With not much action on the boards other than that of Pavel Eljanov, who is backing up a 2751 rating I previously considered to high for his achievements, the only interest coming out of this final Grand Prix event is who will get enough points to finish second in the GP standings behind Aronian and thus take the 7th spot in the candidates matches. Topalov just filled the sixth by losing to Anand. There are eight slots, and the last one will go to an organizer wildcard. Since Azerbaijan has said it will organize the matches, at least the ones not involving Aronian, it is generally assumed it will go to either Radjabov or Gashimov, depending on which one doesn't qualify tomorrow.
And who will that be? For such an important equation you would hope the otherwise excellent website would be tracking the hopefuls' hopes round by round. Radjabov comes in with the most GP points already under his belt, but that doesn't matter as much as whose score is "most improvable." That is, who has the best two scores at previous events to add to their third score here. So three good scores in the past gives you less potential than two very good scores and a bad one. This makes Radjabov the clear frontrunner, with a combined "two best" score of 303.3. Wang Yue's is 273.3 but he's down on the crosstable. Gashimov has 263.3, Jakovenko 243, Leko 240.
Astrakhan has seen a total failure to impress by any of the top contenders. Too cautious? Too nervous? It's a very strong event, like all the GP tournaments have been. The one contender with a track record of occasionally dominating fields this strong, Ivanchuk, fell apart early and hasn't recovered. The early leader was Inarkiev, who was on +2 after beating Gelfand in the sixth round. He then proceeded to lose four in a row and 5/6 to fall from first to last in record time. An amazing collapse. Eljanov, who started that losing streak, took over the reins and leads by a point going into the final round despite a pair of losses. There's a huge mob at 6.5/12 and two of our candidate contenders are among them. (Eljanov is next-to-last in the GP standings, so even his clear first place won't get him close.) They are Gashimov and Jakovenko.
After starting out with eight draws and then losing to Eljanov, Radjabov has won 2/3 and need only keep pace with Jakovenko and Gashimov tomorrow to guarantee his spot in the candidates. For it to even be interesting either Gashimov has to beat Leko with black or Jakovenko has to beat Akopian with white. The Armenian veteran has been off his feed in this event and has lost four games, so that's doable. Leko has been very wobbly, but he won't lose with white unless he's trying to win. There are so many players on +1, however, that if Radjabov draws and Gashimov and someone else move to +2, his 40-point lead over Gashimov could be squeezed. Gashimov would get 140 GP points for equal second. Radjabov could end up sharing 4-7 for 95 points, leaving him 5 points behind his Azerbaijani rival. Radjabov has white against Wang "Sleepy Panda" Yue, so drawing shouldn't be a problem. Of course, if Radjabov loses all bets are off. He could fall as far as a share of eighth in this tight field, though he still might qualify if Gashimov doesn't win. If Radjabov beats Wang Yue he's in. I'm not 100% sure, but even though Wang Yue is only on an even score with seven people above him, if he beats Radjabov with black and nobody moves to +2, he could well qualify. I hope that's true (that it's possible for him to qualify) so we have a good fight in that game.
The other candidates, for the record, are: Aronian by coming first in the Grand Prix, Kramnik and Carlsen by rating, Gelfand by winning the World Cup, Topalov by losing to Anand, Kamsky by losing to Topalov. With this logic, I say the guy who lost to Kamsky got screwed!
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq7kQdhTkdnCdFZfR1FEVDA0bFN0d3RTZm0zakh6TVE&hl=en&ui=1#gid=0
Eyal on Chessgames.com has made this spreadsheet about the full FIDE GP results and standings. He is updating after every round.
As Thomas showed on the other thread,
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2010/05/ivanchuk-astrakhant.htm
Gashimov has to qualify outright to be a candidate, as he has very thin chances of getting the Azeri wildcard.
Keeping track of all the possible scenarios is ridiculously complicated, which is probably why the official site has abstained from trying. I suppose we can start narrowing it down as the results come in tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if we see quick draws in Inarkiev-Svidler, Gelfand-Eljanov and Ivanchuk-Mamedyarov (unless, of couse, Mamed wants to hang around and see if his countryman needs him to lose).
Speaking of draws, players have been very creative in Astrakhan when it comes to finding early move repetitions. I assume they are playing by Sofia rules? If so, would Eljanov-Jakovenko (draw in 15) be a new record for the shortest draw under Sofia rules?
