Boris Gelfand’s view, in an interview with Chess-News after winning the Candidates Matches in Kazan, was that an in-form Ivanchuk is still the best player in the world. As well as the topic of age in chess, he also talked about preparation, computers, Sofia Rules and the World Championship format.
Boris Gelfand at Amber this year | photo: Fred Lucas, amberchess20.com
Boris Gelfand was talking to Evgeny Surov of Chess-News and, as always, he provided thoughtful and eloquent answers. I’ve translated highlights below, trying not to include too much overlap with the long selection I made from interviews he gave immediately after the Candidates Matches.
“In 15 years the composition of the world elite hasn’t changed greatly”
Near the beginning of the interview, Gelfand was asked about how Anand and himself were managing to buck the trend for chess players to become younger. Gelfand responded:
I’m sure it’s exaggerated. I remember a couple of years ago playing in Wijk aan Zee. I played poorly, but in terms of rating it was one of the strongest tournaments and included all the top players. I think more than half of the participants had also played in Linares 1994, in a similar tournament. (Translator’s note: 6 of the 14 players in Corus 2008 also played in Linares 1994 – Kamsky and Shirov were absent from Corus.) That was probably the strongest Linares, when Karpov won brilliantly. So in 15 years the composition of the world elite hasn’t changed greatly. Of course, people have come in – like Carlsen and Aronian… But still, those who were playing before – Anand, Ivanchuk, I’ve been a little less successful but I’m at about the same level, plus Kramnik and Topalov, who’ve already been in the elite for an incredible length of time, Shirov – it strikes me that on the whole they still haven’t got any weaker. Of course, as the years go by it’s harder to maintain stability – I’ve realised that. Therefore the swings in results are far greater, but when one of the players from our generation is in good form it’s hard to say that any current player is better. Who plays better, Ivanchuk in good form or Carlsen? It seems to me it’s Ivanchuk in good form.
Ivanchuk and Carlsen drew their first game at Bazna this year | photo: ChessBase
How to work on chess
The interview moves on to the question of how Gelfand works on chess, and it’s perhaps worth including some of Aronian’s praise for Gelfand in his recent long Crestbook interview:
You know, it’s easy to work when you can see an immediate return, but he’s had difficult periods, and still to believe in yourself and try to keep working despite that… I’m very, very glad for him, that his dedication and love for the game has borne fruit.
Surov asks Gelfand:
You expressed an interesting idea in one of your interviews – that you have a method of preparation which consists of working constantly almost every day, regardless of when the next tournament will be or when the last one finished. Did I understand you correctly?
Yes, that’s absolutely the case. And that’s also how it was in those years when there were no tournaments at all. I have to say there were tough years around the turn of the century – from 1999 to 2003, 2005, – when there were no tournaments, and no realistic chance of any. But still, I worked in more or less the same manner, with about the same intensity. I didn’t do anything very differently.
And could you – maybe not so much for me, as for young chess players – say what this daily work consists of? I’m not asking you for an hour-by-hour breakdown, but still, what is it you do? How do you prepare?
Well, how do I prepare… I review the games that have been played. If, for example, you don’t have much energy for creative work then you can sit and look through the games played, searching for some ideas. There are a lot of ideas you can draw on from tournaments. That’s become the norm for everyone now – reviewing other people’s games. Sometimes I look at old books, or read magazines. I flick through endgame books. You still have to refresh your endgame knowledge. If you don’t refresh it for a long time then at the critical moment it might not surface. It should be at the level of instinct.
I also sit, of course, and look at my own games. I try to advance opening theory. There are specialists who don’t consider that so important for the growth of chess players and think few games are decided in the opening, but it strikes me that’s not exactly the case. Take, for example, Polugaevsky. Or Geller. Or also Kasparov. They became great chess players precisely because of their work on the opening. Therefore it seems to me that working on the opening is incredibly important, particularly nowadays. If you don’t work on the opening you often can’t even get a playable position. Your opponent will be well-prepared and you simply won’t get any chances of making a game of it. Or you’ll do that at too high a price – you’ll end up with a bad position. I’d also formulate a concept that’s rarely seen now: how you set out to play the game. It strikes me as an incredibly important concept as it’s crucial you don’t simply look at opening moves, but the idea behind the play. That’s the area I think about and work on.
