Introduction

The upcoming Candidates Tournament 2024 is not only notable due to the fact it will be the first Candidates tournament to be held on North American soil.

For the very first time, it will be held alongside the Women’s Candidates Tournament 2024, in which some of the best female players in the world will be fighting for first place and the chance to qualify for the Women’s World Chess Championship and challenge Ju Wenjun for the title of Women’s World Champion.

Since the beginning of that tournament is also just a couple of days away, I thought it would be a nice idea to follow up on my previous article on the Candidates Tournament 2024 and make an even bigger fool of myself by trying to predict the outcome of the Women’s Candidates Tournament 2024.

I hope you will enjoy it!

Woman’s Candidates Tournament 2024

Regulations and the Format

The regulations and the format of the Women’s Candidates Tournament 2024 are fairly similar to its “Open” counterpart. It will be held at the exact same time (3rd-23rd April) in the exact same place (Great Hall, Toronto, Canada) and will have exactly the same schedule:

(Official Schedule of the Women’s Candidates Tournament. You can notice that the rounds start at the exact same time – 2:30 PM – as in the Candidate Tournament. Free days also coincide. Source: Official Regulations of the Women’s Candidates Tournament 2024)

The tournament will also be held using the double round-robin format and will feature the same tiebreak system. The only fundamental difference is related to the time control, which will be 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game, with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move 1. ¹

I don’t fully grasp the reasoning behind having two fundamentally different time controls in two tournaments held alongside each other. One can’t even claim that they wanted to make the time control for the Women’s tournament shorter, ² since 90 minutes + 30 seconds of increment for the first 40 moves is approximately as long as 120 minutes + 0 seconds of increment for the first 40 moves. I genuinely can’t think of a single good reason why both tournaments didn’t feature the same time control. ³

In any case, I do hope we will see some high-quality games and entertaining chess in both events, in spite of the time control differences.

List of Participants

Time control is not the only big difference between the Women’s Candidates Tournament and the Candidates Tournament. Qualification paths for both events were also substantially different, due to the existence of the Grand Prix Series in the Women’s section and Grand Circuit in the Open section. According to the Official FIDE Regulations for the Women’s Candidates Tournament, players qualified based on the following criteria:

(Qualification regulations for the Women’s Candidates Tournament 2024. Source: Regulations for the Woman’s Candidates Tournament 2024, taken from the FIDE Handbook)

According to the regulations, 8 qualified players are, as follows:

• Lei Tingjie – runner-up from the Women’s World Chess Championship 2023
• Kateryna Lagno – winner of the Women’s Grand Prix 2022-2023
• Aleksandra Goryachkina – runner-up of the Women’s Grand Prix 2022-2023
• Nurgyul Salimova – runner-up of the Women’s Chess World Cup 2023
• Anna Muzychuk – third place winner of the Women’s Chess World Cup 2023 ⁴
• Vaishali Rameshbabu – winner of the Women’s Grand Swiss 2023
• Zhongyi Tan – third place winner of the Women’s Grand Swiss 2023 ⁵
• Humpy Koneru – the highest-rated player that didn’t yet qualify on 1st of January, 2024. ⁶

Assessment of the participants’ chances

After introducing you to the regulations and the players, I will now follow the procedure from the article on the Candidates Tournament by estimating each of the participant’s chances and predicting the outcome of the event.

In my analysis, I will be focusing on three parameters:

• Strength/Recent Form
• Nerves/Experience 
• Head-to-head score against the other participants

Aleksandra Goryachkina

Strength/recent form

Aleksandra Goryachkina is generally regarded as one of the stronger players in this event. She is not only one of only 6 female players who crossed 2600, ⁷ but she is also a former winner of Candidates Tournament and World Chess Championship Challenger. Since she is still comparatively young (born in 1998), she should not be at the age where her strength starts declining and should have every hope of doing well and winning the entire event.

With that being said, even though at some point she looked like the next Judit/Hou Yifan, ⁸ it has never somehow materialized. Ever since her peak of 2600 back in 2021 and her defeat against Ju Wenjun in the World Chess Championship match, Goryachkina hasn’t been the same dominant force in female chess she used to be.

Don’t get me wrong, she is still a very strong grandmaster/player. But since 2022, her rating has been gradually declining from 2600 to 2553, where it currently stands.

(Goryachkina’s rating chart since January 2022. Source: Goryachkina’s FIDE Profile)

Naturally, in this period, Goryachkina’s results were far from impressive. To name a few:

• In August 2022, she lost 20 rating points by drawing all of her games in the Russian Higher League
• In December 2022, she lost the semi-final Candidates match to Tan Zhongyi
• In March 2023, she didn’t have a particularly good result at the European Individual Championship 2023
• In April and May of 2023, she didn’t have the most successful performance at the Women’s FIDE Grand Prix, where she lost some rating and failed to secure the Candidates spot
• In November 2023, she had a bad result at FIDE Grand Swiss 2023, scoring 6/11 and losing a further 13 points

Her only good results in the recent past are a 10-rating point gain in the Russian Superfinal for Men in October 2023 and the victory at the Women’s World Cup 2023. Thus, I think it is fair to say that Goryachkina has been on a “decline” for a while and that she will not arrive in Toronto at the height of her powers.

Nerves/Experience

On the other hand, even though she is still relatively young, Goryachkina is already extremely experienced, having played top (female) events for almost a decade and already having a win in the Candidates and participation in a World Championship match under her belt.

On the other hand, even though GM Rafael Leitiao mentioned he considers her to have strong nerves in the most recent episode of the Perpetual Chess Podcast, I am not 100% sure I fully agree. On one hand, she did win a must-win game in the 2020 World Chess Championship match against Ju Wenjun. But on the other hand, she also suffered back-to-back losses in games 9 and 10 in a seemingly winning position. Her loss to Tan Zhongyi in the 2022-2023 might also be attributed to nerves, although it is hard to tell whether it had more to do with her declining form (and the fact Tan played superbly).

Admittedly, this is precisely where experience comes in. Whether Goryachkina’s nerves are an asset or liability and whether these past failures will help her control them better – remains to be seen.

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Goryachkina’s head-to-head score against the other participants is as follows:

• Goryachkina – Tingjie: +0-1=1
• Goryachkina – Lagno: +2-0=9
• Goryachkina – Koneru: -0+1=2
• Goryachkina – Tan: +3-3=4
• Goryachkina – Muzychuk: +1-1=9
• Goryachkina – Vaishali: +0-0=3
• Goryachkina – Salimova +0-0=3 ⁹

From Goryachkina’s head-to-head scores, we can observe/conclude the following:

• She has played a remarkably low amount of games against four participants in the tournament. I was particularly surprised by the fact she only played two games against Lei Tingjie (back in 2015 and 2016) and only three against Koneru, given that all three have been top female players for a while.
• I was less surprised by the relatively low amount of games against Vaishali and Salimova given their youth. But I was somewhat surprised Goryachkina wasn’t able to demonstrate her superiority or obtain a plus score.
• Goryachkina’s encounters against Lagno and Muzychuk feature a relatively high percentage of draws. Although she does have a 2:0 plus score against the former.
• Goryachkina’s head-to-head score against Tan Zhongyi is remarkably bloodthirsty. In recent times, Zhongyi does seem to be on the better side of it, given her victories in the 2022 Candidates Match and in the 2023 FIDE Grand Swiss. Although Goryachkina got her revenge in the 2023 FIDE World Cup. 

Thus, the head-to-head score against other participants doesn’t particularly seem to go in Goryachkina’s favour. So far, she has not been able to demonstrate her superiority against “lower seeds” and has also had some difficulties when facing players such as Lei Tingjie, Humphy Koneru and Tan Zhongyi. When you couple that with the fact she wasn’t in the best form in recent years, one might hesitate to consider her a favourite in the event.

Still given she is still very young and the highest-rated participant in the tournament, it would be also foolish to not consider her as a serious contender.  The betting companies do seem to share that sentiment:

I  contemplated a lot about whether her chances were higher than, say, Lei’s. ¹⁰ Due to her classical, positional, and solid style, I can’t see her losing many games and having a bad event. And I can easily see her winning enough games to win the entire event.

Ultimately, due to the fact Tingjie Lei has not played that much chess in recent years and that Goryachkina absolutely dominated the last Candidates tournament held using the round-robin system, I have selected her as the ultimate winner.

Although I heavily disagree with the betting odds. I don’t think she should be considered a favorite by such a large margin.

Tingjie Lei

Strength/recent form

Tingjie Lei is generally regarded as one of the strongest female players in the world. With a rating of 2550, she is currently the 4th player on the women’s rating list. ¹¹ She was one of the participants in the most recent Women’s World Chess Championship and is still comparatively young. ¹²

And while no sane person can doubt her class/playing strength, her recent form is much more difficult to gauge. For a very simple reason – in recent years, Lei Tingjie has played surprisingly little chess.

This is not an exaggeration. Since April 2020, Lei

• played a total of 4 events and 38 classical games
• didn’t play a single classical game between
  • April 2020 – November 2021 ¹³
  • January 2022 – November 2022
  • August 2023 – April 2024 ¹⁴

True, these periods of inactivity/lack of practice don’t seem to affect her play. Lei performed well in virtually every event she participated in in the last four years:

• Women’s Grand Swiss 2021: 9/11, +30 rating points
• Women’s Candidates Match against Mariya Muzychuk: 2.5-1.5, +4.60 rating points
• Women’s Candidates Match against Anna Muzychuk: 2.5-1.5, +4.60 rating points
• Women’s Candidates Match against Tan Zhongyi: 3.5/5, +8.50 rating points
• Women’s World Championship against Ju Wenjun: 5.5/12, -3.80 rating points, losing by the narrowest of margins

But I would say Lei has thrived despite – not because of – her inactivity/lack of practice. Speaking historically, not playing before the Candidates tournament might not be the best strategy – as Firouzja’s result in the Candidates 2022 demonstrates. Whether it will affect Lei as well – remains to be seen.

Nerves/Experience

Even though she is still relatively young ¹⁵ Lei has experience playing at the elite level. In the recent cycle, she won three Candidates Matches and ultimately qualified for the World Chess Championship Match against Ju Wenjun, which she lost by the narrowest of margins. ¹⁶ My impression is that she has displayed very good nerves throughout these events. And even though one could take losing the final game of the World Chess Championship as evidence of the contrary, I do believe it speaks more about Ju Wenjun’s strong nerves rather than Tingjie’s weak ones. ¹⁷

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Lei’s head-to-head score against the other participants is as follows:

• Lei – Goryachkina: +1-0=1
• Lei – Lagno: +0-2=2
• Lei – Koneru: +0-4=0
• Lei – Zhongyi: 5-4=10
• Lei – Muzychuk: +1-0=3
• Lei – Vaishali: +0-0=0
• Lei – Salimova: +0-0=0

From Lei’s head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• Lei has a slight plus score against Goryachkina,  Tan, and Muzychuk. The fact that she beat the last two in the previous Candidates cycle might theoretically be somewhat relevant (since it was also a high-stress situation).
• She also has a slightly more negative score against Lagno and Koneru. The latter, in particular, seems to be a very tough opponent for her, given that she has beaten her in every single classical game they ever played. However, three of these games happened way back in the day (one in 2013 Chinese Team Championship and two in the 2015 Women’s World Championship Knockout Tournament). Furthermore, in their last game, played in 2021, Lei blundered in an equal position.
• Lei hasn’t played a single classical game against Vaishali and Salimova.  This is somewhat expected given that these two are relative “newcomers”, but it will be very interesting to see how their first encounters will develop in such an important and nerve-wracking tournament.

All in all, given that Lei is the second highest-rated player,  that she now has World Chess Championship experience and that she won the last Candidates, it is hard not to consider her as one of the top two favourite, despite the comparative lack of practice and negative score against players such as Lagno or Koneru. I hesitated a lot between picking her or Goryachkina as the final winner, but have ultimately decided to go with the latter.

Humpy Koneru

Strength/recent form

Humphy Koneru is one of the greatest female players of all time. She has been one of the top female players for almost 20 years. ¹⁸ Back in 2007 (!!),  she became the second female player to break the 2600 rating barrier and was the strongest female player in the world, until she eventually got overshadowed by Hou Yifan. Even today, her live rating of 2546 is sufficient for the 5th spot on the women’s rating list. And is not that far from Goryachkina’s 2553 and Tingjie’s 2550.

On the other hand, Koneru doesn’t arrive in Toronto in the best shape. In recent years, she has had a number of mediocre – or even outright bad – events, such as:

• Women’s Grand Prix 2023 – Third Leg, where she scored 4.5/9 and lost 9 points
• Cairns Cup 2023 where she lost 14 rating points ¹⁹
• Women’s World Cup 2023 where she got eliminated in round 3 by Bella Khotenashvili

Her most recent performance in the Graz Open 2024 A just a month ago²⁰also wasn’t stellar.

In fact, I don’t think all these results can only be attributed to “bad form”. I think it is fair to say that Koneru is past her prime and is slowly declining. In the last few years, her rating went from 2586 to 2546.

(Humphy Koneru’s rating progress since 2022. Source: Koneru’s FIDE profile)

Given that Goryachkina’s graph followed a similar trajectory, one might argue this in itself is not evidence of decline or being “past your prime”. ²¹ But when you also take the fact Koneru is the oldest participant in the tournament, one does feel it will be much harder for her to regain these points than for someone 10 years younger. ²² And that the term “past your prime” is much more applicable.

Nerves/Experience

As the oldest participant in the tournament, Koneru is not lacking in experience. Even though she has had several breaks from competitive chess, she never fully “went away” and has been competing at the top level for almost two decades. She previously participated in several World Championship Knockout Tournaments (2004, 2008 and 2010) and even played a World Chess Championship match against Hou Yifan back in 2011. ²³

While only a madman would doubt her experience, her nerves might be a different kettle of fish. In the aforementioned episode of Perpetual Chess Podcast, GM Rafael Leitiao mentioned Koneru might be somewhat struggling in the nerves department. The most notable argument in favour of this evaluation is her dramatic loss to Anastasia Bodnaruk in the tiebreak of the 2023 World Rapid Championship, where Koneru was objectively the superior player on the board. One could also take her past failures at the World Championship Knockout Tournaments as evidence. Most notably her elimination in the 2004 edition when she lost to relatively lesser-known Russian player Ekaterina Kovalevskaya. ²⁴

However, this sample size is rather small. Whether this evaluation is correct – and whether Koneru will be able to use her experience to control her nerves even if it is correct – remains to be seen.

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Koneru’s head-to-head score against the other participants is as follows:

• Koneru – Goryachkina: +1-0=2
• Koneru-Lei: +4-0=0
• Koneru-Lagno +3-2=1
• Koneru – Tan +1-0=1
• Koneru – Muzychuk +3-3=7
• Koneru – Vaishali +0-0=1
• Koneru – Salimova +0-0=0

From the head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• Koneru has the head-to-head scores going her way. She has a positive or neutral score against all of the other participants in the tournament.
• Against most of the players (Goryachkina, Lei, Tan), the plus score is minimal (+1). But in the case of Tingjie Lei, it is overwhelmingly in Koneru’s favour.
• On the other hand, given that she is significantly older than most of the other participants (apart from Lagno), these scores are not that surprising. One would expect an established player like Koneru to beat the players from the younger generation while they are still “on the rise”.
• Koneru has played only one game against the two youngest participants in the tournament.

All in all, even though it is probably nice to enter a tournament having a positive score against the other participants, I am not sure how relevant it will be. I think nerves, form, and general playing strength will be much more impactful on the final standings.

Considering all these factors, I do think that the general sentiment about Koneru not being the top contender, but having a legitimate chance to win, is reasonable. It is hard to put her in the same tier as Lei and Goryachkina, given that these two are both younger and slightly higher rated. But there are also no reasons to consider her chances any lower compared to say, Lagno, Muzychuk and Tan. If things go her way, she can definitely go all the way. But on average, I would expect her to end up somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Of course, where exactly in the middle was not so clear to me. Ultimately, I have decided to put her at the “bottom of the pack” – in the 6th place – purely due to her age and potential issues with her nerves.

Kateryna Lagno

Strength/recent form

Kateryna Lagno is another great female player who has been consistently a part of the world elite for many years. Throughout her career, she has won several important titles (World Blitz Championship 2010 and 2018, World Rapid Championship 2014, and European Individual Women Championship 2008, to name a few), been a regular contender in Women’s World Chess Championship cycles, and even played the final match against Ju Wenjun in the 2018 edition, losing by the narrowest of margins. ²⁵

With a live rating of 2542, Lagno is the 6th highest-rated female player in the world and fourth in this tournament. Furthermore, she is not lagging behind Goryachkina, Lei, and Koneru by much.  Based on rating alone, she should have as good a chance as anyone to win the tournament and qualify for the match against Ju.

