A press release just came out saying world #1 Veselin Topalov has abandoned the Bilbao Grand Slam final beginning September 6. This is quite a piece of news since Topalov's manager, Silvio Danailov, is one of the prime movers behind the Grand Slam. I assume he/they are the ones who sent out the release saying:
For the Organizing Committee, along with institutions, sponsors and partners, the international economic situation has been a determining factor to decide that, in this Final, the budget and prizes must be tightened up in order to be sensitive to the social effects derived from the crisis. This approach doesn't meet the expectations of Veselin Topalov, who also has valued the hardness of the Final Masters. The World Championship that he will play is just around the corner, and these factors have led him to refuse the invitation of the Grand Slam.
I'm not sure what "valued the hardness" might mean, but the bottom line is clearly the bottom line. Less money, no Topalov. This late exit aside, I've always admired Topalov's blunt dedication to earning as much money as possible, and for speaking frankly about it. Chessplayers, even top stars like Topalov, have a limited peak earning lifespan. And changing the conditions of a tournament on late notice, especially a prestigious pro event like this one, is not acceptable. Still, this is a blow to the event and to the entire Grand Slam, which went admirably well in its first iteration last year. Perhaps the loss of big attractions like Anand and Carlsen had something to do with it? And maybe the second time around isn't quite as special for the sponsors. I haven't seen a revised prize fund yet. Hey, I know, maybe they can charge everyone five pounds to watch the games live, that always works.
And how do they know the Anand-Topalov WCh match is "just around the corner" when it hasn't been scheduled yet? I thought next April was about as early as could be imagined. Did I miss something? Anyway, Levon Aronian takes Topalov's place. He finished behind the Bulgarian at Pearl Spring and equal second behind Karjakin at Corus.
IMO announcing that the money is not enough is a clear sign that its not really about money(although the financial crisis is a sad reality).
The thing would be to find out if this is about their match with Vishy or if something is going wrong with the Slam.
Looking back at the announcement when it was set up the Grand Slam hasn't really achieved any of its aims: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3335
i.e. it hasn't found a common sponsor/sponsors, no provision's been made to ensure the top players have to play in all the tournaments, the tournament formats haven't been standardised, and there haven't been any common measures against "piracy".
Nanjing (instead of e.g. Dortmund) joining has, if anything, diluted the series - it's good to have a new tournament but it doesn't have the prestige to be considered a grand slam event.
The only clear plus was having the addition of Bilbao, but this year's tournament has been downgraded to an event that's a mere curiosity.
If the Grand Slam's a loose association then all that shouldn't matter too much and it can just stumble on - if there were clear financial contracts then you could imagine there might be serious problems...
Why even have tournaments at all? I would rather see head-to-head matches. 8 games, 4 at 2 hours, 4 at 20 minutes. Tournaments belong to the 19th and 20th centuries.
Luke - We're tired of you displaying your already quite apparent, vast ignorance. Go away.
I would have thought that Topalov could have played even with less money at stake, Danailov being behind (if not as main organizer, at least very involved) the Grand Slam. I think it's what makes such a strange move to step out the final. Even if i don't have any real reason to believe so, there has to be something else behind the whole thing. Only time will tell, but right now i find it very extrange.
My initial reflex was to nod in approvement of your post, but on second thought I disagree (or at least have comments) about most of it:
IMO, it is rather good news that several initial aims of the Grand Slam weren't achieved - because to me they didn't make sense in the first place:
"the tournament formats haven't been standardised"
- actually I wouldn't want Corus to (have to) switch to the six-player double round robin format.
"no provision's been made to ensure the top players [this meant the top 4] have to play in all the tournaments"
- for a six-player event, this would leave only two spots to others. If we add the 'unwritten rule' that those two spots have to go to players from Latin America and China, numerous other players would be virtually deprived of ANY opportunity to play the top4 (who presumably won't play more than 4 top events in any given year). Those "others" include rising stars (Nakamura, Caruana, Vachier-Lagrave, ...) as well as established sub-top4 players (e.g. Gelfand, Shirov, Ivanchuk, Morozevich).
"Nanjing ... doesn't have the prestige to be considered a grand slam event."
Here 'prestige' (sensu mishanp) seems to be synonymous with 'tradition'!? I would say new events can be just as prestigious if they manage to put a strong field together. So a shortcoming of the Grand Slam would rather be that they 'announced' new events (Argentina, Mexico, Seattle) which then never took place. BTW, anyone knows what happened to the Seattle event? How serious or advanced were these plans to start with? Or: what went wrong?
