GM A is the best and then he loses to GM B, doesn't that lead us logically to conclude that GM B is better than GM A? The super very best, or whatever you want to call it?

Yuriy Kleyner,you have the question and the answer at the same time.If player B is better than A ,player B is better than A that is it.Kramnik beat Topalov,Kramnik beat a tournament winner not a match winner.That match was unfair and not representative of an unification title.

I don't think so Yuriy. Granda has a point in that you can only make credible claims of being the best if your performance is superior (by some measure) to all other players. It seems like such an evaluation would also have to be taken over a good stretch of time, probably at least a year, so as to average out natural fluctuations in form and results. Average rating over the last year or two may therefore be a better reflection of who the best player is. Most people probably wouldn't say that Kramnik was better than Kasparov at the time of his WC match victory, even if he proved a head-to-head edge.

Granda. If A is better than everybody and B is better than A, than by any and all logic B is better than everybody. Very basic chain rule of logic really.

Cynical Gripe, nobody is arguing the point you think Granda is making. In fact, it's a non-point since nobody would argue that you can make claim to be the best if your performance is not superior to all other players. Or is it the ALL part that you think is the major point? If so, no chess championship ever included all players on the planet and no chess championship had ever had anybody play every other comer. They all used inference and chain rule to determine which players were better than others. Even if you take the massive FIDE cycles, the interzonals were split and in matches you only faced 3-4 of the world's best. In fact, on his way to the top in that WCC Fischer did not face several of the game's best at the moment, according to Sonas's list: Tal, Korchnoi, Stein, Keres, never beat either Polugaevsky, Uhlmann or Portisch, only played Geller once, etc. Kasparov also missed
facing several of the world's best.

The rest of your points I like, but they are not what Granda is arguing. I agree that an evaluation taken over at least a year perhaps would best measure who is in what shape. But despite Kasparov and Karpov's best effort, I don't think a year-long championship match is a feasible idea. I also agree that Kramnik's victory does not necessarily prove that he was better than Garry in 2000, but such is the nature of competition. We all can make guesses as to who is a more capable chess player, but a championship match provides us with a cold hard objective measure of who the better player was.

I also disagree that average rating is a better reflection of strength. Perhaps with time ratings can be modified to where they will actually measure this, but right now, if I play Bacrot 6 times and get 6/6 and you play him 3 times and get 3/3, I have a higher rating. It's too easy to increase your rating through more victories over lower-ranked players and greater activity, neither of which I think indicates greater skill?

I don't think the ALL part is a major point since we're talking about the best with respect to currently active players. For making such a determination it would be ideal to have the top players play a large series of games against each other in a short time span, but this is obviously unfeasible. Even if such a tournament was possible, it is unlikely that any single player would have a plus score against all other opponents, so you'd still have to choose the one with the highest score overall or maybe the most plus scores.

A point which has been brought up before: Have hand-picked challengers historically been any weaker than those who earned their spot by making it through qualifiers? You could only answer yes with confidence if the qualifiers are very rigorous, and a short knockout tournament probably isn't.

Yuriy, I disagree about it being too easy to increase rating through victories over lower-ranked players. Sonas showed that the opposite is actually true, i.e. the current FIDE rating system is biased against the higher rated players.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=562
Aside: this would seem to refute any complaints about Topalov being able to cheaply get back his rating points due to weaker participants in MTel.

Yuriy, I disagree about it being too easy to increase rating through victories over lower-ranked players. Sonas showed that the opposite is actually true, i.e. the current FIDE rating system is biased against the higher rated players.
---
In theory I'm sure Sonas is correct, but it really depends on the player in question. Players with a mostly 'safe and solid' opening repertoire are going to struggle more to create chances against weaker opposition than players who are a bit more speculative. Morozevich for instance has, for most of his career as an elite player, taken from the poor and donated to the rich.

Guys,i respect all your opinions.I still think Kramnik is an oportunistic title holder and not a real champion.Let's convert Mexico 2007 in a tournament of matches starting from quarterfinals and we will discover the real Kramnik face.But this man just want the benefit of play against another tournament winner to continue his circus.

Yuriy Kleyner,its completely different miss to face a determinated player on the road to become a champ than face somebody who beat you on the
road like Kramnik been beaten by Shirov and getting an usurped place against Kasparov. Fischer beat Larsen the guy who beat somebody Fischer missed to beat,make sense.

zakki,

His results were based on empirical evidence collected from a large database spanning 1994-2001 rather than theory. It's bound to be dependent on the particular player as you say; unless I'm mistaken the result can be viewed as a (weighted) average over all players in the database. It would definetly be interesting to see some results for individual players.

Granda,

It is one thing to say that you wish Shirov got a chance to play Kasparov in 1999 or that you wish there could be a full candidates tournament in effect. I agree with those sentiments, the difference is in absence of them the champion should still be able to beat every challenger he faces in a match. If he doens't, he stops being the champion and the guy who beats him becomes one. Everything else is just pipe dreams that eight years down the line no longer have much of a relevance to the current situation.

Since his "usurpation" Kramnik has retained the title in two more matches and now looks set for a regular cycle which will match him with winner well, if not a match-tournament then at least a round-robin to which all of the world's top players can try to qualify. That is exactly how Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian qualified as the best challenger, you consider all of them to be legitimate, and surely a man who will defeat, to quote you, "a determined player on the road to become a champ" is a qualified champ as well.

cg,

You misunderstand my beef with the ratings system. It's not that it's easy to increase the rating with victories over low-ranked players. I don't know if that is the case, though what happened to Moro and Chucky over the past two years would suggest that it is if not easy, at least possible.

Also, a while back, Jeff was on here and said that FIDE has recently changed their ratings system to where it more closely parallels chessmetrics. I don't know if perhaps that was after the study.

But all this is beside the point. My beef is not with the rating system but with the rating system as a way to measure the best player. If I understand the current FIDE ratings, if I get six victories over GM A in six games and you get three victories over GM A in three games, it will rank me higher. Of course, the actual results suggest only that I played the guy twice as many times. Now let us consider GM B and GM C. Both have played Linares, Corus and Dortmund in the past year and both finished with roughly the same results. However, GM C also played several tournaments of lower rank where he got a really high score. Do you mean to tell me that the current ratings would not rank GM C higher? And is such rating a reflection of who is the better player or of events which are not a reflection of one's chess skill?

I think ratings are very helpful way to look at who is a better player when they show a considerable difference. They are also a good way of showing where player's career took a change, for worse or better. But ultimately they are more of a reflection of too many other factors to be used to determine who is really better.

