Candidates Tournament 2013

[Ray Sayers]

It is interesting to wonder who may be in the next Candidates' Tournament. The qualification for this one was:
Top 3 finishers in World Cup 2011: Svidler, Grischuk, Ivanchuk
Loser of WC match: Gelfand
Next 3 highest rated players in FIDE list: Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik
Wild Card: Radjabov

So, the question is, who will be:
Top 3 finishers in World Cup 2013: ??, ??, ?? (bit of a lottery tbh). I'd fancy Svidler to be one of them though.
Loser of WC match: Anand or Carlsen (If Anand, would he want to go through it all again?)
Next 3 highest rated players: well, ofc, depending on the World Cup 2013 result but probably from a pool of Aronian, Kramnik, Radjabov (when he recovers!), Caruana, Karjakin, Topalov, Nakamura, Grischuk.
edit - PS I am hoping that FIDE don't have a wild card. A bit ridiculous really, even though Radjabov was a worthy choice.

[Matthew Turner]

I agree with Paul's comments 3, 4 and 5.
I also agree that Magnus showed some vulnerability and would have some questions to answers if he were in the same situation again, but why will he be? if his world Championship games from now on just consist of head to head matches I am not sure I can see any of the current crop of players beating him.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I agree with Paul's comments 3, 4 and 5.
I also agree that Magnus showed some vulnerability and would have some questions to answers if he were in the same situation again, but why will he be? if his world Championship games from now on just consist of head to head matches I am not sure I can see any of the current crop of players beating him.

Ah, but the great unanswered question is whether Carlsen can win matches. I think he can, but there could be a lot of draws and his nerves could get tested at some point. Remember how no-one thought Kramnik could beat Kasparov, and yet he did? But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Anand is the current world champion, and we should respect that and look forward to the match.

The dates are supposedly in November, but I suppose the dates and venue (though some venues have already been mentioned speculatively) really are up in the air until sponsorship and/or money for a prize fund is found (or is that secured already?). Do you think those working on this may be able to generate a larger prize fund than for the Anand-Gelfand match?

[Mick Norris]

Chennai was due to host the last match until Moscow stepped in, and are early favorites

Carlsen will attract more bids I assume, and I have seen New York mentioned

[Matt Mackenzie]

I agree this event has shown that Carlsen - record breaking rating and all - still isn't *quite* the finished article yet. That's quite scary in itself, though

(one has a hunch he might just do some proper opening prep for Vishy, too)

Good to see so many fellow Kramnik admirers on here, btw! He has shown again that he is not just a great player, but a thoroughly decent bloke too

[Matthew Turner]

Chris Kreuzer wrote
"Ah, but the great unanswered question is whether Carlsen can win matches"

Matches are different because players subtlety manoeuvre their opponent, prepare, adapt their preparation, eke out opening advantages. That is all fine and dandy, but the evidence of the candidates (and other events) is that Carlsen doesn't need to bother with all this. He only needs to get an equal position and he can just play and play and play and beat very good players. I just don't see Anand defeating him.

Carlsen is 89 points higher than Anand, so his expected score is 0.62. If you use a binomial distribution (ignoring the possibilities of a drawn game) and say that Carlsen has a 0.6 chance of winning each match then over twelve games the probabilities are very roughly
Anand win 1/6
Draw 1/6
Carlsen 2/3

It is quite late and I might have made a basic error, but as an approximation Carlsen is four times more likely than Anand to win the match based on current rating. However, I would also suggest Carlsen is improving and Anand isn't. Yes, Anand has a chance, but a pretty small one.

[Dan O'Dowd]

Oh I've always been a Kramnik fan. I mean if you think about it from the perspective that Karpov moulded Kasparov into the beast, and that at said beast's general peak Kramnik was already at the same level, which he's opined equates to roughly 2830 nowadays. Then factor in that he's gone from Drawnik Borisovich against Lékó, to this positionally attack minded madman who can exchange sac with the best of them.