A little later in the interview:
I’d like to return for a while to your daily preparation between tournaments. I’m still interested in whether you take a break from chess? I can’t believe you’re only involved with chess.
But that’s the secret. If you do something every day then you don’t need to make any, let’s say, extreme efforts. If you don’t work for a month then you need to make extreme efforts in order to catch up on what you could have done in that month. But if you work regularly then you can also do other things and lead a normal way of life, finding time for everything.
“It might be +0.40, but the position is lost”
Gelfand gives an interesting insight into how a top-GM uses computers:
In going through your methods you didn’t once use the word “computer”. However, I won’t believe you if you say you don’t turn one on at all.
No, I absolutely do switch it on. Of course. And quite a lot. But I try to have a critical attitude and use it within sensible bounds, meaning I don’t treat it as an ultimate authority. Instead I look and compare it with my own impressions: do I like this position and is the computer correctly evaluating it. Many don’t doubt that any computer evaluation is correct, but there are a great number of nuances. Again, I don’t want to reveal everything just now, but it seems to me that working sensibly with a computer and getting the maximum benefit out of it is one of the elements of chess mastery nowadays.
You don’t believe bare evaluations?
Well, and what, for example, does the evaluation +0.02 mean? That position might be a dead-drawn one, or even totally won. It’s not clear. Or the machine gives one line the evaluation +0.4 and another +0.35. Which is the best? After which move will the position be easier to play? It’s hard to say, so after all you need to think about it…
It’s hard to argue with that.
Or it might be +0.40, but the position is lost, because you’re up an exchange, but you can’t move a piece and your opponent has a simple path to improve his position. Or perhaps your position is good, but you won’t make the essential moves, because they’re absolutely absurd. Will it help you that the computer gives +0.3?
From my own experience, if you like (forgive me the phrase), I’d note that the computer and its evaluations still have a certain psychological impact. If it shows 0.00 (let’s say, you’re looking from White’s point of view) it’s already lodged in your head that it’s a position without any sort of advantage. That’s the psychology.
Position after Gelfand's 13. b3 in the decisive game of the Candidates Final
Yes, there is that aspect. You need to combat it, because what else can you do? If you take, for instance, that position from the match against Grischuk. The computer doesn’t rate it highly after 13. b3, but it’s clearly, at the very least, easier for White to play. That’s an example.
As far as I know it’s not even just the computer, but in general that variation isn’t considered the most dangerous for Black.
That’s why you hold Candidates Matches and tournaments at the very top level. People prepare for them in order to refute well-established judgements, and to move chess theory forwards. It strikes me that part of the point of such World Championship matches or tournaments is to set a direction and give a push to the development of theory in the near future.
Death by draws?
The interview inevitably turned to the question of the “dull” chess in Kazan, and the “problem” of draws. In part Gelfand is responding to the opinion of Silvio Danailov, ECU President and Veselin Topalov’s manager, that the high number of draws was a “shame and disaster for the image of chess and FIDE”, and that the main failing was not to introduce Sofia Rules:
But I’d say the opinion is exaggerated. I played 14 games (I only like to answer for myself and no-one else), and ten of them involved an extremely interesting struggle. Despite the draws the struggle was interesting. Four games weren’t so exciting. In the fourth game of the match again Mamedyarov I agreed to a draw from a position of strength. In the fourth game of the match against Kamsky I came up against strong analysis, and the game ended up in a dead-drawn rook ending almost before it began. And the third and fourth games against Grischuk. In one of them Sasha came up against preparation and realistically the position, despite the presence of a majority of pieces on the board, became dead-drawn. Not equal, but dead-drawn. If we hadn’t agreed to a draw then in a couple of moves we’d have finished setting up our pieces and would simply have had to stay put. And in the fourth game of our match, where there was an extremely subtle struggle, Sasha managed to outwit me and the position was, let’s say, dull-equality. I wouldn’t say it was dead-drawn, but dull-equality – where you could have played on but the game wasn’t, let’s say, ever going to go down in the annals of history. The position was very dull: you could move, wait for a blunder from your opponent… But the remaining ten games were interesting.