Poor Shirov. He always gets screwed.
Astrakhan appears to be the strongest 14-player (8 plus-player) tournament in the history (going by the average Elo rating)...
"would Eljanov-Jakovenko (draw in 15) be a new record for the shortest draw under Sofia rules?"
No, Bacrot needed only 14 moves ... twice at the Elista GP:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1528295
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1529403
The first game gets a special prize, because the repetition was rather ridiculous and the game was played in round 1.
Today at least Eljanov is excused IMO: he showed enough fighting spirit in previous rounds, now he wants to seal tournament victory.
My record after R12:
R12 rating G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 total
6.5 Dmitry Jakovenko (RUS) 2725 35 90 153.5 150 393.5
6 Wang Yue (CHN) 2752 153.5 120 80 102 375.5
6.5 Vugar Gashimov (AZE) 2734 153.5 65 110 102 365.5
6.5 Teimour Radjabov (AZE) 2740 60 150 153.5 60 363.5
5.5 Peter Leko (HUN) 2735 140 100 80 40 320
6.5 Mamedyarov Shakhriyar 2763 105 80 55 102 287
6.5 Alekseev Evgeny 2700 35 85 100 102 287
7.5 Eljanov Pavel 2751 35 20 70 180 285
6 Boris Gelfand (ISR) 2741 85 30 140 60 285
5 Vassily Ivanchuk (UKR) 2741 20 65 180 30 275
6 Svidler Peter 2735 85 90 55 60 235
5 Akopian Vladimir 2694 15 140 35 15 190
6.5 Ponomariov Ruslan 2733 0 0 0 102 102
4.5 Inarkiev Ernesto 2669 15 15 20 15 50
My analysis:
case-1:
If Wang Yue win and Jakovenko not win, Winner=Wang Yue
case-2:
If Radjabov not lose, Winner=Radjabov
case-3:
If Wang Yue win and Jakovenko win, Winner=Jkovenko
Other players have virtually no chance.
You forgot the street brawl that precedes this event (deathmatch).
sorry, my last post is my predict for R13.
Record for R12 should be:
R12 Player rating G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 total
6.5 Teimour Radjabov (AZE) 2740 60 150 153.5 110 413.5
6.5 Vugar Gashimov (AZE) 2734 153.5 65 110 110 373.5
6.5 Dmitry Jakovenko (RUS) 2725 35 90 153.5 110 353.5
6 Wang Yue (CHN) 2752 153.5 120 80 60 353.5
5.5 Peter Leko (HUN) 2735 140 100 80 40 320
6.5 Mamedyarov Shakhriyar 2763 105 80 55 110 295
6.5 Alekseev Evgeny 2700 35 85 100 110 295
7.5 Eljanov Pavel 2751 35 20 70 180 285
6 Boris Gelfand (ISR) 2741 85 30 140 60 285
5 Vassily Ivanchuk (UKR) 2741 20 65 180 25 270
6 Svidler Peter 2735 85 90 55 60 235
5 Akopian Vladimir 2694 15 140 35 25 200
6.5 Ponomariov Ruslan 2733 0 0 0 110 110
4.5 Inarkiev Ernesto 2669 15 15 20 10 50
The other candidates, for the record, are: Aronian by coming first in the Grand Prix, Kramnik and Carlsen by rating, Gelfand by winning the World Cup, Topalov by losing to Anand, Kamsky by losing to Topalov. With this logic, I say the guy who lost to Kamsky got screwed!
Live Top List 24/05/2010
Carlsen No. 1 2813
Topalov No. 2 2803
Kramnik No. 4 2790
Aronian No. 5 2783
Gelfand No. 17 2734
Kamsky No. 29 2714
Is this the best system to find the WCC challenger?
After all the shennanigans by FIDE lately, the old Zonal/Interzonal, Candidates Tournaments and Candidates Matches of the 50'-80's are looking like gold!
"would Eljanov-Jakovenko (draw in 15) be a new record for the shortest draw under Sofia rules?"
No, Bacrot needed only 14 moves ... twice at the Elista GP:
Sofia rules are fine as far as they go, but clearly they do not go far enough! This tournament shows that they are ineffective at preventing Draws.
Draws by Repetition are legitimate part of the game, and often cannot be avoided. However, I assume at move 14-15 both players are often choosing not to deviate.
