Talk:Candidates Tournament 2024

Current leaders

I would suggest removing them, since to qualify from the circuit you need to have 5 eligible events and from rating you need 4, which neither Aronian nor Carlsen have A3811 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

They've been removed.

Incidentally, Carlsen has now stated that he's unlikely to participate even if he gets the spot: When asked whether we could be seeing him playing in the Candidates again, Carlsen said: "With the current format, the chances are very slim. If the format changes, maybe. But the chance of me playing in the next Candidates tournament is less than one percent." Double sharp (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe under the table there could be some more informations for each spot. For example the actual standing of the circiut with information how many tournaments everybody has played Future-Trunks (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The standings have over a hundred entries. Why not just link to FIDE's website for the information? By the end of this year, we'll know who it is. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need the current standings, but we do need a summary of the Circuit system, possibly under the standings (like the Rating and Wild Card in Candidates Tournament 2020–2021). A3811 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We do need the information who will be qualifeid. not only 3 players from world cup, but

FIDE World Cup 2023 (Baku 2023), three players who finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

If any of these players already qualified for the FIDE Candidates Tournament 2024 or the FIDE World Championship Match 2024 at the moment of the beginning of World Cup via another qualification path, the qualification spot(s) shall be be awarded, in order of priority:

- the player who finished in 4th place in the World Cup;

- according to rating as in (E).

for example Future-Trunks (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@A3811, Future-Trunks, and Double sharp: I agree with user A3811, the FIDE Circuit is worth mentioning into detail with it's own section in the article so that it would give some body and clarity into the article. In my opinion, the FIDE and Grand Chess Tour agreement section should be renamed as the FIDE Circuit. Underneath the text that's already in that section regarding the scrapping of the Grand Chess Tour and FIDE agreement, information about the FIDE Circuit should be put there as a connecting point (probably don't have to put a table but a brief explanation would be good).

For Future-Trunks' point, I disagree as the hatnotes I have included regarding the scenarios of the World Cup qualification should suffice, as there aren't enough sources (excluding the FIDE regulations) to dedicate a whole section to the qualification scenarios, and it isn't an important event to be worthy of a section (important would be for example all three sections underneath the qualifier table in the Candidates Tournament 2022 article). SpyroeBM (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

1 source FIDE reforms the qualifications paths to the Candidates Tournament

but now this article ist wrong. Its not the winner of FIDE Circiut, who will qualifier, but the best player in fide circiut, who ist not qualified by World Cup und grand swiss or is not Nepo or Ding.

And the same about Grand swiss, not the best two players from Gradn swiss, but the best players, who are not qulified by World Cup or Nepo or Ding. Future-Trunks (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Alireza Firouzja "not qualified or excluded"?

Why is Alireza Firouzja "the highest-rated player not qualified or excluded from the Candidates Tournament"? What does this mean? --KnightMove (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a "next" (which was missing), is the sentence still unclear? Banedon (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Now I get the message, but it is still a bit confusing. I try another wording. --KnightMove (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Links for page about FIDE Circuit

Should be there any links for non-existent page about FIDE Circuit? And if yes, and this page is supposed to be created, what kind of information should it have? Description of system, eligible tournaments, leaderboard and etc.? Селезняк (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Magnus statement about other World Cup Quarter Finalists qualifying

The quote is accurate, but I don't think Magnus can just gift this to the likely 4th place finisher. The situation of someone declining a position is not explicitly covered in the rules. It is more likely that the qualification by rating would be chosen by FIDE. ChessFan2799 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

... actually took another look through the rules. Does anyone think the "reserves" clause would be in effect? ChessFan2799 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed confirmed by the rules (and also Magnus' interview). Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

