PDA

View Full Version : New World Championship cycle proposed by FIDE...



Southpaw Jim
10-12-2006, 10:11 PM
A merger of the 128 player knockout system and the double round robin system.

Every 2nd year, 128 players are divided into 16 groups of 8 who play round robins. The winners will then play 2x 8-player round robins, and the winners of these two will play a four game match against each other to determine the challenger - who plays the WC the following year.

Report! (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3530)

eclectic
10-12-2006, 10:22 PM
I think the world chess champion title should be for life and upon the champion's death there should be a conclave in Kalmykia whereby the top 128 players get locked up in a yurt and until they decide who should be world champion they indicate a no result yet each day via putting fresh yak's milk outside the yurt door and a result via doing likewise with fermented yak's milk.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2006, 10:30 PM
I don't see why the match to determine the challenger (from the winners of the two second-stage round-robins) has to be so short.

Apart from that it seems like a good proposal.

Kerry Stead
11-12-2006, 01:38 PM
The chessbase report mentions that tie-breaks will only be needed in the final (4 game) match - have to agree with Kevin that it seems a bit short - so I assume that there will be a countback proceedure used to decide any ties after the round robin stage ... could this be almost worse, with someone missing out on a place because of results not directly related to their own games?

Garvinator
11-12-2006, 01:56 PM
It really does seem that fide is trying to use any format that isnt the old candidates matches.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2006, 01:56 PM
so I assume that there will be a countback proceedure used to decide any ties after the round robin stage ... could this be almost worse, with someone missing out on a place because of results not directly related to their own games?

That's an issue too - credible tiebreaks for round-robins are few and far between. There's Sonneborn-Berger of course but it's not really very well justified; it seems to reward unreliability.

Oepty
12-12-2006, 06:01 PM
A merger of the 128 player knockout system and the double round robin system.

Every 2nd year, 128 players are divided into 16 groups of 8 who play round robins. The winners will then play 2x 8-player round robins, and the winners of these two will play a four game match against each other to determine the challenger - who plays the WC the following year.

Report! (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3530)

A very interesting proposal. Certainly an improvement of there previoous 128 player knockouts. Some flexibility as to the size of the second round groups could allow players who tie for first in the 8 player round robins go though to the second round. The World Cup final to decide who is the challenger needs to be longer, 8 games perhaps.
The plan doesn't state whether the round robin tournaments are all to be played at the same place or whether the second round would continue straight after the first round. I would prefer the round robins to be spread around and then a months break to the second round to allow the players to prepare. Same to the final.
Scott

Aaron Guthrie
12-12-2006, 10:52 PM
The Daily Dirt Chess Blog by Mig has a good analysis of the problems of these round robins. He argues that its likely that many of the tournaments would go to tiebreaks. In the comments Shirov makes the point that there will be 4-3 colour splits. Link (http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/12/new_fide_wch_cycle_proposal.htm)

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2006, 11:17 PM
The Daily Dirt Chess Blog by Mig has a good analysis of the problems of these round robins. He argues that its likely that many of the tournaments would go to tiebreaks. In the comments Shirov makes the point that there will be 4-3 colour splits. Link (http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/12/new_fide_wch_cycle_proposal.htm)

Yes, 4-3 splits are a problem (although still better than 2-game matches and other such jokes). I had actually misinterpreted the proposal as being for double round-robins because of the rest day after the 7th game; I assumed if it was a single round-robin then that would not make sense since the round robin would be over. But it appears these rest days are the rest days before the next stage.

OK, I do try to be on the positive side when FIDE offers something that is not a complete joke for a change, but I do agree that this system has its problems.

Garvinator
13-12-2006, 10:02 AM
OK, I do try to be on the positive side when FIDE offers something that is not a complete joke for a change, but I do agree that this system has its problems.
I dont think alot of the problems with the wc lie with the format, but with fide itself.

See line 2 from my sig ;)

1min_grandmaster
13-12-2006, 11:10 AM
I dont think alot of the problems with the wc lie with the format, but with fide itself.

Indeed, the main problem with the format is that it will probably be changed (again)!

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2007, 06:26 PM
Looks like it's been fiddled again based on this (http://www.chessdom.com/news/topalov-wcc).

What the hell is the "2008 Universal Event Promotion match"? Is that the one that Kramnik plays against the winner of Mexico if he doesn't win it, or is it something else?

Does this mean Topalov has a route into the next cycle that bypasses the World Cup process now, even if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico?

I'm confused.

eclectic
24-06-2007, 06:36 PM
Looks like it's been fiddled again based on this (http://www.chessdom.com/news/topalov-wcc).

