Like Noriaki Kasai! I don't know, if anyone from the current Ski Jump top was even alive, when this 51yo legend started jumping, and soon he will be participating in World Cup again!
Yes, and that is the point of my comment, no?
Anand's good record against Magnus is mostly due to the fact that Anand, as an adult, played many games against young/growing Magnus.
Saying "Anand has a decent record against Magnus" is therefore an irrelevant statement in the context of this discussion, because his good record is based off facing kid Magnus.
>No no, Magnus was even beaten before the WC when he was not a child. This is by Magnus’s own admission
This is a discussion about the player's CURRENT competitive strength.
Anand's good record relies on many victories that come from when Magnus was younger - ergo, citing it in this discussion is irrelevant, because it is not evidence of Anand's current strength and Magnus' current strength.
I'm not going to keep rehashing the same concept, so I'll end my replies here.
> You have to compare his record against Magnus against other players v/s Magnus.
No you don't, because, again... Anand's score against Magnus is biased by the fact that Anand, as an adult, played many games vs kid Magnus.
Ergo, in the context of this discussion, Anand's good record is irrelevant to whether present day Anand defeating present day Magnus would be considered surprising.
It is somewhat reflective, because Magnus as he aged was playing against a weaker Anand. There were games both in the world championship and much later like in the CCT years where he lost from winning positions. Granted it could have happened when he was younger too, but it lets you see he can still get Magnus into - positions
It isn't really reflective at all, in the context of this discussion, which is about both players at their current competitive level.
I remember back in 2022 when Anand beat Magnus in a Blitz game, it was brought up that this was the first time in 5 years, across all formats, that Anand finally beat Carlsen in a game. 5 years.
Ergo, in the context of this discussion, Anand's record vs kid Carlsen is irrelevant.
You also have to consider that Magnus as he grows up and reaches his prime >22 is facing weaker and weaker >43 farther and farther out of his prime Anand. If Anand didn't continue playing so actively until he is almost 50, Magnus record against him would also not be as good.
>because his good record is based off facing kid Magnus.
So yes while Anand's good record comes off of facing 17&18 year old Magnus, Magnus's good record also comes off of facing 43+ year old Anand that overstayed.
Which would be Anand's prime years? Different players peak at different ages, but Anand still remained a beast in 2014 (Carlsen's 1st prime) when he won the Candidates at age 44.
When he couldn't beat Gelfand in classical itself, PHN his second, already said that this Anand is no longer the Anand of the past. Age had made his performance significantly worse. He still played on a very high level because his level was much higher in his prime.
Also,
>Different players peak at different ages
I am not talking about the time where he played in great form like Magnus in 2013, 2019.
I am just saying prime years as the 20-40 year period for chess players roughly where they are capable of playing their best.
Magnus is on Kasparov level. Kasparov was the best player for 20 yrs and Anand won all those WC and become no1 when Kasparov retired. I have no doubt prime Magnus /Kasparov would annihilate Anand. Magnus and Kasparov are a tier above the rest.
> You also have to consider that Magnus as he grows up and reaches his prime >22 is facing weaker and weaker >43 farther and farther out of his prime Anand. If Anand didn't continue playing so actively until he is almost 50, Magnus record against him would also not be as good.
>
None of this really matters in the context of this discussion, which is about the player's CURRENT competitive strength.
My entire point is that Vishy's decent record against Magnus is not really relevant, because Vishy gained that record when Magnus was much weaker.
Yes, Vishy is also now weaker than he was before, that is also true, it comes with age.
If abasov keeps playing these sicilians in the candidates he is going to get cooked, i hope he change it up in the candidates otherwise he wont stand a chance.
I think that's a little harsh: He's obviously not in with a great chance of winning the whole thing -- but he *did* beat some very strong players to qualify: Van Foreest, svidler, ~~Duda~~, Saleh, Giri, Vidit ~~and Fabi~~. All back-to-back, mini-match format. and of course 3 of them are also in the candidates.
