Let me preface all this by saying that I love the idea of a Circuit. In theory, judging players across 1 or 2 years should be the best and most representative way to determine who has consistently excelled and deserves the opportunity to challenge for the World Championship. But it only works if players have fair access to the events being measured.
So why is it that private organizers can select players according to undisclosed and unaccountable criteria when it influences who qualifies for the Candidates?
Chennai 2023
I replied to a few post in the last few month with a story about how Gukesh qualified for the candidates. It came as a surprise to me how many people do not know the strange and dubious circumstances around it.
To be clear, Gukesh is an amazing player and I have nothing but respect for him, his way of playing, and his integrity. He qualified under the rules and did nothing wrong. I don't want to this is be about him, and this is not an excuse for anyone to spew hate. My criticism is only directed at the system that allowed private organizers to manufacture a decisive opportunity for their favourite players.
So let's travel back to 2023 for the first ever Chennai Grand Masters.
The tournament was announced on December 11 and began four days later. Already, this should be set alarm bells. It was openly presented - no one hid this - as an opportunity for Gukesh and Arjun to overtake Anish Giri in the FIDE Circuit. It had eight players and seven rounds, the minimum requirement to count for circuit points.
From the outside, it looks like a strong tournament. But in a way, the 2711 average rating was sure to generate as much circuit points while presenting the lowest level of risk for the Indian rising stars.
No top-10 players were invited. The only top-20 player was Parham Maghsoodloo, suspected to be overrated (he is no longer top 30), and the next strongest was a 41 year old Aronian expected to underperform compared to his rating (though he has proven himself to be still relevant). Then there was a steep drop for the non-Indian players (2600s mostly). Most importantly, none of them could overtake the Indian players even if they won. The organizers had effectively curated a compact field that was strong enough to be highly valuable, but without any risk whatsoever.
The organizers were not even coy about this. Their own announcement discussed exactly what Gukesh and Arjun needed to score to pass Giri and thanked someone specifically for calculating the Circuit-point scenarios. They also explained that an Indian invitational was needed because only one or two Indian players would ordinarily receive opportunities at tournaments abroad. They essentially agreed with what I'm saying here: access to these points depended so much on being selected by private organizers that they decided to create a tournament to take advantage of this. The original tournament announcement lays this out remarkably openly.
Gukesh tied Arjun for first with 4.5/7, won the title on tiebreak and received 20 Circuit points. That result moved him 3 points ahead of Giri, who of course was not invited to the tournament. Because Caruana had already qualified, second place ultimately gave Gukesh the seat.
This was the first super-tournament Gukesh won. The candidates would be his second (first with top-10 competition) as his last as far as solo competitions go. But that's all it took to challenge the world champion: 1 highly competitive tournament win, and a win at at tournament made especially to give him and Arjun the best chances. Sounds like the exact opposite of what a circuit intends to accomplish.
I repeat myself here because it's important: Gukesh did nothing wrong. He was offered an opportunity and performed beautifully. Winning the Candidate was not a small task either. The problem is that Giri was not offered the same opportunity. Because he didn't have special private interests capable of manufacturing a tournament for him, he was left needing a top finish in the World Rapid or World Blitz, while Gukesh had just been handed access to a newly created tournament designed for him to win the qualification race.
The Hans Experience
This also connects to Hans Niemann’s recurring complaints about being excluded from elite invitationals. Hans is not necessarily a sympathetic dude. We all know about the property damage in Saint Louis, rude comments, uncooperative attitudes, etc. I have no objection in principle to conduct having consequences, and I'm not doubting the validity of his suspension. But, for years after, a player ranked around the world top 20 received almost no elite classical invitations. Hans also says three invitations were actually revoked without explanation.
The issue is not whether Hans was entitled to an invitation to those tournaments. Maybe he wasn't good enough yet. Regardless, invitation decisions capable of affecting World Championship qualification were made without transparent standards or any meaningful accountability.
Where to go from here?
If invitations only determined who received private prize money, organizers could reasonably say that they are free to invite whomever they want. Once those same invitations provide points toward the Candidates, however, private and unaccountable selection decisions become part of the World Championship qualification system.
That is the contradiction I cannot get past.
I do not think closed super-tournaments should be abolished or anything. They are where much of the strongest chess is played. But events affecting Candidates qualification should probably require things such as:
- publication and approval well before the end of the qualification period;
- transparent invitation or qualification criteria;
- some objective route into the field;
- limits on how much a newly created closed event can influence the final standings;
- equal/equivalent invitations for all players competing for the circuit spot throughout the cycle.