What the hell is the "2008 Universal Event Promotion match"? Is that the one that Kramnik plays against the winner of Mexico if he doesn't win it, or is it something else?

Does this mean Topalov has a route into the next cycle that bypasses the World Cup process now, even if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico?

I'm confused.

what it means is that FIDE didn't have the balls to say

FOFW

Garvinator
24-06-2007, 07:00 PM
These regular changes to the world championship cycle seem to have a lot in common with the saying about the weather- if you dont like it, just wait five minutes till it changes.

Topalov gambled the house in Elista and lost. He was well aware of what he was going to miss out on if he lost and what he was going to gain had he won.

They had an ok cycle before deciding to change it again.

Garvinator
24-06-2007, 07:09 PM
I will add another question. Anand is the current world number 1, so why is so much attention being paid to Topalov? Couldnt have anything to do with the fact that the Bulgarian Chess Federation keep bitching all the time. Maybe the Indian Chess Federation should start doing the same.

eclectic
24-06-2007, 07:11 PM
I will add another question. Anand is the current world number 1, so why is so much attention being paid to Topalov? Couldnt have anything to do with the fact that the Bulgarian Chess Federation keep bitching all the time. Maybe the Indian Chess Federation should start doing the same.

very good point!!!

also i don't think that a federation to which a contender belongs should be permitted to organise any match

Denis_Jessop
24-06-2007, 08:46 PM
Looks like it's been fiddled again based on this (http://www.chessdom.com/news/topalov-wcc).

What the hell is the "2008 Universal Event Promotion match"? Is that the one that Kramnik plays against the winner of Mexico if he doesn't win it, or is it something else?

Does this mean Topalov has a route into the next cycle that bypasses the World Cup process now, even if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico?

I'm confused.

I don't know when the Chessdom item you linked to was posted. There is nothing recent on the FIDE website. But it looks very much like the new World Championship arrangements announced by Kirsan on 1 March 2007 when he said that "proposal A" had been adopted as follows:


Proposal A

The proposal is to terminate the World Championship Tournament and keep the World Cup as a Candidates tournament to find a challenger for a World Championship match. So in every odd year there will be only the World Cup (2007, 2009, 2011, etc.) and the respective winner will play every next year (2008, 2010, 2012, etc.) a match against the World Champion.

The chronological breakdown:

a1. 2008: The winner from WCCT 2007 in Mexico plays a World Championship match against the previous World Champion. If Kramnik does not win the WCCT 2007, then Kramnik can challenge the winner of Mexico in the first part of 2008. If Kramnik wins in Mexico, then the right to challenge goes to the previous World Champion, ie Topalov.

a2. 2009: The winner of the "a1" match plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2007 World Cup which will be held in Khanty-Mansiysk.

a3. 2010: The World Champion (winner of "a2") plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2009 World Cup,

a4. 2012: The World Champion (winner of "a3") plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2011 World Cup,

a5. 2014: The World Champion (winner of "a4") plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2013 World Cup,

and so on.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2007, 09:07 PM
I don't know when the Chessdom item you linked to was posted.

I think it is quite recent. AR and Susan Polgar both linked it on their blogs within the last few days.

It is surprising there is nothing on the website.


But it looks very much like the new World Championship arrangements announced by Kirsan on 1 March 2007 when he said that "proposal A" had been adopted as follows:

With the added twist, apparently, that now

a2. 2009: The winner of the "a1" match plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2007 World Cup which will be held in Khanty-Mansiysk.

would become:

2009: Topalov plays a match against the winner of the 2007 World Cup and the winner of the "a1" match plays a world championship match against the winner of that match.

But I'm not sure, especially as I've never heard of this "2008 Universal Event Promotion match" under that title before, and cannot find anything on it.

Garvinator
24-06-2007, 10:20 PM
Chessbase has provided a lot of information on this matter.

I have attached the diagram they provide.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3948

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2007, 10:34 PM
Thanks Garvin.

Weird. It's exactly what I thought, but what is strange is that the diagram does not note the UEP Match, if held, is a world championship. But the text further down the chessbase article makes up for that.

So no matter what happens, according to all that, there will be World Champs matches in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012, as well as Mexico 2007.

An overdose to make up for all those years of not having any? :eek:

I think it's overkill. Should be two years between WC matches.

Garvinator
24-06-2007, 10:43 PM
Thanks Garvin.