"Have hand-picked challengers historically been any weaker than those who earned their spot by making it through qualifiers?"

That question to me only has relevance if you feel that the champion uses hand-picked challengers to avoid the top contenders (Bogolubov, Janovsky, Euwe, anybody else you feel did not deserve the title). The question loses all value if the champion loses the title to the challenger or if the challenger is one of the game's top GMs, as worthy of the shot as any other, at a time when it's impossible to have a true candidates tournament.

"You could only answer yes with confidence if the qualifiers are very rigorous, and a short knockout tournament probably isn't."

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, but it sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. We consider the GMs who win the match tournaments to have been the best because they won them. Had somebody else won them we would consider them historically to have been a stronger player.

BTW, over the past 17 years or so, the two challengers who have had the biggest success in their match were the hand-picked Kramnik (victory) and the abortion of a tournament-picked Leko (draw). The much more fairly picked Karpov, Anand, Short and Topalov each faired more poorly. So I guess in recent history challengers, who qualified in a rigorous manner and earned their spot, faired much more poorly.

OK, I am totally confused again. Can somebody please tell me in plain english:

A wins the Mexico 2007 tournament. What has A become? World Champion or just World champion challenger.

Thank you and regards,
Francisco

To Yuri

" If I understand the current FIDE ratings, if I get six victories over GM A in six games and you get three victories over GM A in three games, it will rank me higher. Of course, the actual results suggest only that I played the guy twice as many times."

Playing twice as many games against lower rated opponent would mean twice the chance of losing or drawing which would lose a lot of pts. Thats how the rating system works. If you lose againts a lower rated opponent you lose more pts... so it averages up and the rating is "correct".

If you dont believe me. Try playing against low rated opponents in ICC. Try a few hundred games... I'm very sure your rating wont go to 3000+.

"Both have played Linares, Corus and Dortmund in the past year and both finished with roughly the same results. However, GM C also played several tournaments of lower rank where he got a really high score. Do you mean to tell me that the current ratings would not rank GM C higher? And is such rating a reflection of who is the better player or of events which are not a reflection of one's chess skill?"

You must be referring to GM Morozevich... Well, its his style of play ... strange moves, quite effective against low rated opps.. but could be disasterous against comparable peers. Still, I believe his current rating (#4) is a true reflection of his chess skills.

regards,
zzz

"Playing twice as many games against lower rated opponent would mean twice the chance of losing or drawing which would lose a lot of pts. Thats how the rating system works. If you lose againts a lower rated opponent you lose more pts... so it averages up and the rating is "correct".

If you dont believe me. Try playing against low rated opponents in ICC. Try a few hundred games... I'm very sure your rating wont go to 3000+."

But that's not my point. Again, say Kramnik plays Bacrot 6 times in 2 years and gets (+4-1=1). Over the same period of time Topalov plays Bacrot 24 times and gets (+16-4=4). Now my question is, on the basis of this can you conclude that Topalov is a better player than Kramnik? To me, the answer is no, only that he is a more active one. But for FIDE ratings, he would get more points, no?

"You must be referring to GM Morozevich... Well, its his style of play ... I believe his current rating (#4) is a true reflection of his chess skills."

I intentionally omitted names because I don't want this to turn into discussion of individual GM's real strength and playing styles. Rather I simply wanted to point out scenarios wherein one player would be rated higher than another without having accomplished something that would suggest that he is the better player.

Yuriy,
In the situation you described, yes, it means Topalov's rating should be higher and in some meaning he is a better player. The more games you play against a given opposition, the more "reliable" is your performance. The more reliable is your performance, the more should your rating change based on that performance. That is, getting +4-1=1 against Bacrot (say, 3000 TPR) when your real strength is 2900 is much "easier" and "likely to happen" than to get the same 3000 TPR with +16-4=4.
Watch the tournaments, opens especially-in the start there are 10-15 players with 2.0/2 or 3.0/3 and TPR that is >2800, and sometimes >3000. At the end of the tournament, only 1-2 players with >2800 remain. If you don't believe, just compare the top-10 performances at Euro Cup now and after the tournament finishes.
Btw, the ratings do not say A is stronger than B. They say "the probablility that A is stronger than B is...".

OK, I am totally confused again. Can somebody please tell me in plain english:

A wins the Mexico 2007 tournament. What has A become? World Champion or just World champion challenger.

Thank you and regards,
Francisco

Posted by: Francisco at April 9, 2007 02:09

Francisco, most people conveniently forget to address that question. Truth is that very few will consider the winner, in case other than Kramnik, to be the new world champ. They will start coming up with how you need to defeat the old champ in a match...and in this case will be right. The thing that p*sses me off is that the Mexico tournament is presented to us as a "world championship" one, when it is clear that's not the case. So, in short, the answer to your question is: A has not become a world champion but just a world champion challenger.

If two GMs turn in performances of even strength, and one is more reliable than the other you have two possible conclusions:

1. Both performances are sufficiently reliable to conclude the GMs are of even strength.
2. One of performances is not sufficiently reliable to measure GM's strength based on it.

You would never conclude that because one performance is more reliable the GM who performed it is stronger. That's without even mentioning the fact that most GMs play enough games that reliability stops really being a factor (a 2700 over 50 games vs 2700 over 40?). In your Swiss example, you only have a couple of games, which of course provides a non-credible superior rating and perhaps it would be wise to completely omit GMs who only have a couple of games per rating period.

All real-life measures are an indication of probability. After the Reykjavik battle of 72, one could only say that probability is that Fischer was stronger than Spassky. However, the recent hoopla over Anand or Topalov being at the top of ratings list spoke the truth about how those results are judged: as a measure of playing strength over the past few months(year?). Nobody yelled that "aha, now the probability is that Anand is stronger than Topalov".

Yes, if someone other than Kramnik wins the Mexico tournament, I for one will not consider them the champion unless they beat Kramnik in a match. I also won't consider Kramnik a 4 time World champion if he wins the tournament. But if someone other than Kramnik wins, I guess I won't care that much that FIDE will call that tournament winner the "champion". As long as the new, official "champion" plays a match against Kramnik (and he/she may get the draw odds against Kramnik for all I care) - the winner of the match will be the undisputed champion that will be universally recognized and that is all that I care about. So yes, there is reason to think of Mexico as a fancy candidates tournament.

The winner of Mexico will be called the world champion by the FIDE, and for non chess players he or she will be "the" world champion.