However – just like Goryachkina and Koneru, she doesn’t arrive in Toronto in the best shape of her life. Her most recent tournament performances weren’t brilliant – although they weren’t particularly bad, either:

• FIDE Women’s Grand Prix 2022-2023 – Third Leg:  5/9, lost 2 rating points
• FIDE Women’s Grand Prix 2022-2023 – Fourth Leg: 6/11, lost 6 rating points
• FIDE Women’s World Cup 2023 – Got eliminated in round 1 by Mary Ann Gomes, lost 6 rating points
• Russian Superfinal 2023 – scored 4/11, lost 4 rating points

Furthermore, given that she is the second oldest participant in the tournament, one can again make an argument she is – very much like Koneru – “past her prime.”

Nerves/Experience

As the second-oldest participant in the tournament, Lagno doesn’t lack in experience. As mentioned above, she has been competing at the top level for many years and has participated in numerous elite events.

Given her multiple victories in World Blitz and Rapid Championships, one could also make an argument her nerves are very good. However, she has also suffered some dramatic defeats in important events in recent years, such as:

• Losing with White in the 4th classical game of the 2018 Women’s World Championship Knockout Tournament, when a draw would have guaranteed her the title
• Losing to Tan Zhongyi in the quarterfinals of the previous World Championship Cycle, while missing a number of chances
• Losing to Mary Ann Gomes in World Cup 2023

I guess a certain decline of the nervous system is expected with age. We will see how Lagno will be able to handle it in this, high-stress, event.

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Lagno’s head-to-head score against the other participants is as follows:

• Lagno – Goryachkina: +0-2=9
• Lagno – Lei: +2-0=2
• Lagno – Koneru: +2-3=11
• Lagno – Tan: +4-2=4
• Lagno – Muzychuk: +1-3=13
• Lagno – Vaishali: +1-0=1
• Lagno – Salimova: +0-0=0

From the head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• Lagno has a positive score against Lei and Tan. Although a number of these games happened way back in the day. For example, her two wins over Lei happened back in 2018 in the World Chess Championship Knockout Tournament. While her wins against Tan happened in the 2016-2021 period. It is worth noting that Tan was the one who eliminated her in their quarterfinal match in the previous Candidates Cycle. ²⁶
• Lagno has a negative score against Koneru, Muzychuk, and Goryachkina. The last one is particularly surprising, given that Goryachkina is much younger.
• Lagno hasn’t played that many games against Vaishali and Salimova, just like most of the other participants.

All in all, despite the small rating difference I wouldn’t exactly put Lagno in the same category as Goryachkina and Lei. She doesn’t arrive in Toronto in the greatest of shapes and her age and nerves might be a detrimental factor. True, it is not impossible to imagine her winning the tournament if things go her way. But on average, I would expect her to end up in the middle of the tournament table.

It was hard to decide where exactly to put her. But ultimately, I do think Tan might have slightly better chances.

Zhongyi Tan

Strength/recent form

Zhongy Tan might be the most underrated and underestimated player in this tournament. For example, in a recent poll posted on the Twitter account Women’s Chess Coverage, no one picked Tan as her ultimate winner, which I genuinely found baffling – especially since Vaishali got 5 votes.

https://twitter.com/OnTheQueenside/status/1774098723758600484

After all – Tan has not only been one of the strongest female players in the world at least since 2017. But she is also the only participant in this tournament who has managed to become a World Champion, as she won the Women’s World Championship Knockout Tournament in 2017. True, her reign was not very long as she lost a very tight and close match to Wenjun Ju the next year. But we are still talking about the player of the World Chess Championship caliber.

As for her form – it is true that she “barely” qualified for the Candidates via FIDE Grand Swiss. But there she “delivered under pressure” and had a great tournament, scoring 7.5/11 and winning 8 rating points. And let’s not forget she barely missed the qualifying spot by ending in fourth place in the 2023 World Cup. Even an event such as the 19th Asian Games could be an indicator of good form despite the slight rating loss. If anything, scoring 7/9 after suffering an upset loss in the first round shows a lot of character and self-belief.

Nerves/Experience

As mentioned above, Zhongyi Tan is as experienced as it gets. World Championship Tournaments, World Championship Match, Candidates Tournaments. You name it – she has been there.

Tan also strikes me as a very stable player who is not particularly prone to being negatively affected by nerves. I think her performance in Grand Swiss 2023 alone is sufficient evidence, as it is not easy to deliver such a performance when you know it is your last chance for the Candidates.

True, she was bested by Ju Wenjun in the World Championship Match ²⁷ and also by Lei Tingjie in the finals of the last Candidates. I think that tells more about the qualities of her opponents rather than her inability to deal with nerves.

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Tan’s head-to-head scores against other participants are as follows:

• Tan – Goryachkina: +3-3=4
• Tan – Lei: +5-4=10
• Tan – Lagno: +2-4=4
• Tan – Koneru: +0-1=1
• Tan Muzychuk: +3-2=9
• Tan – Vaishali: +0-1=1
• Tan – Salimova: +0-0=0

From Tan’s head-to-head scores, we can observe:

• Tan seems to be a rather fighting player, as her scores are rather bloodthirsty and have featured many decisive games.
• She does have an equal score with Goryachkina – but she did eliminate her in the last Candidates Cycle.
• She does have a slight positive score against Lei, although she did get beaten by her in the final of the last Candidates Cycle.
• She does have a slight positive score against Anna Muzychuk and a negative score against Kateryna Lagno
• She has played only a few games against Salimova, Vaishali, and Koneru. And while it is expected when it comes to the first two, it is somewhat surprising in the case of the latter.

All in all, given her class, her experience, and her ability to play well under pressure, I think Tan will do well in this tournament. I think she has equally good chances as Koneru and Lagno. But I also – perhaps somewhat subjectively – feel she has a higher chance to “surprise” and go all the way. Which is why I have decided to put her in the third place in my prediction.

Anna Muzychuk

Strength/recent form

Anna Muzychuk has been one of the strongest female players in the world for many years.  ²⁸ She is one of only six women to break the 2600 rating barrier. ²⁹ She has been a constant contender in Women’s World Championship Cycles for more than a decade and came very close to winning it on several occasions.

With that being said, Muzychuk is another player whose peak happened way back in the past. Ever since April 2019, her rating has been sitting below 2550. The last few years, in particular, have been rather rough, as she dropped all the way to 2504 in March 2023, after a bad performance in the second leg of the 2023 Women’s Grand Prix Leg 2.

To be fair, Muzychuk must have been significantly impacted by the Russian invasion of her home country Ukraine. ³⁰

However, ever since that “historical low”, she has been climbing up the ranks again. In late 2023, she had a string of very good performances:

• FIDE Women’s World Cup 2023: won 3rd place, 6 rating points, and qualified for the Candidates
• European Women Club Cup: scored 5.5/7 without losses, won 4.30 rating points
• FIDE Women’s Grand Swiss 2023: scored 8/11, won 14 rating points, no losses

True, she did lose some rating in the German and Spanish leagues. But I am sure she will arrive in Toronto feeling rather good about her play in recent months.

Nerves/Experience

Just like everyone else apart from Vaishali and Salimova, Muzychuk has a ton of experience in playing at the elite level. She has already participated in numerous World Championship cycles/tournaments ³¹  and come very far in quite a few of them. She has won an individual gold medal at the Olympiad, World Rapid and Blitz championships, and numerous other events.

How this experience helps her deal with her nerves is a bit harder to tell. As usual, one could bring examples of her showcasing both good nerves (winning World Blitz and Rapid Championships, winning game three of her match against Tan in the Women’s World Championship Tournament 2017, eliminating Humphy Koneru in the tiebreak in their quarterfinal match of her previous Candidates) and “bad” nerves (losing to Tan in the tiebreak in Women’s World Championship Tournament 2017 and Candidates 2023).

If I had to guess, I would say her past experience would help her on this occasion and that she is more likely than not to not succumb to the pressure. Whether this is true – remains to be seen.

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Muzychuk’s head-to-head score against the other participants is, as follows:

• Muzychuk – Goryachkina: +1-1=9
• Muzychuk – Lei: +0-1=3
• Muzychuk – Lagno: +3-1=13
• Muzychuk – Koneru: +3-3=7
• Muzychuk – Tan: +2-3=9
• Muzychuk – Vaishali: +0-0=1
• Muzychuk – Salimova: +0-0=3

From Muzychuk’s head-to-head scores, we can observe:

• She is not quite as blood-thirsty as Tan, but her head-to-head scores do feature comparatively a big amount of decisive games.
• She has a positive score only against one player in the tournament.
• She has a negative score against both Lei and Tan and equal scores against Goryachkina and Koneru.
• Just like everyone else – she didn’t play many games against Vaishali and Salimova. Although she did get eliminated by the latter in the tiebreak in the semifinal of the last World Cup.

All in all, Anna Muzychuk is a different player to judge. Before I started writing this article, I considered her inferior to the five players above, but now I am no longer so sure. She is an incredibly talented player whose play (and rating) have been on an upward trajectory.  wouldn’t necessarily put her in the same category as Goryachkina and Lei, but I see no reason why her chances would be any worse than, say, Tan’s, Lagno’s, or Koneru’s.

I would be the happiest person in the world if I could put all these players in the same place. But since it is not how predictions work, I have decided to listen to my gut feeling, take a gamble, and put Muzychuk in the 5th place in my prediction.

Vaishali Rameshbabu

Strength/recent form

Vaishali Rameshbabu has been one of the strongest female players…

…well in the last year, to be completely honest.

Don’t get me wrong – she has always been a very strong player. But only in the last year did she make significant improvements and truly make a “giant leap” toward the world elite. Since May 2023, she increased her rating from 2418 up to 2497 (in December 2023).

Vaishali’s rating progress since January 2023. Source: Vaishali’s FIDE profile

This fantastic run included tremendous results at Qatar Masters and Women’s Grand Swiss, which brought her two GM norms and a place in the Candidates. She also managed to fulfill the final requirement for the GM title in January this year when she briefly crossed the 2500 rating mark in the live rating list after winning her first two games in the Elllobregat Open (although the event as a whole went rather poorly after that). Such a fantastic string of results/achievements has prompted many people to pinpoint Vaishali as the potential surprise of the tournament.

Nerves/Experience

On the other hand, Vaishali is very inexperienced when it comes to playing in events of this caliber. Not only will this be her first Candidates – but she also hasn’t participated in that many closed round robins. Especially featuring other top female players. Her experience in Prague might suggest this lack of experience might play a crucial role. ³²

With that being said – it doesn’t seem that lack of experience has had a negative effect on her nerves in the past. If anything, her win against Tan Zhongyi in the penultimate round of FIDE Grand Swiss demonstrated the opposite. Although it was one game in one event. Whether she will be able to maintain her composure in a more high-stress event – especially if things don’t start going her way, remains to be seen.

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Vaishali’s head-to-head score against the other participants is, as follows:

• Vaishali – Goryachkina: +0-0=3
• Vaishali – Lei: +0-0=0
• Vaishali – Lagno +0-1=1
• Vaishali – Koneru +0-0=1
• Vaishali – Zhongyi +1-0=1
• Vaishali – Muzychuk: +0-0=1
• Vaishali – Salimova +0-0=0

As expected, given that Vaishali is a relative newcomer to the elite scene, the number of games against the other participants is fairly limited. As mentioned above, she did beat Tan Zhongyi in the FIDE Grand Swiss – but whether she will be able to replicate that feat and do so consistently, remains to be seen.

All in all – despite her recent strides, I am not so quick to jump aboard the Vaishali “hype train”. First of all, her results in the aforementioned elllobregat Open and in the more recent Prague Challengers suggest some “correction” of the rating might be in the order after her recent string of good results.

But more importantly – despite all these successes – I still don’t consider her as strong as the 6 participants mentioned above. While she did beat Tan in a highly crucial encounter at the Grand Swiss, let’s not forget Tan employed a risky opening and played for a win with the Black pieces. Vaishali also got “clean-swept” by Mariya Muzychuk with the 2-0 score in the 2nd round of the Women’s World Cup 2023.

She is currently lagging around 50 points behind the next lowest-rated players – Tan and Muzychuk and is sitting in “only” the 15th place on the Woman rating list. She only recently briefly crossed the 2500 barrier, while the other players have been able to maintain the 2500+ rating for DECADES. While I do think she was severely underrated at 2400 – I don’t see why she would be considered to be seriously underrated at 2500 or so. After all, Vaishali is not THAT young ³³, as she was born in 2001.

Don’t get me wrong – I do think she is an amazing player who has a remote chance of doing well in the tournament if things go her way. But I think it is more likely than not that she will have a hard time. This is why I have decided to “adhere to the rating” and put her in the 7th place in my predictions. Above Salimova, but behind everyone else.

Sorry “experts”.

Nurgyul Salimova

Strength/recent form

Last, but not least, we have arrived at the final and the lowest-rated participant in the Candidates tournament.  Just like with Nijat Abasov in the Open section,  I think it is fair to say Salimova is objectively, the weakest player in the field, given that she is currently rated 2432 – 43 points lower than Vaishali and 88 points lower than Tan and Muzychuk.

True, her amazing performance in the Women’s World Cup 2023 did demonstrate she is capable of competing – and beating – the world’s best players. But let’s not forget World Cup is a fundamentally different kind of tournament compared to the Candidates. Besides, Salimova wasn’t able to demonstrate her superiority in the classical portion, given that she won her matches against Medina Warda Aulia, Polina Shuvalova, and Anna Muzychuk only in the tiebreak portion.

True, even after the World Cup, Salimova has had good performances in the European Team Championship 2023 (which Bulgaria ended up winning) and Reykjavik Open 2024, so she will surely arrive in Toronto in a good mood/form. However, I do feel no amount of good mood/form can compensate for the difference in playing strength.

And experience. This leads me to the following point.

Nerves/Experience

Just like Vaishali, Salimova has no experience playing events of this caliber. One could even make an argument she has even less experience since Vaishali did get invitations to some high-level closed events, such as Tata Steel 2023 or the aforementioned Prague Challengers 2023. ³⁴

On the other hand, her performance in the World Cup did indicate her nerves might not be affected by a lack of experience. In general, she strikes me as a rather solid and composed player, but we will see how things will play out in Toronto, this April.

Head-to-head score against the other participants

Salimova’s head-to-head score against the other participants is, as follows:

• Salimova – Goryachkina: +0-0=3
• Salimova – Lei: +0-0=0
• Salimova – Koneru: +0-0=0
• Salimova – Lagno: +0-0=0
• Salimova – Tan: +0-0=0
• Salimova – Muzychuk: +0-0=3
• Salimova – Vaishali: +0-0=0

As expected, Salimova has not played many games against other participants in the tournament. She has some experience against Goryachkina and Muzychuk since she faced them in the World Cup. But it was somewhat surprising to see “all zeroes” next to the name of every other player. In particular Vaishali, given that these two are comparatively close in age and given that they both revolved in the 2400 rating heights for a while.

All in all, despite her great performance in the World Cup and her strong display of nerves in that tournament, I still think she will have a hard time in Toronto, given her rating and lack of experience. Thus, I have decided to put her in the last place in my prediction.

My Prediction

1. Aleksandra Goryachkina
2. Tingjie Lei
3. Zhongyi Tan
4. Kateryna Lagno
5. Anna Muzychuk
6. Humphy Koneru
7. Vaishali Rameshbabu
8. Nurgyul Salimova

The post Everything You Need To Know About Women’s Candidates Tournament 2024 appeared first on Chessentials.

Introduction

On April 3rd, 2024, one of the most anticipated, exciting, and important chess tournaments of the year ¹ – will begin.

The Candidates Tournament 2024, in which some of the World’s best players ² will battle for the ultimate victory and the opportunity to challenge the current World Champion, Liren Ding, for the World Championship Title in a match later this year. 

Given the prestige and importance of this event, I thought it would be a nice idea to preview it and make a fool of myself by analyzing the players’ chances and predicting the outcome. 

I hope you will enjoy it and find it useful. Or at least retroactively laugh at my poor predictions later down the road when they all turn out to be completely wrong.

Candidates Tournament 2024

Regulations and Format

The Candidates Tournament 2024 will be held from April 3rd-April 22nd, 2024. For the very first time in history, ³ it will be held on North American soil – in the Great Hall in Toronto, Canada. Despite all the “hiccups” and “visa issues” along the way. ⁴

Like  every Candidates Tournament in the modern era, ⁵ the tournament will be held using the round-robin format. This means that every player will play two games against every other participant – one with White and one with Black,  ⁶ throughout 14 rounds.

(Official schedule of the Candidates Tournament. Source: Candidates Tournament 2024 Regulations )

The time control for the event will be 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by an additional 30 minutes for the rest of the game. The players will also receive a 30-second increment per move – but only starting from move 41 (no increment until the first time control). ⁷ 

Just like in the 2022 edition, in the case of a tie for first place, additional tiebreak games will be played. ⁸ The tiebreak system for 2024 is a little bit complicated, but it essentially consists of additional rapid games – and then also blitz games, if required. It also does take the possibility of multiple players tying for the first place, in which case an entirely new round-robin tournament ⁹ will be played. ¹⁰ 

In contrast to the 2022 edition, where there was some ambiguity related to the importance of second place in the tournament due to Magnus Carlsen potentially not defending his title, ¹¹ this time it is clear that the first place in the tournament is all that matters, since Liren has already announced he is going to defend his title, later this year.

