London Candidates?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:39 pm

LawrenceCooper wrote:
Jonathan Bryant wrote: Sad to say, but we just don't have anybody who can compete at the very highest level these days.
Apart from ....
Lawrence, I could go through your examples one by one, but I'm not sure there's any real point. I think you're confusing "the very highest level" with "high level". The Candidates' tournament is a notch (at least) above the London Chess Classic let alone Gibralter or Wijk 'C' or what have you.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:50 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Going back in time, we had the 1983 Kasparov-Korchnoi Candidates match (plus Smyslov-Ribli) and the 1986 Karpov-Kasparov. Also the 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik, although that didn't get so much attention, being more noted for journalists being banned.
I must have missed that at the time: were (some) journalists banned from the London KK match in 2000?
Could you add more detail on that? Personal curiosity.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5373
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: London Candidates?

Post by LawrenceCooper » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:17 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
LawrenceCooper wrote:
Jonathan Bryant wrote: Sad to say, but we just don't have anybody who can compete at the very highest level these days.
Apart from ....
Lawrence, I could go through your examples one by one, but I'm not sure there's any real point. I think you're confusing "the very highest level" with "high level". The Candidates' tournament is a notch (at least) above the London Chess Classic let alone Gibralter or Wijk 'C' or what have you.
Yes, I was confusing having a higher performance than Levon Aronian, the world number two, Teimour Radjabov, the world number five, Veselin Topolov, the world number six, and beating Vassily Ivanchuk, the world number eight, to win his medal with the very highest level. The very highest level must be Magnus Carlsen who lost to both Michael and Luke in 2010.

Maybe we have different ideas of what the word competes means. To me competing means playing against them with a realistic chance of success. I'm not saying any of the English players would win the event, but I'm saying they could compete against all of the players.

I would admit that Michael Adams would have a better chance in individual matches than a tournament as he is very hard to beat which is more suited to match play compared to making a big plus score but I don't see any reason why he wouldn't give a credible performance if the organisers decided to select an English player. He certainly wouldn't be the rank outsider that some host players are.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19264
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:28 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote: I must have missed that at the time: were (some) journalists banned from the London KK match in 2000?
Could you add more detail on that? Personal curiosity.
You could Google "Free the Henderson One" or directly
http://www.scr-kuppenheim.de/heco/letter1.html

It involved the then Chess Correspondent of the Scotsman, the Brain Games CEO and, believe it or not Eric Schiller/ Ray Keene.

Also from the man himself
http://www.chess.co.uk/wcc2000/r5.html

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:56 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: A parallel comes to mind of an organisation flattered by money, entering into a dubious partnership, namely cricket and Stanford.
An example closer to home comes to mind also. Malc quite amusing on twitter re: London Candidates. https://twitter.com/#!/IM_MPein_chess/s ... 7089370112


In other news ...
LawrenceCooper wrote: Maybe we have different ideas of what the word competes means.
Perhaps, but I think it more likely we have a different view of what "the very highest level" means. Beating anybody, even Carlsen, in a single game doesn't count. The very highest level, to me anyway, means taking on the very best game after game. It means, for example, considering the London Chess Classic results only against the visiting players not the home team.

Team events don't count either, I'm afraid (for the simple reason that they're not individual events and are, therefore, different). Not even when they're exceptional individual performances.

Adams was certainly once able to compete at the very highest level. Not now though, I'm afraid. As for Nigel Short, not even he thinks he can any more (see the latest NiC Jonathan Rogers cited earlier).

Luke maybe could if he didn't have another job, but he does so it seems we'll never find out.

James Byrne
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by James Byrne » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:00 pm

...
Last edited by James Byrne on Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5373
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: London Candidates?

Post by LawrenceCooper » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:10 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote: A parallel comes to mind of an organisation flattered by money, entering into a dubious partnership, namely cricket and Stanford.
An example closer to home comes to mind also. Malc quite amusing on twitter re: London Candidates. https://twitter.com/#!/IM_MPein_chess/s ... 7089370112


In other news ...
LawrenceCooper wrote: Maybe we have different ideas of what the word competes means.
Perhaps, but I think it more likely we have a different view of what "the very highest level" means. Beating anybody, even Carlsen, in a single game doesn't count. The very highest level, to me anyway, means taking on the very best game after game. It means, for example, considering the London Chess Classic results only against the visiting players not the home team.

Team events don't count either, I'm afraid (for the simple reason that they're not individual events and are, therefore, different). Not even when they're exceptional individual performances.

Adams was certainly once able to compete at the very highest level. Not now though, I'm afraid. As for Nigel Short, not even he thinks he can any more (see the latest NiC Jonathan Rogers cited earlier).