In the eyes of many chess players (but nobody knows if the people on blogs represent the "chess player in the street" properly) the winner of Mexico will not be the world champion.

Sorry Yuriy, I don't get your point.
If there are 2 3000 TPR performances, the one that is backed up with more games is more reliable (mathematically, statistically, whatever you want). ELO formula adopts the following strategy: the more reliable is the TPR, the more is rating change. If GM A wins against a (weak) player 6 games, and GM B wins 3 games, then likehood that GM A is better player than GM B is higher than the likehood of the opposite.

Ok, I will try to be concise.

If A and B get the same score (point percentage wise) against the same field, I do not consider the fact that A played a larger number of games to mean that it is any more likely that A is better.

The most probable conclusion is that they are the same, though the certainty of that conclusion depends on the total number of games each of them played to get that score.

I agree with PlayJunior. And it does make sense. For example, Leonid Yurtaev has won the only game he ever played against Kasparov. Do we take that result seriously? We don't. But if there was someone (maybe a computer, like a Rybka on supercomputer hardware) that won 20 games out of 20 against Kasparov, it would still be the same score percentage wise as Leonid Yurtaev's but we would be more certain that the computer is extremely strong, as opposed to Leonid Yurtaev, whose single game tells us very little about his strength.

It's scary to think about how badly Kiran squashed Besel Kok( a seemingly credible challenge) in Turin. For how many more years?

I am going to repeat this if necessary.

The chess title comes under dispute for at least two reasons.
1. Unfair selection process/system. (short time controls, hand-picking unqualified/disqualified players, knock-outs with insufficient chances etc.). The title is dispute.
2. Lack of participation (due to split, contractual obligations, uncertainities, venue etc.) The title is dispute as well.

Should the dispute be purely on the grounds of lack of participation, a unification would have rectified it and made the title an undisputable one. But that is not the case.

If old tradition allowed a handpicked player to be a champion, the new tradition allowed a winner of FIDE championship to be called world champion.

So, the bottomline is:
======================
1. Either consider none of them champion. OR
2. Consider all these champions world champions. (After all it is not entirely the player's fault.)

How do we get a undisputed title?
- Give no undue privileges to any chess player like what Kramnik and Topalov gets now. (I think, these privileges are given by FIDE to take care of the prevalent view that the title should be fought only in a match. But there is no need for that since the current title is not without dispute to be lost in that way.)
- Include Topalov and announce the tournament winner the World Champion for 1 year to be fair to the Mexico organizers.
- After 1 year, conduct a match between 1 & 4 and 2 & 3 and the winner play for the real world champion.
- Follow a fair selection (Proposal A, B or whatever) to find a challenger for WC.

Rb,

On the basis solely of Yurtaev's one victory against Kasparov you would never conclude that he is not as strong as imaginary GM Zhurtaev, who has a 6-0 score against Garry. We know Yurtaev is not as strong as Zhurtaev because of other games Yurtaev has played and that's throwing us off.

Sounds like currently ratings incorrectly take reliability as a measure of playing strength. Again, I ask, if I play 20 games against 2300 level players and you 30, and we have the same success rate should you be considered a stronger player?

Yuriy Kleyner,do you think is agood idea convert Mexico 2007 in a tournament of matches starting from quarterfinals instead a roundrobin?.I mean Kramnik beating 3 opponents in a row to show he is the real champ.For example 8 games quarterfinals , 8 games semifinals and 8 games the final,total 24 games,or Kramnik needs the easy benefit of wait a sole opponent to defend his title?

"But that's not my point. Again, say Kramnik plays Bacrot 6 times in 2 years and gets (+4-1=1). Over the same period of time Topalov plays Bacrot 24 times and gets (+16-4=4). Now my question is, on the basis of this can you conclude that Topalov is a better player than Kramnik? To me, the answer is no, only that he is a more active one. But for FIDE ratings, he would get more points, no?"

I just don't understand what you're talking about Yuriy. To make things more clear in your hypothetical scenario, let's assume Kramnik and Topalov have the exact same rating. As long as a score of +4-1=1 versus Bacrot gains rating points, then it is certain that the player achieving it 4 times should earn more points (4 times as many as long as there are not rating changes during the series of games). On the other hand, if +4-1=1 versus Bacrot loses rating points, then the player achieving it 4 times should lose 4 times as many points. Finally, only when +4-1=1 results in no gain or loss of points, both players have achieved the same performance and their ratings should be unchanged.

To Yuri

"On the basis solely of Yurtaev's one victory against Kasparov you would never conclude that he is not as strong as imaginary GM Zhurtaev, who has a 6-0 score against Garry. We know Yurtaev is not as strong as Zhurtaev because of other games Yurtaev has played and that's throwing us off.

Sounds like currently ratings incorrectly take reliability as a measure of playing strength. Again, I ask, if I play 20 games against 2300 level players and you 30, and we have the same success rate should you be considered a stronger player?"

If you play 20 games against 2300 & I play 30 games against 2300 and we both score 50%... then (it both of us started with a 2100 rating), we both should have same rating change. Hence proving the rating shows our real strength.

Now if in the same scenerio... I ended up with a higher rating improvement.. then you could say that its unfair for the player who plays less games. ( just one further point... for rating to be correct.. a certain number of minimum games should be played.. so complaining that its unfair for player who plays less games than this minimum is moot )

Yuriy,
I understand your point. You are saying "assume there is some opposition against which I am expected to gain 69%. If I play 10 games and gain 70%, you play 20 games and gain 70%, why are you better?". It might seem illogical, but it is justified statistically.
Indeed, there is a huge problem with this kind of things: those rating systems do not take into account playing style and so on. If there were players rated only 2500 on the Earth, Kramnik would be 2600, or maybe 2650. If there were only 2800s, Kramnik would be 2850 or 2900, I dunno :)
But on average, it seems to work.

playjunior: "I understand your point. You are saying "assume there is some opposition against which I am expected to gain 69%. If I play 10 games and gain 70%, you play 20 games and gain 70%, why are you better?". It might seem illogical, but it is justified statistically."

All it says is that the player playing 20 games has a more accurate rating (i.e. we have more information on which to base our ratings). The player playing 10 games will have a higher standard deviation which means that his real playing level is equally likely to be better or worse than 70%. We cannot tell which, if either, it will be.

Players of equal rating are ranked in descending order of games played as a reward for increased activity.