List of Participants

As mentioned above, a total of eight players will be participating in the Candidates Tournament 2024. Qualification to the tournament was prescribed by the Candidates Tournament 2024 Regulations, as follows:

8 players that qualified for the Candidates Tournament 2024 – and their qualification paths/criteria – are as follows:

• Ian Nepomniacthchi – runner-up in the 2023 World Chess Championship match
• Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa – runner-up in the Chess World Cup 2023
• Fabiano Caruana – 3rd place winner in the Chess World Cup 2023
• Nijat Abasov – 4th place winner in the Chess World Cup 2023. Do note that only three players from the World Cup were supposed to qualify for the Candidates. But since the winner of the World Cup 2023 – Magnus Carlsen – refused his “invitation” to the Candidates, the spot was automatically assigned to the 4th place winner – Abasov.
• Santos Gujrathi Vidit – winner of the FIDE Grand Swiss 2023
• Hikaru Nakamura – runner-up of the FIDE Grand Swiss 2023
• Gukesh Dommaraju – runner-up of the FIDE Circuit 2023. Since the winner of the circuit was Fabiano Caruana who already qualified via the World Cup, the spot was given to the runner-up – who was Gukesh – instead. You might also recall the race for the FIDE Circuit spot intensified at the very last minute, with Gukesh participating in several last-minute tournaments (London Classic, Chennai Grand Masters) in which he managed to overtake Anish Giri by a very narrow margin.
• Alireza Firouzja – player with the highest rating that met FIDE’s requirements on January 2024. I am sure many of you will recall that the race for the rating spot was even more last-minute and controversial than the race for the FIDE Circuit. This entire story goes way beyond the scope of this article, but in case you were living under a rock in December 2023, you can read this and this article summarizing some of the key points.

Assessment of the participants’ chances

After introducing you to the regulations and the players, the time has come to make a fool out of myself by estimating each player’s chances and predicting the final standings of the tournament.

In my analysis, I will be focusing on three parameters:

• Strength/Recent Form – I thought of considering these separately, but have ultimately decided to couple them together. Not only because I feel someone’s chess strength is closely connected to their form. But also because I realized I would not be comfortable judging the chess strengths of these players and comparing them to each other ¹²
• Experience 

• Head-to-head score against the other participants

Fabiano Caruana

Strength/Form

I hope Fabiano Caruana doesn’t need a particular introduction. For more than a decade, he has been considered to be one of the strongest chess players in the world. Many regard him as the 2nd best player of our generation. He came close to rivaling Magnus Carlsen on several occasions – most notably in 2018, just before their World Championship Match, when the difference between the two consisted of just a few rating points. No other player in the tournament came even remotely close to Caruana’s peak rating of 2844 ELO.

Caruana has not only historically been the 2nd best player in the world. But he is also entering the Candidates tournament as such. He is currently the only person – apart from Magnus Carlsen – to belong to the exclusive 2800+ ELO Club, with his rating sitting comfortably at 2803,2.

Such a high rating is the consequence of the fantastic form Caruana has been for the larger part of 2023. He won several elite events in which he participated (Superbet Chess Classic 2023, US Chess Championship 2023, Sinquefield Cup 2023) and had a very good performance in the World Cup 2023 (3rd place, securing the qualification spot) and Norway Chess 2023 (2nd place) and reasonable performance in FIDE Grand Swiss (+4-1=6, 7/11) and American Cup (3rd place).

Put simply, in the last year, Caruana hasn’t had even a mediocre – let alone a bad – event, so it is not a surprise his rating has once again skyrocketed.

(Caruana’s 2-year rating graph: Source: Caruana’s FIDE Profile)

This is not that surprising considering Caruana’s own admission that his motivation for chess has returned after it dipped down in the Covid/post-COVID period. I also think the fact that Magnus Carlsen will not be the one awaiting you in the match for the title will serve as an additional motivation boost ¹³, since this might be a unique opportunity to win that coveted title.

Experience

Caruana is not only incredibly strong – but he is also a very experienced player. This will already be his 5th Candidates Tournament and he also has experience when it comes to playing for the title of the World Champion. 

Head-to-head against the other participants

Caruana’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

• Caruana vs. Nepomniacthchi: +1-1=13
• Caruana vs. Nakamura: +8-9=33
• Caruana vs. Firouzja: +5-1=6
• Caruana vs. Vidit: +0-0=1 
• Caruana vs. Praggnanandhaa: +1-0=3
• Caruana vs. Gukesh: +1-1=1
• Caruana vs. Abasov: +1-1=0 ¹⁴

From Caruana’s head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• there is a staggering difference in the number of games Caruana has played against Nepomniachtchi, Nakamura and Firouzja and the rest of the field. I was extremely surprised by the fact he has only played a single classical game against Vidit. 
• Caruana only has a positive score against two players in the field – Praggnannadhaa (whom he beat in Tata Steel 2022 when Prag was younger – and weaker) and Firouzja – who does seem to be his “client”. 
• Caruana might experience some difficulty against Nakamura, who has beaten him in their last three classical encounters – at FIDE Grand Swiss, Norway Chess 2023 and in the 2nd half of the previous Candidates Tournament. Although it has to be noted that Fabi was Black in all these games and that he also scored a victory with White in the 1st half of that very same Candidates Tournament.
• His loss against Gukesh happened at the 2022 Chess Olympiad where Gukesh played the tournament of his life and where Caruana wasn’t at his best, while he beat him at Tata Steel 2023. I don’t think these games will be of that much relevance in their upcoming encounter.
• Caruana hasn’t played any games against the other participants in 2024, since he skipped Tata Steel Masters and since none of them ¹⁵ participated in the recently concluded American Cup 2023.

Thus, even though head-to-head results are not particularly in Caruana’s favour, due to the limited sample of games against half of the field, the limited amount of games played against the other participants very recently, and due to the fact the Candidates is a completely new tournament, I do think these “statistics” are not that relevant. 

Given Caruana’s “pedigree”, his recent form and experience, it is hard not to consider him as one of the main favourites of the event. 

Ian Nepomniacthchi

Strength/Form

Just like Fabiano Caruana, Ian Nepomniachtchi has been one of the best players in the world for quite some time now. He is capable of beating anyone in the world. At his peak, Nepo is perhaps even more scary than Caruana. ¹⁶ Not only is he a rather aggressive player – he also has the tendency to move very fast, putting a lot of pressure on the opponents, both on the board and on the clock.

When he is “on”, this can work wonderfully – which was especially apparent in the last Candidates tournament, which he won in a very convincing manner. Nepo is the type of “streaky” player who can suddenly start amassing wins and “running away” with the tournament.

On the other hand, due to his style, clock handling and emotional approach to the game, Nepo can equally easily go on a “negative” streak if things are not working out for him. Historically speaking, he has always been struggling with consistency, which is why his historical peak is much lower than, say, Caruana’s. As a matter of fact, he has never crossed the elite 2800 rating barrier, with his peak rating standing at 2795. Put simply, his level of play and stability varies a lot, which was very apparent in his recent World Chess Championship match against Ding.

Nepo’s form has also been far from stellar in recent times. Even though he hasn’t played a lot after his match against Ding, the tournaments he did play in didn’t quite go his way, to put it mildly:

• Superbet Chess Classic 2023: 3.5/9, lost 15 rating points ¹⁷
• FIDE World Cup 2023: Eliminated in round 5 by Vidit in tiebreak, lost 8 classical rating points
• Tata Steel Masters 2024: 6.5/13, lost 10 rating points

Experience

On the other hand, Nepo is one of the more experienced players in this – relatively young – field. Given his experience in the World Chess Championship matches and his back-to-back wins in the previous two Candidates, his fans can hope he will be able to utilize his experience to find his best form and go for a “three-peat”. 

Head-to-head against the other participants

Nepo’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

• Nepomniachtchi vs. Caruana: +1-1=13
• Nepomniachtchi vs. Nakamura: +2-3=7
• Nepomniachtchi vs. Firouzja: +4-3=2
• Nepomniachtchi vs. Vidit +2-0=5
• Nepomniachtchi vs. Praggnanandhaa: +0-0=2
• Nepomniachtchi vs. Gukesh: +0-1=1
• Nepomniachtchi vs. Abasov: +0-0=1

From Nepo’s head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• just like Caruana, Nepo has played a lot of games with three participants in the tournament, and very few games with four participants in the tournament
• Nepo doesn’t have an overwhelming plus score against any of the participants (his +2 score against Vidit can hardly be characterized as such)
• Nepo doesn’t have an overwhelming negative score against any of the participants, either.
• Nepo hasn’t played that many games against the other participants in recent times

In Nepo’s case, I would attribute even less significance to the head-to-head scores than in Caruana’s case. I do think his result will mainly depend on his form in the tournament. On the basis of the recent results, his fans don’t have a lot of ground for optimism. But given his experience and the fact he will probably be extremely motivated, it wouldn’t be a surprise if he just wins the entire event, given how strong he is at his very best.

All in all, I think he will do either very well, or rather poorly. This is the main reason why I have decided to come up with two predictions instead of just one at the end of this article.

Hikaru Nakamura

Strength/Form

Hikaru Nakamura has been a well-established elite player for more than a decade. Apart from Fabiano Caruana, he is the only player who firmly held 2nd place on the rating list –  reaching a peak of 2816 in October 2015. ¹⁸ I do think he is one of those players who had ¹⁹ World Championship potential in terms of pure raw talent/chess-playing strength. ²⁰

With that being said, in recent years ²¹ Nakamura has “semi-retired” from competitive chess and significantly reduced his activity in order more time for his streaming career. One would expect this change of priorities to negatively affect his results – as well as his rating. Whenever he comes out to play, people predict his lack of practice and lack of hours due to streaming obligations is going to tell.

Yet miraculously, nothing of the sort has happened. Nakamura has not only managed to maintain his level – but even improved upon it. Ever since 2022, he has been very successful in virtually every event he participated in:

• FIDE Grand Prix 2022: participated in leg 1 and leg 3, won 25 rating points, qualified for the Candidates
• FIDE Candidates 2022: scored 7.5/14, won 8 rating points, almost won 2nd place and qualified for the World Chess Championship match
• American Cup 2023: won the event after beating Semian and Dominguez in classical portion and So in the tiebreak. Won 7 rating points. 
• Norway Chess 2023: Won the event and 12 rating points.
• FIDE World Cup 2023: Perhaps the only event that can be labelled as “unsuccessful” in the two-year period. After beating Karthik in the rapid tiebreak and Gledura in the classical portion, Nakamura was eliminated by Praggnandhaa in the rapid tiebreak. Lost 7 classical rating points.
• Qatar Masters 2023: Scored 6.5/9, lost -2.40 rating points. Not a great event, but not a disastrous one, either.
• FIDE Grand Swiss 2023: Scored 8/11, won 10 rating points, qualified for the Candidates.

This series of great results increased his rating to 2789, which is currently sufficient for the 3rd place in the world ²²

(Nakamura’s rating progress since January 2023. Source: Nakamura’s FIDE profile)

Thus, it is fair to say Nakamura comes to the Candidates in great shape. Even though he has played only 3 classical games this year, his comparative lack of practice didn’t seem to be an issue in the past – and there is no reason to assume it will be an issue this time. ²³ 

I do feel he will be very motivated for this event since becoming a World Champion would further improve his own “brand”. And playing against Ding Liren is arguably the chance of a lifetime to win that title!

Experience

Nakamura is not only very strong, but he is also very experienced. As one of the older participants, he already has a number of elite events under his belt. He has also participated in two Candidates tournaments – back in 2016 ²⁴ and in the most recent one in 2022, where only the last-round loss to Ding prevented him from winning the 2nd place and qualifying for the match against Nepomniachtchi. 

Given he already mentioned that he used his negative result from 2016 to approach 2022 differently, we can say he learned from his experience. How much of a role it will play this time – remains to be seen.

Head-to-head against the other participants

Nakamura’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

• Nakamura vs. Caruana: +9-8=33
• Nakamura vs. Nepomniachtchi: +3-2=7
• Nakamura vs. Firouzja: +1-0=2
• Nakamura vs. Vidit: +0-0=2
• Nakamura vs. Praggnananadhaa: +0-0=2
• Nakamura vs. Gukesh: +1-0=0
• Nakamura vs. Abasov +1-0=0

From Nakamura’s head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• Naka is the only player who has a positive score with 5 of the other participants (albeit a relatively “small” one)
• he has played a lot of games against Caruana and Nepo and very few games against the rest of the field. I was somewhat surprised by the relatively low amount of encounters he has had with Firouzja. 
• it has to be said that he hasn’t played against Nepomniachtchi a lot in recent years. Their last two classical games happened in the 2022 Candidates. Hikaru had some chances in his White game, while the second game featured the disgraceful “Berlin” draw
• his recent games against the other participants do give him a lot of reason for optimism. As mentioned above, he has beaten Caruana in their last three encounters – although he had White pieces in all these games. He has also beaten Gukesh and Firouzja relatively recently in Norway Chess 2023. And most recently, he won a game against Nijat Abasov in the German Bundesliga where he blundered in the opening and was just a pawn down. ²⁵

All in all, I think Nakamura’s recent form, his positive head-to-head score against the other participants (especially in recent times), the fact he has done well in almost every post-epidemic event, and his very solid and reliable opening repertoire will outweigh his comparative “lack of practice”. I don’t see a reason not to predict he will again do well. 

With that being said, I don’t quite see him winning the Candidates, simply because I do consider Caruana and Nepo to be stronger when they are “on”. I have, therefore, predicted him to win the 2nd or the 3rd place in the event. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if he did go all the way, given all the nerves involved and his “I don’t care” attitude. ²⁶

Alireza Firouzja

Strength/Form

Alireza Firouzja is widely regarded as one of the greatest talents our game has ever seen. Even though he is only 21, he has been a top player for at least 5 years – ever since he first broke the 2700 rating barrier at the age of 16. He is also the youngest player in history to break the 2800 barrier – a feat he managed to achieve in December 2021, at the age of 18. Given all the accomplishments, it is not surprising he has been regarded as “The Chosen One” – or the legitimate successor of Magnus Carlsen.

However, this is easier said than done. So far, Firouzja hasn’t come close to participating in a World Championship Match. True, he did qualify for the previous Candidates tournament, but with the final result of 6/13, he was nowhere close the first two places.

In recent times, a lot of questions regarding Firouzja’s motivation/dedication have appeared in chess circles. The truth is – in last few years, Alireza has played very little classical chess. After achieving the rating of 2804 in December 2021, Firouzja wouldn’t play a single tournament until Candidates 2022 – which happened in June. ²⁷

A similar story happened in 2023, as Firouzja didn’t play a single classical game in the first six months of the year. Furthermore, the events he participated in in the second half of the year didn’t quite go the way he would like. After a reasonable performance in Superbet Chess Classic in June, Alireza would have a pretty bad Norway Chess 2023, and disastrous Grand Swiss 2023 and Sinequfield Cup 2023.

The rating losses in the last two events seriously jeopardized his rating spot/participation in the Candidates, which ultimately prompted him to organize the aforementioned matches in Chartres/play in an open tournament in Rouen and cause a fair bit of drama at the end of last year.

On the other hand, events in December did demonstrate that Alireza is still pretty much thinking about chess, despite the fact he has also started studying fashion design in Paris in the meantime. In his most recent event in Tata Steel 2024, he did do reasonably well, scored 7.5/13, played some uncompromising, fighting chess, and reminded us of “the Alireza of old”, at times. However, his uncompromising style is often a double-edged blade, as he also suffered some pretty bad losses, such as in his games against Vidit or Ju Wenjun.

Experience

Even though he is still extremely young, I think we have to count Alireza among the more experienced participants. Not only has he been a part of the elite for longer than, say, Gukesh, Praggnanandhaa – and even Vidit. But apart from Caruana, Nakamura, and Nepomniachtchi, he is the only player who has already participated in a Candidates tournament.

His fans can hope he has learned from his experience and that he will use the knowledge to have a better result this time. 

Head-to-head against the other participants

Firouzja’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

• Firouzja vs. Caruana: +1-5=6
• Firouzja vs. Nepomniachtchi: +3-4=2
• Firouzja vs. Nakamura: +0-1=2
• Firouzja vs. Vidit: +0-2=1
• Firouzja vs. Praggnanandhaa: +0-0=2
• Firouzja vs. Gukesh: +1-1=1
• Firouzja vs. Abasov: +2-0=1

From his head-to-head scores, we can observe:

• Firouzja’s head-to-head score doesn’t inspire much confidence. He has a negative score against four other participants and has been particularly struggling against Caruana, who not only has a large plus score against him but who has also beaten him twice with Black (!!) in their most recent encounters – at Norway Chess 2023 and Sinquefield Cup 2023. 
• He also lost quite badly to Vidit in Tata Steel Masters 2024
• Firouzja also lost his “mini-matches” to Nepomniachtchi and Nakamura in the last Candidates tournament
• He does have a positive score against Abasov and an equal score against two other “youngsters”

All in all, Firouzja’s placement was incredibly hard to predict. On one hand, his form hasn’t been stellar in the last few months – and his mind seemingly wasn’t fully focused on chess. On the other hand, everybody knows he is an enormous talent with enormous potential who already has a lot of experience playing at the top level. Given that he has been seemingly fully focusing on chess again, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume he might be the “surprise” of the tournament.