Weird. It's exactly what I thought, but what is strange is that the diagram does not note the UEP Match, if held, is a world championship. But the text further down the chessbase article makes up for that.
Just in case others have missed the extra text-


4. If Kramnik does not win the Mexico City world championship tournament he gets to play a match against the winner of Mexico, as a one-time right to challenge the new world champion. This match, staged by UEP (Universal Event Promotion) in 2008, is an official world championship match, regulated by existing contracts with FIDE. The winner of this match will play against the winner of the "Challenger's Match" (section 3 above).


5. If Kramnik wins the World Championship tournament in Mexico City then he has to play Topalov directly for the world championship in 2008. In this case there will be no "Challenger's Match". Instead the winner of the 2007 World Cup in Khanty-Mansyisk gets to play a world championship match against the winner of the Kramnik-Topalov match in 2009.

From my reading of 5, there has to be a big temptation on Kramnik's behalf to not win the Mexico tournament in order to avoid a match with Topalov, in all possible chance, Bulgaria. If he doesnt win, then it is possible that Kramnik's match could be in Russia against another Russian. I am sure for Kramnik, this is MUCH, MUCH more preferable to playing Topalov in Bulgaria.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2007, 11:33 PM
Kramnik himself has said he will view a victory in Mexico as less important than a win of the WC title in a match - although (a) he will of course still try to win and (b) he will not call himself world champion if he should lose.



From my reading of 5, there has to be a big temptation on Kramnik's behalf to not win the Mexico tournament in order to avoid a match with Topalov, in all possible chance, Bulgaria. If he doesnt win, then it is possible that Kramnik's match could be in Russia against another Russian. I am sure for Kramnik, this is MUCH, MUCH more preferable to playing Topalov in Bulgaria.

But why lose one world title to increase your chances of winning the next?

Garvinator
24-06-2007, 11:39 PM
But why lose one world title to increase your chances of winning the next?
Very simple, to avoid the troubles of having to deal with Topalov and Danialov.

Lose in Mexico, removes any chance of next match being held in Bulgaria against Topalov.

Denis_Jessop
25-06-2007, 03:31 PM
Also interesting is Chess Base's introductory comment, especially the last sentence:


Veselin Topalov and the new FIDE world championship cycle
24.06.2007 – At the Presidential Board meeting, which is currently being held in Tallinn, Estonia, FIDE has introduced a new Grand Prix series and a new world championship cycle. With a high-ranking Bulgarian delegation presenting a case for Veselin Topalov to enter the world championship FIDE made some special rules to govern the 2007-2009 stage. We have tried to decipher the new system.

DJ

[Edit] PS An announcement of this is now on the Fide Web-site and the downloadable press release includes the pretty diagrams that Garvin posted.

eclectic
25-06-2007, 03:50 PM
i like this oxymoron:

special rules

:hand:

Garvinator
09-07-2007, 07:39 PM
From chessbase:

Full interview here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3978


The reunification world championship match in Elista in 2006 between the two world champions Vladimir Kramnik and the Bulgarian Veselin Topalov specified that the loser would be left out of this year's world championship tournament. Both sides agreed in advance to this article of the contract. Now the Bulgarian side is trying to get Topalov into the 2007 world championship cycle. What do you think of this?


Both sides knew full well under what conditions the world championship in Elista was being staged, and what the consequences of defeat for one of them would be. They accepted these conditions. For this reason I do not like what the Topalov camp is doing.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2007, 09:21 PM
The reunification world championship match in Elista in 2006 between the two world champions Vladimir Kramnik and the Bulgarian Veselin Topalov specified that the loser would be left out of this year's world championship tournament. Both sides agreed in advance to this article of the contract. Now the Bulgarian side is trying to get Topalov into the 2007 world championship cycle. What do you think of this?

Seems like a strange condition though. Previously, the loser would be seeded directly into the next cycle, not excluded.

eclectic
09-07-2007, 10:05 PM
Seems like a strange condition though. Previously, the loser would be seeded directly into the next cycle, not excluded.

i was reminded of the great schism in the catholic church when the pope (rome) and the two antipopes (avignon and pisa) were deposed or made to resign to prepare for a single pope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XII

perhaps making it so the loser of the elista match had no comeback was a similar way of ensuring that the reunified champion was perceived to have some authority

referring to the great schism seems apt given the recent state of world chess championship politics

:hmm:

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2007, 12:17 AM
Seems like a strange condition though. Previously, the loser would be seeded directly into the next cycle, not excluded.

Yes, I thought it was bizarre when it was first announced, but the reason for it was that a cycle that did not include Kramnik had already commenced with no room for another player (this would involve bumping someone who had already qualified to part of the cycle or else changing Mexico to a 9-player 2RR which would have been longer and more expensive). So the unification match was not the culmination of a previous cycle, but rather an interruption to the present cycle (which culminates in Mexico), having the consequence that the loser was removed from the present cycle.