I think it's a case of the same situation as Tal and Petrosian were once in. It was widely accepted that if Petrosian and Tal had swapped coaches then all heads would be lopped, without exception. Vlad's just finished on +3 and arguably played more creative and scientifically/artistically beautiful games than someone who's combining all the traits of Capablanca, in the endgame elegance, and Fischer/Lasker, in the underplayed psychology of the game as sport, put together. If he were better able to finish off games, and were it not for his arthritis, we may well have seen him reign as long as his great predecessor. I only hope history doesn't deny him his pedestal alongside those such as Karpov and Petrosian - far too many people chide him as being a second tier world champion.

I think we're still somewhat in an age of equals, just below the triad of Carlsen/Kramnik/Anand. Accordingly I like that there were 8 players in the candidates tournament, though I too on a personal and professional level feel the SB tiebreak is unsavoury as a resolution. Would it be logical to extend the idea of results of direct encounters, to include better score against the 3rd place finisher (yes I know, that works for Kramnik haha) as a first try? I'd say perhaps that Topalov would struggle to reattain his former level if invited to a 2014 Candidates (which I presume will happen, now that FIDE have decided to go annual...). If I were picking players I'd say that Kramnik, Aronian, Karjakin, Caruana and Anand would be shoo-ins, and after that there seems to be a block from Topalov down to maybe Kamsky, any number of whom would be interchangeable in terms of results volatility to be honest. Perhaps Anand will rematch Carlsen for his title in 2014, lose and retire, and then we'll have some sort of quad round robin with the other 4, if the gap remains. I would like to see Giri come through in the next few years, perhaps Quang Liem, and Ding Liren, some more untested youth. My intuition is that Carlsen will win in November, but do a Botvinnik and have to regain the title once or twice, perhaps a couple of consecutive matches with Aronian in a few years. After that, I'd back Caruana to topple him eventually - I may be showing remarkable ignorance but I heard he's like the anti-Carlsen: very much able to play like a computer and highly calculatory, Alekhine to Carlsen's Capablanca maybe. Aronian's age doesn't really disqualify him from a few more attempts at the title I feel. He seems to be one of those Korchnoi mould players who simply keeps improving.

The one thing I wish is that we could have had a tournament like Hague 1948, with Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, Aronian and Topalov, quad round robin, just settle the whole thing once and for all.

[Alex Holowczak]

Carlsen is 89 points higher than Anand, so his expected score is 0.62. If you use a binomial distribution (ignoring the possibilities of a drawn game) and say that Carlsen has a 0.6 chance of winning each match then over twelve games the probabilities are very roughly
Anand win 1/6
Draw 1/6
Carlsen 2/3

It is quite late and I might have made a basic error, but as an approximation Carlsen is four times more likely than Anand to win the match based on current rating. However, I would also suggest Carlsen is improving and Anand isn't. Yes, Anand has a chance, but a pretty small one.

I repeated your calculation, and got:
0-7 Anand 0.00114
1-7 Anand 0.00568
2-7 Anand 0.0158
3-7 Anand 0.0327
4-7 Anand 0.0558
5-7 Anand 0.0830 (Anand wins = 0.194)
6-6 0.158 (Draw = 0.158)
7-5 Carlsen 0.221
7-4 Carlsen 0.242
7-3 Carlsen 0.232
7-2 Carlsen 0.183
7-1 Carlsen 0.107
7-0 Carlsen 0.0352 (Carlsen wins = 1.0202)

Of course, the probabilities don't add to 1, because you're comparing the results of 7 games, 8 games, 9 games etc. to 12, then back down again. It adds to about 1.3722.

After those have been normalised so they add up to 1 (which I'm not sure is correct - I might have had to worry about this earlier in the calculation - but it seems logical), then you get:
Anand wins: 0.141
Draw: 0.115
Carlsen wins: 0.744

So, I make it that Carlsen is even more likely to win than the figures you suggest. I guess you used 12-0, 11-1 etc., but the match ends once someone gets to 6.5 (or 7 in our example), doesn't it? 7-4 the most likely Carlsen win based on Elo.