After some thinking, however, I have decided to put him in the middle of the tournament table. I do think his sharp and uncompromising style will lead to a number of decisive games – but I also think he will experience some bad losses because of it. Even though we shouldn’t read too much into the results of Tata Steel, I can envision his Candidates’ tournament following a similar trajectory. 

Although I can also envision him just winning a bunch of games and qualifying for the match if he brings his absolute best.

Santosh Gujrathi Vidit

Strength/Form

Santos Gujrathi Vidit is a unique player in the field, in the sense that he might be the only player ²⁸ who hasn’t had a meteoric rise to the heights of top-level chess. Even though he was the World U14 Champion, he became the grandmaster at the “late” age of 19. ²⁹ And even though he broke the 2700 rating barrier at the age of 23 and has been floating in the 2700-2730 range ever since – he hasn’t managed to break to the very elite and participate in that many top-level events.

Until recently. 

With a series of good results in 2023, Vidit not only reached the peak rating of 2747. But also managed to qualify for the Candidates for the very first time in his life – at the age of 29 – with a fantastic performance at the FIDE Grand Swiss 2023. 

Vidit also continued his form at the beginning of 2024, with a very good performance at Tata Steel 2024. True, his most recent event in Prague didn’t go that well, to put it mildly. But I wouldn’t pay to much significance to it, since his mind was almost certainly on the Candidates already. 

Therefore, I think Vidit is coming to the Candidates in good form and his motivation must be at an all-time high.

Experience

Despite his age and the fact he is among the older participants in the tournament, Vidit doesn’t have that much experience playing at this level. Not only will this be his first Candidates tournament, but I was also unable to find many top-level closed round-robin events where he participated³⁰ (apart from Tata Steel 2019, 2022, and 2024 and several issues of Prague Masters). ³¹

Head-to-head against the other participants

Vidit’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

• Vidit vs. Caruana: +0-0=1
• Vidit vs. Nepomniachtchi: +0-2=5
• Vidit vs. Nakamura: +0-0=2
• Vidit vs. Firouzja: +2-0=1
• Vidit vs. Praggnanandhaa: +3-3=1
• Vidit vs. Gukesh: +0-0=2
• Vidit vs. Abasov: +0-2=1

From the head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• as indirectly hinted above, despite being a 2700+ player for 6 years, Vidit has played a remarkably small amount of games against top players such as Caruana and Nakamura. 
• I was also surprised to see only 2 classical games against his compatriot Gukesh – but also how bloodthirsty his battles with Prag have been, considering the relatively “solidity” of both players
• Vidit has had good results against Firouzja in the past, but he has also suffered some painful losses against Abasov – most notably in the World Cup 2023. This prevented Vidit from securing the Candidates spot at the time. We will see how relevant these past scores will be in the upcoming event, but they might play a psychological role.

All in all, despite his great preparation and impressive and inspiring work ethic that allowed him to achieve the greatest success of his career relatively late, I think players such as Caruana, Nepo and Nakamura are stronger and more experienced. And that “youngsters” such as Gukesh, Firouzja or Praggnannadhaa are more likely to be the “surprise” of the tournament. 

I am also a bit unsure how well will Vidit deal with the tension. In the past, he did seem to collapse under pressure, as his aforementioned game against Abasov, or his most recent last-round loss against Wei Yi at Tata Steel demonstrate. ³²

Thus, all things considered, have decided to put Vidit on the 6th place in my prediction. This may seem a bit harsh, but I would be genuinely surprised to see him in the upper half of the tournament table.

Whether this statement will make me like an absolute fool after the tournament, remains to be seen.

Praggnanandhaa Rameshbabu 

Strength/Form

We will continue our exploration of the “Indian trio” by taking a closer look at the 2nd youngest participant in this Candidates tournament, Praggnanandhaa Rameshbabu. Considering how long he has been around and how well-known he is, it is easy to forget Prag is only 19. 

However, despite the fact he became the International Master at the age of 10 and the 2nd youngest GM at the age of 12, ³³Prag’s rise to the top wasn’t as meteoric and sudden as one would expect. Back in 2020 – just before the pandemic – he was “only” rated at 2600. And even though he did “explode” to a certain extent in the post-COVID years, he was struggling to break the magical 2700 barrier and seemed to be somewhat overshadowed by the likes of Erigaisi and Gukesh. Not to mention Firouzja. ³⁴ 

This all changed in the second half of 2023 when Prag suddenly started breaking through. First, he finally broke the 2700 barrier with a fantastic performance at the Dr.Hetenyi Geza Super GM Memorial. He followed that up with a historic, remarkable performance at the World Cup 2023, where he reached the final after eliminating Lagarde, Navara, Nakamura (!), Berkes, Erigaisi, and Caruana, gaining an additional 20 rating points and qualifying for the Candidates.

His successful performances in the Spanish League and Tata Steel Masters 2024 further elevated his rating to an all-time high of  2747 and further complicating the eternal battle for the Indian number one. 

(Praggnanandhaa’s rating progress since January 2023. Source: Prag’s FIDE profile)

Prag also performed very well at the recently concluded Prague Masters 2024,³⁵ where he scored 5/9  and finished ahead of Gukesh and Vidit. He is, therefore, entering the Candidates in very good form and will surely be motivated to make the most of this opportunity.

Experience

On the other hand, due to his youth and the fact he has only recently increased his rating to the top 20 level, Prag has had limited experience in top classical events and this is also his very first Candidates. As we have seen with Alireza in 2022 – this inexperience might play a role. Although one could also make an argument “The Indian school of chess” is much less prone to tilting and playing bullet until 6 am during such an important event. 

Prag has always struck me as an incredibly mature and composed person. He also seems to be able to deal with the pressure extremely well, as his fantastic World Cup run demonstrates. We will see whether his composure and nerves will be able to compensate for the comparative lack of experience. And whether he will be able to display the same level he displayed in the World Cup/recent months.

Head-to-head against the other participants

Praggnanandhaa’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

• Praggnananadhaa vs. Caruana: +0-1=3
• Praggnanandhaa vs. Nepomniachtchi: +0-0=2
• Praggnanandhaa vs. Nakamura: +0-0=2
• Praggnanandhaa vs. Firouzja: +0-0=2
• Praggnanandhaa vs. Vidit: +3-3=1
• Praggnannadhaa vs. Gukesh: +2-2=3
• Praggnananadhaa vs. Abasov: +0-0=0

From the head-to-head scores, we can observe the following:

• As expected, due to his limited experience, Prag has played very few games against most of the other participants in this event. He has never played a single classical game against Abasov.
• The notable exceptions are his compatriots Vidit and Gukesh. I was surprised to see so many decisive games between these players. I guess it shows there is a fierce rivalry between every camaraderie. ³⁶

All things considered, I have decided to pick Prag as the potential “dark horse” of the tournament. I do feel he might still be somewhat “underrated” and not lacking in pure chess-playing strength behind Caruana, Nepo, or Nakamura. I think his play has matured a lot and that he has become incredibly tough to beat, as his recent streak of 47 undefeated games demonstrates.

I do not quite think he has it in him to go all the way. But I most certainly see him in the upper half of the tournament table. Although the possibility of him winning shouldn’t be completely ruled out.

Gukesh Dommaraju

Strength/Form

Even though he is one year younger than his compatriot Pragnnanadhaa, Gukesh has arguably had a more meteoric rise to the world’s top. 

Even though he has been a child prodigy, a young GM, and all that jazz, Gukesh first made his name to the wider audience with his remarkable performance at the Chennai Olympiad 2022. Apart from securing him an individual gold medal, this result also enabled him to cross the 2700 rating barrier for the first time. Ever since, he has firmly established himself as one of the best players in the world, peaking at 2758 and overtaking Vishy Anand as the new Indian number 1 for a brief period.

True, after this peak, Gukesh did experience a certain dip in form (and rating) ³⁷. In November and December 2023, he lost almost 40 rating points and dropped all the way to 2720, placing his participation in the Candidates into question. Only the last-minute effort and good performance in the Chennai Masters at the end of last year enabled him to snatch the Grand Circuit spot from Anish Giri.

It seems that this good result and qualification for the Candidates renewed his vigor/passion/motivation. Gukesh had a fantastic tournament at Tata Steel 2024, gaining 17 rating points and coming close to winning the entire thing. After picking a few additional points in Bundesliga, he is currently sitting at 2747 ELO – the same rating as his compatriots Vidit and Prag. ³⁸

Thus, it seems Gukesh is back to his “old self” and fully ready for the Candidates.

Experience

Just like Prag – one thing Gukesh doesn’t have going his way is the experience. Even though he has reached 2700 sooner and participated in more elite events, I think this difference is negligible – especially since Gukesh wasn’t as active/successful in online events such as the Champions Chess Tour, compared to Prag.

As mentioned previously, it is a big question how relevant of a factor this is. But given that Gukesh is even younger than Prag, I wouldn’t be surprised if he succumbs to the pressure to the same extent Alireza succumbed back in 2022.

Head-to-head against the other participants

Gukesh’s head-to-head score against the other participants in the tournament is, as follows:

• Gukesh vs. Caruana: +1-1=1
• Gukesh vs. Nepomniachtchi: +1-0=1
• Gukesh vs. Nakamura: +0-1=0
• Gukesh vs. Firouzja: +1-1=1
• Gukesh vs. Vidit: +0-0=2
• Gukesh vs. Praggnananadhaa: +2-2=3
• Gukesh vs. Abasov: +0-0=1

In order not to repeat myself, I will merely remark that Gukesh has not played many games against the other participants in the tournament and that his clashes with Prag have been incredibly bloodthirsty so far. However, it is hard to say how relevant all this will be, given that the Candidates will be a completely new tournament with an unprecedented amount of pressure. 

All in all, trying to predict how Gukesh would do was a particularly difficult task, given his youth, potential, and inexperience. Ultimately, I have decided to rate his chances lower compared to the “big three” (Caruana, Nepo, and Nakamura), the other two youngsters (Firouzja and Prag), but higher compared to Vidit and Abasov. 

Comparison with Prag was in particular, very challenging. But ultimately I have decided to give preference to Prag simply because of the nerves/pressure factor. I could remember a few instances where Gukesh was failed by his nervous system – most notably against Abdusattorov at the Chennai Olympiad 2022. But also against Wei Yi in the tiebreak of this year’s Tata Steel, to a certain extent. 

Given his youth, certain volatility, and very uncompromising approach, I feel there is a higher probability of him “going down in flames” compared to some other players. 

But whatever the case, one thing is certain – it will be extremely interesting to follow his games.

Nijat Abasov

Strength/Form

Last, but not least, we have arrived at the final and the lowest-rated participant in the Candidates tournament, Nijat Abasov. Even if you are not a big fan of my joke in the introduction,³⁹ I am sure you will agree with my evaluation that Abasov is, objectively, the weakest player in the field, given that his peak rating of 2679 is far away from the CURRENT rating of all the other players and that he has never crossed the 2700-mark. ⁴⁰ 

True, his performance in the World Cup has demonstrated that rating is not everything and that Abasov can hold his own against the world’s very best. And that he also has very good nerves in high-pressure situations. 

But one could also make an argument this performance had little to do with classical chess, given that he won most of his matches in tiebreaks. And that the pressure was mostly on his higher-rated opponents, while he barely had anything to lose. ⁴¹

On the other hand, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since World Cup 2023. Ever since, Abasov’s form has been far from stellar, to put it mildly. In recent months, he has been “bleeding rating” on all fronts. Since November 2023, he has lost almost 50 rating points and is currently sitting at 2632 ELO, which is sufficient for the 110th place in the world.

(Abasov’s rating progress since January 2023. Source: Abasov’s FIDE profile)

Experience

Abasov is also not faring that well in the “experience” department. This will not only be his very first Candidates – but virtually his first-ever top event. He has very limited experience playing against top players – especially in events where they have been able to specifically prepare for him for many months. One would think superior preparation is something that distinguishes 2700+ and 2600+ players, although we will see how much of a role it will play.

Head-to-head against the other participants

One thing Abasov has going his way is the head-to-head score with other participants, which is as follows: 

• Abasov vs. Caruana: +1-1=1
• Abasov vs. Nepomniachtchi: +0-0=1
• Abasov vs. Nakamura: +0-1=0
• Abasov vs. Firouzja: +0-2=1
• Abasov vs. Vidit: +2-0=1
• Abasov vs. Praggnananadhaa: +0-0=0
• Abasov vs. Gukesh: +0-0=1

A couple of observations:

• Abasov has demonstrated he can hold his own against top players. In the World Cup, he beat both Vidit and Caruana in classical games
• The number of games he has played against top players is fairly limited, though.
• Most of these games happened in events such as World Cup, FIDE Grand Swiss or German Bundesliga, where time for preparation is rather limited
• His most recent games against the other participants – the one against Firouzja from FIDE Grand Swiss 2023 and the one against Nakamura from Bundesliga 2024, don’t give him much reason for optimism. The latter one was especially painful, considering Abasov had a clear extra pawn after Nakamura mixed up the move order in the opening, as mentioned previously.

Thus, when you combine Abasov’s playing strength, recent form, and lack of experience, it is hard to imagine him not coming up last in this tournament. Even if he manages to repeat his form from the World Cup we take the whole “he-plays-without-pressure-while-others-have-to-score-points-against-him” point into consideration. 

After all – you might recall that Kiril Alekseenko barely managed to avoid this fate in the 2020-2021 Candidates – and he was much less of an underdog. ⁴² 

My Predictions

Variation A: Caruana in form, Nepo out of form

1. Fabiano Caruana
2. Hikaru Nakamura
3. Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa
4. Alireza Firouzja
5. Dommaraju Gukesh
6. Ian Nepomniachtchi
7. Vidit Santosh Gujrathi
8. Nijat Abasov

Variation B: Nepo in-form

1. Ian Nepomniachtchi
2. Fabiano Caruana
3. Hikaru Nakamura
4. Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa
5. Alireza Firouzja
6. Dommaraju Gukesh
7. Vidit Santos Gujrathi
8. Nijat Abasov

The post Everything You Need To Know About Candidates Tournament 2024 appeared first on Chessentials.

But apart from being “the chess guy”, Nikolaos also has a profound interest in (business) philosophy and ethics. A couple of weeks ago, he reached out to me and expressed his interest in writing a guest post on the topic of ethical behavior within the chess world.  Since I have written about similar topics in the past, I thought it was an important and challenging topic, and since I had several positive interactions with Nikolaos in the past, I gladly accepted his offer. 

Once he delivered his work, I knew it was the right decision. Because the article in front of you was one of the most interesting and enlightening pieces of writing I have seen from someone within the chess world. ¹ Apart from teaching me a lot about ethics and philosophy, it has also made me re-examine how I approach complex moral issues and made me realize they can be approached from many different angles.

I do hope you will find it as enlightening and interesting as I did. Or at the very least, that you will learn something new about giants such as Plato, Kant, or Aristotle.

And now, without further ado, I give it to Nikolaos.

Introduction

The Motivation For This Article

A typical day for a chess fan on Twitter these days seems to go like this:

• Start scrolling
• Read a few tweets about the new drama of the day
• Become angry with the person who tweeted something controversial or with those who criticized them
• Repeat the same cycle the next day…

I am certainly not the first one to notice it. The chess world is in a permanent state of controversy. The usual suspects these days are Hans Niemann, one of the biggest prospects of US chess right now, and the former world champion Vladimir Kramnik. But these controversies often involve a cast of characters ranging from Women Grandmaster Dina Belenkaya to the GOAT (?) Magnus Carlsen himself.

As these dramas unfold, everyone forms an instant opinion on who is right and who is wrong. But unsurprisingly, these opinions clash, with people found on both sides of the argument, disagreeing on the fundamental ethics of the situation. 

Even when they agree, they may have different reasons for their judgments. The next day, when a similar situation arises, the same individuals might evaluate the case differently, based on personal preferences and biases.

Chess fans are not unique in this regard. It is a common occurrence in every aspect of social life, both on social media and out of them (what some people call, real life). Think about the last time you found yourself among relatives, discussing politics, and you’ll know what I mean…

However, what sets chess players apart is their capacity to understand this: Ethics are similar to chess openings!