Topalov coasted home with 7 consecutive draws in San Luis
If we take the tournaments which were held in San Luis or Mexico, then the percentage of dull draws wasn’t any lower. And in San Luis in general the winner, Veselin Topalov, spent the whole second half essentially just making draws with no play. I don’t know if they were agreed in advance or if they were taken in theoretically drawn positions, but it’s not so important. There weren’t any complaints about it. It was understandable – he was, to put it crudely, fixing the World Championship title. He seems to think that people have bad memories, but fortunately my memory’s fine. It’s simply that chess has developed, and it’s very often the case that if Black’s analysed an opening very deeply, and White hasn’t done it as well, then the game might not even start. But that’s a characteristic of modern chess. Fortunately it doesn’t happen in half of the games, or even a third. But it happens from time to time. And in these matches it basically happened in three games out of fourteen. That’s not such a high percentage. It won’t be any less in any other format.
The only thing I want to say on that score is: of course, if the matches are longer play will be sharper. Firstly, there’s more opportunity to take risks. We saw that in the final match. Although Sasha and I were both tired it was clear that we tried to fight in all the games. In almost all the matches – I don’t recall a game without a struggle. Perhaps the one exception in the whole tournament was a rapid game where White didn’t try. That’s a minimal proportion. Plus, I have to say that it’s never the same twice. Whatever the system you can get absolutely different tournaments. For example there were two tournaments with eight people. In one of them one participant won all the games in the first half, while in the second tournament the battle was fairly even, although Anand broke away a few rounds before the end. I had a slight chance of catching him, but it would have been more a question of counting on him collapsing than on my own mastery.
Any format better than none
Surov asks Gelfand about his unwillingness to discuss the format of an event while the event’s still in progress:
Firstly, it’s true that during tournaments I don’t discuss those things. If I’ve sat down to play in a tournament according to some format then I should play to the end. And again, I’ve got a good memory. I remember well the years between 1995 and 2005 when there was no format at all; when, to put it bluntly, I didn’t have the slightest chance of fighting for a World Championship match. Or rather, there was one chance when Leko won the tournament in Dortmund. But then that means there were no chances for, let’s say, Svidler or Grischuk to fight i.e. there wasn’t a tournament where every chess player, even the strongest, could fight for the world title. Therefore when tournaments are run according to a format which isn’t ideal, no doubt, but isn’t the worst possible – then it strikes me as somehow silly to criticise it. It’s great that it’s being run, and you should thank the people running it. Thank goodness that it’s run well, at a good level. Therefore it’s a combination: on the one hand, none of the formats are as bad as during those ten years when there was no real format at all, and then, of course, I don’t want to get distracted during a tournament.
“The situation isn’t tragic enough to adopt radical measures”
Gelfand provides his view of the Sofia Rules banning draws except by repetition or in positions the arbiters accept are drawn:
While the players see chances of victory they should play. That’s the essence of the Sofia Rules, as I understand them. And that’s correct. But it’s also clear that, as with any rules, someone’s going to have to interpret them, as you rightly said. And you can interpret them correctly, or incorrectly. So to consider Sofia Rules a panacea against all ills is, at the very least, naïve. Objectively in chess you often get positions with dull equality, or where play’s dried up, and no rules will help. In the absence of those rules I played ten games in Kazan. There was a high percentage of draws, but a minimal percentage of dull draws. If rules had been in place then I don’t know, perhaps at some point I’d have realised that if I don’t fix a draw now then no-one will allow me to agree to one. And I wouldn’t go for open play, but instead I’d have sucked the life out of the position. That’s also a factor. It might seem as though there are easy decisions here, but there aren’t any easy decisions in the fight against draws.
And the second thing I want to say is that the situation isn’t tragic enough to adopt radical measures. It’s not tragic. The overwhelming majority of games in major tournaments are played out, and interesting. Therefore if we look at games, and not statistics, we’ll grasp that the situation isn’t bad at all.
