Candidates Qualifying

Last week’s poll question was “Do you think the current system should be remodelled entirely?” There was an overwhelming 83% in favour of NOT remodelling the whole thing, despite Jacob’s attempt to trick you by starting the “No” answer with the word “Yes”.


Jacob has one final question re the Candidates, just to get an idea of what small changes you had in mind.

The current system is that 8 play in the Candidates: 2 qualify from the Grand Prix, 2 from the World Cup, 2 on rating, the loser of the last World Championship match, and 1 ‘wildcard’, which means the organizers can invite whoever the local hero is.

So what small changes would you like to make up the 8? One more qualifying on rating, one less from the World Cup? Or one more from the Grand Prix?  Leave it alone, it’s fine as it is?

18 thoughts on “Candidates Qualifying”

  1. I disagree with everyone. I like the Candidates and am happy to compromise with reality in order to get the tournament financed.

  2. Voted Other. Replace the wildcard with the reigning world champion.

    It’s too easy a ride for the incumbent being effectively seeded to the final.

  3. For me it is fine as it is, but 3 first in candidates would play semi-final matches including also the world champion.

  4. One more per rating instead of a wildcard would be nice, but I suppose I also agree that “If you pay for the event, you can get your local hero a wildcard spot” is a realistic approach – particularly since the possible picks cannot be totally ridiculous. Who would argue with Aronian being a reasonable contender? Okay, I am a Kramnik fan and would have loved to see him playing, but everyone who was there deserved it, too.

  5. The wild card has a minimum FIDE elo of 2725 i think, so it is not anyone but has to be a reasonable good player and is needed for financing the candidates. I would remove rhe qualification by rating. This would force the elite to play in the grand prix ,this would improve the event and you have 4 spots.

  6. 3 from Grand prix and 3 from world cup.

    3rd and 4th from this competition should play mini match for the candidates tournament.

    10 players. But for players that are in because of rating extra rule, min 40 games played in last 6 months.

  7. I actually have most against those qualified on a year old rating. It has been messy and random. And I really do not agree with those that think that beating me is more important than making a draw with Carlsen…

  8. I don’t like the rating spots either and most probably we can’t afford the luxury to go without a wildcard.
    The cycle is quite alright, tough it might use some adjustment here and there.

  9. Any system which omits the highest rated player eligible to play must ultimately be flawed….though not sure what the solution is.

  10. Well, rating is kind of flawed when we have that number 4 and number 11 have a difference of only 20 elo points. Everyone in the top 11 (and I guess the world champion is there, so 10 people) kind of deserves to play the candidates according to elo.

    But having some spots on elo is a good thing, so you can remedy a fluke in the classification system.

    I would put the most emphasis on a previous tournament kind of the interzonals of old days. Say 4 people would qualify from the interzonal. The grand pix is a good thing, but very few people participate there, which is unfair, hence I would only classify one people from there. The world cup is a very entertaining tournament but it is too messy, hence only one place seems correct.

    Last two spots on rating, or one on rating and one on wildcard to make the eight participants should do the trick.

    Anyway I voted that the actual system is fair. If there is not an interzonal to allow everyone to have a chance, the next best thing is rating, which everyone has (yet some are 600 elo points shy of making it to the candidates).

  11. Jacob Aagaard

    There is a tournament that allows everyone to have a chance. It is the World Cup. To get there you play the continent championships. For consistency, the Grand Prix has proved to be very good. Only the rating spot seems very dubious. Topalov to some extent qualified by Carlsen overstepping the time limit against him in a position where he could have given mate. To me it is unfair when things are not decided between the competitors, but in games with third parties.

  12. World cup is kind of a roulette. You have a bad day and you are out. I like the tension, from a spectator point of view it is interesting, but a normal tournament, even if it is a swiss, would be better. In fact a swiss world cup may be the better thing to do.

  13. Agree with Gollum.I don’t value much the World cup. most of the time, two draws, and everything is decided on rapids and blitz. Nice to watch, but let’s not forget that this formula gave us weak ” world champions”, like Khalif or Kazim (even Pono, though he was member of the top 10, at times).

  14. George Hollands

    I voted for 2 wildcards, simply because if this were the rules it’s very likely Kramnik would have played. Any tournament benefits from having this guy in the line-up.

    The rules as they stand meant that despite being at world No2 when the tournament happened and one of the absolute best players in the world for the past 20 odd years, he didn’t qualify, which in my opinion is highly disappointing.

    The only man to defeat Kasparov in a match vs Carlsen is the world title match I want to see – with no disrespect intended to the current challenger.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top