A friend asked me why Sam Shankland wasn’t playing in the Sinquefield Cup. Shankland certainly deserves to be in America’s most prestigious tournament, he said.
I began to explain that the cup was open only to players seeded into the Grand Chess Tour (and Magnus Carlsen).
But it got me to wondering: Why does the tour still exist?
It began in 2015 when three well-established annual tournaments banded together.
There was widespread expectation that never-before-held “classical” tournaments would be added to the tour. It might become recognized as an unofficial world (tournament) championship and gain the kind of attention in mainstream media that the FIDE championship matches do.
Those hopes died quickly when the Norway Chess tournament (and Magnus) pulled out in 2016.
Since then the tour has become a series of speed chess events plus the Sinquefield Cup. Instead of enhancing the prestige of classical tournaments, it seems to have reduced it.
To put it simply, how does American chess in general and the Sinquefield Cup in particular benefit from the tour?
What tournaments banded together, and what was the time controls for those tournaments. If it started out as speed chess with the hope of adding classical time control tournaments, with the end hope of eventually capping the series off with with the title of “World Chess Tournament Champion”, I can see why it hasn’t gotten very far. The FIDE title for World Chess Champion already consists of a number of seed tournaments to reduce the number of players seeking the title to something manageable.
I’d think, in a way, The World Chess Open already fills that void, even if they don’t hand out title to the winner. And personally, I think making a “World Chess Tournament Champion” is essentially just making up a title to give that series of tournaments some sorts of legitimacy. I’m not much for politics and especially chess politics, but I would think if someone was serious and had the cash to start something like that, they’d be better off doing it through FIDE. If FIDE gives their gold stamp of approval, then a series of tournaments to find the “World Chess Tournament Champion” would have legitimacy. Whether FIDE would even look twice at the proposal is anybody’s guess.
Although this is just my opinion, I wouldn’t bother with a new world champion title. It would just water down the title of World Chess Champion. It kinda reminds me when there actually were two competing world chess champion titles. In the end, after several years, the 2 competing titles finally were merged back to FIDE World Chess Champion. The whole episode was the result of political infighting at FIDE and did nothing to help the public’s view of who was the World Chess Champion.
These events won’t be organized through FIDE for a few very simple reasons - FIDE would demand a toll charge paid to FIDE to have the events and then FIDE would dictate who would be able to play in them. FIDE competed directly against the GCT by changing the announced dates the last World Team event to coincide with the announced dates of a GCT event.
One goal that the organizers of this series announced was to reinforce their Universal Rating System which blends results from classical, rapid and blitz games into a single rating. How well they are accomplishing this goal remains to be seen.
I prefer to have separate ratings for those time controls. I can’t speak for anybody else though.
Fine but that is not the concept behind the URS. It is a bit of a test concept. In a way oversimplified description, in that system longer time controls carry more weight than shorter controls, with blitz getting the least weight.
Of course US Chess has all sorts of ratings - but the one everyone seems to only refer to is the regular rating.
These are valid comments about the side issues – the (largely ignored) Universal Chess Rating and the possibility of FIDE involved in a world tournament championship.
But will anyone get back to the question I raised:
Whether the Sinquefield Cup’s participation in the Tour helps American chess any more?
The upcoming FIDE World Championship match between Carlsen and Caruana is a best of 12 classical, with a tie-break system that has two sets of 2-game rapid (G.25, i10) mini matches, two sets of two game blitz matches and then an Armageddon game. Given the likelihood of two closely, matched players ending the classical games at 6-6, isn’t this an acceptance that skill at rapid/blitz play should be an important part of determing the World Championship?
The Grand Chess Tour is an attempt to accelerate the acceptance of rapid/blitz play in determining excellence in chess. Gone are the days when a World Championship could find a sponsor to host a best of 24 game match, played at a leisurly pace of 3 games per week. Not to mention finding sponsors for a candidates tournament would last 28 games over 10 weeks (or, later a series of a 3-tiered match system) Plus, today’s chess professionals have too much earning potential to devote close to two years in pursuit of a title.
This year’s GCT is hampered by the fact that Carlsen is not competing for the title because of his concentration on the World Ch Match. But, if Sinquefield is willing and able to keep it going in 2019, (and with the full participation of Carlsen) then I would consider the GCT championship a more worthy determination of the “World’s Best Player,” then the abbreviated FIDE match.
A unifed rating system is 100% relevant in these days of the silcone “monsters.” In fact, the ideal World Championship format would be comprised of 24 blitz games (played over 3 days), followed by 12 rapid games (played over 4 days) and concluding with 6 classical games. With each segment equally weighted, in
the same way that is done with the GCT. (EDIT: To clarify, each blitz game would count as 1 point, each rapid game as 2 points, each classical game as 4 points. That’s 72 points in total, and first to 36.5 points would be the World Champion.)
All anybody needs to do, to create a Universal Rating System, is to download all the data from all three FIDE rating systems, or from all three U.S. Chess rating systems (take your pick), and combine them, using whatever formula you believe is best.
Bill Smythe
In the first year of the Grand Chess Tour, 2015, it consisted of 3 classical tournaments; Norway, Sinquefield Cup and London Chess. Norway Chess dropped out in 2016 because of sponsorship/exclusivity issues, and Rex added the Paris and Leuven Rapid/Blitz events. London dropped out after 2016, because of it’s desire to build a “festival of events” around the GM tournament. At that point, Rex added the St. Louis Rapid/Blitz event, and this year, the GCT has added a four man playoff to run in London at the end of the year.