In addition to Sofia rules, I thiok that a new *60 move Rule* should be implemented: Any game ending up as a draw, and NOT lasting at least 60 moves (which is the standard for a final, Sudden Death Time Control) will need to be replayed (possibly at a faster time control), with colors reversed. It is possible to create an exception for Draws due to Insufficient Material to Construct a Mate (but frankly, that should not be happening before move 60, anyhow...)
The Colors Reversed provision would provide an incentive for White to do his utmost to avoid a Draw before move 6o, lest he have to vye for the same point as Black.
Players would adapt, I suspect. But at least the games would have the appearance of being hard fought, which is all that Chess spectators can really hope for
Even with all this, and the games being replayed, I think that there would still be plenty of Draws listed on the Crosstable. Just not 68%....
Broadly speaking, I think that we should conceive of Fixed Time Controls (e.g. 40 Moves in 2 Hours, or a subsequent, Secondary Time Control of 20 Moves/1 Hour) to be "Regulation" Time in Chess, with the Sudden Death Time Control (say, after Move 60), to be "Overtime". There is simply no reason for players not to play until the End of Regulation, if the game is not decisive.
This would ensure that most Draws would take at least 4-5 hours to complete.
Well, having the # 1, 2, 4, & 5 players participating is a good start. Gelfand is certainly appropriate, and I don't begrudge FIDE for award slots to players who win tough competitions (such as Gelfand did, at the World Cup). Kamsky is a more marginal case (although in Match play, he is probably close to Top 10 play).
Allowing the organizer to award a Wild Card is dubious, but fortunately azerbaijan has more than one Top 10-15 player. It's important not to fetishize ratings: a 50 point difference between players is probably significant, but 25 points is just random variation. It is absurd to draw hard and fast conclusions that a 2751 player is simply superior to a mere 2750 player.
Outside of the Top 5, player rankings are liable to fluctuate on a day ny day and game by game basis.
Its not perfect but from FIDE I'll take it, just keep the matches coming, the more tournament winners, grand pries winners are fine it just means more chess.
Since two of the spots are by rating it's a bit tautological to say the best players are getting the candidates spots based on looking at the rating list. In fact, I'd much prefer they abolish exactly those two spots, for a start. The point should be to play for the right to challenge in specific events with that on the line. Adds a lot of drama and builds interest in the WCh. And, as Aronian and Gelfand showed, winning to qualify still usually produces players who are also high on the rating list. And if they aren't, tough. Wildcards and rating spots are anti-competitive.
If they'd organized decent events in the first place and had them on schedule, players like Carlsen wouldn't drop out and players like Kramnik would show up. And if they didn't, again, tough. But when the schedule keeps changing and you end up in Elista or Nalchik, it's hard to blame the players for finding better ways to earn a living.
Ah that fascination with live ratings again: Gelfand was a top 10 player not that long ago (last time on the live list 13 February 2010), he dropped from #13 to #17 only yesterday with his loss against Svidler. Doug wrote: "Outside of the Top 5, player rankings are liable to fluctuate on a day ny day and game by game basis." - case in point.
And yes, Gelfand won the World Cup - so did Kamsky but his title may have "expired" by now as he couldn't back up his success subsequently.
@Mig: "I'd much prefer they abolish exactly those two spots ... rating spots are anti-competitive."
Is qualifying by rating easier than qualifying by other means? Kramnik had to win Dortmund and Tal Memorial, then hold in London to secure his rating spot. Overall, (part of) the qualifying scheme to the candidates event makes sense to me:
- one spot for doing extremely well in one event (World Cup)
- two spots for doing well in 3/4 events (GP series)
- two spots for players who cannot really be missed (rating spots). Not sure if Kramnik actually had a chance to "show up" for the GP - at the start of the series, his priority was preparing for, and playing a match against Anand.
"If they'd organized decent events in the first place and had them on schedule, players like Carlsen wouldn't drop out and players like Kramnik would show up."
While I am with you on flaws in the GP series, there is also the other side of the medal: Should we leave it to the players, their managers or to Mig Greengard which events and locations are considered "decent"? What if Topailov say "Sofia is decent, not that sure about the rest of the world"??
Gashimov on the attack, from move nine out of a normal position with Black against Leko. Chess can't be that easy.