@Yuriy Kleyner,

I think you misses a detail of how the rating is calculated:
Your rating won't go up infinitely by repeat 75% scores against the same opponent.
It only goes up to the point where 75% against this opponent would be the expected result.
If your rating goes beyond that point, 75% will drag you down indeed, and raise your opponent's rating.

More results (+16=4-4 compared to +4-1=1) just will make your rating change faster - up or down - to that point.

Your argument is valid if you look at only one rating period. If you play a match with enough games you might get the effect you described. You could rise to the point where 75% would be the expected result and rise beyond, because your and your opponent's rating will not be adjusted until the end of the rating period. You may build a scheme to artificially inflate your rating by using this effect repeatedly. But I wouldn't call it "easy" . You would have to find enough willing victims. You may end up having an embarassingly high elo rating everybody chooses to ignore.

Going back to televising chess, I don't understand why the games have to be shown live. Does the viewing public regard recorded highlights as not worth watching these days?

If so, it's a shame, as chess is much better suited to this treatment; the expert commentators can point out the turning points with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps mixing in the players' comments from the post-match conference, and will be able to give a more considered analysis. Not to mention fast-forwarding over the dull bits!

I don't believe the mainstream media will ever be interested in chess again, as it doesn't fit in to any of their "segments" - it doesn't appeal to people who watch daytime TV, sports channels, soap operas, thrillers or makeover programs, and needs too much explanation for news bulletins. (The only exception is if there's a "human angle", when the chess itself is more or less incidental).

Regional stations are probably a more fruitful area, or national stations which aren't owned by conglomerates (except for ones like the BBC which behave as though they are). Especially if there's a big tournament in the area and/or local players are making a name for themselves in the wider world.

I've often thought about a chess channel, but have a nasty suspicion it would be forced to show lots of poker to pay the bills. Perhaps it would be better to start with a "Mind Games" channel with some chess content and then spin it off into a separate channel if it catches on?

This is starting to make my head hurt.

All I was giving above is one example of how chess strength may not be reflected in the rating. Activity makes your points grow faster even if your strength didn't change more significantly than the less active player. Another would be what Bartleby is talking about--I don't know how fast points expire but obviously players who are getting worse can have many a point stolen off them and a young upstart will probably climb faster than his rating. There is also the fact that aggressiveness will be rewarded and I don't think that somebody who is more likely to achieve a smaller edge while losing fewer games (Kramnik, Adams) over top-ranked players to me should be ranked higher than somebody who gets a larger edge over the lower-ranked but does not accumulate an advantage over the higher-ranked players.

Granda,

I like an 8-man candidates match tournament a bit more than a round-robin, but I think a round-robin is a very good way to determine a top contender or two. As for the benefit of waiting for top contender, it shouldn't matter. As long as somebody is the best player in the world, they should be better than the current champion and be able to beat him. The only time it would matter is if the winner of candidates did not have enough time to rest prior to fighting the champion. That has been a problem a couple of times in the past, but it doesn't sound like it will be this time.

Granda wrote:
>>Why chess is a ridiculous sport where the champion has only to wait a final challenger like boxing?.Why the socalled chess champ can not start from zero to prove he is the best?.There are only seven authentic champions who started from zero beating a whole opposition to get his titles SMYSLOV, TAL, PETROSIAN, SPASKY, FISCHER, KARPOV and KASPAROV. Everything before and after them is pure circus.
>>

By your argument, even those 7 weren't authentic. They only qualified for the title match the FIRST time. None of them had to re-qualify to earn the privilige of defending their own titles.

You say this is ridiculous, but you're extremely vague as to the reason why, other than to point out that Boxing does it the same way.

Of course the flaw in your argument is that "from scratch" is a completely arbitrary term, which is relative to whatever candidates system exists at a given point in time.

Forget the FIDE labels, Mexico will in effect be a candidates tournament, just like San Luis in effect was a candidates tournament for the Elista WC match.

Perhaps FIDE/Kirsan has recognized it too, there seems to be a pattern in the following factoids. Kramnik gets a WC match with the winner of Mexico (if it is not him). There are no privileges for Topalov. Kirsan made the decisions apparently against the responses of a poll of the top players. The factoids are not inconsistent with FIDE/Kirsan in effect treating Mexico as a candidates tournament, only hampered by some 'silly' contractual clauses.

I would not be surprised if until Mexico, Kramnik is substituted by Topalov. Since as of late Kirsan changes his mind on the WC cycle every 5 to 7 weeks, he has at three chances to change his mind till then.

I agree with Granda!

Assuming he is correct in what he is saying, those 7 (SMYSLOV, TAL, PETROSIAN, SPASSKY, FISCHER, KARPOV and KASPAROV) are the real champions. Unlike those 7, ANAND didn't get a chance. Hopefully, he will join them real soon!

That activity sees your rating increase faster when you're winning seems logical. If you play a lot and your form goes south, then so does your rating. I don't see any unfairness or contradictions here. Any number of heuristic arguments can be put forth about how players should be rated based on their style of play, success against stronger/similar/weaker opponents, but if you ask 10 people they'll all say something different. But is a rating really just a number, next to meaningless, not a good measure of skill, etc? What about their use as a tool for statistically predicting the outcome of games? This is the basis of the rating system after all. I'm not saying it's a perfect measure of skill, but until someone comes up with a better predictor, how can criticisms carry that much weight? One can always look at a player's performance ratings versus weaker/similar/stronger opposition if a single number is unsatisfactory.

In what sense did Anand not get his chance, PircAlert?? He had his chance in 1995. He just turned out not to be good enough.

Let's say in 2006 two 2700 players starts playing at 2800 level (skill-wise, and both play sufficient number of games to reasonably conclude their skill has improved and it's not just luck). If one is more active, his rating will go higher than the other one's and faster--even though their new level of play is the same and we would guess they would draw each other if they were to play.

I am not suggesting rating is a meaningless number. This entire argument started when somebody, you, I think, proposed average rating over a year as the best way to determine the strongest player. I think that rating is very helpful in telling 2700s from 2600s, the near 2800s from barely 2700s, etc.. When talking about a large ratings gap, I think with exception of young prodigies the system is very good at estimating each player's play level. But I don't think it's as good at rating who is better for players who are close together. For example, if GM A has a very large edge over most GMs, but definitely is behind in face-to-face with two top GMs, who also have a smaller edge over most other players, I would say GM A is weaker than those two guys. Elo ratings would probably disagree.

Looking at how useful ratings are as a tool is interesting. The most recent example that comes to mind is that Topalov should have beaten Kramnik in Elista. This is actually sort of an example of what I am talking about, where Kramnik came back from illness and started playing at a really high level in Olympiad and Dortmund but the rating has not caught on to him yet.