According to FIDE, the 1st reserve is World Cup 4th place. However, Magnus said the he would not play only in the current format (classical double round-robin). The format for the 2024 Candidates has not yet been announced. I suggest we include all the semifinalists as qualified once (and if) the format is announced by FIDE to remain the same. A3811 (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the FIDE website already states that the 2024 Candidates is an 8-player double round-robin (all-play-all twice), i.e. it is the same format as usual. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow I missed that, thank you. Should we then add the semifinalists as Candidates or wait for the official announcment that the Candidates will be classical (I'm sure it will be, but I don't think that's bee announced yet?) A3811 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Being a (non-tie-break) phase in the qualification for the Classical WCC, I personally think it's sufficiently obvious that the Candidates will be classical. That said, the precise situation still depends on the final two rounds of the World Cup: it is always possible that Magnus comes 4th (although granted, not the likeliest scenario), and in that case it would probably be the ratings spot that he vacates, rather than one of the World Cup spots. So I'd prefer to wait a few days until the semifinals or finals (depending on the outcome of Carlsen–Abasov), and leave the detailed description of the situation in the text till then. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, now it's clear Magnus will be either 1st or 2nd. So we now correctly have him as qualifying by the World Cup, and then withdrawing. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

But note this: In Grand Swiss, there qualifie not the best two player, but the best two, who are not qualified at the beginning of the grand swiss. If, for example, pragg will be 4th in the world cup and 1st in Grand swiss, he will be qualified by Grand swiss. And if Carlsen than withdrawels the reserve is not the 4th from World cup, but a player by rating. So we did not know which Players will be qualified by world cup and who is reserve, even if we know Carlsen will be wihdraw. Same thing with Fide circle.

All these important informations about qualification mode stood in the article, but was deleted. Future-Trunks (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point! I didn't realize it matters when Magnus withdraws. (If he never sign his participation, when is he considered 'withdrawn'?) Now looking like Caruana will be 4th, and he's leading the Circuit, so as you say, last Candidate will likely be another rating qualifier instead of 2nd in Circuit. It would be great if you could please add your comments in the article again. Thanks A3811 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought it through again, and it might be unnecessary. All other semifinalists will qualify by World Cup, or other path if they win it, in which case we can move them.

But anyway top 4 are confirmed in Candidates, they just might qualify by different path A3811 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, the regulations for the Candidates were released today. Double sharp (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing Scores of Matches

Lets just make sure that we're civilized about this, and that if notice that the scores aren't edited, then do it nicely.

Only change someone else's work if its misleading or wrong TheMiniWeapon (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening designations

Just a suggestion about the source for the opening designations: the ones provided by TWIC only match to the exact move order and don't account for any transpositions -- today's game of Pragg vs. Gukesh, for instance, started off as a "Queen's Gambit Declined, no Nc3" until it became a Catalan... until Nc3 came shortly after and it transposed into a g3 Nimzo-Indian line. Any other sources (lichess database?) that are more dynamic in designating the opening? Jcbdwsn (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there are articles you can find that give names to various openings, but sourcing each individual games seems kinda unnecessary. Sure, you could call Pragg-Gukesh a Catalan or a Nimzo, but QGD isn't wrong, and there isn't much need to name Hikaru's goofy 5...e5 Sicilian. So unless we can find a website very similar to Week in Chess that gives slightly more detailed opening names, I'd say it's fine to keep as is. My only suggestion is to remove "(without Nc3)" from Pragg-Gukesh, as it's not super helpful unless you know that means 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3. Nojus R (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There is good ol' chessgames.com. It calls Fabi-Naka "Venice Attack", though it describes Fabi-Abasov as just "Sicilian", and isn't any more descriptive about Pragg-Gukesh. Nojus R (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

chessgames.com is often more descriptive I think -- it might be worth switching to this considering that it could improve the designations for future games?? Jcbdwsn (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

rankings are inconsistent

In the two tables, at the end of Round 6, why are Gugesh and Nepo shown in rank 1-2 (despite having different tie breaks), but Caruana shown as 3 and Pragg 4, although they have equal scores? We should be consistent: either use tie breaks everywhere (rank 1, 2, 3, 4 etc) or not use them at all (rank 1-2 and 3-4). And I propose the latter (not use them), to be consistent with the official site [1] and also chess.com [2]. Adpete (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)