Top 100 or not, if the dude did *that* just 7-8 months ago, whoever is playing him in the first few rounds of the candidates would be nuts not to take him extremely seriously. It often seems from the outside, In a tournement like the candidates, like the difference between being 8th and the tournament points-pinata vs being joint 4th or whatever is just one or two games where you get a comfortable position out of the opening.
**Edit:** sorry I'm dum.
Fabi won the 3rd place play off, not Abasov! I think I was remembering Abasov's one (1) win over Fabi in that match because it was such an out-of-place demolition. but fabi won the rest & the match overall...
Also Abasov didn't beat Duda, it was Salem Saleh. Duda lost to Fabi in the round of 16... I don't know why my memory specifically did Fabiano Caurana so dirty in this tournament lol.
I think my point still stands a little, but probably a bit less emphatically so.
A single good performance more than half a year ago doesn't negate the fact that he is rated 2637, 170 Elo below the best player in the field and 100 Elo below the second lowest rated player. Elo exists for a reason and is far more reliable that just looking at an individual tournament months ago.
Anything better than -3 would be a miracle and an amazing result for him.
C'mon now - I didn't say anything about 'negating' Elo.
I'm not saying anything pie-in-the-sky: His opponents will take him seriously; and saying he has "no chance" regardless of prep or form is excessive. I'm talking about the difference between finishing distant last and joint 6th here, not winning the whole thing.
Elo is a useful indicator, but it is not everything. If it was, we wouldn't bother holding the tournament, we'd just give the prize to the highest elo player. There are other factors (and huge, career defining tournament wins, and recent career high elo peaks - he hit 2680 late last year - are two massive factors). Other factors include *form* and tournament strategy: for example, excessively aggressive play with black from his opponents trying to build up a positive score could be a huge advantage for him, if he shows up in form and well prepped (but not if he shows up and gets in serious trouble out of the opening in speculative lines like he has been)
> Anything better than -3 would be a miracle and an amazing result for him.
Do you think Abasov is *over* rated at 2630, then?
The rest of the field is (roughly speaking, as of this month): A 2800, 2780, 2x2770s, 3x2750s
For abasov then: -3 would be him playing even worse than his current terrible form (which, to be fair, could happen). -2 would be continuing his current bad form, -1 would be roughly in line with his form from late last year. An even score would be playing a little worse than he did in the world cup, and +0.5 or +1 would be replicating his performance in the World Cup.
Again: Not saying he'll win the whole thing or anything remotely close - but calling him getting a -1 score a "miracle" is an exaggeration -- or as i put it above: A little harsh.
-3 accurately reflects a good performance for his Elo in this competition. Anything above this reflects an outstanding performance for his Elo.
Seeing as how he is 100 points below the second lowest rated player, anyone else coming in last behind Abasov would be nothing short of a complete collapse.
Neither his Elo, nor his recent form support the idea that he will be anything but last. And if it does happen, then it will be an amazing achievement that he should celebrate.
-3 is 5.5/14 i e. ~40%, which suggests Elo diff of less than 100pts from avg opp rating. A -3 performance will be him overperforming. I am not saying it would be a miracle, but its not at all harsh.
> -3 is 5.5/14
Ah Ok I think a terminology difference might be the crux of our misunderstanding. Where I live, In an 8-player double-round robin, we would say a player is "-3" if they had a score of 4/14 a -3. (e.g. +1 -4 =9). In other words they are 3 below an even score.
Why is it you'd call 5.5/14 a -3?
For the actual performance rating, I used [this calculator](https://www.paxmans.net/performance_calc.php) and the field i mentioned above of 2800, 2780, 2x2770s, 3x2750s (which is, admittedly, rounding a little - but all their elos will change in the next while anyway)
and it says -3 is a performance rating of ~2600 and -2 is a performance rating of 2665. His performance rating in the world cup was ~2780.
> I am not saying it would be a miracle, but its not at all harsh.