Luke maybe could if he didn't have another job, but he does so it seems we'll never find out.
I confess it is rather difficult for English players to prove themselves if we can't count the European Team or Olympiad, The London Chess Classic, Wijk-aan-Zee, Gibraltar, Bundesliga, French League or 4NCL. :?

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:11 pm

James Byrne wrote: ... it would have generated some great publicity for Chess in England if marketed right i.e. the whole underdog concept. Also would have added a bit of romance/magic to the event.
Actually this bit of your post I fully agree with. It's just that it's not the London Chess Classic, it's the World Chess Championship Candidates' tournament. If the World Championship title is to mean anything, the people who end up playing for it should be chosen on merit. They should be the best the world has - by whatever criteria you choose to use. No other factors should come into it.

As Paul says, if a Wildcard is the cost of getting the tournament on then so be it. That (and the fact that it's happened before) doesn't mean it's a 'good' system though.


As for the first part of your post, well I'm considerably less optimistic than you on that score. Out of interest, why do you think that a British player would do better against the World elite at the Candidates' tournament compared to the results our home players achieved during the three years of the London Chess Classic?
LawrenceCooper wrote: I confess it is rather difficult for English players to prove themselves if we can't count the European Team or Olympiad, The London Chess Classic, Wijk-aan-Zee, Gibraltar, Bundesliga, French League or 4NCL. :?

Lawrence, I didn't say we can't count them. I *am* counting them ... and discounting the games that aren't played against the very best in an individual tournament situation. Count the LCC games against the foreign players - who are amongst the elite - and you get a very different story to that you end up with when you count scores against the home players - who aren't.

At the end of the day, if English players were still putting in top (by which I mean the very top) level performances against the other very top players they'd be at the top of the elo list. They're not though are they.
Last edited by Jonathan Bryant on Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:18 pm

I could actually agree with James, simply because his point is hypothetical - it's not an English run event and there will probably be no publicity whatever outside the chess world. That being the case, one would more consistently give the remaining slot to someone who will be motivated to try to win it (Radjabov's play with Black can be quite revolutionary, too).

I am with the other Jonathan on the pessimism point. I remember discussing the 2005 San Luis event - same format with the actual world title at stake - over dinner with the Barbican players who were about to go to the ECC. No one thought Adams would play a significant role in the event, and the general consensus was that he would score -1 at best with probably just one win. He scored -3 with no wins. Given that he played the event without a second, you could even ask whether he was highly motivated to win it back then.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5373
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: London Candidates?

Post by LawrenceCooper » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:39 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Team events don't count either.

Lawrence, I didn't say we can't count them.
:?

In all seriousness, I am aware that English players don't top the rating list, the highest rated players are the most consistent as is true in most ranking systems. It therefore follows that you are lower rated if you are less consistent, maybe due to less opportunities, certainly less federation support and less coaching at an early age. I don't think they would perform badly in elite events but I would also say the same about a whole host of other 2650-2750 players.

I also think that once you break into the top group of players that it is probably easier to stay there by drawing with similar rated opponents than to get to 2750-2800 playing in open events where a huge percentage is required to gain points.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:49 pm

yes, and this has always been quite a serious problem for many in, say, the bottom half of the world's top hundred.

The other day I made a point about the unspellable Kazimdhanov (or whatever) and I really do think that he was tossed in and out of elite events on a random basis - in sometimes, if he had a recent rating surge or of some one pulled out late, but not re-invited the following year even if he did very well. The first time I heard his name was when he played Kasparov in 1999 then I didn't see the name again until he beat Keith Arkell in a nice game to win an Open a few years later. And then again, er, when he became a world champion in 2004!

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Adam Raoof » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:07 pm

To be candid about the candidates. If the event takes place in the UK, let alone London, we should be happy. More elite events should mean more publicity for the game in the UK. Over and above the arguments about who should be playing in this tournament, I hope that we can offer the organisers some assistance in getting the most out of the event, and I am sure that a lot of players will want to attend.
Adam Raoof IA, IO
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Tornelo - https://tornelo.com/chess/orgs/chess-england
Simon Williams "The Ginger GM" - https://gingergm.com/ref/106.html
Don’t stop playing chess!

John McKenna
Posts: 4395
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by John McKenna » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:29 pm

Not trying to say we are still in the situation Fischer faced during the cold war but the chess world still lives in the shadow of those times and probably more so than than almost every other area.
It could be said that it's still one from the west versus the rest - who are all chips off the old eastern block.
Magnus might appreciate at least one other westerner in the fight.
Adams and/or Caruana - who was/is leading the Aeroflot 'Open' in Moscow and has just about reached the top 10 - would even it up.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: London Candidates?

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:55 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:More elite events should mean more publicity for the game in the UK.
But that begs the question, in this case. We know nothing about how this event will be organised. And we know that it's possible to have a world championship in London without the rest of London remotely noticing. Think 2000.


Post Reply