On Topalov's greed: Concerning Bilbao, there are still no figures known about the 'revised' (i.e. reduced) prize fund. But the reduced sum will be split between four rather than six players, who have to give less in return (six rather than ten games).
And what could be next?
If FIDE decides to have the Anand-Topalov match on neutral ground - which would make sense IMO even if the prize fund doesn't match a Bulgarian bid - could or should Topalov decline to play "because the money doesn't meet his expectations"?
If Corus wants Topalov, should they rather abandon the B and C tournaments and/or reduce the size of the top field?
Two bottom lines:
1) In the mid-to long term, Topalov may hurt himself: organizers won't invite him if they cannot afford to invite him.
2) The financial crisis is a fact, many people suffer from it (losing their job, having to sell their house, ...). So Topalov might accept to suffer a little bit - if, say, 100,000 Euros as first prize in Bilbao is 'suffering' because it was 150,000 Euros last year.
"And what could be next? If FIDE decides to have the Anand-Topalov match on neutral ground - which would make sense IMO even if the prize fund doesn't match a Bulgarian bid - could or should Topalov decline to play"
Well if he would refuse to play the title match it would be his headache, and if he would prefer not to play Corus let him, just like Kramnik declines Linares. His declining the Bilbao invitation isn't such a big deal.
I agree (except about Nanjing) - I was just trying to judge the Grand Slam in terms of its own stated aims.
I don't want to see standardised formats or obligatory attendance either. In fact I don't think the whole idea adds anything to chess - it's modelled on tennis but even in tennis the end of year tournament is much less important than the qualifying events. And there all the players at least have a fair chance of qualifying.
I'd side with the Dortmund organisers in seeing it mainly as an attempt by Danailov to get a stranglehold on top-level chess, which I'd rather see fail.
Well, can his star player not coming to the tournament be considered a failure? That's the most striking thing: in order to help Danailov's project, one could expect Topalov to accept whatever the prize is and play anyway. Is something going badly between them? To me the idea of a Grand Slam would be quite nice, in the sense that it could bring some organization on the whole schedule of top tournaments and thus, make it more marketable, which as we all know, can only be good for chess :D If that means more control to Danailov, i would rather pass. I think he can do good things for chess, but wouldn't have him on top
" The only clear plus was having the addition of Bilbao, but this year's tournament has been downgraded to an event that's a mere curiosity."
Why would you say that ? You (like Thomas) have claimed that Topa haven't qualified for this years edition (even though he won the 1st and Nanjin) .
After all ,this year's edition is a great mix of talented and fighting players , and the fact that the organizers are having financial problems hurts mostly the players , not the audience ( unless they replace the glass with construction paper).
Make no mistake , this will be thrilling event even without Topa , IMO a lot more interesting and desirable than Dortmud , and it still can be a succes for the sponsors and the audience.
"Perhaps the loss of big attractions like Anand and Carlsen had something to do with it?"
Sure did.
Yes, it's a strange situation. I doubt Danailov will shy away from publicity for too long, so we should hear more soon.
I wouldn't mind some sort of association of tournaments, as long as it was without the conflict of interests than Danailov brings. Though really arranging common sponsorship and so on should be FIDE's job - it's almost criminal negligence that they haven't done it.
Well Topalov clearly feels the event's been downgraded, so I'm in exalted company :) Of course it can still be fun and I hope it works out for the Bilbao organisers, but a tournament with players ranked 4, 14, 15 and 20 can't be anything but a shadow of last year's tournament with Topalov, Anand, Carlsen, Aronian & Ivanchuk. Personally I think 6 players is too few, but 4 is definitely too few - it might work if it was for the world championship, but really there's nothing at stake.
p.s. free advice to Danailov and other cube chess organisers out there: why not try and get involved in Expo 2010 in Shanghai? Having been there not too long ago they've got vast quantities of money to burn and the cube should fit into an exhibition like that perfectly.
Topa never said that the event´s been downgraded , it just doesn´t meet his financial expectations ...
I know that qualifying for an event don´t mean that much for you , but the current participants have won the events where Carlsen , Chucky & Co were playing...
Should they still invite top tenners even if they don ´t qualify?
Nice idea ,the Expo in Shangai.
"Topa never said that the event´s been downgraded , it just doesn´t meet his financial expectations ..."
So what does Topalov "also has valued the hardness of the Final Masters" mean, if not that he doesn't think the line-up's strong enough this year?
Re: qualifying - yes, if they want to guarantee a worthwhile final tournament they probably need a more complex qualifying system (another thing they planned when they set the Grand Slam up). Ideally it would probably be more like tennis where you take into account all the tournaments in the year.