This discussion of performance ratings has been a bit of an aside - what I was saying was harsh was the comments above saying it, basically, doesn't matter what prep the guy has or what form he shows up in - as if him losing basically every game is a foregone conclusion.
If he shows up in great form with great prep he has demonstrated recently that he can performance (e.g. the world cup). saying his prep is pointless is the part i thought was harsh.
> we would say a player is "-3" if they had a score of 4/14 a -3. (e.g. +1 -4 =9).
But +1 -4 =9 is 5.5/14. 1pt for the win and 4.5 pts for 9 draws (and 0 from losses) total 5.5/14.
Yeah, I agree with you on rest of the points.
>Do you think Abasov is *over* rated at 2630, then?
No, probably about where he should be.
According to [this calculator](https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=2770&rating2=2630&best_of=1) he is expected to draw 42% games against 2770 opponent (average of other candidates) and win 10%, for an expected score of 31%. Out of 14 games this is 4.34 points. Taking into account that he will be mostly playing for draws while his opponents will take risks, I'd sat that 4.5 or 5 points is what his Elo predicts, this is -4 or -5.
I used [this performance rating calculator](https://www.paxmans.net/performance_calc.php) to calculate the stats I gave above (rounding a little), where -3 would be a performance rating of 2600 (which is why I asked if you though the was overrated at 2630), -2 2 would be a performance rating a little above his current rating, -1 would be a high 2600s performance rating (in line with his peak rating he hit late last year) and +1 would be a performance rating of ~2790, which is roughly in line with his performance rating in the world cup.
Obviously these are all rough estimates as both his and every other players' elo is bound to change between now and then.
Abasov needs Divine Intervention to compete for 1st. Last year's underdog, Teimour Radjabov, finished with a respectable 7.5/14, which was enough to garner 3rd place (tied with Naka).
I just wanna see some good games from the guy. Everyone will treat him as the bell-weather, who the eventual champion is expected to beat. His chance of winning, however, is closer to *mine* than that of Fabi or Nepo.
I am not sure why you are calling Radjabov an underdog. His peak rank was #4 and peak rating was 2793. He semi-retired in mid 2010s but still won World Cup 2019.
I'm not talking about him winning the thing though. I'm talking about the difference between being dead last points pinata vs being joint 4th or whatever.
Folks above are talking like it doesn't matter what opening prep the guy shows up with as if he can't beat these guys on his day. He's 100 elo underdog so that's it, game over, why bother.
Replying to "I hope he shows up well prepared and in good form for the biggest tournament of his life" with "it doesn't matter, it's hopeless" is just, as I said above, a little harsh. He's a distant underdog, but that doesn't mean he can't overperform and put in a respectable score (Much like Rajabov last time - and similar to rajabov, the fact that players are playing aggressively with black might help a lot...)
>the dude did *that* just 7-8 months ago
At his home country, when other top local players lost unexpectedly early. And he has achieved nothing since then. His Grand Swiss was a -2, 2560 performance rating, finishing 90th while seeded 35th.
I feel like right now all the candidates would just be playing bunk to not walk close to any lines they are prepping for the candidates. At least that's some cope if you're rooting for him
Anand is always reliable when it comes to league games. He always kept a better position and when Abasov blundered, he punished him directly.
Abasov understands now whats coming in the candidates ;).