It’s perhaps worth noting here that in an interview earlier this year the Azerbaijan GM Vugar Gashimov expressed a very similar idea to Gelfand’s about Sofia Rules sometimes leading to less interesting chess:
It seems to me that when there’s a ban on draws it puts pressure on you, and you start to play more limited chess. More solidly, perhaps… And grandmasters who find a three-fold repetition usually make it immediately at the first opportunity – as there’s a risk that you might have to play some stupid position for seven hours, and in any case the game will end in a draw.
Without Sofia Rules the New Year's Reggio Emilia tournament had over 50% decisive games | photo: Julia Kochetkov, Chess-News.ru
“I’ll have less chance at home”
One of the last questions for Gelfand was about the location of the World Championship match against Vishy Anand, and his answer was perhaps surprising:
And would you like to play in your native country?
There are many pros and cons, so I won’t try and say. I think I’ll have less chance at home than in any other country (let’s say, than in Russia) – for a number of factors. But we’ll see what happens. I don’t think the situation is so ideal that we’ll have dozens of offers.
Thank you for the translation, we love interviews!
I’m no professional chess player, but I think Gelfand is absolutely right about his working method. It’s better to work regularly and systematically, rather than working to your extreme limits in a limited amount of time.
By the way, Gelfand is not being subjective about his evaluation of b3. I remember Grischuk saying at first he didn’t understand the move, but after some thought, realized he was in a very bad position.
Danailov has always had doubts about the survival of chess. Have a look at the “Chess should either change, or die” interview published here (February 2011) : “The 30 seconds move increment (and any increment in general) should be abandoned. That’s essentially deprived fans of the enthralling spectacle of time trouble.”
With increments there is still time trouble. Some people are not after good games and have no respect for players who produce them. They want to see blood only.
Who plays better, Ivanchuk in good form or Carlsen? It seems to me it’s Ivanchuk in good form.
Classic ! :)
“Who plays better, Ivanchuk in good form or Carlsen? It seems to me it’s Ivanchuk in good form.”
I have a lot of respect for Gelfand but, for reasons too obvious to recite, this is a very dubious statement to say the least. Perhaps Gelfand is overly conscious of the fact that the question most people are asking – and will be asking more if the Anand-Gelfand championship match ever garners sponsorship – is whether he plays better than Carlsen, whose ELO is over 71 points higher than Boris’s (even after Kazan) and who is currently number one (again) on the live rating list whereas Boris can’t be seen anywhere in the top ten.
calvin amari: pardon my ignorrance, but what would that reasons be, as they are not at all that obvious to me? Ivanchuk is an ever-swinging genius, known for twenty or so years as being completely unpredictable, able to beat absolutely anyone soundly and all the same lose to a 2600. His rating is pretty much meaningless. Carlsen is a lazy supertalent, a great intuitive player of Capablanca’s caliber (mind you, I do not agree with the often-repeated statement that if he worked more, he’d be able to go down in history as the greatest ever — as with Capa, it’s simply not his style, he plays on “feeling”, not on work). His rating is an accurate description of his strenght.
There is no doubt as to which of the two is more stable, which will always be rated higher, which will win more tournaments. But I’m much inclined to side with Gelfand here: Ivanchuk on his good day is the strongest contemporary chess player. Too bad for him that he has so many worse days.
Kajetan Wandowicz: Gelfand’s hypothetical question (can Ivanchuk in his very top form beat Carlsen?) is cleverly incomplete. It is a fallacy to suggest that only Ivanchuk operates in a varying performance range, although his swings may be pronounced and more frequent. To a greater or lesser degree each of the top players vacillate in their performance depending on some obvious factors (preparation, health, rest, specific psychological distress or distraction) as well as on factors that are not obvious, least of all to the players themselves. Consider Nakamura at Tata Steel on the one hand and Carlsen at the Olympiad on the other, but clear examples abound. If Gelfand is suggesting that Ivanchuk in good form could beat Carlsen, this is an utterly unremarkable conclusion because that result obviously has occurred on various occasions. Therefore it seems plain that Gelfand, since he was manifestly was trying to make some point, was implying that that Ivanchuk would beat Carlsen when they are both operating at the top of their performance range. There is zero basis for such a conclusion, hence my characterization that it is “dubious,” which my definitionary says means “giving rise to uncertainty” or “unsettled in opinion.” In sum, Gelfand’s statement amounts to little more than a gratuitous slight leveled at Carlsen for which there is absolutely no basis. I offered some possible reasons why Gelfand may have felt compelled act in this way, which I would like to think is uncharacteristic of him.
