Qualification for Candidates tournament 2016

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I thought there was a thread about this, but can't find it.

An interesting interview with Topalov published by ChessBomb:

http://blog.chessbomb.com/2015/06/vesel ... st-no.html

"I'll probably qualify for the Candidates Tournament, but winning it will be very difficult. I'm not yet certain if I'll agree to participate, because there are things in FIDE I don't like. [...] It's not impossible for me to win it. But looking objectively, afterwards in a match for the world title against a young player such as Carlsen I have almost no chances."

Topalov also mentioned that he has a child. I missed that news, which was announced back in August 2013:

http://chess-news.ru/en/node/13203

Google document here on the race to qualify for the Candidates 2016:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... zQ/pubhtml

[MartinCarpenter]

It got a mention in the tournament thread.

Not hugely surprising really - Topalov does of course have something of a history of what must have been quite painful WC losses. Mostly against people playing in something quite like Carlsen's style too.

Good to see him seeming quite grounded and content really.

[Mick Norris]

The wild card has to be at least 2725 in the July 2015 FIDE rating list, so the possibles are -
Ivanchuk
MVL
Harikrishna
Wojtaszek
Vitiugov
Mamedyarov
Dominguez
Yu Yanghi
Radjabov
Svidler
Mickey Adams (wouldn't that be good)
Tomashevsky
Li Chao
Ding Liren
Gelfand
Karjakin
Jakovenko
Aronian
Grischuk
So
Kramnik
Giri
Topalov

The latter 2 currently have the rating spots, but that may change, and there are the World Cup finalists yet to qualify too

EDIT - better and more thorough explanation of this here:
Chess by numbers

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The date on which the qualifiers by rating are calculated is the end of this year:

https://chessnumbers.wordpress.com/worl ... e-ratings/

"“Highest rated” is determined by the player’s AVERAGE rating across all 12 monthly ratings lists from 2015."

See link above to Google doc spreadsheet tracking this.

Once the World Cup is over, people will presumably start to calculate based on who is playing in which tournaments between now and the end of the year. The other condition, I think, is playing at least 30 rated games in 2015. Does anyone have a feel for how easy it is for a player to boost their standing on that rating qualification list, given that it is an average over 12 months? Realistically, who is in genuine contention for qualification by that route? Would it be correct to say that if either Topalov or Giri qualify via the World Cup, then Kramnik, Grischuk, Aronian and So are the ones in realistic contention?

The wildcard (no participation or number of rated games requirement, just the 2725 rating requirement) is limited to those in the article Mick linked to above.

[Mick Norris]

I think everyone has now hit the 30 games mark

See CBTN EC R3 recap
from which

What about some of the other side stories? We’ve been following Kramnik and Grischuk’s live ratings closely, and yesterday we saw Kramnik pass Grischuk for the projected third place in the average ratings for 2015. Now Kramnik has been eliminated in rapid tie breaks (which didn’t hurt his rating) so he remains ahead in that hunt, and we now know that neither player will see further rating swings in this event. The chase isn’t over though, both will participate in the European Club Cup at the end of October, and the projected ratings are close enough that even a tiny ratings swing for either player could shift the scenario. Of course by then the World Cup will be over, and we will know whether those ratings matter. This is just the race for third place, after all, so it’s only relevant if Topalov or Giri reaches the World Cup finals. Both Kramnik and Grischuk fans should be rooting for Topalov and Giri (although Kramnik fans might find the former challenging). Right now we project a 52% chance of one of those winning their half of the bracket. If this happens it will make every game at the European Club Cup fascinating from a ratings perspective. The other 48% of the time, ratings stop mattering at all.

To answer your question, Chris, I wouldn't have thought a team event like the Euro Club cup ideal for improving your rating, as your teammates might be miffed if you refused to take a draw to win a match beacuse you needed a win to improve your rating

So, like Caruana & Nakamura is playing at the Millionaire Chess Open in Vegas, but I think like Aronian is probably out of the running to overtake Grischuk & Kramnik on average ratings

live ratings has a list of future events form which I gleaned this info - I am not sure anyone relevant will be playing the Euro team championships in Nov, and I think the Dec rating list is the last to count, so performances at the London Chess Classic won't affect Candidates qualification by average ratings

[NickFaulks]

“Highest rated” is determined by the player’s AVERAGE rating across all 12 monthly ratings lists from 2015."

