World Cup Knockout 2019

[Alex Holowczak]

Funny you should say that it is not the arbiter's job to deliberately not enforce regulations, because that is exactly what Vardapetian did in the first round of the World Cup!
On the first days the buses arrived only ten minutes before the start of the round and the necessity for three security checks meant that quite a few players would not make it on time.
So with four minutes to go before the start of the first round, the digital clock in the playing hall was suddenly turned off and a few minutes later Vardapetian began making a long series of redundant greetings - e.g introducing the appeals committee - and announcements.
The filibuster was finished only when Vardapetian saw the final player rushed to his board. With everybody present and correct, Vardapetian abruptly stopped waffling and began the round.

That seems entirely sensible!

I agree with Kevin. If the organisers are providing official transport for players, then the players shouldn't be held responsible if that transport hasn't ensured the players have arrived on time. This is quite different from a situation where a player might have gone to the cafe that morning to prepare and made their own travel arrangements, and arrived too late. This isn't in breach of any rule, and seems like common sense to me. Rather than pad for time, I might have just announced the start would be delayed, so that players who had arrived didn't have to sit there and could move around if they wanted.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It has been a long time now that the World Cup has been a qualification route to the World Championship (via the Candidates). How many years exactly, does anyone know?

I was wondering if there are any players who are particularly disadvantaged by this. I am thinking of players that are unlikely to be given wildcards or qualify by rating, but who would also be unlikely to make it through the rigours of the World Cup and its increasingly fast time controls (but might have advanced far under the old system of Interzonals and matchplay). I would point to McShane and Jones and Adams as examples of this, but then I had hoped they would get a bit further than they did, so maybe best not to go there.

I guess what I am trying to say is, who is the best player to have never qualified for the Candidates (by any route) since the World Cup first started to be used as a qualifying route? Which I am guessing is in the last 10-20 years or so. Maybe another way to put this is to ask which players that ended up playing Candidate matches after qualifying through Interzonal system, would have been unlikely to do well at something like the World Cup?

Or am I overstating the differences between the two systems? Would the best players still rise to the top anyway?

[Chris Rice]

Rest day tomorrow. Emil Sutovsky speaking for FIDE on FB said " tomorrow there are no games. This year we introduced an extra rest day. The event is too exhausting - and we found it fair"

Daniil Dubov replied "The problem is that an extra rest day in Khanty Mansiysk feels like an additional torture"

[Roger de Coverly]

Or am I overstating the differences between the two systems? Would the best players still rise to the top anyway?

With the multiple routes, I'd suspect the latter.

The World Cup gives an opportunity for "tourists", to use Kasparov's put down, to qualify for the Candidates.

[David Sedgwick]

Daniil Dubov replied "The problem is that an extra rest day in Khanty Mansiysk feels like an additional torture"

In the Soviet era, that comment could well have resulted in an extended stay in Khanty Mansiysk.

[Mick Norris]

It has been a long time now that the World Cup has been a qualification route to the World Championship (via the Candidates). How many years exactly, does anyone know?

I was wondering if there are any players who are particularly disadvantaged by this. I am thinking of players that are unlikely to be given wildcards or qualify by rating, but who would also be unlikely to make it through the rigours of the World Cup and its increasingly fast time controls (but might have advanced far under the old system of Interzonals and matchplay). I would point to McShane and Jones and Adams as examples of this, but then I had hoped they would get a bit further than they did, so maybe best not to go there.

I guess what I am trying to say is, who is the best player to have never qualified for the Candidates (by any route) since the World Cup first started to be used as a qualifying route? Which I am guessing is in the last 10-20 years or so. Maybe another way to put this is to ask which players that ended up playing Candidate matches after qualifying through Interzonal system, would have been unlikely to do well at something like the World Cup?

Or am I overstating the differences between the two systems? Would the best players still rise to the top anyway?