Radjabov's trying to beat the Petroff.
"Radjabov's trying to beat the Petroff."
Not really ... it was Wang Yue who declined a move repetition, twice already.
And Ivanchuk-Mamedyarov drawn - at least they found a funny move repetition
In that case... Wang Yue is trying to win the Petroff. Strange things happen.
The pressure must have told on Gashimov - his blunder today, 28...Kd8, was truly awful!
Does Wang have winning chances? With Gashimov and Jakovenko out of the picture, it looks like Wang will qualify if he wins (i haven't checked all scenarios, though).
Yes, he was just about to succeed with his coffeehouse (anti-Leko?) chess. Now Leko has what he likes and knows best - a favorable endgame.
Wang Yue may play on forever against Radjabov in a slightly(!?) better endgame. Winning with the Petroff is maybe strange (somehow I don't see a book published with that title) but not unprecedented - see Akopian-Wang Yue from round 6 (0-1, 74).
Wang Yue should enjoy the position. The outside passed pawn should win if it comes to a pawn endgame, and in the meantime the white f pawns make good targets. Radjabov has to defend well to earn his spot.
He probably missed Na8 because he forgot about the control of Rh8 and probably wanted to keep the rook on the open file. Awful for a GM, yes, but such mistakes in visualization happen all the time especially in trapping themes that one feels very familiar with.
"Winning with the Petroff is maybe strange (somehow I don't see a book published with that title)"
http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Petroff-Batsford-Chess-Library/dp/0805026339
,:) but that book is from 1993 and apparently doesn't have a second more recent edition. In the last 17 years, maybe the Petroff became "de facto" primarily a drawing weapon, in any case that's its current reputation. The Internet and the ever increasing number of chess forums may play a role - many bloggers and some blog owners tend to automatically write "Petroff - booooo" or "Petroff - yaaaawn".
Bartleby's comments went a bit in the same direction.
And this is what Dennis Monokroussos wrote about Wang Yue's Petroff win against Akopian:
"Akopian - Wang Yue showed that one can win with the Petroff. [apparently this has to be pointed out explicitly because it's "strange"] Wang Yue gave a clinic on winning with a rook and knight vs. rook and bishop. Black's technique was beautiful, and it's a game worth studying.
Only Radja-Wang still playing. These are the possible final GP standings:
If Wang wins:
1. Aronian 500
2. Wang 389.3
3. Radjabov 373.3
If Radjabov draws:
1. Aronian 500
2. Radjabov 419.3
3. Grischuk 363.3
So actually, in case Radjabov loses, the Azeri organizers might consider nominating Mamedyarov and hope that Radjabov gets to use the reserve spot...
"in case Radjabov loses, the Azeri organizers might consider nominating Mamedyarov and hope that Radjabov gets to use the reserve spot..."
If Radja loses, Wang is in. The only spot remaining (nominee) will then go to one of the three Rajdabov, Gashimov or Mamedyarov.
Yes - I was considering the recent speculations that Aronian might have to withdraw because he can't/won't play in Baku, and FIDE hasn't come up with an alternative venue for his matches.
If someone withdraws, no. 3 from the Grand Prix gets to play as a reserve. That's why I imagined they might not nominate Radjabov, as he might get in anyway.
Radja is through with the draw.
The final GP standings here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_Grand_Prix_2008%E2%80%932010#Astrakhan.2C_May_2010
"If someone withdraws"
you must be kidding to even bring this up as even a remote possibility. wouldn't there be WAR rather than a withdrawal if it comes to that?
Fact is that Aronian repeatedly said that he will not play in Baku, last time less than a month ago in response to an interview by Ilyumzhinov saying that he will ... .
Aronian didn't play in Astrakhan because he was already qualified, I wonder if FIDE would (dare to) use the following clause from the GP regulations against him in case of need:
"18.3 Should a player withdraw from a tournament or the GP series without proper justification to the WCCC, then a penalty of 10,000 will be imposed on the player and the player may be excluded from the next World Championship cycle"
Given the current ratings of the candidates, it is likely that Aronion will draw the Azeri wildcard or Radjabov in the Quarter Finals. Where would the match take place then??
Where is it said that the candidates will be paired according to rating? and which rating is going to be used if so?
You never know with FIDE, but I think the news about Aronian not participating came from FIDE themselves (implying that they accepted his decision).