"I'm not saying it's a perfect measure of skill, but until someone comes up with a better predictor, how can criticisms carry that much weight?"

Because it's good to be aware of a statistic's limitation? If the best predictor of the next president is palm leaves at 60 percent prediction rate isn't it still helpful to know what the actual prediction rate is and that there is no scientific link between palm leaf reading and election outcomes? To me the best measure is recent face-to-face results combined with some measure of recent results against other players of similar ratings. Yes, that's a very subjective measure, but it's better than a faulty objective one.

@Yuriy:

Nobody who knows what they're talking about, would claim that a rating difference of 10 or 20 points is significant - even within 40-50 points, in a match it's more about particular style and how the two players benefit from the other's style than the rating number (which says something about previous results against _all_ opponents).

The extreme focus on the number one spot, even when the difference is only a handful of points, is completely counter-productive - it really says nothing at all. According to the rating system, today Ananed, Kramnik and Topalov are pretty dang equal - there is no significant difference between them. The three of them have different strengths, though, but a projection of previous results (against all kinds of opponents) into a one-dimensional measure like the rating, will never be able to say anything about this.

Personally, I see no problem with the ratings not being able to give a strict ordering of the top ten players in the world, for instance. Suggesting that some subjective measure (you mention head-to-head scores and recent results against players of similar strength) would do a better job, I simply can't agree to. I think the faulty interpretations of the ELO system of FIDE is a worse problem than the few limitations of the system.

Also, I don't consider Kramnik's ability not to lose against top players necessarily to be more "worthy" of aquiring rating points, than Morozevich's ability to beat 2600 players. Actually, I'd like Kramnik, Topalov and Anand to participate in more opens - for instance by demanding participation in one open each year to stay "active" (as defined by FIDE) in the FIDE system (and hence, keep their places at the top of the rating system). I think a player's ability to beat assumedly weaker players is just as important as the player's ability to avoid losing against the best players, with the occasional win to prove that he/she still remembers the main purpose of a chess game... ;)

I am in complete agreement with everything you say in the first three paragraphs. Unfortunately, it seems like many people talking would claim that 10-20 points make a difference and that the strict ordering and #1 spot are significant. In this thread alone, we saw a few claims to that, such as that Moro's #4 reflects his ranking or that an average of ratings over a year might be a good way to determine the champion.

I wasn't suggesting that my subjective ranking would give you a good strict order. I was saying that it would do a better job predicting results--for example knowing that Mamedyarov hasn't faced too many top level players or that Ivanchuk does well against Aronian would probably matter more in any sort of match than their FIDE rating.

"Also, I don't consider Kramnik's ability not to lose against top players necessarily to be more "worthy" of aquiring rating points, than Morozevich's ability to beat 2600 players....I think a player's ability to beat assumedly weaker players is just as important as the player's ability to avoid losing against the best players, with the occasional win to prove that he/she still remembers the main purpose of a chess game... ;)"

Depends on what you want ratings to measure, I suppose. Your last paragraph suggests you want them to take more of a "FIDE reward for good behavior" role, which is interesting. But to me when I rank players I am ranking them in terms of ability to beat each other--a player ranked higher would be expected to beat a player ranked lower, if the two were to play a series of games against each other. Of course there is a possibility that player ranked 6 would lose to 3, 4 and 5, but he always does well against 2, but that's why people should actually play chess to determine who is better.

"Let's say in 2006 two 2700 players starts playing at 2800 level (skill-wise, and both play sufficient number of games to reasonably conclude their skill has improved and it's not just luck)."

This does not happen usually. Most players don't start suddenly playing 100 points above or 100 points below their level during one whole year.
For instance Topalov performance in Linares (2690), is balanced by Topalov performance in Corus (2822), higher than Kramnik, or his performance of Topalov in MTel in 2006 (2842).

The performance of players is usually sufficiently erratic that 10 games would not be significant to establish performance.
Topalov finished last of Linares 2007, Kramnik finished last of MTel Masters 2005, Anand finished last of Dortmund 2001.

"If one is more active, his rating will go higher than the other one's and faster--even though their new level of play is the same and we would guess they would draw each other if they were to play."

How do you know that? If one player played 5 games and had 2800 performance on that, and the other player has played 100 games, and had 2800 performance on that, then emphatically yes, the second player rating will be close to 2800, while the first player rating will still be close to 2700.

And also if both players play 100 and 1000 games respectively, they will be both rated close to 2800.

If you want a system that take into account rate of change there exist several of them, for instance the system from Glicko
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko2.doc/example.html
or the system from Jeff Sonas.

@Yuriy

"Your last paragraph suggests you want them to take more of a "FIDE reward for good behavior" role, which is interesting."

No, not at all :)

My point is that the ability to win against a player who initially is happy with a draw against you, and therefore wants to play solidly without taking risks, also is a kind of ability who says something about how strong a chess player you are. It's something about diversity, really.

If Moro does better aganst players in the 2600-2650 range than Kramnik for instance (we don't know for sure that this is the case, but I think many will consider it likely), then I think we safely can assume that a player with the combined strengths of Moro and Kramnik and the ability to "apply" the correct style depending on the opposition, would be a stronger player than each of Moro and Kramnik. Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to give credit to Moro for his wins against 2600 players, IMO.

If Kramnik played more lower-rated players, he might had to add something to his repertoir to avoid losing to many rating points by not being able to win enough games against these "weaker" players, thereby becoming an even stronger player than he is today. The chess fans would win by my suggestion above, and the top players - if they're really interested in improving in chess (and not only "brag" and "show off" by their "elite status") - would win as well, as they would have to adapt a broader skill set. If they can't do that, they are IMO lacking in some respect.

Unlike you (I think), I don't consider the ability to prevail in match play the only "right" way to rank the top players, or to decide who is better. And like Granda has pointed out - Kramnik hasn't gone all the way in qualifying stages; ok, he beat Kasparov (2-0 in wins), drew Leko (in wins) and beat Topalov (which is a less solid player than the other two players), but at the time he didn't cope with the aggressive style of Shirov and lost.

IFF (if and only if) the top players by some method plays against a "representative selection" of opponents (including those who are more than happy with a draw, or those who prefer to generate immense complications), the ELO system (or an adapted version of it) would be able to show who is/are the most complete and overall strongest and most versatile player(s). [Remember what I said about small and statistically insignificant differences in ratings.]