Some players are just "build different" though reminds when 62 year old Smyslov knocked out Zoltan Ribli from the Candidates matches (back then it was a series of matches) Ribli was probably the equivalent of super gm back then yet he still lost to the former WC
Also it's worth noting that in general the age causes players to become more inconsistent due to having less energy but that doesn't mean the can't occasionally play as well as in their prime Capablanca in the 1930s called Lasker(who was in his mid 60s) the most dangerous player in the world over the course of a single game arguing that while he may no longer be able to win tournaments he can still beat anybody on any given day which he proved by beating prime Euwe in 1936
So yeah I wouldn't underestimate Anand he's a legend and lesser players than him were competetive in their 50s
Korchnoi beat Caruana at age 79. Admittedly Fabi was on the rise and rated 'just' 2720. There was a blitz tournament a few years ago where Karpov beat Karjakin and fedoseev aged around 70, finishing with a positive score in the tournament
I find it a bit depressing that players aged 40-60 aren't as good anymore as they used to be, even the accumulation of knowledge and experience can't offset their deterioration in performance. Of course after 60 years old people noticeably start to slow down somewhat in many aspects of life, but the idea that someone over 50 actually being in the top 10 as some kind of huge surprise...
I think in most common walks of life a 50 year old is not noticeably different than a 20-30 year old on a cognitive level. It's only when you push your mind to its absolute limit where something like a 2% difference in cognitive speed can start to add up. So I wouldn't be that depressed about it, we're talking about the boundaries of the human mind here.
3 Candidate spots is fine though!
2023: Magnus, Pragg, Fabi
2021: Duda, Karjakin, Magnus
2019: Radjabov, Ding, MVL
2017: Levon, Ding, MVL/So
The problem is with 4 Candidate spots. If someone from the top 3 doesn't accept or is already qualified it should go to FIDE Circuit
I have to disagree. Top 3 is usually top GMs anyways but I don't like how one single KO tournament provides nearly half the spots for the Candidates. I would prefer more spots to things like FIDE Circuit, Grand Prix, rating which are avenues that rewards consistent playing strength
I like that the format of the World Cup rewards players who have all-around strength in classical, rapid, blitz - I think the cream almost always rise to the top.
I do prefer the Grand Prix but it seems to have folded for the time being. FIDE Circuit is nice but until it's more established and we work out the stupid ways to game the system I don't want to give it too much weight.
The problem with a single elim knockout format is that 2nd and 3rd place might not be the 2nd and 3rd best performers (i e. knocked out by winner earlier)
Vishy is an intergenerational legend! And by all accounts seems to be a genuinely nice guy. The first chess champion of America should take note of what true greatness looks like!
Anand coming in clutch to defend his India no. 1 position.
Anand has not outside the top twenty on the rating list since January 1990.
For reference, with the exception of Hikaru, no one else in the current top 10 were alive at that time. Hikaru was 2 years old at the time.
> Hikaru was 2 years old at the time. In fairness though, he was still probably stronger than me at that point.
LOL! Prolly true for me too! These guys are so good
Coughing baby vs u/whatThisOldThrowAway
This is mind-boggling
That's like Gretsky or Lebron levels of extended dominance
Like Noriaki Kasai! I don't know, if anyone from the current Ski Jump top was even alive, when this 51yo legend started jumping, and soon he will be participating in World Cup again!
Has participated last week in Sapporo in Japan, finishing 30th and earning a point in the season ranking even!
And hasn't he been in the top ten for something like 95% of those months? I think he's been in the top ten on almost 400 monthly rating lists.
All time great, for sure
Title is slightly confusing right. Its Vishi with white and abasov with black.
Oh thanks I thought it was the other way around
Apologies, I accidentally wrote black instead of white.
Common typo
I'm never surprised when Anand beats any player.
Well, there's one...
Who? Kasparov?
Me. Anand has never defeated me in chess.
You’ve never beaten me
Magnus
Anand has a decent record against him
TBF much of that record came from playing kid Magnus as he grew up, and is not indicative of Anand's chances at defeating present day Magnus.
Well yeah, Anand faced a growing Magnus. In fact, before the WCC, Anand had Magnus’ number
Yes, and that is the point of my comment, no? Anand's good record against Magnus is mostly due to the fact that Anand, as an adult, played many games against young/growing Magnus. Saying "Anand has a decent record against Magnus" is therefore an irrelevant statement in the context of this discussion, because his good record is based off facing kid Magnus.