@hansie: Again, you never know with FIDE, but according to the FIDE handbook Topalov is seeded 1st (as loser of the WC match) and the rest are seeded according to the January 2010 rating list. Somehow, they always end up using at outdated rating list.
That list can be seen here:
http://ratings.fide.com/toparc.phtml?cod=157
From that, I deduct these semifinal pairings:
(Winner of Topalov vs Kamsky) vs (winner of Aronian vs Gelfand)
(Winner of Carlsen vs Radjabov) vs (winner of Kramnik vs wildcard)
never mind, I got the source which has the rules for the candidates matches
http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates.pdf
Indeed Topalov seeded as no: 1 and rest by January 2010
It's mentioned in the FIDE regulations for the candidates event (Section 3.1):
http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates.pdf
But the January 2010 rating list will be used (and Topalov - loser of the WCh match - is seeded #1), leading to the following pairings:
Topalov - Kamsky
Carlsen - Radjabov
Kramnik - (wildcard)
Gelfand - Aronian
Aronian could only face an Azeri if both reach the final.
This is subject to change as - supposedly - the following deadlines:
"All qualified players should sign their respective contract and send it to the FIDE Secretariat by 29 January 2010. Especially for the loser of the World Championship Match in April 2010 (Anand or Topalov), the deadline for signing the player’s contract is extended to 10 days after the match has ended. A player who does not submit his contract within the deadline will be replaced according to article 2.7. [#3, 4, ... of the GP final standings]"
"A player who returns his signed contract but withdraws before 15 May 2010 shall be replaced by a player as described in article 2.7."
"Any player who withdraws after the 15th of May 2010 shall not be replaced and his opponent in the first round is declared as winner."
All deadlines have passed - literally this would mean that Gelfand would win by default if Aronian doesn't show up ... .
Thanks,bondegnasker!
As you showed,Quarter Finals would be:
Topalov (Seed 1, Rank 2 in the January 2010 list) v Kamsky (Rank 40)
Carlsen (Seed 2, Rank 1 in the January 2010 list) v Radjabov (Rank 16)
Kramnik (Rank 4) v Mamedyarov (Rank 11) OR Gashimov (Rank 7)
and
Aronion (Rank 5) v Gelfand (Rank 6).
It is good to see that five of the candidates are the five highest rated available players of the January 2010 list (barring the World Champion Anand, of course)!
So its possible that Aronion's QF could be played in either Israel or Armenia.
well lets guess
semifinal 1: Topalov (beat Kamsky) vs Aronian (beat Gelfand)
semifinal 2: Carlsen (beat Radja) vs Kramnik (beat nominee) ----- what a match this will be
Finals: Tough call. I predict Aronian vs Carlsen
and then Carlsen - Anand :)
In a 4 game 1st round, there is chance for at least 1 upset. As formidable as the rating favorites appear, it wouldn't suprise me if _any_ of the 4 lost in R1.
"semifinal 1: Topalov (beat Kamsky) vs Aronian (beat Gelfand)"
Counterintuitively, I would expect that Kamsky must be somewhat confident of his chances against Topalov. In their match, Topalov won +3-1, but Kamsky's final loss could have gone either way. Moreover, Anad establiished a template on how to play vs. Topalov: avoid anything sharp. Kamsky has the patience and temperament to maneuver.
Gelfand has a very enviable record against Aronian, for reasons that have yet to be explained. Gelfand basically ruined Aronian's chances in the Mexico World Chamionship.
Maybe Aronian has moved on, and will break the hex. If there is to be an upset in the Quarterfinal round of matches, Gelfand is the most likely "culprit" to perform it.
"semifinal 2: Carlsen (beat Radja) vs Kramnik (beat nominee) ----- what a match this will be
Finals: Tough call. I predict Aronian vs Carlsen
and then Carlsen - Anand :)"
Carlsen has to be a big favorite to win over Radjabov. Frankly, Gashimov would be the better match-up to Carlsen, as Vugar is adept at randomizing the postion to create a tactical melee where the typical positional "landmarks" do not exist; hence it is more difficult to navigate the hazards.
For this reason, Gashimov would be the even more compelling choice to be Kramnik's opponent. It would be a very interesting match-up of contrasting styles.