As noted, any one top player can beat any other top player on any given day. There is not likely to be a fully satisfying approach to comparing players based on their absolute peak performance alone. I don’t think we would be very surprised, however, if the truth was that peak performance is a relatively stable margin over average performance, in which case Carlsen would have a clear edge over Ivanchuk. Another possible measure would be actual performance rating over a defined, but not long sustained, period of time. In this regard, has Ivanchuk ever had a performance rating equal to Carlsen’s during the latter’s dramatic run at the end of 2009 that catapulted him to the world number one slot?
It might help to clarify Gelfand’s words a little if I include more from the interview (which I’d left out as it was essentially repetition):
“Surov: […] And then there’s, for example, Ivanchuk, who you mentioned… Of course, it’s tough not to agree that when he’s in good form then he’s perhaps stronger than anyone, not only Carlsen.
Gelfand: Yes, perhaps that’s the strongest chess player in the world – Ivanchuk in good form. Many have said that. I was, perhaps, the first (I think in the pages of “64”) to say that he was stronger than Carlsen.”
I don’t see your “gratuitous slight leveled at Carlsen”, Calvin. As Gelfand says, it’s quite a common opinion (e.g. Kasparov’s said something similar), and he’s not only talking about Carlsen but just using him as representative of the best of the current crop of players.
Gelfand also mentioned Carlsen in another interview published today: http://www.e3e5.com/article.php?id=1626 I’d recommend it even if just for the photos of Gelfand at home in Israel (including the Candidates trophy on his “working” chess set!).
The Carlsen comments (it’s clear that after struggling for 15 years to get a shot at the World Championship Gelfand isn’t overly impressed by Carlsen’s apparently nonchalant decision – but again, Gelfand’s opinion seems to be shared by most leading chess players):
“Mark Livshitz: How important is the role of an individual manager in chess? You get by, and quite well, without being taken care of by a manager or agent.
Gelfand: It depends on the goals you set yourself. In certain aspects that help is essential. If you want to get advertising contracts in the modelling business – you can’t get by without a manager. If you want to concern yourself with your professional affairs, then that role isn’t so important, although for deciding everyday things – trips, hotels and so on – it’s very tempting to transfer that to someone else.
M.L.: Does it seem to you that Magnus Carlsen’s refusal to take part in the Candidates Matches was connected with the recommendations of his manager, who considered that it was possible to earn more promoting shirts and jeans than playing in the selection process, moreover without the risk of dropping his chess rating?
G: I don’t have any contact with Magnus, so I don’t know what governed his decision to withdraw. I don’t know what’s in his head. The arguments he introduced seem a bit contrived. Perhaps he wasn’t able to formulate them properly. But that’s his choice, his life.”
I won’t translate the interview in full, as I have to stop translating Gelfand/Grischuk interviews at some point :) and it also repeats a lot of what’s been said before – with a little more on the lack of support from the Israeli government/chess federation.
“I was, perhaps, the first (I think in the pages of “64″) to say that he was stronger than Carlsen”
I’ve seen many interviews with Gelfand the last year and my impression is that he always either brings up Carlsen himself, or, when asked about him, says something negative a la this repeated statement from 64 about Ivanchuk being the superior chess player of the two.
More than once Gelfand has also stated that “the cycle change” was made on Carlsen’s behalf rather than describing it as if Carlsen withdrew because of the cycle change. To Gelfand “the cycle change” was apparently the later inclusion of a second rating spot that gave Kramnik a ticket to Kazan, and he has several times pointed out that he finds it strange that Carlsen refused to play in spite of this “bribe” that he never neglects to claim was given specifically to Carlsen and no one else.
Carlsen was the one that protested more than anyone else against a cycle change that was very detrimental to Gelfand. Instead of one of two spots in a Candidates match as agreed when the cycle started the World Cup winner got one of eight spots in a knockout. Carlsen withdrew because of this change and and didn’t want the minimatch system while Gelfand said absolutely nothing. It seems unnecessary to be so critical of Carlsen all the time when he did fight also on Gelfand’s behalf and never asked for or was given some special treatment. Every time Carlsen mentions Gelfand it is only with praise, by the way.