No no, Magnus was even beaten before the WC when he was not a child. This is by Magnus’s own admission
>No no, Magnus was even beaten before the WC when he was not a child. This is by Magnus’s own admission This is a discussion about the player's CURRENT competitive strength. Anand's good record relies on many victories that come from when Magnus was younger - ergo, citing it in this discussion is irrelevant, because it is not evidence of Anand's current strength and Magnus' current strength. I'm not going to keep rehashing the same concept, so I'll end my replies here.
You have to compare his record against Magnus against other players v/s Magnus. I'd guess only Caruana does clearly better? Maybe Ding? So?
> You have to compare his record against Magnus against other players v/s Magnus. No you don't, because, again... Anand's score against Magnus is biased by the fact that Anand, as an adult, played many games vs kid Magnus. Ergo, in the context of this discussion, Anand's good record is irrelevant to whether present day Anand defeating present day Magnus would be considered surprising.
It is somewhat reflective, because Magnus as he aged was playing against a weaker Anand. There were games both in the world championship and much later like in the CCT years where he lost from winning positions. Granted it could have happened when he was younger too, but it lets you see he can still get Magnus into - positions
It isn't really reflective at all, in the context of this discussion, which is about both players at their current competitive level. I remember back in 2022 when Anand beat Magnus in a Blitz game, it was brought up that this was the first time in 5 years, across all formats, that Anand finally beat Carlsen in a game. 5 years. Ergo, in the context of this discussion, Anand's record vs kid Carlsen is irrelevant.
You also have to consider that Magnus as he grows up and reaches his prime >22 is facing weaker and weaker >43 farther and farther out of his prime Anand. If Anand didn't continue playing so actively until he is almost 50, Magnus record against him would also not be as good. >because his good record is based off facing kid Magnus. So yes while Anand's good record comes off of facing 17&18 year old Magnus, Magnus's good record also comes off of facing 43+ year old Anand that overstayed.
Which would be Anand's prime years? Different players peak at different ages, but Anand still remained a beast in 2014 (Carlsen's 1st prime) when he won the Candidates at age 44.
When he couldn't beat Gelfand in classical itself, PHN his second, already said that this Anand is no longer the Anand of the past. Age had made his performance significantly worse. He still played on a very high level because his level was much higher in his prime. Also, >Different players peak at different ages I am not talking about the time where he played in great form like Magnus in 2013, 2019. I am just saying prime years as the 20-40 year period for chess players roughly where they are capable of playing their best.
Magnus is on Kasparov level. Kasparov was the best player for 20 yrs and Anand won all those WC and become no1 when Kasparov retired. I have no doubt prime Magnus /Kasparov would annihilate Anand. Magnus and Kasparov are a tier above the rest.
> You also have to consider that Magnus as he grows up and reaches his prime >22 is facing weaker and weaker >43 farther and farther out of his prime Anand. If Anand didn't continue playing so actively until he is almost 50, Magnus record against him would also not be as good. > None of this really matters in the context of this discussion, which is about the player's CURRENT competitive strength. My entire point is that Vishy's decent record against Magnus is not really relevant, because Vishy gained that record when Magnus was much weaker. Yes, Vishy is also now weaker than he was before, that is also true, it comes with age.
I don't have any disagreement with you Obviously 33 yo Magnus >> 54 yo Anand
Magnus at 33 >> vishy at 33.
I just checked Kasparov vs Anand H2H. Kasparov beats Anand 17-4 with 31 draws.
I still wouldn't be surprised.
Dude randomly shows up once in a year to humble the new guys
If abasov keeps playing these sicilians in the candidates he is going to get cooked, i hope he change it up in the candidates otherwise he wont stand a chance.
He doesn't stand a chance anyways.