Actually, in my opinion the Grand Slam organizers should rather be praised for downscaling some of their initial (ambitious but questionable) aims and 'accepting reality': Presumably obligatory attendance by all top4 players simply couldn't be enforced (if the players themselves disagree. Similar things apply to "Internet piracy" and, more recently, even to the prize funds of Bilbao (BTW, your link mentions "a purse of 300,000 Euro" for the Bilbao winner - which was already down by 50% in the first edition).
I am rather afraid that there might be "hidden messages" behind Topalov declining to play Bilbao for financial reasons:
To FIDE: You better ensure the maximum prize fund for my match against Anand to avoid a scandal - this should take priority with respect to any other considerations. If Topalov declined to play I would also say "So what?". But he has lots of fans and a capable (PR) manager - capable in the sense of defending the interest of Topalov and himself.
To Corus: Pay me very well or I won't play (but I would hope and indeed expect that the Corus organizers put long-standing traditions and interests of other players above those by a single one, no matter how strong and popular he is).
"His [Topalov's] declining the Bilbao invitation isn't such a big deal."
If not for the fact that he is hurting, discrediting, maybe "destroying" a tournament he had created himself.
"just like Kramnik declines Linares"
And this makes little if any sense in the context of this discussion. Kramnik declined Linares because he wanted to be close to his wife and new-born baby - at least that's the official version and I have no reason to doubt it.
Regarding qualification for Bilbao, I actually agree with Manu. And I am rather pleased that Karjakin, Grischuk and Shirov made full use of their single qualification chance - while other players had several chances, an inherent imbalance of the Grand Slam system.
I also wouldn't have problems with Topalov qualifying in three possible ways:
1) winning Nanjing, if this tournament had been official part of the Grand Slam _before it started_.
2) getting a wildcard as the winner of Bilbao 2008 - or, even better, formally announcing that the winner of 2008 gets a chance to defend his title no matter how he performs in the next round of qualifying events
3) getting a wildcard as the highest-rated player
BTW, people may have forgotten that Ivanchuk was tied for first with Grischuk in Linares (and ahead of him if different tiebreak criteria had been used). If Bilbao had stuck with six players, he would be a logical #5. #6 might be Anand (after all, he is world champion).
There should be a rule against paraphrasing someone unless he actually said something.
"So what does Topalov "also has valued the hardness of the Final Masters" mean, if not that he doesn't think the line-up's strong enough this year?"
Think , my friend , it is quite the opposite really, he is saying that the strong field can demand more energy and preparation than what he is willing to invest considering that his priority is the World Championship match.
And besides Topa would never insult Shirov in that way , you should know that by now...
About the tournament itself , the more i think about it the more i like the mixture of participants , i believe some people may agree with me that it will still be a more appealing event than lets say Dortmud... :)
Another thing that i'm noticing is that some of its detractors are rushing maybe a little to bury the Slam, things can improve a lot in the next years, it is a very young initiative after all.
Yes, I think you're right with the interpretation of the bad English... Though the World Championship match of course is nowhere near "around the corner" and I'll be amazed if Topalov doesn't play a harder tournament before it.
Your whole GRand Slam has been Dead on Abierto (DOA). Palming multiple identicalissimo tourneys with overlapping contestant factions churns up draw, draw, draw. FIDE GP (Grand Prix) can't have the dissimilar. Prior Action Item (AI) was correct: MAtches will exact the verities via superior technography. Xeroxing alternate sport methods is thumb-bum Business School monkeying, so Chess needs viable Self-System (SS).
Finally, Anand should chase the FIDE Title toilet-ward, finally preventing your Topalov from his proper vista.
Nice photos from Jermuk here: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2009/jermuk1.html
Plus some comments. Aronian when asked about Bilbao says: "It's not so easy to play behind glass, but the prizes are good: you come last and you get 20,000. Is that so bad!?" He also says he's playing in the Tal Memorial, meaning that Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik, Aronian, Leko and Jakovenko are confirmed so far.
Cheparinov said he's not sure why Topalov pulled out of Bilbao, but thinks it's because of the heavily reduced prize fund.
""just like Kramnik declines Linares"
And this makes little if any sense in the context of this discussion. Kramnik declined Linares because he wanted to be close to his wife and new-born baby"
Kramnik declines Linares every year the last five years because he thinks the payment is too low, as Topalov in Bilbao. The difference is that Bilbao is connected to Danailov which makes it more of a surprise.