If it is Mamedyarov who is selected to play Kramnik, I think that Kramnik will have relatively an easier time of it. He will overwhelm mamed with "Power Chess".
I'm not dismissing Mamedyarov's strength; I would expect that in a match vs. Gashimov, he would prevail. However, the opportunistic style that he employs is often not that effective against the true elite players.
Hey Mig
Why do you think Gashimov will be picked over Mamadyarov for the candidates?
Big M is rated higher and finished ahead of the Gasher at the Grand Prix.
Thx
I just forgot about Mamedyarov when I was writing that for some reason. I remembered before when we first discussed the wildcard and remembered him again today. I may have been thinking of just Gashimov and Radjabov because they were the ones in contention from the GP. And while he finished a half-point behind Mamedyarov at Astrakhan, Gashimov finished ahead of him in Grand Prix points overall, which should count for more.
As I said in today's post, there are cases for both. Better Grand Prix result for Gashimov, higher rating at the moment for Mamedyarov, who also has more top-level experience. Since they didn't announce any criteria beforehand, they are reserving it to be influenced politically. Any criteria they announce now means they know the answer in advance. Maybe since the matches are at least a year away they could do something really innovative and set future criteria, or even have a match between them. I doubt it though. Politicians are eager to assert any power they have over players whenever they can.
Mig, apparently either you didn't have the time to follow (all) recent comments here [very understandable with baby and Karpov campaign to deal with in your non-blogging time!] or you don't believe what has been written? Some people suggested that Gashimov is on bad terms with the Azeri federation, proof might be
- Gashimov himself saying so in interviews, and
- he was not invited for the President's Cup, and organizers refused to comment on this.
There may be some evidence from the GP tournament itself: Mamedyarov's loss against Radjabov (putting Radja back in contention for the GP qualifier, and Mame himself for the wildcard?) was a bit strange, thoough anyone can blunder in time trouble. And in the end Mamedyarov finished ahead of Gashimov because the latter had to play all or nothing with black against Leko and got nothing in the end. At the same time, Radjabov was only interested in a draw against Wang Yue.
Yah, I've seen that stuff elsewhere, but Radjabov and Mamedyarov have also had their issues with the federation in the past. Gashimov being on the outs at the moment would seal his fate, especially since he's lower rated at the moment. Would be cool to have a match for it though.
Gashimov still finished ahead of Mamedyarov in the overall GP standings. Not that it's part of the Azerbaijani fed's criteria, but I imagine that would count more than just Astrakhan if it were.
I'm not a fan of using "Azeri" for "Azerbaijani." There is overlap and there is some precedent, but I prefer to reserve the former for the ethnicity. Still lots of folks in that country who wouldn't want to be called an Azeri!
Interesting that Grischuk actually finished third in the overall GP standings, though well behind Radjabov. The favorites really had mediocre results overall in Astrakhan.
Basically, Mamedyarov finished ahead of Gashimov in Astrakhan because Gashimov needed to finish ahead of Radjabov. Else, Gashimov wouldn't have taken big risks with black against Leko, playing all or nothing and getting nothing at the end.
BTW, I think your description of the game (in another thread) - a kitchen sink game having a predictable result - is "incomplete": Gashimov was clearly better at some stage, maybe winning, but then he blundered ... . It may be a question of nerves, in the press conference Radjabov had admitted that he was "really lucky" the day before to escape with a draw against Gashimov.
As to "Azeri" vs. "Azerbaijani": Frankly I didn't know that the terms aren't interchangeable, but aren't the players concerned ethnic Azeris? And would the Azeri [sic] federation consider nominating someone who "wouldn't want to be called an Azeri"?
Having a Grand Prix as part of the World Championship cycle is a nice idea, but (apart from other things) they should think about changing the scoring system. It was just too complicated to figure out who had chances during the last few rounds. I think Astrakhan could have had more coverage in chess media, but the last round drama was so complicated that you couldn't present it in an attractive way, and some sites (e.g. Chessbase) simply didn't try.
Actually, if you skip the whole Grand Prix Point thing and just accumulate the scores from all tournaments you get very similar final results:
1. Radjabov 29 points
2.-4. Grischuk, Wang, Gashimov 28.5
5. Leko 28
6.-7. Jakovenko, Mamedyarov 27
...
15. Aronian 25 points, but that's because he only played three tournaments - he would easily have held first place if he had played.