To me, it poses no problem whatsoever that the world champion (selected by some reasonable procedure) isn't the top rated player in the rating system. It would be reasonable to expect that he would be among the top 5 (or 10) players, though. However, I think it's important that the world champion is truely best (with some probability) in the discipline one has chosen to use for declaring who is world champion. (And now it becomes really interesting!)

Therefore, it follows that with the system currently suggested (since we never know what Kirsan will do next), the following players can't be considered completely worthy if they prevail after Mexico and the following title match: Kramnik (got invited by Kasparov and only later defended his place), Anand, Svidler, Morozevich (the 3 latter were chosen based on ratings in two FIDE rating lists to participate in San Luis), Leko, Adams, Polgar, Shirov, Bacrot (the 5 latter were chosen based on ratings in two FIDE lists to participate in the candidate matches), Ponomariov, Grischuk, Gelfand (the 3 latter were chosen to participate in the WCC 2005 based on ratings in two FIDE lists).

So, we are left with the following players having gone "all the way":

Aronian (Euro qualifier 2004 and 2005 -> Winner WCC 2005 -> Candidates)
Rublevsky (Euro qualifier 2005 -> place 7 WCC 2005 -> Candidates)
Gurevich (Euro qualifier 2004 -> place 8 WCC 2005 -> Candidates)
Kamsky (America qualifier 2005 -> place 9 WCC 2005 -> Candidates)
Carlsen (Euro qualifier 2005 -> place 10 WCC 2005 -> Candidates)
Kasimjanov (Winner WCC 2004 -> Candidates: Ok, under a little doubt)
Malakhov (Euro qualifier 2005 -> place 11 WCC 2005 -> Candidates: Ok under a little doubt)

So, of the 19 possible emerging winners, only 7 of them will have gone all the way according to the current system - the rest have had their way shortened this way or the other. I wonder if Granda will agree that the only worthy world champion is one of the 7 mentioned above? :-)

Correction!

Of course there are 20 possible winners, I forgot Bareev somehow, but he neither had to qualify for the WCC 2005 (chosen based on rating/regulations about WCC 2004) - so still only 7 of 20 players have gone "all the way". :)

6 of the 7 players above are from Europe. Of these 6, only 2 of them are participating in Euro 2007. Malakhov looks to be able to qualify for the next WCC (currently in 10th position after 8/11 rounds), while Gurevich might do it with a strong finish (currently in 65th position).

It follows that the remaining 4 players (Aronian, Carlsen, Rublevsky, Kasimjanov) will need to depend on some kind of "freeloading" to participate in the WCC 2007 to possibly become a WC contender in 2009 - given that they don't actually defeat Kramnik in 2007 AND 2008.

Which brings me to next question: Have anyone read/heard anything more about the rules/regulations for WCC 2007 participation?!? What happens to unsuccessful candidate/Mexico participants who haven't played continental qualifiers (Malakhov seems to be the only one so far that is taking care of matters himself, so to speak...)

"This does not happen usually. Most players don't start suddenly playing 100 points above or 100 points below their level during one whole year.
For instance Topalov performance in Linares (2690), is balanced by Topalov performance in Corus (2822), higher than Kramnik, or his performance of Topalov in MTel in 2006 (2842)."

A hundred points, especially for a 2700, is an exaggeration of course. Just substitute a lower but still significant number. For example, Kramnik's performance during his sick year or Topalov's wild and fantastic 2005.

"If one player played 5 games and had 2800 performance on that, and the other player has played 100 games, and had 2800 performance on that, then emphatically yes, the second player rating will be close to 2800, while the first player rating will still be close to 2700.

And also if both players play 100 and 1000 games respectively, they will be both rated close to 2800."

Then say 20 and 40. I don't know the exact numbers for FIDE system, but for average number of games GM play, ratings seem to move significantly in a given direction with change in level of play yet not to the point that they reflect only the new level. Please understand that I am not trying to say the ratings system is worthless.

Gladiator,

I think it's a question of whether it's ability vs preference. Kramnik performs well in the clutch and doesn't too too bad when he has to win on demand (he was able to win to tie against Leko and Topalov, in one case, in the last game, in the other with three left and he unleashed a novelty against Carlsen to seal first at Amber). But he doesn't play particularly aggressively normally and doesn't try to get as many wins as he can. If Kramnik sees an interesting continuation and chooses not to try it, and Moro sees it and goes ahead, imo, it doesn't make Moro the better player.

"Unlike you (I think), I don't consider the ability to prevail in match play the only "right" way to rank the top players, or to decide who is better."

I intentionally avoided saying match in my last post and said series of games instead--I don't think the format matters too much. A series of good round-robins will do or any other format of classical chess, especially with something on the line.

Lastly, Shirov was eight years ago...surely, any system of ratings would have expired that result by now? :)

Yuriy,

I don't understand your reference to ratings and Shirov - the point about Kramnik/Shirov was simply the one stated previously, that Kramnik didn't go through a complete qualification stage undefeated to earn his match against Kasparov. Old news, nothing to discuss, it just was a reflection over the suggested world championship cycle and a tiny "inconsistency/assymetry" :)

About ability vs preference: I think Kramnik said not long ago in an interview that his repertoir was geared towards match play, particularly his black repertoir, in a way that made it more difficult (and less likely) that he would or could play for a win with black, in many cases. So it seems that Kramnik himself admits that he's chosen to focus more on not losing with black (which is important in match play), instead of spending time to build a repertoir that give more chances to score a full point with both colours. Alas, currently - with his repertoir as of now - he isn't able to win very many games with black, if his opponent doesn't try hard to beat him.

To me, this is "lacking in some respect". I see no reason why a strong professional player like Kramnik shouldn't be able to put in the time (or money) to complement his black repertoir with some sharper stuff for use against players "he should beat" regardless of colour. Not doing this, is either lazyness or lack of ability, IMO. The third possibility is that he doesn't do it because his current matching doesn't MAKE HIM do it - he plays so few games against 2600-players, that investing time and/or money to improve his score against them, might not be considered worthwhile. But whatever the reason: having a black repertoir which almost doesn't give any chances to play for a win against players rated 200 points below yourself, is a relative weakness, the way I see it.

Your hypothetical comparison of Moro and Kramnik doesn't make much sense to me, since you didn't consider the outcome of the games; if both Moro and Kramnik would play the same lower rated opponents and Kramnik would reject "interesting continuations" and go on to draw (in most games), while Moro would "go ahead" and win (in most games) thereby scoring more points in the end than Kramnik, it indeed makes Moro the better player, against those opponents. If there is a significant difference in total score, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise :)

All I meant about Shirov is that I don't think the outcome of that match should be taken into too much consideration when evaluating Kramnik's current ability as a player. If you didn't mean that it should be, let's move on.