[Matthew Turner]

Alex,
I assumed that all 12 games were played, which I don't think is any more or less valid than your methodology given that we are talking about an approximation. I do feel that I underestimated Carlsen's chances, so you estimate is probably closer. What I think is clear is that Carlsen is a very strong favourite.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex,
I assumed that all 12 games were played, which I don't think is any more or less valid than your methodology given that we are talking about an approximation. I do feel that I underestimated Carlsen's chances, so you estimate is probably closer.

Maybe my method is more valid then?

What I think is clear is that Carlsen is a very strong favourite.

Agreed!

[Matthew Turner]

You are confusing the result with the methodology. Both methods are reasonable ways to make an approximation. I used my method so that it was fairly simple to do the calculations without a calculator.

[Jonathan Bryant]

(one has a hunch he might just do some proper opening prep for Vishy, too)

I read somewhere that when asked what he was going to do with his prize money he said something like "pay all my seconds". I did wonder exactly how many he had and what exactly they did for their money.

"Oh just play d3 in the Spanish Magnus. That'll be 20,000 euros please."


As for the likely chances in the match with Anand, I tend to agree he's favourite, but is comparing their respective elo ratings a bit misleading? It's often been observed that Carlsen gets a lot of his points pummelling the (relative) also-rans. E.g. here when he had uneventful draws against Aronian and Kramnik but did Gelfand twice.

How would their ratings work out if you only considered games amongst the very top of the elite. I guess it would depend who you counted there, but I'm thinking

Anand
Carlsen
Kramnik
Aronian

and maybe one or two others at different times.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I read somewhere that when asked what he was going to do with his prize money he said something like "pay all my seconds". I did wonder exactly how many he had and what exactly they did for their money.

I wonder if any of those who played in the Candidates Tournament (and failed to win) can be persuaded to gravitate towards either camp in the forthcoming match? I remember reading that Nielsen (I think) had agreed to move from Anand's employ and join Carlsen's camp and help him prepare for this tournament, but on the condition that he would not stay on for any match with Anand. Certainly I think some people underestimate just how much furious work on openings goes on behind the scenes. The amount of work is immense.

And for those pondering Kramnik's place in the pantheon of all-time greats. I've been reading about how Kramnik (or rather him and his team) have come up with a large proportion of the genuinely innovative opening novelties in recent years (maybe the last decade or more?). So that is part of his legacy already.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've been reading about how Kramnik (or rather him and his team) have come up with a large proportion of the genuinely innovative opening novelties in recent years (maybe the last decade or more?). So that is part of his legacy already.

Without disagreeing, would you be able to cite a few genuinely innovative novelties?

The Polish GM Gajewski deserves credit for demonstrating that a Marshall style .. d5 is possible in classical Chigorin lines of the Spanish. Something, not exclusively Marshall avoidance, must have encouraged the top players to use wimpy d3 systems.

[Mick Norris]

I read somewhere that when asked what he was going to do with his prize money he said something like "pay all my seconds". I did wonder exactly how many he had and what exactly they did for their money.

I wonder if any of those who played in the Candidates Tournament (and failed to win) can be persuaded to gravitate towards either camp in the forthcoming match? I remember reading that Nielsen (I think) had agreed to move from Anand's employ and join Carlsen's camp and help him prepare for this tournament, but on the condition that he would not stay on for any match with Anand. Certainly I think some people underestimate just how much furious work on openings goes on behind the scenes. The amount of work is immense.

And for those pondering Kramnik's place in the pantheon of all-time greats. I've been reading about how Kramnik (or rather him and his team) have come up with a large proportion of the genuinely innovative opening novelties in recent years (maybe the last decade or more?). So that is part of his legacy already.

Gelfand said in a press conference that Vlad had discovered more in the last 2 or 3 years than all the others put together - think this was after his novelty at move 5 against Gelfand in their second game

Talking of Gelfand, ratings didn't suggest he would run Anand close, but many realised he would be super prepared,so I expect Anand to run Carlsen closer than ratings would suggest