Over the centuries, a huge body of theory has been developed in a branch of philosophy called Ethics. In the same way we study a book or a course and learn the intricacies of the Spanish or Italian opening, we can study philosophy and ethics. We can use the tools that great thinkers have developed to analyze a chess drama and evaluate, similarly to Stockfish, who is right or wrong. 

Ethics, along with another branch of philosophy called aesthetics, is often referred to as ‘value theory’ because it helps assess the value of how good or bad something is.

Imagine something like this:

Imagine being able to evaluate the above argument in terms of “centipawns” with an engine called Ethicsfish. Please email me if you want to invest in creating such an engine!

So, I decided to write this article to discuss the analytical tools that ethical theories like consequentialism, deontological ethics, contractarianism, and virtue theory can offer us.

We’ll see specific examples and analyze them with the help of these tools, like a grandmaster scrutinizing a complex position, and see how they might offer clarity amidst the chaos.

The goal of this article is twofold. Primarily, I aim to inspire you to examine moral issues from diverse perspectives. As is often the case with philosophy, the process of studying how great minds approached and analyzed a particular topic can be intellectually gratifying. However, at the end of the day, we can adopt the frameworks or aspects that resonate most with us. So, I invite you to open your mind, analyze moral dilemmas through the lenses of different ethical theories, and ultimately retain what makes the most sense to you.

My second goal is a bit riskier and more challenging. Still, I want to accept the invitation from my editor to attempt to provide you with a formula, an algorithm of sorts, that you can employ when analyzing real-life moral dilemmas.

Of course, in the modern ongoing discussion between philosophers, many (and much more sophisticated) such formulas get created. But, I think that it will be instructive to see an amateur philosopher like me, trying to construct one. It will be a similar experience to watching someone streaming their chess games online. The games are not perfect, but you can see the struggle of someone who possibly is a bit ahead of their audience in terms of knowledge and experience. 

Thinking about Ethics – Enter Metaethics!

Before we start the discussion on ethics – the branch of philosophy that studies what is right and wrong behavior, let’s take a minute to talk about metaethics, the study of the very foundations of morality itself (yes, it’s going to be that kind of journey…).

Among those without academic training in ethics ², the most common metaethical view is the belief that there are moral facts, more or less the same way there are scientific facts.

In this view, some things are just wrong, and others are indisputably right. That’s what the gut intuition of most of us tells us. That’s how we understand the world since we were kids.

However, that’s one of the easiest things to argue against. If there were just moral facts, where would they come from? Maybe that’s an easy answer if you are a religious person, but it is a subject of constant debate. ³

Can we test and falsify these moral facts as we do with scientific facts? And, regarding scientific facts, we can arrive at some consensus. Why can’t we do the same with ethics? ⁴

But, if there are no moral facts, what does this mean? Could two moral views be correct at the same time? And what are they based on? Our feelings? ⁵ Our reason? Our social environment?

This is often called the “Grounding Problem” in Ethics. We need some rule, some assumption, something to hold on to, on which we can build our ethical theory. That’s what thinkers have done for thousands of years now. So, each of the theories, the analytical tools we’ll talk about, has a foundation. If you don’t accept this foundation, the whole theory collapses. ⁶

So, let’s dive into the ethical theories…

Four Big Ethical Theories

Consequentialism – The Sicilian Defense

• Foundation: What matters is the outcomes of actions.
• Why similar to the Sicilian: In the Sicilian, we tend to have complex positions where the consequences of every move must be carefully calculated.

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their consequences. Nothing is right or wrong on its own, and intention doesn’t matter. All that matters is the outcomes. It is a simple theory to understand, and incredibly practical.  

Consequentialism is becoming the dominant framework in domains like public policy and business management today. ⁷ It is very convenient to link it with finance and economic indicators and measure its results.

If you feel that your government is frequently making ethically wrong decisions, not caring about certain groups of people, for example, that’s because most administrations today adopt a consequentialist perspective. But, be careful. This doesn’t mean that you are always right, thinking that an administration is wrong. It might be the case of missing the whole picture, and not understanding the overall consequences. ⁸

This theory is often associated (or confused) with utilitarianism, a specific form of consequentialism that says the right action is the one that maximizes happiness for most people (or minimizes the pain). The idea of measuring things based on pleasure and pain is called hedonism.

So, consequentialism + hedonism = utilitarianism. ⁹

Consequentialism’s main critiques point out that the theory may lead to ignoring the rights or well-being of some for the benefit of the many.

But on the personal level, there is another, at least, equally serious issue. In complex situations, it is very difficult to assess the implications of an action. We simply don’t have access to the full picture, no matter how hard we try.

To understand this theory, let’s look at it through the lens of a famous philosophical dilemma: the trolley problem.

The trolley problem and consequentialism

The basic scenario of the trolley problem is that a runaway trolley is heading toward five people who are tied to the tracks, and the only way to save them is to divert the trolley to another track where one person is tied.

You are the one who can pull a lever that will switch the trolley to the other track, killing one person but saving five. Would you do it?

The theory requires that you pull the lever. You kill one person to save five. 

But, doesn’t this mean that you are choosing to take the life of an innocent person? After all, it’s not your fault that the situation is so terrible. You shouldn’t have to get blood on your hands to try and fix it. Right?

So, you see that consequentialism is a very demanding moral theory. We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And, if we’re the ones who are there, and we can do something to make things better, we must. Even if that means getting our hands dirty.

But, things are not always that simple. What if this one person we decided to kill is important, let’s say an influential scientist, or has a family and kids that will suffer from this loss, while the five people are old and sick with no relatives left? In this case, wouldn’t the consequences be worse if we switched the trolley to that one person? How could we know? ¹⁰

The trolley problem sounds too abstract and hypothetical? Let’s try to take a step further and apply the principles of consequentialism to a real-life example from the chess world.

Kramnik and the cheating problem in chess 

Should Kramnik point out potential cheaters, risking some false positives?¹¹

A consequentialist will argue that such an important figure has so much power in the community that he can change things for the better. And even if some people get negatively affected, we should judge his actions based on the overall outcome and if that will be positive, for example, if the cheating problem in chess gets reduced or solved. ¹²

As you can see, that’s much more difficult for an individual to do than say a big organization like chess.com or FIDE. As mentioned above, it is very difficult for an individual to assess the implications of an action in a highly complex situation. A big organization might be able to do a more informed measurement of these outcomes.

Deontological Ethics – The Nimzo Indian Defense 

• Foundation: Moral rules derived from reason which we should feel a duty to follow. 
• Why Nimzo-Indian: Logical, principled, where the moves are guided by sound reasoning.

When you ask someone why they think a certain decision or action is bad, you might expect a profound answer. But often, you’ll get a “because it’s… bad.” And if you feel that that’s a lame answer, according to deontological ethics, it’s not!

“Deontological” comes from the Greek word “deon,” meaning obligation. It’s a branch of ethics that’s all about duty and rules. It insists that you should always do what’s right, no matter the consequences.

But where does this sense of obligation come from? If you believe in God, then this question has an easy answer. That’s what it is called “Divine Command Theory”. However, philosophers have been poking holes in this theory since ancient times. ¹³

Consequently, even theologians found ‘Divine Command Theory’ lacking, leading them to develop alternatives such as Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory. ¹⁴ This theory has become the foundation of Catholic Ethics to this day.

But, deontological theories based on divine or natural definitions of right and wrong are way older than that, even older than philosophy itself. Take Homer’s epics, for instance, where doing the right thing was all about bravery and heroism, and about keeping the cosmic balance—a central theme in many ancient cultures. 

The issue here is that philosophy is essentially humanity’s noble quest to solve problems using reason and logic, rather than relying on faith or superstition. So, we’re focusing on ethical systems grounded in reason here. And surprisingly, ethical systems that are based on the “obligation of doing the right thing” that are purely based on reason, are a much more recent development.

Typically, deontological ethics is connected with one name: Immanuel Kant. And I have to admit that despite my best efforts, I don’t understand Kant. So, take the following with a pinch of salt—I might be missing the mark. ¹⁵

Obligations based on reason

Kant was all about morality being rooted in reason and reason alone. Not feelings, not preferences, not cultural backgrounds, and certainly not divine memos. He believed that an action is morally sound only if it’s done out of duty, not self-interest or for any potential outcomes.

He laid down his moral laws, the “categorical imperatives,” which are like the universal rules everyone should follow, no matter their wishes or situations.

Two of the most famous such laws, in the way I understand them, are:

“Live by the rule that you’d be okay with everyone else following too.” ¹⁶

Consider a chess game where using an engine will give you an edge. But, what if everyone did the same? The game would be ruined. According to Kant, that’s why cheating at chess is a no-go. 

That’s a very practical way to understand if something is right or wrong. That’s typically one of the lessons on morality we learned from our parents and teachers during childhood. ¹⁷ 

“Always treat people as valuable in themselves, not just as tools to get what you want.” ¹⁸

This means seeing yourself and others as individuals with worth and dignity, not just as a means to your ends. ¹⁹

Kant also defined what gives human beings dignity. And that’s autonomy.  Think about it this way. What happens when we lie to someone? We’re messing with someone’s ability to decide based on truth. Or because we want to use someone to do something for us. Intentions are a central part of deontological ethics. The reason we do something, matters.

I didn’t use the example of lying out of an accident. Kant was famously rigid in his stance against lying, arguing that it is never morally acceptable, even in situations where lying might prevent harm. 

The catch with deontological ethics is this: if you stick to the rules without weighing the consequences, you could inadvertently cause more harm than good. It’s a common critique that such unwavering commitment to rules, regardless of the outcome, can sometimes lead to results that clash with our innate sense of morality. 

Are pre-arranged draws in chess immoral? 

Are pre-arranged draws in chess immoral? To answer this, we can apply Kant’s categorical imperatives to see if such actions hold up morally.

First Imperative: “Live by the rule that you’d be okay with everyone else following too.”

If every player pre-arranged draws, the essence of competition would vanish, rendering a chess tournament meaningless. It’s pretty clear that if such behavior were universal, it would undermine the very nature of the sport.

Second Imperative: “Always treat people as valuable in themselves, not just as tools to get what you want.”

That’s a bit tougher to apply, but one possible way to think of it is that pre-arranging a draw could be seen as using the opponent merely as a means to an end. That’s securing a favorable outcome without the genuine effort of play. It doesn’t matter if both sides do it for the same reason. The reason is bad, so the action is immoral.

This fails to respect the dignity and autonomy of both players as rational agents capable of competing.

In conclusion, pre-arranged draws in chess seem to fail Kant’s moral test on both counts. They disrupt the integrity of the game and treat participants not as autonomous individuals but as tools for achieving a predetermined result. Therefore, from a Kantian perspective, pre-arranged draws could indeed be considered immoral.

Still, many chess players don’t think of it this way. I think that the next ethical theory may explain this phenomenon.

Contractarianism – The Slow Italian Game 

• Foundation: It’s based on an unspoken social contract that dictates moral conduct.
• Why Slow Italian:  It’s like this slow-paced Italian opening where players agree not to launch into early attacks, following instead established opening principles for developing and castling early.

People often think of contractarianism as a political idea, but it’s also useful when talking about ethics. 

It suggests that everyone in society has an unspoken agreement to follow the rules. This may refer to laws, customs, or traditions that guide their interactions.

Take the handshake before a game as an example. Expecting a handshake before a chess game is a tradition that goes beyond the official rules. It’s been a sign of good sportsmanship for ages, showing respect for the game and the opponent. If someone refuses to shake hands, it’s seen as disrespectful and leaves a sour feeling among players. 

However, contractarianism isn’t without its critics. It’s been pointed out that it fails to account for societal evolution. If we always follow tradition, and that’s what is considered the right thing to do, then how can societies become better? 

The social “contract” is believed to benefit the members of the society it serves, but as societies evolve, these agreements may become outdated. Yet, there’s often a sense of obligation to adhere to them.

When Kramnik had to justify why top-level players don’t think that pre-arranged draws are a bad thing, that’s what he came up with:

This is contractarianism. Top-level players have agreed that this is accepted behavior. Everyone has done this from time to time and expects everyone else to do this from time to time as well. 

Kramnik linked to the following article, where opinions on the matter are collected from top-GMs. For example, Grischuk offered another contractarian perspective:

“I don’t see an issue with them, honestly […] It’s part of chess culture for a century at least”. 

By now, you can see how different theories may attach a different moral value to an action. 

• For a contractarian, pre-arranged draws are acceptable.
• For a Kantian, that’s completely unacceptable.
• A consequentialist might evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. For example, a pre-arranged draw in a critical match could be deemed unethical, but the same action between two hobbyists at a local tournament might be considered harmless.

Contractarian thought fundamentally examines the reciprocal relationship and obligations between the individual and the community they are part of.

On one hand, by living within and benefiting from an organized community, individuals are expected to uphold certain moral duties and responsibilities as their part of the social contract. ²⁰

On the other hand, this social contract is a two-way street – just as individuals have duties to the community, the community itself has a profound moral obligation to respect the fundamental rights, and dignity of each individual member.

So, we should choose. Who comes first? The individual, or the community? Luckily, most philosophers agree on that. The guarantying of inviolable individual rights should come first.

Virtue Theory – The Ruy Lopez 

• Foundation: Developing good character traits
• Why the Ruy: Like the Ruy Lopez, virtue theory is a classic. It’s been around since the start of philosophical thinking, but it still is trendy and influential. 

Let’s say a friend asks you for help. What would you do?

• From a consequentialist view, you’d want to think about the possible results of helping them. If assisting is unlikely to cause harm and could lead to good outcomes, then you should probably help.
• Taking a deontological approach, you might be guided by the moral principle of treating others how you would want to be treated yourself, meaning helping your friend in need.

On the other hand, a virtue ethicist would think that helping a friend is the obvious thing to do. It is a matter of compassion and generosity. Why should we make any calculations?  

From a virtue ethics perspective, the primary consideration is not the consequences of the action or adhering to a moral rule, but what an action says about one’s character.

Just like you don’t think about breathing or playing the first moves of your favorite opening, try to be a person who does good things without having to think hard about it.

Virtue ethics is just a different way to see things. And, as we’ll see, this can solve many practical problems.

Consequentialism, deontological ethics and virtue theory

For the most part, consequentialism, deontological ethics, and virtue theory agree on what’s right or wrong. They may not agree on the “why” and the “how you get there”, but for any reasonably simple real-life situation, choosing just one of these theories to guide your thinking, will be enough.  Also, each one of these theories does consider what is foundational for another one, just not as something central.

For example, in the Kantian approach, there is space to consider outcomes, as there is space to consider individual rights for a consequentialist. Just, these considerations are not the central part, the foundations of these theories.

Most discussions in the academic sphere on ethics today revolve around the “outcome vs obligation” question, and what is the right mix. But in some other disciplines, virtue theory is the central topic of discussion. Some notable examples are psychology, education, and business. ²¹

As Kant is the main person who we should always mention when we discuss deontological ethics, for Virtue Theory, this person is Aristotle, who taught what we will discuss below around 350 BCE, or about 2,400 years ago. 

Aristotle and virtue theory

First of all, why should we work daily to develop our character? According to Aristotle, that’s how we reach the state of “eudaimonia” (well-being). For the philosophers of Aristotle’s time ²², answering the question “how to live a happy life” had a central part in their thinking. They believed that people with good character are not only good about themselves but for everyone around them. So, there was a strong link between personal development and how this affects the society. ²³ 

Aristotle thought that human beings have a natural tendency to develop virtues²⁴  that help them achieve eudaimonia. He classified them. The “cardinal virtues” that everyone should develop, are prudence, justice, temperance, and courage. You can choose to develop more,  those that make the most sense for you, but these four, are a must.

According to Aristotle, having the virtue of something sits at the middle end of two extremes which he called “vices”: one of excess and one of deficiency. 

For example, the virtue of courage is a mean between rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). ²⁵

Socrates, before Aristotle, taught that virtue is a form of knowledge and that ignorance is the cause of wrongdoing. According to Socrates, when someone behaves immorally, he is doing it out of ignorance. He/she isn’t educated enough. So, instead of punishing this individual, they need to go back and learn what is good and bad. 

Aristotle disagreed with the idea of virtue = knowledge. He believed that becoming a virtuous person isn’t about reading books, but it means practice. To do rather than know.

He also suggested observing. To find “good influencers”. Those who have developed these virtues, and follow them as examples.

Discovering Your Values

Aristotle’s teachings are still relevant today. But, besides these basic virtues, we should create and use our own “ethical compass” by identifying our own set of virtues, or what we usually call them today: values. These values act as a personal guide, helping us when faced with moral dilemmas. And as Aristotle said, just defining them, isn’t enough. We need to work daily to develop them and live by them.

To identify your core values, reflect on moments when you felt particularly proud or ashamed. These feelings can reveal what truly matters to you.

Following Aristotle’s advice, consider the qualities of people you admire. Their guiding principles can help shape your own set of values.

Start by writing a comprehensive list. Initially, it’s okay for this list to be extensive. Gradually narrow it down to the 3-5 values that feel most authentic to you.