The World Cup has always been won by an established "best" player; it has been part of the candidates cycle since 2005, I think, when the winners have been Aronian, Kamsky, Gelfand, Svidler, Kramnik, Karjakin & Aronian again (Vishy won the 2 WCs when they were not qualifiers)

The last 4 runners-up have qualified, Ding, Svidler & Grischuk are no issue, so maybe only Andreikin is an outlier

In 2011 there was also Ivanchuk qualifying in 3rd place

In 2009 & 2007 the runners up didn't qualify (shame for Ponomariov & Shirov); in 2007 too, the beaten semi-finalists were Carlsen & Karjakin!

In 2005 all the top 4 qualified, so Ponomariov & Grischuk were no issue, and maybe Bacrot was an outlier

Whether any of these would have qualified through an Interzonal is anyone's guess; no doubt that system threw up surprise qualifiers too

[NickFaulks]

so maybe only Andreikin is an outlier

If so, he didn't disgrace himself, scoring 50% in the Candidates.

[Jonathan Rogers]

In recent times, I should have said that MVL is the strongest player not to have made any Candidates', so I was pleased to see him fight back and go through yesterday

[Jonathan Rogers]

The FIDE site confirms the above pairings in the given order - so winners of top two pairings will play in one semi-final and winners of bottom two pairings will play in the other semi-final.

Do you mean quarter finals? It looks like the winners from round 4 advance to the quarter finals.

Is it still the case that both finalists qualify for the Candidates?

I missed that Le Quang Liem had knocked out Artemiev, that is a bit of an upset.

Of those who have reached the last 16, several of the top 16 seeds have fallen.

Giri (2) was knocked out by Xiong (31) who has reached the last 16 in his place.
Andreikin (15) was knocked out by Duda (18) who has reached the last 16 in his place.
Radjabov (10) and Mamedyarov (7) got through safely to the last 16.
Aronian (6) got through safely to the last 16.
Artemiev (11) was knocked out by Le Quang Liem (22) who has reached the last 16 in his place.
Nakamura (14) was knocked out by Nisipeanu (51) who was knocked out by Svidler (19) who reached the last 16.
Vachier-Lagrave (3) got through safely to the last 16.
So (4) got through safely to the last 16.
Karjakin (13) got knocked out by Vitiugov (20) who has reached the last 16 in his place.
Yu Yangyi (12) and Nepomniachtchi (5) got through safely to the last 16.
Domínguez (8) and Grischuk (9) got through safely to the last 16.
Wojtaszek (16) was knocked out by Christiansen (113) who was knocked out by Alekseenko (49) who reached the last 16.
Ding Liren (1) got through safely to the last 16.

So 10 of the top 16 seeds got through and 6 fell.

That's very useful, and shows a remarkable success rate for the top 16 in the circumstances. Of course some of them had to struggle to go through (MVL, Dominguez) and Ding is yet to win a classical game against anyover over 2050, but one swims among piranha fish in this event.

[NickFaulks]

Daniil Dubov replied "The problem is that an extra rest day in Khanty Mansiysk feels like an additional torture"

That must explain why he allowed himself to get knocked out.

[Alex Holowczak]

So 10 of the top 16 seeds got through and 6 fell.

That's very useful, and shows a remarkable success rate for the top 16 in the circumstances. Of course some of them had to struggle to go through (MVL, Dominguez) and Ding is yet to win a classical game against anyover over 2050, but one swims among piranha fish in this event.

Not really. 11 got through in 2007; and 10 got through in 2011 and 2015. So out of 10 tournaments with this format, 10 or more have made it through 40% of the time. Hardly a "remarkable success rate"; it's slightly better than normal but that's all.

[NickFaulks]

Not really. 11 got through in 2007; and 10 got through in 2011 and 2015. So out of 10 tournaments with this format, 10 or more have made it through 40% of the time. Hardly a "remarkable success rate"; it's slightly better than normal but that's all.

I was more impressed that four of the six interlopers were #18, 19, 20 and 22, so only two could be considered surprises, let alone shocks. Among those remaining, Xiong beating Giri is the only real stunner.

[JustinHorton]

There is a good old-fashioned Lopez with 11...Qc7 in MVL-Svidler

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm surprised how much fight there was in the Shakh-Radjabov game. Is there a 25 move Sofia rule? I was expecting a 10 move draw.

[JustinHorton]

How are they going to manage the Armageddon game though