"Kramnik declines Linares every year the last five years because he thinks the payment is too low"
Source please.
This is how the Linares organiser describes it, and hard to interpret it as being about something else than money:
"He's played in Linares many times and in fact won it, but lately we haven't been able to come to an agreement with him for reasons that are difficult to explain since they are belong to the confidential negotiations between the parties. But we will keep trying to get him to return to play. He's one of the best players in the world, but he's not irreplaceable."
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2008/02/linares-08-r4.htm
OK, you state that Kramnik has declined Linares five years in a row (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) because the payment is too low.
The proof is your interpretation of a statement from the organizers that specifies no reason at all. A statement from 2008 that specifies no years (just "lately") anyway and that at the very least can't include 2009. Here we just have to assume Kramnik was lying then.
Keep going :)
"interpretation of a statement from the organizers that specifies no reason at all"
No, that's true, I admit that Thomas was right and no parallell can be drawn between Kramnik's declining Linares and Topalov's declining Bilbao for monetary reasons, and I now fail to see how it is possible to make such an interpretation from the statement of the Linares organiser. My mistake, and Kramnik's reasons for not playing have probably been of a more noble nature.
Pretty silly. I'm not saying that your interpretation is a bad guess. Just that it should not be stated as fact and liberally extrapolated in time as you see fit. But you know that.
"But you know that"
Yeah :)
If Topalov could better spend his time to make more money, go for it. If he can't and is instead making a statement, then boo.
It may be worthwhile mentioning that, from 2006-2008, Linares was Morelia-Linares. Maybe Kramnik simply didn't like the idea of intercontinental travel plus jetlag in the middle of a major tournament - but the organizers didn't want to mention this as a reason.
Anyway, Linares is - note irony! - "just another supertournament", on roughly equal level with Corus, (dare to say so) Dortmund and other events. Bilbao is (or was) meant to be and sold to be THE highlight of the chess year.
Yep, Thomas - Morozevich mentioned exactly that:
"After last year experiencing the “charm” of playing a tournament on two different continents, with two different time zones and two sets of climatic conditions, I became an opponent of such “diversity”. This mid-tournament transfer, and only a three-day gap to acclimatise before the start of the second cycle, disrupts the whole rhythm of the tournament, the mood and dynamic. Incidentally, I believe that both Kramnik and Mamedyarov share my opinion. If the organisers listen to our views, and return the first cycle of the event to the Old World, then next year, the “Wimbledon of chess” will have at least two Russian grandmasters." http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4477
That's one reason I expected Kramnik back in Linares this year, and indeed he said he would play - but then decided against, presumably for the family reasons he mentioned.
As for 2005, everybody knows he was still avoiding Kasparov, or so the story went at that time :-)
And indeed it's probably nothing that the organizers would have liked to mention! Of course this wouldn't rule out that money was part of it.
"I'll be amazed if Topalov doesn't play a harder tournament before [the WCh match]"
Indeed, to the best of my current knowledge he will play in Nanjing (with Carlsen, Jakovenko, Leko, Radjabov and Wang Yue). Here one might also wonder what happened behind the scenes - his picture appeared, disappeared, then reappeared on the tournament website.
The issue might be that Nanjing starts right after Bilbao. IMO, this is evidence that the Grand Slam is rather a loose association of individual events, not a coherent entity where the organizers actually talk with each other.
Which event is stronger or tougher, Bilbao or Nanjing? I wouldn't dare to choose, even if two aspects favor Nanjing: higher ELO average and more games to be played. For Bilbao, a lot will depend on "which Shirov" is playing - because his form is wildly fluctuating between tournaments. So we can only tell during or after the tournament ... .
To the Dortmund bashers: Three players of the Nanjing field also played Dortmund, and Wang Yue is also known as a solid (boring?) player, at least in most of his games.
"Another thing that i'm noticing is that some of its detractors are rushing maybe a little to bury the Slam, things can improve a lot in the next years, it is a very young initiative after all."
Yes, there is "room for improvement" in the coming years - I think (or hope) you can at least concede that things went downhill this year [starting with Bilbao going from six to four players].
And "it is a very young initiative after all" applies also, or even more so, to the FIDE Grand Prix - which does not get your benefit of doubt.
"Which event is stronger or tougher, Bilbao or Nanjing? I wouldn't dare to choose"
Nanjing. Bilbao wouldn't have been too exciting even with Topalov playing, the other players are far from top ten.
For me, "stronger" and "tougher" does not necessarily come down to the same thing. To start with, in Bilbao Shirov, Karjakin and Grischuk may draw some extra motivation from the fact that some people (sort of) question their right to be there - despite the fact that they duly qualified.