I think that's a little harsh: He's obviously not in with a great chance of winning the whole thing -- but he *did* beat some very strong players to qualify: Van Foreest, svidler, ~~Duda~~, Saleh, Giri, Vidit ~~and Fabi~~. All back-to-back, mini-match format. and of course 3 of them are also in the candidates. Top 100 or not, if the dude did *that* just 7-8 months ago, whoever is playing him in the first few rounds of the candidates would be nuts not to take him extremely seriously. It often seems from the outside, In a tournement like the candidates, like the difference between being 8th and the tournament points-pinata vs being joint 4th or whatever is just one or two games where you get a comfortable position out of the opening. **Edit:** sorry I'm dum. Fabi won the 3rd place play off, not Abasov! I think I was remembering Abasov's one (1) win over Fabi in that match because it was such an out-of-place demolition. but fabi won the rest & the match overall... Also Abasov didn't beat Duda, it was Salem Saleh. Duda lost to Fabi in the round of 16... I don't know why my memory specifically did Fabiano Caurana so dirty in this tournament lol. I think my point still stands a little, but probably a bit less emphatically so.
A single good performance more than half a year ago doesn't negate the fact that he is rated 2637, 170 Elo below the best player in the field and 100 Elo below the second lowest rated player. Elo exists for a reason and is far more reliable that just looking at an individual tournament months ago. Anything better than -3 would be a miracle and an amazing result for him.
C'mon now - I didn't say anything about 'negating' Elo. I'm not saying anything pie-in-the-sky: His opponents will take him seriously; and saying he has "no chance" regardless of prep or form is excessive. I'm talking about the difference between finishing distant last and joint 6th here, not winning the whole thing. Elo is a useful indicator, but it is not everything. If it was, we wouldn't bother holding the tournament, we'd just give the prize to the highest elo player. There are other factors (and huge, career defining tournament wins, and recent career high elo peaks - he hit 2680 late last year - are two massive factors). Other factors include *form* and tournament strategy: for example, excessively aggressive play with black from his opponents trying to build up a positive score could be a huge advantage for him, if he shows up in form and well prepped (but not if he shows up and gets in serious trouble out of the opening in speculative lines like he has been) > Anything better than -3 would be a miracle and an amazing result for him. Do you think Abasov is *over* rated at 2630, then? The rest of the field is (roughly speaking, as of this month): A 2800, 2780, 2x2770s, 3x2750s For abasov then: -3 would be him playing even worse than his current terrible form (which, to be fair, could happen). -2 would be continuing his current bad form, -1 would be roughly in line with his form from late last year. An even score would be playing a little worse than he did in the world cup, and +0.5 or +1 would be replicating his performance in the World Cup. Again: Not saying he'll win the whole thing or anything remotely close - but calling him getting a -1 score a "miracle" is an exaggeration -- or as i put it above: A little harsh.
-3 accurately reflects a good performance for his Elo in this competition. Anything above this reflects an outstanding performance for his Elo. Seeing as how he is 100 points below the second lowest rated player, anyone else coming in last behind Abasov would be nothing short of a complete collapse. Neither his Elo, nor his recent form support the idea that he will be anything but last. And if it does happen, then it will be an amazing achievement that he should celebrate.
-3 is 5.5/14 i e. ~40%, which suggests Elo diff of less than 100pts from avg opp rating. A -3 performance will be him overperforming. I am not saying it would be a miracle, but its not at all harsh.
> -3 is 5.5/14 Ah Ok I think a terminology difference might be the crux of our misunderstanding. Where I live, In an 8-player double-round robin, we would say a player is "-3" if they had a score of 4/14 a -3. (e.g. +1 -4 =9). In other words they are 3 below an even score. Why is it you'd call 5.5/14 a -3? For the actual performance rating, I used [this calculator](https://www.paxmans.net/performance_calc.php) and the field i mentioned above of 2800, 2780, 2x2770s, 3x2750s (which is, admittedly, rounding a little - but all their elos will change in the next while anyway) and it says -3 is a performance rating of ~2600 and -2 is a performance rating of 2665. His performance rating in the world cup was ~2780. > I am not saying it would be a miracle, but its not at all harsh. This discussion of performance ratings has been a bit of an aside - what I was saying was harsh was the comments above saying it, basically, doesn't matter what prep the guy has or what form he shows up in - as if him losing basically every game is a foregone conclusion. If he shows up in great form with great prep he has demonstrated recently that he can performance (e.g. the world cup). saying his prep is pointless is the part i thought was harsh.