A pleasure to read. I disagree with a lot of what he is saying but his well-thought arguments makes it easy to understand his point of view.
gg is absolutely riight and so is calvin.
Gelfand shows his justified inferiority complex about Carlsen regularly, and look for even more signs of it now.
The Ivanchuk line is absurd. Their record is 6 – 2 in favor of Carlsen, and is even convincing in recent years.
The 6 – 2 figure, “even more convincing in recent years” or “the two losses came in 2008” (gg at ChessVibes) is a bit misleading. It’s hard to claim recent dominance if since 2008 (when they traded wins), Carlsen’s only won one classical game before today. There are also details like Ivanchuk winning 2 – 0 at Amber two years in a row – you normally like rapid games, gg :)
Of course I’m not saying that proves Ivanchuk’s better, but then neither do Carlsen’s wins prove the opposite. Gelfand’s opinion might be true or it might not, though in any case he’s obviously in a vastly better position than you or I to judge that. I don’t see what an “inferiority complex” has to do with anything – Gelfand’s talking about Ivanchuk, not himself, and it’s quite a commonplace that Ivanchuk in his best form might be the best player in the world.
In case you think Gelfand’s always anti-Carlsen, see e.g. the comments referring to Carlsen in his long Crestbook interview: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/06/gelfand-at-crestbook-part-ii/
“Take Carlsen, who’s now one of the best players in the world: he doesn’t stake a lot on the opening but tries to get playable positions – with great success, as we’ve all seen.”
“Sometimes you get white with a player who aims for a complex game with white while not trying to set particular opening problems. And you get black against a white specialist. If you take the very top, then it’s better to have black against Carlsen and white against Kramnik than vice versa. Because Kramnik is a clear case of a white specialist, while Carlsen, as mentioned, doesn’t go for a real advantage in the opening and simply tries to get a complex but playable position.”
“Perhaps I’m still holding on at the highest level on account of all the games I played with Kasparov, Karpov and Korchnoi, they gave me so many lessons! Carlsen and Karjakin didn’t play those great players. And don’t have that experience…”
“Each [of the young players] has his own style. Take the style of Carlsen or the style of Nakamura, it’s difficult to find something less similar. What do they have in common? No doubt they process information quicker – they were simply born with computers. But quicker doesn’t necessarily mean deeper. On the contrary, with some of them you can observe a certain computer-dependency.
Carlsen and Karjakin have already developed as players of the very highest level…”
Gelfand also talks about Ivanchuk there:
“Could you share your opinion of Ivanchuk (as a man and a chess player).
As a man Vasily Mikhailovich is quite withdrawn. But when you manage to talk with him you can see he’s a very deep and interesting man. And very original. While as a chess player – he’s supreme. It strikes me that the scale of his talent and the class of his play is at the level of a world champion. But there’s something missing. Perhaps it’s consistency in his results, or perhaps he’s too wrapped up in chess itself. For example, FIDE officials constantly excluded him from playing for the World Championship. Take the World Championship in 2005. While in 2007 they applied the only rating for the last 10 years which didn’t include Ivanchuk. I don’t know if it was on purpose or not. Anyone else, no doubt, would have put them in their place. After all, making your selection in 2007 based on a rating from 2004 is strange. But Vasily Mikhailovich simply didn’t pay any attention to it. And missed the cycle. While the number of tournaments that he’s won, and the games that he’s playing, all show that he’s a unique chess player.”
The only thing I’d say has changed since that interview is that Carlsen withdrew from the Candidates Matches, and yes, Gelfand, like most (all?) of his elite colleagues (reading between the lines and ignoring that they all say “it’s his decision”), wasn’t overly impressed.
First stating the obvious: Gelfand has been a world-top player for many years, so he knows a thing or twenty-five about chess – much more than anyone commenting here, even if some happen to be “average GMs” (which I doubt). Bartleby’s comment is spot on: you don’t have to share Gelfand’s opinions, but you can and should still respect them.