This way, it would be much simpler to keep score, each player would be less dependent on the results of others, and you would have to play four events to qualify - not that I don't understand Aronian's decision to stay home, but it would have been better for the tournament if he had played.
"Actually, if you skip the whole Grand Prix Point thing and just accumulate the scores from all tournaments you get very similar final results:
1. Radjabov 29 points
2.-4. Grischuk, Wang, Gashimov 28.5
5. Leko 28
6.-7. Jakovenko, Mamedyarov 27"
Easier isn't always better. There was essentially a bonus for "Winning, Placing, or Showing" at a Grand Prix Tournament. The bonus is justified, as it promotes fighting chess by giving an extra incentive to have a great event, rather than being risk averse and having a good or respectable event.
If FIDE wanted to reward reliability, then it would have been better to count the scores from all 4 tournaments! That would also have the effect of simplifying the computations.
"As to "Azeri" vs. "Azerbaijani": Frankly I didn't know that the terms aren't interchangeable, but aren't the players concerned ethnic Azeris? And would the Azeri [sic] federation consider nominating someone who "wouldn't want to be called an Azeri"?"
I expect that the Azerbaijani Chess Federation would sooner nominate a non-Azeri Azerbaijani than a non-Azerbaijani Azeri (say, from Iran).
It is to be expected that Mamedyarov (or, less likely, Gashimov) will be nominated by the Azerbaijan Chess Federation first and foremost because of their status as Azerbaijani citizens. Secondary criteria is "strength" (rating, experience, suitability of style of play). Let's just say that Mamed and Gashimov are close in that respect....
Apparently, the 3rd criteria would be coziness with the Azerbaijani Federation, the first two factors being more or less equal.
Since both players are likely ethnic Azeri, we probably won't be able to tell from this process whether ethnicity counts.
It looks like there is about a 20% chance that either Mamedyarov or Dashimov are something other than Azeri.
Would it be an issue if one of them was a Lezgin?
Azerbaijan certainly has a problem with Armenians, but having such a focal point does not entail that there is hatred or discrimination against all non-Azeris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Azerbaijan
Nationality
Noun: Azerbaijani(s)
Adjective: Azerbaijani
[edit] Ethnic groups (1999 census)[2][3][4]
Azeris 90.6% (7,205,500)
Lezgins 2.2% (178,000)
Russians 1.8% (141,700)
Armenians 1.5% (120,700) — almost all live in the break-away region of Nagorno-Karabakh
Talysh 1.0% (76,800) — these numbers are disputed as too low by Talysh nationalists[5][6]
Avars 0.6% (50,900)
Turks 0.5% (43,400) — no distinction is made between Meskhetian Turks and Turkish people from Turkey who have become Azerbaijani citizens
Tatars 0.4% (30,000)
Ukrainians 0.4% (29,000)
Tsakhurs 0.2% (15,900)
Georgians 0.2% (14,900)
Jews 0.2% (13,100)
Kurds 0.1% (8,900)
Udins 0.05% (4,100)
Other nations 0.12% (9,600)
@DOug ...
Just FYI, and no flame intended, criteria is the plural form of criterion.
Just sayin' ...
CO
I agree, in particular there are two "features" to the GP scoring system:
- It doesn't harm much (only as a tiebreaker) to have one bad tournament out of four [Aronian had a very bad one in Astrakhan, not showing up ...]
- There is a considerable bonus for clear first, de facto even more than 30 points (180 vs. 150 for second place) because it is rather unlikely to have a clear first and a clear second.
This first place bonus was Ivanchuk's chance to still qualify, imagine if he had started with 3/4 in Astrakhan and continued to play well and/or successfully - his numerous fans would have become very excited ... . For added drama, let's say he goes into the final round with a 0.5 or 1 point lead and then "does a Leko" losing his last-round game.
This scenario didn't happen (he started with 1/4) but it could have happened.
There is another reason why simply adding scored points may cause problems - or rather there was one at the start of the series: Two wildcard nominees (Al-Modiakhi and Pelletier) were clearly weaker than the rest of the field, hence other players / potential qualifiers would have gotten a variable number of "free" or "easy" points. This obviously isn't enough to win a tournament, but it may affect cumulative scores.
Gelfand did beat Aronian at Leon. Is this the trailer of the Candidates Quarter Final match result?