Once you’ve made your list, consult with trusted individuals, like friends or family. See if they associate these values with you when you share your list. If they don’t, it’s time to reassess. Are these values a true reflection of who you are? Why might others not perceive them in you?

This method is widely used in business management training ²⁶ and by marketers when they’re defining a brand’s identity.

Companies need to set their values as well. I have learned through experience as a manager, that you cannot anticipate anything that can happen during the communication with a client, or inside a team. Companies have “standard operating procedures” (known as SOPs), but always something happens that gets you out of the normal procedure. What should you do then? This is when the company’s values come to the rescue! ²⁷

Put simply, when things are unclear, following your values will guarantee that you will not mess up. Things might end up badly, but you’ll know that you did the best you could. From an ethical point of view, you did the right thing.  ²⁸

An Ethical Guide For Chess Players

So far in this article, I have described the analytical tools with which each of the different ethical theories described above provides us. I have also shown how these tools can be applied to analyze deep and complex issues and how different ethical theories can have different viewpoints regarding the morality of a specific issue.

In the final part of the article, I would like to try to go a step further and build upon these tools/theories to create an algorithm for the potential “EthicFish” engine, which would enable us to analyze and evaluate complex moral issues. And then apply that very same algorithm to a concrete, real-life example that caused a lot of controversy at the time.

Theoretical Framework: Nikos’ Step-By-Step Guide To Ethics

Step 1: Consequentialist Consideration

First, carefully consider the potential consequences of your action or decision on all those who may be affected. Strive to maximize overall well-being, minimize harm, and promote the greater good. 

However, if the outcomes are unclear or too difficult to predict, move to the next step.

Step 2: Deontological Principles

Apply the test of universalizability – could the reasons behind your action be willed as a universal law? Additionally, respect the autonomy, rights, and dignity of all persons involved. 

If these Kantian principles do not provide a clear resolution, proceed to the next part.

Step 3: Social Norms and Traditions

Examine relevant laws, cultural traditions, and established practices pertaining to the ethical dilemma. 

If this exploration still does not yield a satisfactory solution, advance to the final step.

Part 4: Personal Virtues and Values

Ultimately, draw upon your virtues, and values to guide your decision. Strive to act with integrity, compassion, and courage. If needed, seek advice from individuals you regard as morally exemplary.

Practical Application: How do female chess influencers promote chess?

To see how we can use the ethical guide described above in practice, let’s try to apply it to a real-life example. The following post on X by WGM Dina Belenkaya caused a lot of controversy at the time when it was posted and became a topic of many debates:

Should female chess influencers promote this type of content? Do they do it for the clicks and to get FanHouse subs, or to promote female chess players’ empowerment? Or we shouldn’t care, as they have the right to do whatever they want?

Let us use our ethical formula, to see if we can get an answer.

Step 1: Consequentialist Consideration

This type of content brings eyeballs to female chess. The above post had more than 600k impressions. That’s a positive. But, some female chess players didn’t feel well with it. Please remember, that if they were right to feel offended, or not, doesn’t matter at this point. What we know, is that a significant number of women didn’t like this content and expressed it openly.

Do we know if this post brought financial benefits to those involved? Directly, possibly yes, and that should be counted as a positive. Do we know if this had any measurable effects, positive or negative on the community of female players? That is much more difficult to judge. 

Different people will weigh differently the balance of the outcomes. I do think that the most significant element here is the number of people that saw the post, and the number of people that liked it (which was also big). 

But, even though I feel that so far we are on the positive side, let’s move on to the next step to see if this will offer us a different perspective.

Step 2: Deontological Principles

To apply Kant’s principles to this promotional post, we should ask:

• Would it be acceptable for all influencers to promote content in the same manner?
• Are the influencers respecting the autonomy, rights, and dignity of themselves and others? 
• Are they treating themselves and their audience as ends in themselves, not merely as a means to gain followers or subscriptions?

Different people can argue about the answers to these questions. But, I accepted the risk of offering my point of view, so I’ll not back up now. 

I will say that for the first two questions, it is a clear “yes” for me.

But, for the third question, it feels to me that the answer is that the influencers involved, seem to want to use their post as a way to gain paid subscriptions. The reason I think this observation is fair is that the message has 1 photo and 2 sentences. One of the sentences is about following the influencers on their FanHouse profile.  This consists of 50% of the message they communicated.

If the message contained other elements, I would be less certain, but as things stand, I cannot but consider that the Kantian consideration makes this post fall somewhat on the negative side. 

However, we still don’t have clarity. Let’s continue then to the next step.

Step 3: Social Norms and Traditions

For this step, this is what we should consider:

• Legal Framework. I do believe that there is nothing wrong here.
• Cultural Expectations. What are the cultural attitudes towards the portrayal of women in media and sports within the community where the content is being shared? 
• Industry Practices. What are the common practices within the chess community and the broader field of influencer marketing? Does the content adhere to or deviate from these established practices?

The contractarian perspective doesn’t strongly oppose the influencers’ approach, although it’s unusual to see prominent female chess players in such attire. While this is more common in other sports, society today isn’t generally shocked by women in lingerie. 

We’ll now consider the final step to see if it helps us reach a clearer conclusion.

Part 4: Personal Virtues and Values

For those who follow me on social media, you likely have an idea of the things that are important to me. I greatly value providing meaningful content to my audience, whether that’s sharing knowledge or practical advice. While I don’t oppose lighter, entertaining posts, I take issue with content that aims to draw attention to individuals solely based on their physical appearance rather than conveying a broader, positive message or highlighting a worthy cause.

“Girls do it better than Messi and Ronaldo” feels like a lost opportunity to me to highlight a bigger message about the multifaceted talents and creative power of women beyond just physical comparisons or objectification.  

So, ultimately, this post left a bitter taste in my mouth, but I have to admit that when I analyzed this with the help of all the tools presented here, my opinion became less strong. The above tools forced me to see different angles, and even consider at some point changing my opinion from a negative, to a positive one (although, never strongly positive). 

I hope that you were able to find the same exercise as useful and enlightening as it was for me.

Conclusion

That was a lengthy article covering many ethical concepts and examples. If you made it this far, congratulations!

As you saw, I personally lean more towards a consequentialist/utilitarian approach because “providing value” is one of my guiding principles. But I also recognize the importance of moral obligations, as well as how traditions significantly inform many people’s decisions.

Aristotle’s idea that shaping an ethical character is a constant, daily effort resonates with me. The tools examined here have helped me in this ongoing pursuit. Hopefully, they’ll aid you as well.

Lastly, I presented an amateur attempt to create a formula by combining core elements from different ethical theories into “Nikos Ethics.” I am not unhappy with what I came up with but don’t take that seriously. What you can do instead, is follow modern philosophers, and study their frameworks. Developing new approaches by synthesizing fundamental theories is central to modern ethics discussions.

See you on X, Facebook or LinkedIn when the next chess drama unfolds!

The post An Ethical Guide For Chess Players appeared first on Chessentials.

On February 26th, 2024, one of the biggest, proudest moments of my professional life (so far) happened – the publication of the Chessable course Gustafsson’s Aggressive 1.e4 – Part 1, which I co-authored with none other but the renowned Grandmaster, commentator and opening theoretician, GM Jan Gustafsson.

To celebrate this moment and my part when it comes to the marketing of the course, I have decided to write an article in which I will talk about how the course came to be and what kind of lines and “style” a prospective student should expect out of it.

I hope you will enjoy it and find it useful.

Gustafsson’s Aggressive 1.e4 – Part 1

Basic Information About The Course?

Gustafsson’s Aggressive 1.e4 is a repertoire aimed at providing you with an overall 1.e4 repertoire. In the first part of this repertoire, we will be covering everything apart from the French, Caro-Kann, and the Sicilian. In other words, we are covering 1.e4 e5 complex and everything else Black can throw at us after 1.e4.

The course consists of:

• 579 Lines/Variations available to the user to “train”
• 59 Informational Variations
• 37 Annotated Model Games
• 166 Tactical and Strategic Puzzles
• 285.175 Words
• 20 hours and 28 minutes of video, presented by GM Jan Gustafsson

Which Lines Are Recommended In The Course?

A) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 the Italian with 3.Bc4 will be our choice

and now:

A1) After 3…Bc5, we will be going for the sharp Dubov Italian after 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.b4!?

A2) After 3…Nf6, we will be going for what I – for some reason – called the Three Knights Variation with 4.Ng5, when the principled line in the absolute mainline is 4…d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3!?

B) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 we will be going for 3.d4. In the absolute main line of the system after 3…Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 Jan has decided to recommend the move 7.Nd2!?, which was used by Magnus in his World Chess Championship against Ian Nepomniachtchi. And Jan was a member of Magnus’ team!

C) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7, Jan has decided to go for the move 6.g3!?, which doesn’t look so aggressive at first, but can quickly lead to wild stuff after 6….d5 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bg2!?. Otherwise, we will want to secure a stable space advantage and slowly suffocate Black.

D) In the Philidor Hanham after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7, Jan has come up with a rare move 5.a4!?, seizing space on the queenside immediately. Once again, the idea is to suffocate Black. And if they play 5…a5 we go 6.g4!? and claim we are getting a better version of the 5.g4!? Gambit with the moves a4 and a5 included.

E) Against the Scandinavian Defence, we will be going for the absolute main variation with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 and play principled chess, since White has a good chance of seizing the initiative and fighting for the advantage without necessarily trying to sacrifice a pawn or do something crazy at all costs.

F) Against the Alekhine Defence, we have decided to go for the maximalist approach with the Four Pawns Attack, arising after 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4! This line is not very challenging, but also quite practical, since it significantly reduces Black’s options compared to the other variations of the Alekhine.

G) Against the Pirc/Modern, Jan has decided to go for the not-so-aggressive-looking Classical Variation after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 at first glance, this setup doesn’t fit into the repertoire with the word ‘Aggressive’ in the title. But it is a rather practical choice because it allows us to play it against both Pirc and Modern move orders. Besides, this setup still has a lot of ‘aggressive’ potential due to the possibility of advancing the e-pawn rather quickly. For example, one of the main variations of the Pirc complex arises after 4…Bg7 5.Be2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7.Re1 Nbd7 8.e5 Ng4 9.e6 where we once again sacrifice a pawn for long-term compensation, fully in the spirit of this repertoire.

I) Finally, the last two chapters deal with all the other 1st moves Black can throw at us after 1.e4, such as 1…Nc6, 1…b6, 1…a6 and many others. In these last two chapters, we didn’t try to reinvent the wheel but occupied the center and tried to play principled chess.

(Do note that all the other moves after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, as well nonsense such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5?! or 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?! are also all covered)

What Is The Philosophy/Style Of The Course?

As the title of the course suggests and the lines above demonstrate, throughout this repertoire, Jan has tried to suggest combative and aggressive lines where White tries to pose immediate problems to the opponent and fight for the initiative from the get-go. Often, we should be willing to sacrifice at least one pawn to achieve our aims.

However, there are also places (most notably the Three Knights chapters) where we are the ones willing to grab some material and then fend off our opponent’s initiative. Although the positions are again crazy-looking and highly tactical, as the following example demonstrates:

The general idea was to avoid playing strategical positions and “typical” structures as often as possible, but rather to prefer a more concrete, move-by-move approach. The idea is to get our opponent into a position where the better-prepared player has better chances – and we hope that it will be us after going through the material in this repertoire.

Of course, as much as we try, it is not completely possible to avoid playing quieter positions and typical structures. Most notably in the Scandinavian chapters, where one often gets the structure where White has the pawn on d4 and the opponent has the pawns on e6 and c6 (albeit usually a good version). Some positional variations can also be seen in the Pirc, Open Philidor, and Philidor Hanham chapters, but we don’t necessarily mind entering a positional variation if it is considered to be better for White.

Can I Expect To Obtain A Won Position Directly Out Of The Opening?

Depends on the opening we are talking about. One very important thing to mention is that our approach in the 1.e4 e5 mainlines was different than the approach in the rest of the course.

Against other openings, White is objectively able to fight for the advantage. In most cases (most notably the Scandinavian and Alekhine) we have tried to maximize our chances and go for the most principled and aggressive setup. But even in the Pirc and the Philidor, where we have opted for a more practical and fresh approach, we have tried to be as ambitious as possible and objectively fight for the advantage, instead of just “getting a game”. Against all of these openings, Jan has been able to demonstrate a path toward an advantage. Although one could debate

However, in the 1.e4 e5 complex, it is objectively very difficult to fight for the advantage in the mainlines – especially in aggressive ones. Therefore, Jan was trying to come up with variations that are aggressive, lesser-known, and not total nonsense. The verdict is that both The Dubov Italian and the main variation of the Three Knights with 8.Qf3!? are comparatively fresh, challenging, venomous – and objectively not that bad for White.

Of course, we are not claiming that White has an objective advantage in these lines. But the same can be said about any variation in the 1.e4 e5 complex. The good thing is – even in the worst-case scenario where Black finds all the best possible moves, we are not seriously risking to be worse. Our hope when playing these lines is that most of our opponents will not be that well-prepared and able to find the best moves.

True, such an aggressive way of playing does entail a certain degree of risk, because even if we reach an “objectively equal” position, it might still be a rather difficult one to handle for both sides. But we figured this degree of risk is acceptable and something we are willing to live with.

How This Course Came To Be?

When this repertoire was first announced, I am sure many of you were wondering: ‘How on Earth did a schmock like you get to collaborate with someone like Jan?’ To be completely honest, I am still in disbelief. But to explain how exactly this collaboration came to be, let me take you on a brief stroll down memory lane.

For a long time, I have had an idea to do a very specific opening repertoire for the White pieces. However, back in 2021 (or was it 2022?), when I was still working for Chessable in the capacity of the Publishing Manager, I received an email from Jan where he pitched that very same idea. Given his stature and the fact that specific repertoire fits rather nicely with the ‘Chicken Chess’ brand, I figured my ideas of executing it myself were not very likely to materialize, so I more or less gave up on that idea.

However, by mid 2023 a lot of water under the bridge has passed. And still, there was no news about Jan’s new repertoire/return to Chessable. I had the suspicion that Jan might find the writing part of course production challenging, so I figured I might ask if he would be interested in ‘joining forces’ and collaborating on this project. In June 2023, I reached out to our mutual ‘acquaintance’ Mr. Dodgy, and pitched the idea. Fortunately, the response was positive and after the ‘summer break’ we agreed to collaborate on a repertoire together.

True, the final topic of the repertoire was not the one we initially envisioned. But we still put our hearts and minds into this project that has been in the works since October 2023.

How Was The Work Between You and Jan Divided?

One common question people have when they see a project that includes the collaboration of two (or more) is: ‘I wonder how the work on this project was exactly divided?’. In the case of this repertoire, the answer to this question is comparatively straightforward.

Jan was responsible for the analytical portion of the work. That includes choosing the variations, doing the analysis, and providing me with files featuring this analysis. My input in this domain was restricted to double-checking the databases and doing my best to ensure, say, that the moves relevant at the lower levels (according to the lichess database), are also covered.

As for my part, I was primarily responsible for writing all the annotations in this course. As well as anything related to the course design, such as organizing the material in chapters or deciding which lines to present as trainables and which to include as clickables. I did all the work on the non-filmed chapters (such as selecting and annotating the Model Games) independently.

Conclusion

I hope this article provides you with a good introduction/overview of this repertoire. If you are interested but are still unsure about whether the course is for you – you can also check the Free Short & Sweet version on the course on Chessable.

Looking forward to seeing you inside the courses :).

The post I Published A Course With Jan Gustafsson! appeared first on Chessentials.

Note 2: This article assumes that the reader has a basic familiarity with chess titles and norms. If this whole topic is a big ‘terra incognita’ for you – I suggest reading my previous article focusing exclusively on the norms and title system. Or reading about it elsewhere.

Note 3: The first half of the article will talk about the concept of Round-Robin Chess Norm Events in some detail. If you are familiar with what they are and what purpose they serve, I suggest you skip directly to the „The Problem(s) With Round-Robin Chess Norm Events“ section of the article, where the real „meat“ begins.

Introduction

About FIDE Titles

Obtaining a chess title is one of the greatest accomplishments one can achieve within the chess world. ¹ Many chess players obsessively study night and day primarily motivated by the hope of seeing a few letters in front of their name on the starting list of one of their future tournaments.

Obtaining any chess title is also a very difficult and challenging endeavor. ² Only a very low percentage of all chess players actually manages to achieve one. Many players devote countless years to pursuing a desired title before obtaining it. And many others fall short without ever conquering that final barrier.

On the other hand, there is no denying that not all titles are equally difficult to achieve. There is a sentiment within the chess world in regard to the Candidate Master title, which is regarded by many as „not a real title“. ³ Some even share the same sentiment about the FIDE Master title. Not to mention the abysmal opinion of an average chess player about the female titles. ⁴

Irrespective of whether you share these sentiments or not – there is no denying that achieving the titles of International Master and Grandmaster (and consequently -Women International Master and Women Grandmaster) is the most difficult of it all. Not only do these titles require a higher rating than others to achieve them. But they also have a very demanding and challenging prerequisite for achieving them.