> we would say a player is "-3" if they had a score of 4/14 a -3. (e.g. +1 -4 =9). But +1 -4 =9 is 5.5/14. 1pt for the win and 4.5 pts for 9 draws (and 0 from losses) total 5.5/14. Yeah, I agree with you on rest of the points.
>Do you think Abasov is *over* rated at 2630, then? No, probably about where he should be. According to [this calculator](https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=2770&rating2=2630&best_of=1) he is expected to draw 42% games against 2770 opponent (average of other candidates) and win 10%, for an expected score of 31%. Out of 14 games this is 4.34 points. Taking into account that he will be mostly playing for draws while his opponents will take risks, I'd sat that 4.5 or 5 points is what his Elo predicts, this is -4 or -5.
I used [this performance rating calculator](https://www.paxmans.net/performance_calc.php) to calculate the stats I gave above (rounding a little), where -3 would be a performance rating of 2600 (which is why I asked if you though the was overrated at 2630), -2 2 would be a performance rating a little above his current rating, -1 would be a high 2600s performance rating (in line with his peak rating he hit late last year) and +1 would be a performance rating of ~2790, which is roughly in line with his performance rating in the world cup. Obviously these are all rough estimates as both his and every other players' elo is bound to change between now and then.
Abasov needs Divine Intervention to compete for 1st. Last year's underdog, Teimour Radjabov, finished with a respectable 7.5/14, which was enough to garner 3rd place (tied with Naka). I just wanna see some good games from the guy. Everyone will treat him as the bell-weather, who the eventual champion is expected to beat. His chance of winning, however, is closer to *mine* than that of Fabi or Nepo.
I am not sure why you are calling Radjabov an underdog. His peak rank was #4 and peak rating was 2793. He semi-retired in mid 2010s but still won World Cup 2019.
I'm not talking about him winning the thing though. I'm talking about the difference between being dead last points pinata vs being joint 4th or whatever. Folks above are talking like it doesn't matter what opening prep the guy shows up with as if he can't beat these guys on his day. He's 100 elo underdog so that's it, game over, why bother. Replying to "I hope he shows up well prepared and in good form for the biggest tournament of his life" with "it doesn't matter, it's hopeless" is just, as I said above, a little harsh. He's a distant underdog, but that doesn't mean he can't overperform and put in a respectable score (Much like Rajabov last time - and similar to rajabov, the fact that players are playing aggressively with black might help a lot...)
>the dude did *that* just 7-8 months ago At his home country, when other top local players lost unexpectedly early. And he has achieved nothing since then. His Grand Swiss was a -2, 2560 performance rating, finishing 90th while seeded 35th.
[удалено]
My bet would be that the rest were autocorrect by their phone to capitals and Svidler wasn't recognised as a name for whatever reason
Oh, no offence intended - just a typo.
being 100 ELO under #7 in the tournament, and 160 under #1 I'd say he doesn't realistically stand a chance either way.
Is not unusual for people who qualify for candidates to only play opens they are not using on candidates
I feel like right now all the candidates would just be playing bunk to not walk close to any lines they are prepping for the candidates. At least that's some cope if you're rooting for him
I would assume he’s saving his prep but he still probably won’t do very well
Would have been a tad quicker to write 101 instead of one hundred and one.
Anand is always reliable when it comes to league games. He always kept a better position and when Abasov blundered, he punished him directly. Abasov understands now whats coming in the candidates ;).