Yes, it is very possible, and something along the lines of a 4:2:1 weighting (Classical/Rapid/Blitz) would be a good start. I do notice that Quick and Blitz ratings are lower, across the board, and I assume that’s because of much smaller rating pools which means a narrower range of ratings. (?)
Currently most “organized chess games” that are played “by the rules,” are quick and blitz games on all the chess servers. I understand that over 95% of these players are never going to be attracted to OTB chess, but that other 5% is still a huge raw number. It has been my observation that OTB blitz tournaments do not attract a lot of players, but that is because they are trying to draw primarily from a pool of OTB players who are used to much slower play. Additionally, most Blitz tournaments are played on a Saturday night of a weekend tournament, when most sane tournament particpants are into nourishment and rest.
Let’s assume, for a moment, that the USCF offers a “Blitz membership,” at a price that covers all the administrative costs of including a player in the database. No magazine provided, of course, but with email updates of any upcoming Blitz events. Additionally, USChess offers some initial enticements to organizers to run Blitz tournaments – either as an extra event to their tournament or as an isolated event.
How many new “Blitz members” would have to be attracted to make it a worthwhile extension, not to mention luring back lapsed, former members who have forgone OTB play for the comfort (laziness) of internet play? (Just an idea, but when I see the huge numbers of players on any of the chess servers, I can’t help but feel this is an untapped resource, and a group that is VERY easy to reach.)
Most of the regular posters on this forum have far better estimates than me. Ideally, if OTB Blitz catches on, I could see “Unified rating events,” with a Friday night Blitz event, a Saturday Rapid Event, and a Sunday Classical component. Enter any one or two or all three to be eligible for an “overall” prize. Which is one way of trying to entice Blitz players into slower chess.
Of course. That’s the way it should be. The regular rating is the one that reflects a person’s best effort as far as pondering the board. The quick and blitz ratings should play 2nd fiddle to the regular rating. It’s still important to have those rating though, just so an individual can assess their own playing strength at faster time controls.
There’s a world chess blitz champion, but it gets pretty much zero media attention, but for people that follow chess, it’s still of mild interest.
How can such a tournament with most of the best players in the world and followed by thousands on-line not help American Chess?
Direct benefits? Probably few.
Indirect benefits? Sure
Interest in the qame benefits US Chess. Having US players in the mix in that event helps US Chess. Having folks watch and discuss chess benefits US Chess.
I think the respondents are missing my point:
The Sinquefield Cup existed before the Grand Chess Tour.
It received great attention before the tour.
It had a worldwide following before the tour.
It would certainly have the same if the tour disappeared tomorrow.
What benefit is there for the cup to remain in the tour and thereby excluding other American players?
Three Americans in a field of ten is pretty good representation. I followed this event more closely because it was part of the GCT and because it was entirely composed of top players. Sam Shankland is able to compete with the world’s best, but he is not yet in the top 15.
In any event, the GCT is not a US Chess event and is not run specifically for the benefit of US Chess. The guy with the bucks gets to decide how he wishes to channel them. I’m fine with his decision. If Sam Shankland continues to improve, perhaps he will qualify for the GCT or whatever might take its place in the future.
How many USCF members know about, care about, or are pay any attention to the GCT tour or the Sinquefield cup? What number of those members breathlessly sit by their screens to observe the online coverage? I daresay not enough to have an impact on the US chess scene. The elite players exploit and are exploited by the uber wealthy chess patrons who have their own agendas. The 2400-2500+ rated GMs and IMs barely feel a ripple from these upper level events. Maybe they get a job or two from doing media coverage and the occasional prodigy-like student of affluent parents who have ambitions that their angel can be an elite player. The average player is interested in his own chess achievements more than what the top players do. A sacrifice on h7 or f7 is more exciting and memorable to them if they do it than if Caruana, So, or Nakamura do it. If the GCT and the Sinquefield Cup did not exist, it would not matter all that much to US chess.
what is the Grand Chess Tour? tongue-in-cheek… when i was a fledgling minnow, i used to love the tournament reports of the interzonals and olympiads. today’s events just don’t seem to have the same cachet as those bygone years. i do like following the international open events and still like the olympiads. maybe it’s the fact the participants know who their opponents will be and have their chess computer work the game out beforehand.
…scot…
The point of these events is that the online coverage gives you insights into the players and analysis that you might not get otherwise. The best example is the annual tournament in Gibraltar. The online coverage of that event is great, especially with the interviews and audience interplay that occurs.
Larry Cohen
I don’t see why “benefit to US Chess” is even a relevant thing to debate, except from a curiosity standpoint. If one thinks the event should be run differently in order to bring more benefit to US Chess, that’s not a rational goal. That’s not why the Grand Chess Tour, or the Sinquefield Cup for that matter, exist.
There is a fair amount of chess tourism to Saint Louis each year for the GCT. I would reckon a dozen of my Facebook friends went last year and another dozen this year. Mind you, we’re talking about folks flying in from California. Certainly the GCT has definitely piqued the interest of a subset of US Chess members.
Of course, many more people watch the action online. The number of viewers on Youtube were over 10K at any time, which doesn’t account for people who watch for a while and then log out. Many more people reviewed the games on Chess24, Chess.com, ICC or other websites. Granted, only a fraction of the viewers were US Chess members. A small fraction of a large number is still significant.
Michael Aigner