Originally posted by woodypusherDo you think this was a single game rather than a tournament of *14* games? Carlsen performed better *overall* so he fully justified his right to challenge for the title through the front door.
letting Carlsen become the next WCC challenger through the back door.
Originally posted by VarenkaOf course all 14 games counted but it was Ivanchuk who clinched it at the end for Magnus, not Magnus. If Ivanchuk hadn't won, those 14 games wouldn't have mattered at all.
Do you think this was a single game rather than a tournament of *14* games? Carlsen performed better *overall* so he fully justified his right to challenge for the title through the front door.
It's just a figure of speech and a common one at that and really doesn't need further explanation for most people.
Originally posted by woodypusherStop pretending that chess is a game for one person. Kramnik also had a say in that game and the fact is that he wasn't good enough to avoid defeat. And when someone isn't good enough to win, that doesn't make the actual winner "lucky".
Ivanchuk who clinched it at the end for Magnus
And don't forget that Ivanchuk beat Carlsen in round 12. How does that fit in with him clinching it for Carlsen except when you treat it as a single game and not a tournament?
It's just a figure of speech
I wasn't debating what it means. I just don't think its true in this case.
Originally posted by VarenkaI am not 'pretending' anything. I explained what I meant and if you want to read into it something else just to argue, then that's on you. I never said Carlsen was lucky. But he did have some luck. All chessplayers have luck on their side sometimes. That doesn't mean he's not a great player or not deserving. He is number one in the world and does have the highest elo ever.
Stop pretending that chess is a game for one person. Kramnik also had a say in that game and the fact is that he wasn't good enough to avoid defeat. And when someone isn't good enough to win, that doesn't make the actual winner "lucky".
And don't forget that Ivanchuk beat Carlsen in round 12. How does that fit in with him clinching it for Carlsen excep eech
I wasn't debating what it means. I just don't think its true in this case.[/b]
If you really just want to argue, then consider contacting chessbase.com. They had the audacity to use the word 'luck' for Carlsen. Here is an excerpt from their report on the candidates today:
[Magnus Carlsen overpressed a messy position against Peter Svidler and was swiftly punished. However Kramnik gambled all of his chips, and Ivanchuk simply took them all! Carlsen’s luck has not abandoned him and he is now the official challenger against Anand for the World Chess Championship, edging out the Russian’s great performance by virtue of his better tiebreak. Full report with GM analysis.]
http://chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009346/candidates-r14--leaders-lose-carlsen-qualifies-010413.aspx
Relax. 😉
01 Apr 13
Originally posted by woodypusherCarlsen is the youngest world title challenger since Kasparov. He just won a tournament against many of the world's best players with a performance rating of 2850. And the best you can say is "through the backdoor" which often means "unofficial" or "underhand". I think you're the one needing to relax and give Carlsen some credit when it's due.
Relax.
01 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaWhat I don't understand about the posted results is Carlsen winning on tie breaker points when the TB listing clearly shows Kramnik with 57.75 and Carlsen with 56.25. How can that be? Did they have a sudden death 10 minute game or something?
Carlsen is the youngest world title challenger since Kasparov. He just won a tournament against many of the world's best players with a performance rating of 2850. And the best you can say is "through the backdoor" which often means "unofficial" or "underhand". I think you're the one needing to relax and give Carlsen some credit when it's due.
01 Apr 13
Originally posted by Fat LadyYet the performance rating of Kramnik was also higher, 2858 V 2850. Carlsen won 5 vs 4 for Kramnik though. And lost less, but how did Kramnik end up with 8 points higher performance rating? Shouldn't that count in the tie break thing?
I think the first tie-break method was number of wins.
Not having seen the games till just a few minutes ago I thought Carlsen's
loss was perhaps due to him finally burning out after that 90 move marathon
from the day before where he finally used up all the credits Lady Luck had given him.
But no. He went for it and given some of breaks he has had in this tournament
with his risky play why not.
Kramnik just got done by a good game by Ivanchuck.
I don't think neither player chocked.
Glad is Carlsen v Anand.
Kramnik would have bored the pants of Anand like he did v Kasparov.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by greenpawn34Now it is the classic youth V experience clash. It has yet to be proven how well Carlsen will do in a long match. Anyone know how much money Carlsen took away from this tournie and how much will be at stake for the next bout?
Not having seen the games till just a few minutes ago I thought Carlsen's
loss was perhaps due to him finally burning out after that 90 move marathon
from the day before where he finally used up all the credits Lady Luck had given him.
But no. He went for it and given some of breaks he has had in this tournament
with his risky play why not.
Kra ...[text shortened]... Glad is Carlsen v Anand.
Kramnik would have bored the pants of Anand like he did v Kasparov.
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by PacifiqueAnd the top performance rating of them all, I might add. 8 points higher than Carlsen.
A narrow win by Carlsen.
Also respect to Kramnik for his fighting spirit - 5/7 in second half of the tournament, despite of poor start! I wonder how many will call him "dull", "drawmaster" and "not brave enough", after this tournament?
02 Apr 13
Originally posted by PacifiqueI think the 'number of wins' rules was important to encourage fighting chess. After the last candidates flop (lets face it, it was terrible!) i think number of wins works. It is very harsh on poor old Kramnik though, the guy played brilliantly! You have to hand it to Carlsen though, i think that, in the end, the stronger player won. The last three games were very questionable but his performances over the last three or four years have been outstanding, if anyone deserved to get the luck, it was him as i don't think there are many people left who genuinely question his superiority in World chess at the moment. I do feel for Kramnik though, over the tournament he was much more consistent, MUCH better prepared and if he had only drawn that last game he'd have really earned the win! Chess is such a cruel mistress at times, i fancy him to come good in two years though. He has shown he is still one of the best in the World.
It`s because of Carlsen`s rating. But Kramnik has better Berger coefficient (IMHO more important than number of wins) too.