And how "far" are they from the top ten? Let's look at the live rating list (since August 23rd 2008):
Grischuk - presently #14, peak #8
Shirov - presently #18, peak #5
Karjakin - presently #20, peak #12
And for Topalov, Bilbao might have been "tougher" than Nanjing because he has more to lose. In Nanjing, second place behind Carlsen wouldn't really be a disaster. In Bilbao, second place might be considered underperformance, and might imply losing rating points.
So, while "objective" criteria favor Nanjing, for me the answer to my own question isn't as easy and straightforward as it seems to be for hdghg.
Nanjing has five players ranked in the top 8, hard to beat that. The Bilbao players have done well to get there, probably through overperforming in one event more than through being top top players but it's an interesting event anyway even if quite short.
Depending on which rating list is taken, Bilbao 2008 had five or six top8 players (Aronian was temporarily down to #12 in the July 2008 list after a poor MTel result, but recovered again). Of course, Bilbao 2009 couldn't match this even if the strongest (highest-rated) possible field ,:).
But at least regarding Shirov, your comment may be misleading, almost insulting: Winning MTel 2009 was an overperformance, but not in the sense of "once-in-a-lifetime-achievement".
"Nanjing has five players ranked in the top 8, hard to beat that."
The Tal Memorial seems to have the six players currently ranked 2-7 confirmed.
"regarding Shirov, your comment may be misleading, almost insulting: Winning MTel 2009 was an overperformance, but not in the sense of "once-in-a-lifetime-achievement"."
So if he overperformed as we both said it is insulting to say so if it wasn't a "once-in-a-lifetime-achievement"? :) I think Shirov has finished last in Linares every time he has played there since time immemorial and Mtel was maybe the first time ever he won a top tournament, so at least it was surprising that he won it.
""Nanjing has five players ranked in the top 8, hard to beat that."
The Tal Memorial seems to have the six players currently ranked 2-7 confirmed"
Yes, I meant hard to beat that for Bilbao with three of four players ranked 14th or lower.
Again , Bilbao idea is to have only winners , it is a healthy alternative to most top tournaments filled with the same players edition after edition (nothing wrong with that).
It is a bit ridiculous to complaint about the ¨winner¨ system and praise the rating system (which very often includes local nominees for example), because it is very nice to have both , both are very useful to have DIVERSITY over the year .
"Again , Bilbao idea is to have only winners , it is a healthy alternative to most top tournaments filled with the same players edition after edition"
But these are the same players! Grischuk, Karjakin, Shirov and Aronian have all been fixtures of top tournaments for years. And I haven't actually seen anyone complaining about them taking part. All most are saying is that having more than four players, and perhaps one or two of Topalov, Carlsen, Anand or Kramnik would make it a much more interesting tournament. Do you really disagree?
In this case yes, if it means that they get there without qualifying , i really like the idea (with or without Danailov) of having a tournament with the winners of major events.
At least Grischuk and Shirov are hardly far for top ten; I was surprised to see that statement. Even purely ratingwise, which may have been the idea, they are very close (within 20 points on the latest official list) and have both been there or even closer very recently..indeed as late as on the April list Grischuk was #10 and Shirov 3 points behind.
I wouldn't say Karjakin is too far from the top ten either but that can be argued.
"Winning MTel 2009 was an overperformance, but not in the sense of "once-in-a-lifetime-achievement"."
As hdghg pointed out, it _is_ kind of a once-in-a-lifetime achievement so far, at least if we are talking tournaments :) The match victory against Kramnik was an even more significant achievement though.
It's not like it's his only great tournament result, but as for actually winning a tournament this strong -- I don't think he has ever done that before, and sadly, I doubt he will again. Are we forgetting something?
Yep - to my surprise I couldn't find any other Shirov victories in top tournaments. The closest I came were second places in KO competitions: behind Anand at the 2000 FIDE WCh, behind Kamsky at the latest World Cup. Still he has been part of the world elite (though not consistently top10) "forever", so his last places in Linares can't be the whole story either. IMO this leaves open whether MTel 2009 was merely 'a nice and pleasant accident', or whether it was finally his turn to win such a major event.
"But these are the same players! Grischuk, Karjakin, Shirov and Aronian have all been fixtures of top tournaments for years."
Actually, Grischuk didn't play any other Grand Slam events since (and including) 2006; he got this year's Linares invitation only as a last-minute replacement for Topalov (who had to drop out to play his match against Kamsky).