Kramnik did say in the interview that he thinks his style would be more successful towards match play, but I don't recall him extending his comments as far as his repertoire being unable to get him wins with black--just that he doesn't push himself aggressively in tournament play to win every game. Whatever his repertoire and however he does it, over the past year Kramnik finished with top or near top score in Dortmund, Olympiad and Corus--everything he played, scoring victories against 2600 and 2700 along the way. To say he is weaker because his wins are not with black is kind of like saying Federer is weaker because he does not win through serving his opponent off the court.

I am not sure that Moro is a better player against the 2600s. He might be, I would have to look against the results closer (certainly his FIDE rating score is higher) but to me it's a matter of ability, not results. It's clear that against 2600s a more aggressive player would get a better score. Moro himself admits that he likes playing interesting moves more than better ones, that he doesn't take chess as seriously as some people. (imo, if he would, he would easily be in top 5) But choosing a line to which you see a refutation, in hope your opponent does not see it, or choosing a line that you can't calculate enough to satisfy yourself that it works, does not make you a better chess player. It makes you a more successful gambler.

"If you didn't mean that it should be"

No, I wasn't suggesting that the old match against Shirov was relevant here :)

"To say he is weaker because his wins are not with black"

I can't see that I said or implied anything of the kind. My point is only that Kramnik would be even stronger, if his repertoir included openings which increased his chances of winning against unambitious white players which Kramnik on paper (ratingwise) is a huge favourite against.

"I am not sure that Moro is a better player against the 2600s"

Honestly, neither am I - but when was the last time I saw Kramnik playing an individual tournament where he met more than a couple 2600-players? In Wijk, there were a few, but almost all of them really close to 2700 (and Karjakin and Magnus are hardly the typical 2600 players :)

"[Moro] doesn't take chess as seriously as some people. (imo, if he would, he would easily be in top 5)"

Well, he's actually rated number four at the moment :)

"But choosing a line to which you see a refutation, in hope your opponent does not see it"

I wasn't suggesting this, but as long as the refutation only means that you don't win, it should be ok - if you get much worse, I don't suggest doing anything of the kind.

"choosing a line that you can't calculate enough to satisfy yourself that it works, does not make you a better chess player"

I think this depends - one can be "satisfied" with a line without being able to calculate every sideline or reaching a "clear" position at the point where you need to stop calculating. Sometimes I think chess players need to base their moves partly on intuition or "feeling", even the strongest ones. But I don't suggest playing moves you don't believe in - I hardly think Moro (or other players more "aggressive" in style than Kramnik) very often plays moves he isn't satisfied with, if he doesn't have to, for some reason.

I was just referring to opting for more unbalanced positions as black, maybe playing the Sicilian more often and the Petroff more seldom, at least against "weaker" players. And similar options against d4...

But to turn the tables slightly: do you consider that Kramnik could benefit from broadening his repertoir to include sharper stuff, so as to be better equipped when he "needs" to win, ratingwise or for other reasons? Do you think such an addition would be harmful in any way, or can you think of other good reasons not to do so? You obviously have a very positive attitude towards Kramnik, so I'd assume that you'd like him to win even more chess games than he does now, if there were no drawbacks... :)

Gladiator--

The drawback, of course, is that the time and energy devoted to a win-with-black-against-2600s repertoire would have to be taken from more useful projects: a black repertoire that'll hold up against the very top players; a white repertoire that will create problems for them at the least possible risk to himself.

Kramnik's a three-time classical champion. Give him credit for knowing what he's doing.

"My point is only that Kramnik would be even stronger, if his repertoir included openings which increased his chances of winning against unambitious white players which Kramnik on paper (ratingwise) is a huge favourite against."

Kramnik's record against under-2700s is far from lackluster. According to Fischl, since 2000, he ranks fifth, at 2734, only ten points below Moro. And this includes his bad year when his play at Russian Championship probably brought him down quite a bit.

"Honestly, neither am I - but when was the last time I saw Kramnik playing an individual tournament where he met more than a couple 2600-players? In Wijk, there were a few, but almost all of them really close to 2700 (and Karjakin and Magnus are hardly the typical 2600 players :)"

It should not matter if the tournament is individual--Kramnik played pretty well at the Olympiad against under 2700, wouldn't you say? Before that, it would be Russian Championship 2005, when he was still fighting his illness (I had doubts whether it was excuses or for real at the time--but considering how much he improved after time off, I have to conclude it was real).

Je also beat Jabava with black in Dortmund and Van Wely in last round (must win situation to tie first) at Corus with white. No, I am not saying he is one of those guys who will clobber a lower-ranked player, but I am saying his reputation is an exaggeration.

Again, he plays three tournaments in the past year and consistently finishes at or near the top in performance. Which means he doesn't underperform too much against the players we may call blow out material.

Another word about reputation. It may be true that Kramnik doesn't play too many 2600-level. But do Topalov and Anand play many more? I can think of only one or two classical tournaments for them in the past year at which Kramnik was not present (MTel, Linares, neither of which is a 2600-oriented event plus Bundesliga for Anand (non-individual) and Nisipeanu & Essent for Topalov (which is also not the kind of event you describe) and Kramnik played Dortmund, which I think they both skipped?). Yet perception tells us Kramnik avoids lower-level events.

"Well, he's actually rated number four at the moment :)"

I know. But would you reasonably expect him to finish in top 4 at a tournament at which all of the top 2700-level players was present? Oh, it's possible, but I don't think anybody would bet on it.

"You obviously have a very positive attitude towards Kramnik, so I'd assume that you'd like him to win even more chess games than he does now, if there were no drawbacks... :)"

Actually my favorite player is Morozevich :) No joke. I just think Kramnik gets a lot of undeserved (and some deserved) crap and I feel he is undoubtedly the strongest player right now.

I think that Kramnik's offense is more different stylistically than non-existent. His style avoids sacrifices, dynamic moves, broad masterstrokes. His style is to wait for mistakes, rely on his superior technique and I would also add--very impressive opening preparation and counterpreparation. Would I like him to play more Sicilian? I don't know--but here is the thing. However unsuited you may call his style for anything but matches, however defensive and passive you may think he is, Kramnik won Linares 3 times, and in the last year finished half a point out of first at Corus, won Dortmund and got the best performance at the Olympiad. Damn, does he really need to win more?