Title norms.

About FIDE Title Norm Prerequisites

In order to obtain the IM, GM, WIM or WGM title, a player – apart from reaching the minimum required rating – also needs to obtain three norms. ⁵ A norm refers to a successful performance in a chess tournament that meets the requirements for the norm’s fulfillment.

In order for a performance to be eligible for a norm, three criteria have to be met/evaluated: ⁶

Rating performance – A player has to achieve a predetermined rating performance during a single event in order to gain a norm for a specific title. This rating performance is higher than the minimum required rating for the given norm. For instance, the rating performance prerequisite for the GM norm is 2600, even though the minimum required rating to obtain the GM title is 2500.

Federation of opponents – A certain number of opponents has to belong to different national chess associations than the player going after the norm. ⁷

Titles of opponents – A certain number of opponents has to have a specific FIDE title of their own.

The norm system is what makes achieving the titles of IM, GM, WIM or WGM so difficult. For many players, they represent a major obstacle. It is not uncommon for a player to be rated well above 2400 or 2500 FIDE ⁸  and lack one or more norms required for the desired title. ⁹

Aside from the objective difficulty of having to perform at a very high level, part of the reason that achieving a norm is, to a certain degree, luck-dependent. All three criteria envision that you get just the right opposition throughout a specific chess event.

Players with sufficiently high ratings to ensure you can get the right performance.

Players from different federations.

Enough players with the FIDE title.

Thus, even if you play out of your mind, you can still miss out on a norm purely due to the things that are outside of your control. There are countless stories of players getting unlucky with the pairing in the last round of a big tournament and missing out on a specific norm. Not to mention all the stories where people do get the right pairing but then their opponent indulges in a disgusting practice of not appearing in the game – which also ruins the norm chances. ¹⁰

Thus, achieving a norm in regular chess Swiss Open tournaments is extremely challenging and luck-dependent. However, most chess tournaments are held using precisely this system. True, there are specific events such as the Chess Olympiad, stronger opens such as FIDE Grand Swiss, or national leagues where the likelihood of scoring a norm is increased. But these events are few and far between. And are not equally accessible to all potential norm seekers.

Thus, it is clear there is a place in the chess world for regular events with increased chances of scoring a norm for a specific title. Which brings me to the central topic of this article.

Round-Robin Chess Norm Events.

Round-Robin Chess Norm Events

About Round-Robin Chess Norm Events. The Motivation For This Article.

Norm events are chess tournaments whose sole purpose is to provide the players with an opportunity/increased chance to score a norm for a specific title. This is done by ensuring that the opposition a title seeker faces in a tournament meets the criteria for a specific title. These tournaments ensure that:

• the average rating of the tournament is above a certain threshold, which ensures that the participants can easily achieve the required rating performance. ¹¹
• the number of players from different federations will be sufficient for the norm
• the number of titled players will be sufficient for the norm

This is easiest to achieve in a (semi)closed setting with a limited amount of players. This is why the vast majority of norm events are held using the so-called round-robin – or all-play-all system.¹²

Most commonly, these tournaments have 9 rounds ¹³ and consist of a mixed field of 10 players. The organizers of these tournaments typically invite a number of „title holders“ – titled players (most commonly 3) from different federations. The rest of the field consists of players seeking to score a norm. The rating of these „title seekers“ is usually also restricted to a certain minimum threshold, so that the average rating of the tournament remains sufficiently high.

Under those circumstances, it is fairly easy to ensure that the minimum rating, number of titled players, and players from different federations are sufficient to guarantee a norm for those who perform successfully.

A typical starting list of a Norm event. Source: Zadar GM Norm Tournament, chess results

Now, all this sounds very nice and beneficial in theory. There is no denying that there is a need for such events within the chess world, given how difficult it is to score norms.

However, in practice, many such events seem to be marred with numerous problems. There are many shady practices and suspicious things happening „under the surface“. Many people in the chess world question their legitimacy, refer to these tournaments as „norm“ factories or even go as far as calling some of them „fake tournaments“. ¹⁴

A private message I received from a strong (2600+) Grandmaster after openly criticizing these events on my Twitter

Every now and then, a lengthy discussion about round-robin norm events seems to emerge within the chess world. Most commonly after a shattering, record-breaking performance by a very talented young player. The most notable example includes the case of the youngest-ever GM Abhimanyu Mishra. His scoring all three norms in round-robin norm events in Budapest prompted a reaction from the World Championship Challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi. This led to a prolonged discussion and a series of articles on chess.com and even the New York Times, where many problematic aspects of these events were tackled.

I myself have been pretty vocal about issues surrounding these events on Twitter. I first expressed my opinion after American youngster Andy Woodward made some astounding results in round-robin events in Serbia. More recently, I also wrote about this issue after 9-year-old Faustino Oro made a sensational record-breaking norm in a round-robin even in Argentina. Finally, just a couple of days ago, I tweeted in a very sarcastic manner about the success of a Singaporean teenager in a closed round-robin event in Budapest.

This last tweet, in particular, led to a very heated – yet ultimately unproductive debate. In retrospect, this is not surprising given that my reaction was very poor and not very constructive. I don’t think being sarcastic on social media is necessarily a good way of bringing light to an issue. Or starting a constructive conversation about it.

This made me realize I should probably do a better job of explaining my reasoning and arguments. I also figured I should act in a more constructive manner rather than purely mock and criticize.

Thus, in the rest of this article, I will explain why exactly I find some of these events so problematic. And then try to come up with prospective solutions and ways of improving the situation related to these tournaments.

As well as the title and norm system as a whole.

The Problem(s) With Round-Robin Chess Norm Events?

Excessive Amount Of Quick Draws

If you have read any of my Tweets, you probably know that one of my main complaints about Round-Robin Chess Norm Events is that many games end in quick draws. For example, in the most recent one, a big discussion revolved around this particular 10-move draw:

Kaczur Florian – Siddharth, Jagadeesh, 2nd round, Vezerkepzo September GM 2023

On the basis of anecdotal evidence and limited data size, I was under the impression that this number is significantly higher than in regular Swiss/Open tournaments. For this article, I decided to test this hypothesis with the help of Benjamin Porthault. He did a statistical analysis of games from a total of 13 round-robin events and compared their average duration (number of moves) with games from a total of 2 Open/Swiss events. The Round-Robin events featured in the analysis were as follows: ¹⁵

• Kecksemet Caissa 04 1993
• First Saturday GM 2009
• Charlotte GM Invitational 2016
• Kecksemet Caissa 2016
• CCCSA GM A 2021
• CCCSA GM B 2021
• MNE CHess June 2022
• Hamburg 2022 Chess Club GM Invitational 
• Third Saturday Mix 266
• Third Saturday Mix 271
• Fredericia 2019
• Vezerkepzo-GM-2023
• First Saturday GM May 2021

while the open events selected were:

• Qatar Masters 2015
• Moscow Aeroflot Open 2019

When selecting a data set, I tried to choose norm events from different years and countries, such as Hungary, Serbia, Germany, and the USA. As for the Open events, I have decided to select one featuring more higher-rated players (Qatar Masters) and one massive one, featuring more players of all rating ranges (Aeroflot Open). Also, given that an average Open features more games (and more moves), I figured selecting a small sampler size in that case would be justified.

The results of the analysis were quite interesting:

Diagram #1: Comparison of the average game duration between an Open event and a Norm event

In the graph above we can see two histograms. The blue one displays an average Move Count (length of the game) in an Open event, while the orange one displays an average Move Count in a Round-Robin Norm Event.

It is quite obvious that there is something weird going on in the selected Norm Events. While an average game in an Open event lasts around 30-40 „moves“, an average game in a Norm Event lasts either 10-15 moves (the first left peak of the orange graph) or again 30-40 moves, just like games in Open events.

The explanation is simple. The left peak of the orange histogram is there because so many games in Norm events end in quick draws, while the right peak shows those games where the players do actually play normally. The fact that this graph is so fundamentally different from the one for Open events demonstrates that there is something to the original hypothesis. That, on average, there are more short games/quick draws in Norm events compared to the Open events.

With that being said, not all Norm events are equally bad in that regard. Since one of the points I am trying to convey in this article is that there are legitimate Norm events, I asked Benjamin to plot histograms depicting the distribution of Move Count for every individual event. The results for the 13 selected tournaments can be found in the images below:

Diagram #2: Average Duration of the game (Move Count vs. number of games) for 13 Round-Robin events

From the diagrams above, we can conclude the following:

• two tournaments held in Western Europe (Federicia, Hamburg) had an extremely low amount of quick draws/games below 20 moves
• most tournaments held in Eastern Europe, such as Vezerkepzo GM, Kecskemet Caissa, and Third Saturday Mix had extremely high amounts of quick draws
• the only notable exception is the First Saturday GM May 2021 tournament. This possibly demonstrates that the invited field has as much to do with the „fighting spirit“ displayed in the tournament as the tournament name.
• This is further confirmed by the plots for the tournaments held in Charlotte. It was interesting to observe the difference between Charlotte CCCSA GM Tournament 2016 and CCCSA Summer GM A and B tournaments held in 2021. The former featured much more quick draws than the latter two. Which probably once again had to do with the field that was invited.

Now, there are two counter-arguments I can imagine attentive readers bringing up at this point. The first one is related to the size and the type of the data set used in the analysis. That the amount of tournaments is simply too small and not varied enough for it to count as anything more as „anecdotal evidence“ backed up with some data.

It is definitely a good point. There is no denying that the data set used is very limited. I fully agree this is a somewhat superficial and „quick“ analysis. That a much more comprehensive approach would be very much welcome.

However, I think analysis is sufficient for the purpose of this article. Our main goal was to provide a qualitative/illustrative picture and back it up with a number of concrete examples. I fully agree that a more comprehensive analysis including a much larger sample size is welcome. Or even required! ¹⁶Although I suspect the graphs above wouldn’t look too different even if you included a more varied/bigger tournament sample.

The second complaint I can imagine people having refers to the topic of quick draws. I am sure many might say that they don’t see the problem even if the data presented above is 100% correct. That they are completely legitimate and in accordance with the rules of the game.

I do admit that I have a pretty hardcore attitude toward them in general. I consider them one of the most harmful practices within the chess world that I wish were abolished. Part of the problem is that the word „quick draw“ is often equivalent to „pre-arranged draw“. In my world, this is equivalent to match-fixing. I will write about this aspect slightly later in the article.

But before that, let me focus on the main reason why I consider quick draws such a big problem in certain Round-Robin tournaments.

The basic economics of these events.

Economics according to which „title holders“ in these events get paid to play before the event even begins. With the money raised from the participation fees of „title seekers“.

This yields me to the next point.

The „Business“ Side of the Round-Robin Norm Events. The Conflict Of Interest

Previously in the article, I have already described how the playing field of a round-robin norm event usually consists of „title holders“, who are there to ensure that the norms can be achieved. And „title seekers“, who are there to try and get the norms.

What I didn’t mention is that very often, „title holders“ get compensated for their participation in advance, PRIOR TO the tournament. The amount of the compensation and the exact model are almost never publicly available. But from what I have heard, it most commonly boils down to a flat fee and is in no shape or form, tied to the titled player’s performance in the tournament.

Where does this money come from? Very often, the main income source is „title seekers“. Every player who wishes to participate and play for the norm has to pay an entry fee. These fees are quite substantial and much higher than in regular Open events. As an example, take a look at the propositions available at the organizer of the Vezerkepzo tournament in Hungary:  ¹⁷

Info from tournament organizer Vezerkepzo

This „distribution of wealth“ leads to a very curious situation where part of the playing field is motivated to try and play their best. While the rest doesn’t have nearly the same incentive. Which is why the vast majority of the quick draws happen precisely in games featuring „title holders“.

This is not just a superficial impression. In his statistical analysis, Benjamin also analyzed the average duration of a chess game for every individual participant in the above 13 tournaments. The results can be found in the table below:

Participants in the above-mentioned 13 round-robin norm events ordered based on the amount of short draws featured in their games. Note that for the purposes of the analysis, every game that lasted less than 20 games was characterized as a Short Draw. Also note that different events had different number of rounds (9, 10, 11 or 13). Finally – note that this list contains only the „worst“ offenders in terms of short draws – not all the participants in every single tournament from the list above.

It can be seen from the table above that certain players, such as GM Czebe Attila, GM Alexander Kovchan, GM Siniša Dražić, GM Tanguy Ringoir or GM Andrei Kovalev, drew a large percentage of games they played in events considered. ¹⁸

Of course, doing this against lower-level, untitled opposition, most of the time comes at the cost of the rating. It is not uncommon to see some of the „titled holders“ drop their ratings significantly by participating in these events.

For example, the aforementioned GM Alexander Kovchan dropped almost 80 rating points in 2022 by participating in 8 (!!) consecutive (!!) GM round-robin events:

• 10 points in March 2022
• 90 points in April 2022
• 70 points in May 2022
• 50 points in June 2022
• 40 points in July 2022

Source: Alexander Kovchan’s FIDE profile

Something similar can be observed in the case of GM Andrei Kovalev. Since November 2021, when he was rated 2501, he lost 66 rating points – almost exclusively by playing in round-robin norm events.

Kovalev’s calculations for December 2021, when it all started

Of course, not everyone is willing to simply shed their rating like this, irrespective of financial incentives. This is why more often than not, invited title holders are players who are past their prime. There is an ongoing notion that participants in many norm events are „washed-out GMs“. It is not a coincidence that Nepo used the „2400 GM luminaries“ phrasing in his controversial tweet.

Some people will make an argument that this is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs. That it is perfectly reasonable for such GMs to have a relatively stable income source: For example, during our prolonged discussion, GM Kevin Goh from Singapore stated that:

“many GMs especially in Eastern Europe are having a hard time finding a good way to make income. I am referring to the sub 2400 to say 2480 range of GMs who might be struggling to get students and simply have no chances to win prizes at open tournaments. Such events offer them some stable income”

To be honest, I really don’t understand why this view that „old GMs have the right to make a living via these tournaments“ is so deeply established within the chess world. The notion that „I once achieved a title so I have a right to make money by playing“ strikes me as very entitled. Especially in this day and age where the chess world is booming and providing numerous opportunities.

In my mind, getting paid to give quick draws and ensure that other players get their norm and titles is a clean-cut case of unethical money-making in chess. I feel it is a clear case of a massive conflict of interests.

Especially since there are instances where these titled players are at the same time the organizers of these events. For example, it is well-known that certain tournaments in Serbia are organized by GM Siniša Dražić. While the Vezerkepzo series in Hungary is organized by GM Czebe Atilla.

Both of these names were present at the top of the list of players who make the most quick draws. It is also noteworthy that Siniša Dražić currently has a rating below 2300, while Czebe Atilla is also significantly far from the GM mark of 2500 ELO. If there was ever a blatant example of someone being in a massive conflict of interest – here is one.

To be fair, to a large extent, this is true for many organizers of these events. Many of them view the organization of these tournaments purely as a business opportunity. Even a respectable organizer such as Charlotte Chess Club states on their website that they are an „Industry leader in Norm Tournaments“. ¹⁹

Of course, the main „product“ of the business is norm scoring. If this didn’t happen, the tournament would quickly become notorious for that, which would be very bad for the business. This creates a unique situation where all three sides: title seekers, title holders, and organizers have something to lose:

• title seekers might miss the opportunity to score a norm
• title holders might not get invited to the next event and lose a source of income
• organizers might get less interest in their Norm event, which means less income from participation fees in the future

This state of affairs was summarized by strong Azeri grandmaster Vasif Durarbayli:

First and foremost, your primary ‘product’ is the ‘title norm.’ Your main objective should be to create an environment conducive to players achieving these norms. Think about it: how long would a tournament last if no one managed to earn a title for several years?

Therefore, you should aim to invite non-ambitious titled players—those who aren’t particularly concerned with their ratings and won’t use all their energy trying to beat a more motivated title-seeking opponent. In such an environment, the odds of earning a norm increase significantly.

Next, avoid offering prize money, as this can overly motivate titled players and undermine your primary objective. Most norm tournaments sidestep this issue by providing fixed compensation to invited players. Last, but not least, aim for the lowest possible rating average to make the title more attainable.

With these factors in place, earning a norm becomes substantially easier than in a more conventionally structured closed tournament where prize money is a factor.

In conclusion, invited players, being aware of these unspoken rules, are more inclined to make short draws. This not only helps other players but also ensures they’ll be invited back for future events. It’s worth noting that only a minority of titled players consider short draws, even pre-arranged draws to be a significant issue.

Match Fixing

As far as I am concerned, even if the concerns raised above were the only issue of round-robin norm events, I would already find them problematic.