And of course Bilbao qualifiers tend to be "established players" - or would anyone seriously ask a wildcard for Nakamura? ,:).
What may be questionable (under certain circumstances) is the "winner takes it all" system. Ivanchuk, tied for first in Linares, is not invited. Aronian, finishing 1.5 points behind Topalov in Nanjing, is "suddenly" invited. And, before the last round of Corus, it was conceivable that six players would tie for first - would 0.5 Buchholz points make the difference regarding the Bilbao slot in such a situation?
That's the eternal question with Shirov, and maybe a reason why he has as many fans: he is tremendously strong, but gives the impression he is even stronger. In his youth being 3rd on rating, playing as an equal against the very top since then, and somehow, not fulfilling his whole potential. Some years ago i was arguing with a friend that Shirov would be the next strongest contender to Kasparov, while he was saying it would be Kramnik or Anand, since Shirov's style wasn't positional. I didn't think so, and still don't but there's something that changed at a certain moment. When you read "Fire on the Board" you can only think he is a top challenger, and he's never been. I wasn't that surprised he beat Kramnik in Cazorla, and looking at the games I only saw it was a logical outcome. But Shirov didn't got to the very top and even had some serious slumps (rating and chess-wise). I would be the happiest person if he would be again at the very top, remembering how well he used to play (various Kramnik-Shirov, a famous Topalov-Shirov and so on) and how well he prepared his openings and played his endings. He was truly a joy to see who didn't fulfill his whole potential. Let's hope he can enjoy a new push and storm several players and get back to the top.
Well Madrid 1997 was pretty strong - shared first with Topalov ahead of Short, Beliavsky, Salov and others. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1007195 Not quite Sofia 2009, but should count as a top tournament. None of the then top-5 players on the rating list were there though, and I suppose that is a reasonable criteria in this context, that at least one of the _very_ top players should be there (in Sofia it would be Topalov and probably Carlsen, in Madrid perhaps Topalov)
Just because you did not find them does not mean they do not exist. They do. Madrid 1997 for example.
@acirce and Luke: I didn't search that far back in time - and Madrid 1997 might say a lot about his past (and ongoing) potential, but less about his current strength. It is an open secret - he is quite frank about it in Fire on the Board II - that various private problems (failed relationships) interfered with his chess career. Moreover, maybe he didn't fully recover from "the match against Kasparov that didn't happen".
Also, he may have many fans (me included) for his books, for single spectacular games or even single moves (47.-Bh3!! against Topalov) - ignoring or neglecting that his list of tournament victories is less impressive than those of other top players. All that being said, to me his win at MTel 2009 didn't come "out of the blue" - it wasn't just an accident, but one occasion where he DID fulfill his whole potential. And it honors him that he subsequently stated that he was a bit lucky in his decisive last-round game against Carlsen.
I like watching his games. Usually interesting, very few short draws.
"For me, "stronger" and "tougher" does not necessarily come down to the same thing. To start with, in Bilbao Shirov, Karjakin and Grischuk may draw some extra motivation from the fact that some people (sort of) question their right to be there - despite the fact that they duly qualified."
Nanjing 2009 from live rating:
#1 Topalov 2813
#3 Carlsen 2772
#6 Jakovenko 2765
#7 Leko 2759
#8 Radjabov 2757
#16 Wang Yue 2731
which make it a solid Cat 21 tourney with 6 players, while Bilbao 2009 is now a "weak" Cat 20 featuring *only* 4 players.
The tougher challenge, appear to be Nanjing by quite a margin, 2 extra top players to beat makes a huge difference.
...and this year Grand Slam final is quite pale compared to last year, where Aronian was the lowest rated player in the field!
I mentioned both of your arguments (stronger players, and more of them), but still wouldn't make such a strong statement (Nanjing is tougher by "quite a margin"). I consider a difference of ~30-50 ELO points a relatively small margin, and it may actually be tougher to play a small field - one loss probably puts you out of competition.
Similarly, major open tournaments can be very tough (one loss could already mean 'out of prize money'). And a higher ELO is no guarantee for success - ask Mamedyarov about Aeroflot ... .
Karjakin won Corus, but in all the Grand Prix tournaments he has ended up in the middle of the fields or worse. He is almost a year older than Carlsen but not top 20 at the moment. A great player anyway, of course. Shirov won Mtel but that was the first time in his life that he won a really strong tournament, and that after almost 20 years in them. Grischuk, just like Shirov and Karjakin, had never won a top tournament either.
These three players had the tournament of their lives (this far) when they qualified. Apart from everything else Bilbao consists of just six games. It isn't exactly a difficult comparison to make, Nanjing is just much stronger.