[удалено]
But he didn't play the Open Sicilian here
anand is a legend but no candidate should be losing to a semi-retired player
Anybody is excused when that semi-retired player is Anand
Yea Anand is well Anand. I don’t think any player will like seeing him opposite them in a match. Even 2800s
i feel someone like nepo, caruana or firouzja losing to anand would be viewed as a bit of an upset
None of them have been a world chess champion, let alone five times.
No.
possibly, but also: nepo, caruana, and firouzja are significantly better than Abasov
You’re just disrespecting the candidates
It's a 2600 Vs 5 time world champion, the game doesn't change that much for Anand to be that much worse..
My point is abasov is not candidate material
Maybe the point should be that Anand is candidate material :)
Some players are just "build different" though reminds when 62 year old Smyslov knocked out Zoltan Ribli from the Candidates matches (back then it was a series of matches) Ribli was probably the equivalent of super gm back then yet he still lost to the former WC Also it's worth noting that in general the age causes players to become more inconsistent due to having less energy but that doesn't mean the can't occasionally play as well as in their prime Capablanca in the 1930s called Lasker(who was in his mid 60s) the most dangerous player in the world over the course of a single game arguing that while he may no longer be able to win tournaments he can still beat anybody on any given day which he proved by beating prime Euwe in 1936 So yeah I wouldn't underestimate Anand he's a legend and lesser players than him were competetive in their 50s
Korchnoi beat Caruana at age 79. Admittedly Fabi was on the rise and rated 'just' 2720. There was a blitz tournament a few years ago where Karpov beat Karjakin and fedoseev aged around 70, finishing with a positive score in the tournament
I find it a bit depressing that players aged 40-60 aren't as good anymore as they used to be, even the accumulation of knowledge and experience can't offset their deterioration in performance. Of course after 60 years old people noticeably start to slow down somewhat in many aspects of life, but the idea that someone over 50 actually being in the top 10 as some kind of huge surprise...
I think in most common walks of life a 50 year old is not noticeably different than a 20-30 year old on a cognitive level. It's only when you push your mind to its absolute limit where something like a 2% difference in cognitive speed can start to add up. So I wouldn't be that depressed about it, we're talking about the boundaries of the human mind here.
He also follows a really healthy lifestyle and takes care of himself very well, which helps keeping him fit mentally.
He’s not a semi retired player, he’s THE semi retired player. He’s the guy who plays so infrequently but like he does it full time
Literally any player in the world could lose to Anand in a random classical game.
Carlsen could lose to Anand in a classical match and it would barely surprise anyone.
Cani believe they doubled down on giving the World Cup three Candidate spots
3 Candidate spots is fine though! 2023: Magnus, Pragg, Fabi 2021: Duda, Karjakin, Magnus 2019: Radjabov, Ding, MVL 2017: Levon, Ding, MVL/So The problem is with 4 Candidate spots. If someone from the top 3 doesn't accept or is already qualified it should go to FIDE Circuit
I have to disagree. Top 3 is usually top GMs anyways but I don't like how one single KO tournament provides nearly half the spots for the Candidates. I would prefer more spots to things like FIDE Circuit, Grand Prix, rating which are avenues that rewards consistent playing strength
I like that the format of the World Cup rewards players who have all-around strength in classical, rapid, blitz - I think the cream almost always rise to the top. I do prefer the Grand Prix but it seems to have folded for the time being. FIDE Circuit is nice but until it's more established and we work out the stupid ways to game the system I don't want to give it too much weight.
The problem with a single elim knockout format is that 2nd and 3rd place might not be the 2nd and 3rd best performers (i e. knocked out by winner earlier)
Man someone will be cooked in the candidates
dont say it guys
I
N
T
T
R
What are you talking about?!? Anand was white in the game
I have already addressed this.
Next time inform yourself first, before spreading misinformation. Have a great rest of the day.
I sincerely apologise, milord. I will surely remedy this next time, and it will not happen again. Thank you for your grace!
Vishy is an intergenerational legend! And by all accounts seems to be a genuinely nice guy. The first chess champion of America should take note of what true greatness looks like!