Maxwell843
05-10-2007, 01:03 PM
is it not unfair that the newly crowned world champion Anand has to play a match agaisnt former world champion Kramnik where if Anand loses he will have no rematch.
also wat happens if Anand wins the World Cup, will he also then play agaisnt Topalov???

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2007, 01:26 PM
is it not unfair that the newly crowned world champion Anand has to play a match agaisnt former world champion Kramnik where if Anand loses he will have no rematch.

This is the age-old problem that if a defending champion has a rematch clause, then what happens if he wins the rematch; the person he beat to recover his title was also a defending champion, but they get no rematch clause, otherwise you could have an eternity of rematches between the same two players. At some point the nonsense has to stop and someone has to go back and qualify without a rematch clause. Actually after these matches the historical rights of former champions of some sort or another (Topalov and Kramnik) will be extinguished and the rematch concept should be a thing of the past. Good riddance to it; the defeated world champion should prove themselves worthy of a rematch and the World Cup is not brilliant, but not too awful a system.


+also wat happens if Anand wins the World Cup, will he also then play agaisnt Topalov???

Not sure what their plan for that is or even if he will be playing in it.

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2007, 01:29 PM
Not sure what their plan for that is or even if he will be playing in it.As at the 30th September FIDE still showed Anand as a player in the World Cup.

Based on that I speculated on some possible scenarios in post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=169511&postcount=93

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2007, 01:45 PM
If those scenarios held true then you could get the bizarre situation of Anand winning the World Cup and Topalov then having to beat Anand to earn the right to play Anand for the World Championship.

Surely FIDE have devised something to prevent this nonsense.

Then again, it's FIDE, so not so surely.

Bill Gletsos
10-10-2007, 01:06 PM
Well as of last monday Anand was removed from the list of qulaifiers for the upcoming World Cup along with Leko, Morozevich and B. Gelfand.
Kramnik had previously been removed from it.

As such Topalov wont have to face those 5 in his match with the winner of the World Cup.

Kevin Bonham
10-10-2007, 07:52 PM
Well as of last monday Anand was removed from the list of qulaifiers for the upcoming World Cup along with Leko, Morozevich and B. Gelfand.
Kramnik had previously been removed from it.

As such Topalov wont have to face those 5 in his match with the winner of the World Cup.

The FIDE site says:

"* Five players (World champion V. Anand, GM V. Kramnik, GM P. Leko, GM A. Morozevich and GM B. Gelfand are replaced from the FIDE average rating list 7/2006 & 1/2007). "

I also found this on the FIDE site (which sheds some light on some of our sillier scenarios):

"4. 2. In case a player wins the WCCT 2007 in Mexico, the World Cup 2007 in Khanty-Mansyisk and the 2008 World Championship Match, then the challengers match which is described in 4.1.1 will be organised as the World Championship Match 2009."

So Anand won the WCCT 2007. Had he won the World Cup 2007 and the 2008 World Championship Match (v Kramnik) he would have then faced a challengers match as described in 4.1.1:

"4. 1. 1. At the same year 2008, and after match A, the winner of the World Cup 2007 will play a challengers match of 8 games against GM Veselin Topalov with a minimum net prize fund of 150,000 USD (match B)."

Meaning that had Anand won the World Cup he would have had to play Kramnik for the title then Topalov for the title if he won that. By not contesting the World Cup he gets to play Kramnik for the title then the winner of a match between Topalov and the World Cup winner, which if he's lucky won't be Topalov. So it was in his interests not to contest the World Cup 2007.

Kramnik was already ineligible to contest the World Cup, but what about Leko, Moro and Gelfand? Have they decided not to contest because the 2007 World Cup is mickey-mouse 2-game knockout rubbish that they probably have buckley's of winning anyway and that only gives the winner the right to play Topalov for a shot at a challenge match in 2009? Or is there something else going on, like a renegotiation behind the scenes to seed them further up than just starting at the base of a mickey-mouse World Cup?

I recall that at one stage it was proposed World Cups after this one would use a more credible system of round robin eliminators rather than this 2-game knockout rubbish. Hope that is still on firmly intended as the World Championship will soon lose credibility should one of Anand, Kramnik or Topalov be world champion after 2009 and get to endlessly defend their title against world #20s and 40s who have won the World Cup.

eclectic
10-10-2007, 08:15 PM
i'm not sure which frazzles my brain more; this or the swiss pairings thread! :confused: :P

Garvinator
10-10-2007, 08:15 PM
It really does seem like Fide is still trying to do everything possible to return back to the candidate matches and then final match for the world championship.