IMO there is not much sense on comparing Nanjin with Bilbao , mostly because one is a qualifier for the other ...
That ´s what ¨Master´s final¨ means , isn´t it ?
A final instance where the ¨winners¨ of the year decides who is ¨THE¨ winner of the year.
Of course that it would be nice to have Anand or Topa there , Kramnik could have make this year if Dortmud were part of the Slam ...
Bilbao is a unique concept in many ways , it just doesn´t sound right to lose one of it´s key ingredients : fairness .
It doesn´t matter if your rating is 3100 or if you are well conected : you have to WIN a big tournament to be there .
That aura of fairness, makes it one of the more interesting tournaments of the year , and i have no doubt that with this mix of players we wont be asking about the pillow concession like in other events.
For all the pseudo-psycologyc speculations about his win in Sofia , i will be cheering for Alexei this time , i hope he wins it , he deserves it.
"Bilbao is a unique concept in many ways , it just doesn´t sound right to lose one of it´s key ingredients : fairness .
It doesn´t matter if your rating is 3100 or if you are well conected : you have to WIN a big tournament to be there."
The only Bilbao we've had so far was won by someone who didn't qualify, didn't have an especially good rating at the time and was very well connected.
Plus you can't win one of the Grand Slam tournaments without first being allowed to play there. And for that you do need either high ratings or good connections - and it's no more balanced or fair than anything else in chess.
That said I agree with you that a "winners" tournament is a nice idea, though ideally selected from e.g. 6 tournaments. Just as long as they don't try to claim that it's more important than it is.
The moment they try to claim it's a world championship or something then you immediately get into all the problems FIDE's event has. You'd have to really make sure the qualification was fair (everyone plays in the same no. of tournaments, has equal chances etc. etc.). It'd all end in tears.
¨The only Bilbao we've had so far was won by someone who didn't qualify, didn't have an especially good rating at the time and was very well connected.¨
That is exactly what im saying... i like and respect this edition a lot more than the one that Topalov won ..., although the guy crushed everyones heads in that event.
The sicilian against Carlsen with Topa going the long way was a joy to watch.
¨Plus you can't win one of the Grand Slam tournaments without first being allowed to play there¨
Of course , that´s why i was talking about an ¨aura of fairness¨ , completely fairness is just utopia, this is just nicely close.
IMHO If you add Dortmud , London an the Tal memorial (all qualifiers to Bilbao) ,the winner of Bilbao would be a worthy challenger for the world champion (in a match).
On top of that i would add a special tournament with players selected from zonal competitions , to reduce the damage of bias and conections.
At last Bilbao would have 8 players and it would be a hell of a tournament.
¨The only Bilbao we've had so far was won by someone who didn't qualify, didn't have an especially good rating at the time and was very well connected.¨
On the other hand Topalov did have a especially good rating at that time , he end up Bilbao being number one again...
If it's going to be a qualifier for a match with the world champion you'd really want to return to a points system - so that someone who finished second in all the tournaments would qualify in place of someone who won one tournament but failed in all the others. But generally I think there are too many problems - how do you go about ensuring all the players have a fair chance of playing in the tournaments, and that each tournament is of comparable difficulty!? Presumably each player should only play e.g. 4, but how do you tell Linares that either Anand or Topalov can't play because they've played elsewhere. You'll get into the mess the FIDE system is in, only worse.
But just assuming a fair qualifying system for Bilbao could be set up... I really think you'd need more of a match tournament - i.e. it should have maybe 5 players but they should play each other at least 4 times. Then you can really be much more confident of picking out the best challenger.
Again, I like the idea of Bilbao as a fun and prestigious tournament taking the winner (or 2nd, 3rd etc.) of 8 tournaments. It's just if you make it a qualifying tournament that it becomes a nightmare.
"On the other hand Topalov did have a especially good rating at that time , he end up Bilbao being number one again..."
But in July, and I think before Bilbao, he was only no. 5. Good, of course, but not good enough to mean that there was any real reason to invite him to the tournament instead of e.g. Morozevich (maybe he was invited, I don't know).
IMO it would not be necesary to enforce limits of participation for the GMs , 7 tournaments (plus the always democratic zonal)are enough invitations to ensure that no important player is left behind.
Since there are no points added for playing in all events i don´t think that we would see the same faces in all tournaments , i believe the involved GMs would choose carefull were to invest their energies and preparation.
If a player feels discriminated (which it shouldnt happen if FIDE does its job) , he can always win his zone and qualify for the ¨rest of the world¨ tournament.