Nobody has commented on this definition, but I find it incomprehensible. An Elo rating is already a weighted moving average of historical performances, so when you average a series of them you get... well, I don't really know how to describe it, except as a mess.

[Roger de Coverly]

so when you average a series of them you get..

a smoothed average.

If you allow qualification by rating for a World Championship, using an average seems a better or fairer approach than using a spot rating, which is always above or below the player's "true" strength by an error factor.

[NickFaulks]

a smoothed average.

But it's already a smoothed average, that's the point. Why would you want a smoothed average of a smoothed average?

edit : It doesn't make it smoother, just weights it in a strange way, with maximum weight given to Dec 2014 games and progressively less to games played either side of that month. I suppose it makes some sense if you want to know how good players were at chess at the beginning of 2015 and have less interest in their progress before and afterwards, but the people who devised it certainly had no idea of what it meant.

[David Sedgwick]

But it's already a smoothed average, that's the point. Why would you want a smoothed average of a smoothed average?

edit : It doesn't make it smoother, just weights it in a strange way, with maximum weight given to Dec 2014 games and progressively less to games played either side of that month. I suppose it makes some sense if you want to know how good players were at chess at the beginning of 2015 and have less interest in their progress before and afterwards, but the people who devised it certainly had no idea of what it meant.

What would you suggest as a suitable alternative?

[NickFaulks]

What would you suggest as a suitable alternative?

That is of course a very fair question, and I have made it known that if any of the people who should be asking it did so I would be happy to answer. Until they do, I shall keep my own counsel.

[Roger de Coverly]

What would you suggest as a suitable alternative?

It's not computed at the moment, but performance rating during 2015 is a possible substitute. There's the choice of doing it by looking it up in a table, or calculating it using the Clarke method. I would imagine that only players with ratings above x at the start of the year would be included, in case some 2500 GM had an exceptional run of results, scoring 90% or thereabouts.

[LawrenceCooper]

But it's already a smoothed average, that's the point. Why would you want a smoothed average of a smoothed average?

edit : It doesn't make it smoother, just weights it in a strange way, with maximum weight given to Dec 2014 games and progressively less to games played either side of that month. I suppose it makes some sense if you want to know how good players were at chess at the beginning of 2015 and have less interest in their progress before and afterwards, but the people who devised it certainly had no idea of what it meant.

What would you suggest as a suitable alternative?

ECF grades?

[NickFaulks]

What would you suggest as a suitable alternative?

The obvious choice is the FIDE rating in the Jan 2016 list. Until we know their reason for rejecting this - and guesswork here is pointless - nothing useful can be said. We need to know what problem they think they are trying to fix.

[Mick Norris]

OK, following today's results, we are closer to knowing the 8 Candidates (if they accept their offered places)

Priority order:
1. Anand
2. WC finalists (i.e. 2 players)
3. Fide Grand Prix - we now know that Caruana is 1 of these - Nakamura is the other, but if he reaches the WC final then Jakovenko qualifies via the GP
4. Average ratings - we now know that Topalov is 1 of these - Giri is likely to be the other, but if he reaches the WC Final, then Kramnik or Grischuk will probably qualify
5. Wild card

[Jonathan Rogers]

OK, following today's results, we are closer to knowing the 8 Candidates (if they accept their offered places)

Priority order:
1. Anand
2. WC finalists (i.e. 2 players)
3. Fide Grand Prix - we now know that Caruana is 1 of these - Nakamura is the other, but if he reaches the WC final then Jakovenko qualifies via the GP
4. Average ratings - we now know that Topalov is 1 of these - Giri is likely to be the other, but if he reaches the WC Final, then Kramnik or Grischuk will probably qualify
5. Wild card

I have been meaning to ask someone to post something like this. Thank you!