Clarence wrote:Do you know why Magnus is not playing? He is the highest ranking player in the world, right?
After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the ongoing 2008–2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need to go through a lengthy process of preparations and matches and to perform at my best.
Reigning champion privileges, the long (five year) span of the cycle, changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates) that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion.
In my opinion privileges should in general be abolished and a future World Championship model should be based on a fair fight between the best players in the World, on equal terms. This should apply also to the winner of the previous World Championship, and especially so when there are several players at approximately the same level in the world elite. (Why should one player have one out of two tickets to the final to the detriment of all remaining players in the world? Imagine that the winner of the 2010 Football World Cup would be directly qualified to the 2014 World Cup final while all the rest of the teams would have to fight for the other spot.)
One possibility for future cycles would be to stage an 8-10 player World Championship tournament similar to the 2005 and 2007 events.
The proposal to abolish the privileges of the World Champion in the future is not in any way meant as criticism of, or an attack on, the reigning World Champion Viswanathan Anand, who is a worthy World Champion, a role model chess colleague and a highly esteemed opponent.
Rest assured that I am still motivated to play competitive chess. My current plan is to continue to participate in well-organised top-level tournaments and to try to maintain the no 1 spot on the rating list that I have successfully defended for most of 2010.
Will wrote:Is it true that if the 12 game series ends up tied - as it may - the playoff is a lightning chess match?
Will wrote:As long he wins without too much stress, fine, but now he is beginning the complaints about "fairness" that Fischer began with. That does not mean he will go off his nut like Bobby, but he is lining up excuses to avoid being beat, in a public fashion.
David N. Snyder wrote:
In case of a tie at the end of 12 games, there will be a series of tie breaks.
... blitz games provisions ...
kirtu wrote:Have these provisions ever been played at International/Grandmaster level before? WOW! That Wikipedia article has a table showing fast and blitz games results for Anand and Gelfand. I'm taken aback.
kirtu wrote:Will wrote:As long he wins without too much stress, fine, but now he is beginning the complaints about "fairness" that Fischer began with. That does not mean he will go off his nut like Bobby, but he is lining up excuses to avoid being beat, in a public fashion.
Fischer wasn't all wrong and he wasn't really crazy (for a chess master) until possibly somewhat later. Of course all that runs a firestorm risk.
Will wrote:In the 60 Minutes interview Carlson was asked if he worried about ending up like Fischer and he admitted he does think about such consequences. But if I recall, Fischer was totally focused on chess, whereas Carlson has many other interests. That balance bodes well for Carlson's sanity, but may weaken his chess-samadhi over time.