I know is not completely fair , but it is representative enough for my taste.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I am less negative concerning "FIDE's event" (guess you mean the Grand Prix). First a disclaimer: I am also not 'fond of' changing regulations in the middle of an ongoing cycle. But beyond that, the Grand Prix has several thing which you (and I) are missing in the Grand Slam - if it was to be comparable to a World Championship ["in reality", not only in Danailov's world]:
1) The invitation system is as balanced and transparent as it can be. Those top players who don't participate (Topalov, Anand, Kramnik, Carlsen, Shirov, Morozevich) made their own choices. And the wildcards [which you need because organizers want them] either don't play an important role (Al-Modiakhi) or add an element of surprise (Gashimov).
2) All players DO participate in the same number of events. IMO this guarantees equal chances, or do you (mishanp) have something else in mind?
Some further differences:
3) Until now, all GP tournaments took place (though not at the initial locations) - I would give FIDE "the benefit of doubt" for the last event. For the Grand Slam, various tournaments (Mexico, Argentina, Seattle) were announced and then did not happen.
4) The GP has a different qualification system, based on overall performance and allowing for one negative outlier - of course this is only possible if 2) above is a given. The "winner takes it all" approach of the Grand Slam emphasizes one positive outlier. Both approaches or philosophies are legitimate - even if the Grand Slam system is a bit unfair to Ivanchuk (shared 1st in Linares).
For me, the fundamental problem with the Grand Prix is that you're trying to fit 5 or 6 extra tournaments without any tradition into an already fairly busy chess schedule. It's hard to find decent sponsors/prize funds, or time, and it's hard to expect the top players to commit to it.
The Grand Slam would immediately have the benefit that these are tournaments the top players would want to take part in - but then you have the problem that you'd have to totally change the format of the tournaments (increasing/decreasing the number of participants, blocking the top players from taking part in too many etc.) to fit them into a system like the Grand Prix. I don't think it's practical.
What's wrong with candidates matches anyway? :)
I see your point, but then (as you say) a world championship [qualifier] cannot be left to private tournament organizers. Obviously they will always insist on the right or privilege to invite whomever they want, fair enough for private tournaments.
IMO, the first thing which would need to be changed is having larger fields (14 players as for Corus and GP tournaments). But 6 player double round robins become ever more popular, presumably for two reasons:
- they are less expensive, or rather: whatever budget one has becomes more attractive for top players if they get a larger piece of the cake.
- it's easier to obtain the highest possible category.
Another thing: the tournament schedule IS busy, but apparently there is still room for events that are either new (Nanjing, San Sebastian, London, even MTel doesn't have much 'tradition') or stronger than ever this year (Biel, Bazna). BTW, I don't know for how long the Tal Memorial is around - but this year's field also seems to be stronger than ever.
"What's wrong with candidates matches anyway? :)
Along your line of argument: difficult to fit into the chess schedule, difficult to find sponsors!?
How many thousands of times are we going to see this repetitive debate? Duh ... why are 6-player double round robins more important? Duh, I don't know, why? Duh, because ....
I don't think we've ever actually had a debate on the Grand Slam v. the Grand Prix as a World Championship qualifier, but yeah, it's not the most pressing thing in life.
Forgive me, I fed the troll.
Something missing from the (original) debate has just appeared on http://schach.twoday.net (in German), the Bilbao 2009 prize fund:
20,000 Euro appearance fee for each player (or prize money for 4th and last place, whatever one prefers), plus 15,000/10,000/5,000 for 1st-3rd place. Indeed much less than the total 400,000 Euro prize fund in 2008.
2011 spring http://www.ratdress.com/prom-dress-function-occasion.html prom dresses embrace straightforward but elegant themes. Understated a-line wedding gowns, created from chiffon and http://www.ratdress.com/muslim-wedding-dress-wedding-dress-function-occasion.html formal wedding dresses by embroidered crystals, totally show brides' feminine and graceful temperament. Details like handmade beads, silk satin and crystal embroidery appear stunning. Classic tight bodice is matched having a classically large hem and arc on the waistline aid this http://www.ratdress.com/2011-hot-sell-taffeta-wedding-bridesmaid-dress-sweetheart-strapless-neckline-with-a-line-01511.html pink bridesmaid dresses seem fresh, http://www.ratdress.com/champagne-casual-strapless-ruffle-long-evening-formal-bridesmaid-dresses-chiffon-summer-weddings-01977.html navy evening dresses and eous.
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net
A very nice post, thank you for this article as I learn something interesting