Greg:

I'm not very critical towards Kramnik - far from it, actually - I have huge respect for what he's done and for his current skills. And I absolutely cheered his win against Topalov. I'm just trying to look at ways he would improve even beyond his current level, and I don't necessarily think some sharper options as black would harm him - he doesn't have to apply them when he is happy with a draw as black (like against other elite players).

Yuriy: A general remark - try judging what I say independently of whatever "reputation" you think Kramnik has in the eyes of some (critics). I'm just airing some thoughts - it's not like it's an attack or anything :)

"He also beat Jobava with black in Dortmund and Van Wely in last round (must win situation to tie first) at Corus with white."

I wouldn't say Jobava and Van Wely are "unambitious" players that are happy with a draw - rather the opposite, actually - aren't both of them a bit too optimistic? My friend, GM Rune Djurhuus (European Junior Champion 90/91) knew Van Wely pretty well as a junior, and he says that Van Wely is the most (over)optimistic player he has ever met. Of course, Van Wely is older and wiser now, but stilll... :)

"It may be true that Kramnik doesn't play too many 2600-level. But do Topalov and Anand play many more?"

Probably not - I didn't say so either. On the contrary, I suggested a rule so that ALL top players would have to play more players they are expected to have bigger plus scores against - so they "remember" (and get to demonstrate that they know) how to win. Except Morozevich and Ivanchuk, few of the top 10 play open tournaments or round robins against "weaker" players.

"I just think Kramnik gets a lot of undeserved (and some deserved) crap and I feel he is undoubtedly the strongest player right now."

I agree! No joke! Except that I would probably cross out "undoubtedly" above, or exchange it with "probably". But in principle we agree.

I still feel he should aim to become more versatile. Remember, however, that what started this, was just an example where I somewhat randomly (not completely randmomly, though) chose Moro and Kramnik as players with a bit different strengths, and I said that I saw no problem with the rating system honoring Moro for his good score against 2600-players, even if he's tended to "underperform" against the (other) top ten players. I don't know if Kramnik performs worse than Moro against 2600-players (and with 2600-player I mostly mean those not aspiring to break into top 20 in the world) - if they have equal results against these players, then it means that in this respect Moro is as strong as Kramnik (!), even if (probably?) putting in less work on chess over all.

Also, success against the top 15-20 players (which is a rather consistent group of players, with relatively few changes) more hings on specific preparation. The ability to go out and beat a random player with little time for specific preparation (and this is the case in big swiss tournaments, and more so than in team events, actually) also says something about a player's strength, in my opinion. :)

"However unsuited you may call his style for anything but matches, however defensive and passive you may think he is"

This is his reputation in the eyes of some, it's nothing _I_ have said or implied! Go back and check! I didn't even use the term "more aggressive" about other players before you started writing that, and even then I wrote "aggressive" in quotes, because aggressive/defensive wasn't quite the terms in which I was thinking... :)

"Damn, does he really need to win more?"

Actually, if he wins more or not isn't very important to me - the question we/he should ask, is whether he still can improve as a chess player, in both strength and versatility. If there are parts of the game where other players excell even more than Kramnik, then there is no problem IMO if these players are rated (very) close to Kramnik, even if Kramnik would beat them consistently but with a slight margin in matchplay, which I think is Kramnik's biggest relative strength.

Let's just keep an open mind, not assume too much and dare trying out different thoughts. And I still think it would've been very fun (and inspiring!) with five top ten players in Aeroflot Open or in the ongoing European Championship. :)

"A general remark - try judging what I say independently of whatever "reputation" you think Kramnik has in the eyes of some (critics). I'm just airing some thoughts - it's not like it's an attack or anything :)"

Hey, never took it as such--I hope you didn't feel mine were a counterattack :)

"No joke! Except that I would probably cross out "undoubtedly" above, or exchange it with "probably"."

How about we agree on "definitely maybe" as Oasis called one of their albums.

"Also, success against the top 15-20 players (which is a rather consistent group of players, with relatively few changes) more hings on specific preparation. The ability to go out and beat a random player with little time for specific preparation (and this is the case in big swiss tournaments, and more so than in team events, actually) also says something about a player's strength, in my opinion. :)"

I think preparing against 15-20 players is next to impossible. You might develop a particular novelty or two or avoid a specific opening but that's about it. Kramnik did really well at Olympiad though, which would suggest he is not too bad against a random unknown field and I also recall an event about two years back where he went through the German national team in a simul.

""However unsuited you may call his style for anything but matches, however defensive and passive you may think he is"

This is his reputation in the eyes of some, it's nothing _I_ have said or implied! Go back and check!"

That part of the message was not aimed so much at you as at anybody who might read this thread and agree with that sentiment :)

"Actually, if he wins more or not isn't very important to me - the question we/he should ask, is whether he still can improve as a chess player, in both strength and versatility. If there are parts of the game where other players excell even more than Kramnik, then there is no problem IMO if these players are rated (very) close to Kramnik, even if Kramnik would beat them consistently but with a slight margin in matchplay, which I think is Kramnik's biggest relative strength."

How would Kramnik do if he were to become sharper, more offensive? How would Morozevich do if he were to slow down and be more conservative with his opening repertoire? What if Petrosian exhibited wild sacrifices or Karpov dynamic crossboard play? I have no idea...I suspect most of these guys wisely stick to the style they like best and are most comfortable with.

To me, when two players face each other, the better one is GM A--the one who wins more often provided they play a significant number of games. Saying that there is a third and fourth player whom GM B would beat by a larger margin doesn't really change my perception. Unless GM A is specifically strong against GM B and tends to lose to all other players of similar strength.

So, you don't think Kramnik can become better? ;)

I'm not suggesting Kramnik should start playing like Moro or Topalov - just maybe, like, *think* about becoming a little, tiny bit, almost unnoticeably more versatile in his play? ;)

Oh come on, everybody can become better :)

I do think that if Kramnik could make himself a little bit better he should make himself a little bit better. Which is really all we are saying at this point :)

rdh,
Sorry I had DSL connection problems last few days.
Coming to your question, the one chance in 1995 is not good enough. That does not give any one any right to deny any more of his chances after that. Anand was denied to play for breakaway/pca/whatever world championship all the time after 1995 even though he had the right to be in everyone of it by virtue of his performance.
From your logic, Kasparov is not good enough since Kramnik beat him and Kramnik is not good enough since Shirov beat him. Is that what you are saying?