However, it gets even worse. Very often, these tournaments are the subject of very suspicious results and outright match-fixing. I have already raised this issue in the section about quick draws. Because in practice, many of them are actually pre-arranged (arranged before the game starts). ²⁰

Alas, it does not end with (quick) draws. Quite often, games with decisive results – or even entire tournaments, are fixed. In certain cases, there were doubts about whether a tournament whose results were submitted to FIDE had ever been played, to begin with.

Historically speaking, this is not exactly a fresh topic. There are quite a few very famous cases of tournaments/players where foul play was severely suspected. One of the most notable examples is the infamous tournament held in Strumica, Macedonia 1995. It was heavily suspected that this quadruple round-robin (!!) was fixed in favor of the current president of the ECU and one of Kasparov’s former seconds, GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili, who scored an outstanding 16/18 (!!!).

Source: ECU President Azmaiparashvili Mentions Cheating, Then Apologizes

Even more infamous – and egregious – examples of match-fixing was the case of the Romanian „Grandmaster“ Alexandru Crisan. He basically faked his way all the way up to 2635 FIDE/33rd place in the world almost exclusively by submitting very „convincing“ results from some fictive tournaments.

Even though none of it technically has to do with round-robin norm events, it is worth noting that the core issue here was the closed nature of the tournaments. Put simply – it is much easier to commit foul play in tournaments with a limited amount of participants (and limited exposure). Especially if the participants in these events know each other very well, as is often the case in Norm events held in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. ²¹

Besides, one doesn’t have to search too long to find suspicious round-robin norm events, too. When I was doing my research article, I stumbled on the following article all the way back from 2005 related to the tournament „Heroes of Chernobyl“ that seemingly never happened. As well as on this article, related to the tournament held in Alushta, also in 2005, whose legitimacy was severely questioned. ²²

In recent times, there have also been quite a few of these tournaments that have raised some suspicion. For example, quite a few people have dissected the tournaments and games where the popular streamer Nemo Zhou made her WGM norms. I also remember watching a very disturbing video by CM Sahil Tickoo where he describes how he was threatened by the organizer due to his unwillingness to fix games. ²³ The following Reddit thread is also very illuminating in that regard.

Another very notable example that I want to point out is the case of IM Bojan Jovanović. In September 2019, Bojan participated in two back-to-back round-robin norm events in Serbia, titled Narcis 1 and Narcis 5, winning 95 rating points and achieving two back-to-back IM norms.

Source: Bojan Jovanović’s FIDE Profile

There is heavy suspicion that these events were filled with foul play and match-fixing. FIDE’s Ethics and Disciplinary Commission conducted a very thorough investigation at the request of the FIDE’s Fair Play Commission:

The IP concluded that FM Jovanovic violated the Ethics Code (“the Code”), through match-fixing in two tournaments of the “Narcis” tournament series in Divcibare in September and October 2018. They further concluded that Mr. Jovic violated the Code by organizing the “Narcis” tournament series in Divcibare in September and October 2018 for the purpose of enabling selected participants to achieve player norms through match-fixing. The FPL recommended Mr. Jovanovic be banned for 4 years, his rating reset to 2270 and all norms achieved during 2018, 2019, and 2020 be annulled. For Mr. Jovic, FPL recommended a prohibition on organizing FIDE tournaments for 5 years. ²⁴

Alas, despite a clear indication that something was „off“, nothing could have been proven and FPL’s request to annul the results of these tournaments was ultimately rejected: ²⁵

Organizing a Swiss League of 14 players only, immediately next day after a round robin was also done so that norm holders complete the FIDE requirement of playing in a Swiss League, but a 14 players Swiss League is an unheard of event and has brought the game of chess to disrepute.

As noted by the IP in its report: “Immediately afterwards Mr. Jovanovic played a Swiss system tournament (“Narcis 5”-30.09.-08.10. in the afternoon), which he won with 7.0 points and achieved another IM norm. The tournament has a number of special attributes.

There were only 14 participants, 9 of whom had previously taken part in the Narcis 1 tournament. One player dropped out after the 4th round, another player after the 7th round. In the first round, one player was not paired. Another game was unplayed. One player was not paired in rounds 5-7.” This demonstrates how vague and weird this all is looking.

It is worth noting that Narcis 1 and Narcis 5 tournaments were virtually the last two tournaments in Bojan’s chess playing career. ²⁶ After achieving the title and 2400+ rating, he decided to retire from playing and devote himself exclusively to chess coaching. Back when lichess still allowed coach reviews, he was among the best-reviewed coaches on the platform.

This is the main reason why I decided to single him out in the context of this article. ²⁷

To my mind, this is the most abhorrent example of someone achieving the title in a suspicious/illegitimate way – and then using it to market themselves. And enjoying very big benefits from it.

I firmly believe that there is something wrong with the system if someone can reach the „top“ and earn more than a decent living by using corruptive practices. ²⁸

I genuinely think this system should change. That we should come up with constructive solutions to deal with the problem of Round-Robin Norm Events.

This leads me to the final part of the article.

Potential Solutions to The Problem Of Round-Robin Norm Events

If you have endured up to this point in the article, you hopefully agree with my viewpoint that the situation is untenable. That the existence of these events and practices related to them is harmful to chess as a whole.

The question is – what exactly can we do to change it? Are there any potential solutions the the problem of round-robin norm events?

I have pondered on this issue for a while. While I do have several potential ideas in mind. I think any solution should involve either a tougher or more stringent regulation of round-robin norm events. Or a significant reform in the titles and norms system to begin with.

Some of my ideas for dealing with the problems of round-robin norm events are, as follows:

Eliminating FIDE Titles

The main reason why players participate in round-robin norm events is to score norms and win FIDE titles. Thus, if we agree that round-robin norm events are problematic – the simplest solution to the problem would be to simply abolish the title system altogether.

This is actually not my original idea. When doing my research for this article, I stumbled on an interview by none other but GM Nigel Short who first proposed this concept all the way back in 2006:

“My personal opinion is to do away with these titles in chess. I know several instances of tournaments being fixed in order to help players attain the required norms and then get the GM titles. There have been instances of players throwing away matches for money to enable their opponents get these titles,”

Fortunately, I rarely endorse anything Nigel Short says or does. But this idea is worth considering – if nothing else from a contemplative/philosophical viewpoint. One could make an argument that additional hierarchical instruments such as titles are redundant given that we already have a ranking system in place. That ELO is actually a more accurate representative of someone’s skill level. ²⁹ Or claim that – just like in academia – titles serve more as a marketing tool rather than anything else. ³⁰

But that is a debate for another day. ³¹ In the context of solving the issues related to round-robin norm events – I don’t think such a radical approach would achieve anything. Cases such as Azmaiparashvili’s Strumica 1995 or Alexandru Crisan already demonstrate that rating manipulation are not a complete „terra incognita“ within the chess world as it is already. If ELO rating became the primary „value holder“ within the chess world, I am sure very quickly, Round-Robin Rating Events would appear.

Besides – going to the extreme is rarely the best approach. Even if we agree on a stance that titles and title system are the core issue, perhaps a better – and a more moderate – solution, would be to reconsider the way in which they are awarded.

Which leads me to the following two points.

Setting an Age Limit For Title Eligibility

One thing triggered me a lot in the latest discussion on Twitter related to the case of 16-year-old Siddharth Jagadeesh from Singapore. The fact that many people accused me of „dunking on a kid“. Stating I shouldn’t really use these kids as examples. ³²

To be fair, I partly understand where these people are coming from. As my posting history suggests, I often seem to raise this issue specifically when an underage teenager achieves a significant result. I also understand that naming them and shaming them – especially on social media – can be characterized as „going after them“.

But on the other hand, what would be a better time to bring this issue up? It is not like there are many 30-year-old IMs making norms on a regular basis. Not only are more than ever kids actually competing in these events – but they also get much more spotlight. Whenever a groundbreaking result happens, it makes it to the news very fast. Thus bringing the issue to the limelight much more naturally.

It really irks me that talking about this is perceived as „dunking on kids“. ³³ Instead of realizing that kids are precisely the best – and most egregious – example of a bad practice/system. It has become way too common for kids and teenagers to chase records, norms, and titles. Or more precisely – for their ambitious parents/coaches to force them to do so. ³⁴

Do we really think it is good to have a system where 12-year-olds like Andy Woodward fly over half of the world to participate in a sketchy chess tournament to extract benefits for the future?

I think not, which is why I feel it would really be a good idea to set an age limit – say 16 or 18 years of age – for all FIDE titles.

I understand everybody wants to have a direction in life and become successful and chase records and get invitations and whatnot.

But I don’t understand why everybody is in a hurry to grow up so quickly these days.

Can’t we just let kids be kids for a while longer?

Changing The Norm System

Throughout this article, I have mentioned several times how the current norm system makes scoring a norm very difficult and luck-dependent. A logical idea would be, to tackle the problem at its core. To change the norm system, to begin with.

I will not pretend to know in which way this system could be changed. Given that the clause demanding a specific number of opponents from a certain federation often causes players to miss out on norms, ³⁵ it could be the obvious starting point. However, abolishing it completely wouldn’t really solve the issue. I think that the number of suspect Round-Robin Norm Events would proliferate. It would be much easier to organize them „locally“ or „nationally“ and make „friendly arrangements “ in such a setting.

The other clause regarding the number of required titled players is also often problematic. Very often, norms are missed because a player doesn’t meet the sufficient number of titled players in a (Swiss) tournament. I have even heard of cases when people faced very strong opposition and simply didn’t bother to purchase a title. ³⁶ What does it matter whether someone has, say, an FM title, if their rating exceeds 2300? They definitely have that strength and it doesn’t really take away from your performance.

On the other hand, the rule does have a point, given that the rating performance is not a 100% accurate metric. Without this clause, someone could theoretically organize a tournament featuring a bunch of 2000 untitled players, score 8/9, and clinch a norm.

To an extent, this is what already happens. Due to the way performance rating is calculated, it is possible to meet the requirement without necessarily beating the strongest opposition out there. Tu quote one fresh example – Abhimanyu Mishra has become a grandmaster without ever beating a player rated above 2500 ELO. Thus, introducing new clauses, such as the one defining the minimum rating of at least one opponent, might also be worth considering. ³⁷

However, the danger is that introducing new clauses might make the quest for the norms/title even more difficult. Besides, it seems to me that, no matter how you define rules, people will find a way around them. I believe that, instead of trying to tackle the title and the norm system, we should tackle round-robin norm events directly instead.

Which leads me to the next point.

Eliminating Round-Robin Norm Events

If we agree on the fact that round-robin norm events are problematic – the easiest solution would be to simply abolish them altogether.

In the past, FIDE actually made a step in that direction. After the aforementioned Nepo-Mishra incident, regulations related to the FIDE titles were changed. An additional clause according to which it was not a must to score at least one norm in an Open tournament was introduced: ³⁸

Source: https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B012023

It would be very simple to go to the extreme and mandate that ALL THREE norms have to come from Open Events. Or formulate the criteria in such a way that Round-Robin Norm Events were specifically exempted without affecting other similar events such as National Leagues. ³⁹

Of course, this approach is probably too radical. It would lead us back to square one where scoring a norm would, to a large extent depend on luck and circumstances.

A potentially better approach would be to consider something more moderate.

This brings me to the final two points.

Regulating and Monitoring Round-Robin Norm Events Much More Closely

As we have seen earlier in the article about match-fixing – in certain cases, FIDE outright refused to register the results of specific round-robin events, signaling, therefore, that they are considered illegitimate.

I don’t know under what circumstances was such a decision taken. But the very fact it was done in the past means it would not be unprecedented. That FIDE could, theoretically, start taking similar actions again. I haven’t followed the situation very closely, but I can’t recall when was the last time a certain event was annulled or someone’s norm achievement was revoked.

I firmly believe that FIDE should start placing much more scrutiny on these events. First of all, I think general regulations for the organization of such events, with specific clauses defining what is considered as foul play, should be introduced. ⁴⁰

Then, perhaps a dedicated Committee should be formed.  The role of this Committee would be specifically to review the games from such events. To investigate all the circumstances under which the event took place. To potentially punish foul play in a much stricter manner than has been the case so far.⁴¹

All this might seem a bit rigorous and idealistic. But given the natural conflict of interest, the economy of these events, and the fact that all involved sides have something to gain, I think a more involved regulatory behavior is required and warranted.

Removing Fees And Introducing Prize Funds In Round-Robin Norm Events

When I first wrote about the topic of round-robin norm events on Twitter, I got into a conversation with a representative from the German Chess Federation. Among other things, he pointed out that the many such events in Germany are structured differently. Namely, instead of having fixed fees for „title holders“, these tournaments simply put all the money from the entry fees into a prize fund. And then have players battle it out – just like in a regular Swiss tournament.

In my mind, this is a very transparent and fair business model. Which is much less prone to „behind-the-scenes manipulations“ and conflicts of interest. Every participant in the tournament is motivated to fight as much as they can in every game. Otherwise, their final income from such a tournament will be significantly lower.

Of course, introducing this format change would make these tournaments much harder to organize. As we have seen previously – many title holders participating in these tournaments view them purely as an income source. I am sure many of them would simply outright refuse to participate unless they receive a guaranteed minimum participation fee.

But would that really be such a terrible thing? Perhaps organizers would be more motivated to find young, bloodthirsty players to battle their hearts out in these tournaments. And even if that turned out to be that difficult – would it really be such a bad thing to have fewer, but legitimate, round-robin norm tournaments?

Instead of so many norm factories?

Conclusion

Phew! With this, we have arrived at the end of this long article! I would like to thank you, dear reader, for enduring until the very end. I hope it has provided you with more knowledge and insights related to these events. And that now you understand my reasoning for being so vocal against them on social media a tiny bit better.

I would be thrilled to think what you, exactly think, about this topic (and the article). I would really appreciate it if you let me know your feedback. Either by leaving the comment below. Or by reaching out to me via email at continents.obp@gmail.com.

Until then – I wish you all the best and see you in the next one!

The post Norm Factories Or: The Problem(s) With Round-Robin Norm Events appeared first on Chessentials.

Women’s World Chess Championship 1930

Introduction

Three years after the inaugural edition of the Women’s World Chess Championship, the 2nd edition of the tournament was organized in 1930 – once again alongside the 3rd Chess Olympiad (or Tournament of Nations, as this event was called back in the day). The Olympiad itself – as well as the accompanying events were organized in Hamburg by the president of the Hamburg Chess Club and the German Chess Federation Walter Robinow in order to celebrate the centenary of the Hamburg Chess Club. ¹

Walter Robinow. Source: https://www.schachbund.de/news/id-150-geburtstag-von-walter-robinow.html

Participants and format

In contrast to the previous edition of the tournament which fielded 12 ladies – in the Women’s World Chess Championship 1930 there were only 5 competitors:

• Vera Menchik – the defending champion and the greatest female player of the first half of the 20th century
• Paula Wolf-Kalmar – third prize winner from 1927
• Wally Henschel – a German chess player and a debutant in this competition. Incidentally enough, just like Robinow – she would also later have to emigrate to the USA due to her Jewish origins
• Katarina Beskow – the 2nd prize winner in the 1927 Women’s World Chess Championship
• Agnes Stevenson – the only other British competitor, apart from Menchik

Due to the much fewer participants than in the previous edition, ² the format of the tournament was double round-robin (all-play-all).

Games and results

The defending champion Vera Menchik was considered to be the undisputable pre-tournament favourite. Not only did she win the previous edition in a very dominant fashion – but in the subsequent three years she participated in a number of „Open“ tournaments – such as Paris 1929, Karlsbad 1929, and Hastings 1929/1930 – gaining a lot of experience in competing at the highest level.

Indeed, Menchik managed to justify these expectations and defend her title. However, the tournament path toward the title was anything but rosy.

In the first half, Vera drew with Paula Wolf-Kalmar and lost with White to the debutant Wally Henschel. It is hard to emphasize how big of an upset it was – should it suffice to say that this was Menchik’s only loss in all of her appearances in the Women’s World Chess Championships ³ Needless to say, we should take a look at this game ⁴:

Note: The games are available for free in the following lichess study and can also be downloaded for free (together with many others) on my “Free PGN Downloads” page

Even after enduring such a shock, Menchik managed to retain her composure and continued winning all her other games. By the 2nd half of the tournament, she was very much in the race for first place and her 2nd game against Paula Kalmar-Wolf turned out to be the one to ultimately decide the champion

style=”text-align: justify;”>It has to be said I was unable to figure out in which round the game was played and how many points the players had. In his book Vera Menchik: A Biography of the First Women’s World Chess Champion, R.B. Tanner stated that:

„Shortly thereafter Paula also lost to Wally Henschel and Menchik won her second title“

But given that Wolf-Kalmar finished a clear point behind, I hope it is not a big historical mishap to say that this game decided the tournament. ⁵

Thus, with the final score of 6.5/8, Vera Menchik managed to defend her title and reinforce her status as the strongest female player of the time!

References and Further Reading

http://www.olimpbase.org/1930/1930in.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Robinow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Henschel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Chess_Olympiad

The post Women’s World Chess Championship 1930 appeared first on Chessentials.