I wonder about Gelfand’s underlying reasons, and I guess in part they reflect that he is a bit annoyed with all the hype around Carlsen – like Kramnik when he said his equally controversial “Carlsen is my client” (but it was true at the time of the interview, and there was context to the isolated quote). I don’t know if Gelfand follows chess forums, but journalists taking interviews – and he gave quite a few (before and) after Kazan – ask recurrent questions such as “What do you think of Carlsen dropping out of the candidates event?” and “Do you consider yourself a worthy challenger for Anand? Will there be sponsor money for the match?”. Though in the given case he answered another recurrent question which I can provocatively rephrase as “How come you are still going strong? Aren’t you getting old, isn’t it time to retire?”. Not the first time he gets such a question, it might become boring or tiring for him, and the question is always context to the answer.
I am also a bit annoyed, but actually more amused about strong reactions from Carlsen fans on anything remotely critical about Carlsen. Apparently it’s a major offense to criticize his majesty Magnus the first …. .
It is not a major offense, but when statements fly in the face of reality in a plainly self serving way, it is worth calling out. In the latest from Gelfand on Chessbase, he says, ” True, Carlsen won a few tournaments, yet …” and goes on to say that his chances agains Magnus would be no worse than 50-50. Won a few tournaments!? I guess that is one of the 25 things Gelfand has figured out based on his many years of experience – that along with the well-honed art of damnation by feint praise.
I don’t see a big deal in Gelfand being a bit complimentary to Vassily. He is of the same age and he probably knows better than anyone else about the personal struggles Ivanchuk has experienced (the latest example his terrible game against Karyakin in Bazna yesterday). Whats wrong about giving some moral boost to Vassily?
And Carlsen will survive these comments too. ;-)
@calvin. You’re forgetting Gelfand’s opinion of Carlsen’s games and the frequency that his opponents blunder against him. If I could relate this to poker it would be like a poker player “running well” or “catching cards” against an opponent of equal strength. I’m sure you have arguments against this and I could think of a few. To give another example you could take 2 players who blunder an equal amount of the time and who are of equal strength but one player would experience more losses due to these blunders and the other more saves/wins due to these blunders. Not due to a lack of skill but to variance. This adds up to rating points.
As for Gelfand’s opinion of Ivanchuck and Carlsen, he might as well say that he thinks Ivanchuck’s games are of better quality than Carlsen’s games. I don’t really think it’s right to bring in stats (which have only 3 possible outcomes: win draw loss) to an argument of opinion over ones quality of games.
I only leave this here to offer another viewpoint. I’d also like to say that even if he is feeling under appreciated over the years he still has a point. His point is not gratuitous. And maybe a Carlsen – Gelfand match would not be 50/50 :) but the man still has his pride. He is the challenger for the title after all.
Gelfand: “A faulty WC-cycle is better than no WC-cycle, because I get to play”.
-He is late in his career and appreciates the chance given. He is older and more pragmatic. Gelfand is not among the top paid super-GMs and he didnt get that many tournament invitations the last years.
The support from Israelian chess society is poor, (-he said in a previous interview). He has wife and kids to support in Israel. He qualified and won (deservingly) through the FIDE World Cup system. Now he has his golden moment with the upcoming match. -You cant blame him for not spitting on his food plate!
BTW: Its a big compliment to Carlsen, quoting him as “the one to beat”. The point is of course that Magnus is only 20 years old and STILL RISING.
His question seems to be biased. Why did he not ask “Who plays better, Carlsen in good form or Ivanchuk?”
Congratulations to Mr Gelfand for qualifying to play V. Anand. He obviously earned it. Everybody is talking and crying about the World Championship cycle. Just let FIDE cut the crap and have a simple tournament to elect an annual champion. Do it as tennis does:: bring the top 10 or 12 or 14 highest rated player together and have a double or triple round robin. Winner is this year’s champ. Such a big event would be sure to bring chess to the forefront with the people, media and sponsor interest. Why have an uncertain cycle where nobody knows what’s going on, top players refusing to play, sponsorship declining, the media not knowing or not caring and people purposely kept in the dark about chess?? My humble opinion, for what it’s worth.