Talk:Candidates Tournament 2022

Thoughts on new participant table? Personally I prefer the former one since it is more in line with tables for the past candidates articles though that's not necessarily enough to say the new one is bad. Don't want to edit it though without a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeviLevita (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean this version , which I will call "the reverted version", since it has now been reverted in this edit . I like how the reverted version was a sortable table, i.e. you could click arrows and sort them by rating or rank. I also think the order is slightly more logical, giving the players' names in the first column. (While qualification is happening, I agree it is more logical to have qualification method first, though). So even though it differs from earlier articles, and was edited in without a comment, I think I prefer the reverted version. Adpete (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It was me who made the edit, and to be honest I didn't think it would be challenged. I felt it was an improvement. The participants table should start with the players participating in the event not with methods of qualifications and the format had a cleaner look overall than the one we have now on the article. Since it was reverted you can consider it a proposal. ForzaUV (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

More information Player, Age ...

Player	Age	Rating	World rank	Qualification method
Ian Nepomniachtchi[a]	31	2773	6	2021 World Championship runner-up
Teimour Radjabov	35	2753	13	Candidate nominated by FIDE
Jan-Krzysztof Duda	24	2750	16	Chess World Cup 2021 winner[b]
Sergey Karjakin[a] (Disqualified)	32	2747	17	Chess World Cup 2021 runner-up
Alireza Firouzja	19	2804	3	FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2021 winner
Fabiano Caruana	29	2786	4	FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2021 runner-up
Hikaru Nakamura	34	2760	11	FIDE Grand Prix 2022 winner[c]
Richárd Rapport	26	2776	5	FIDE Grand Prix 2022 runner-up
Ding Liren (replacement for Karjakin)	29	2806	2	Highest rating for May 2022

Close

• Age, rating and world ranking as of May 2022.

Let me put it clear, FIDE position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with its code of ethics and subsequent decision to disqualify Karjakin. It is a judicial procedure, where Karjakin might have harmed FIDE's reputation if he remained a participant at the Candidates Tournament-2022. It is important to make it clear for the readers. Ans the word "support" is very general as it may include actions, while Karjakin expressed his opinion, where he approved the invasion. As to the CAS appeal, I believe there is no need for additional section here as it is close to 100% that CAS will keep the FIDE's arbitrage decision as it has even harsher position on the Russian athletes. So, Adpete, if you really eager to add this info, I think Karjakin's page would be the most appropriate place and it is much less relevant for this Candidates Tournament. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right about the reasons for his DQ. It would be good if that was expanded at the Sergey Karjakin article.

But I think we should mention the option of appeal to the CAS, as it is mentioned in both the references (FIDE and chess24 ). And since it is about his participation in the Candidates, I think it belongs here. Adpete (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Noticed that the Candidate Tournament articles does not use true performance rating (TPR), which is used in other classical tournament articles, such as the Tata Steel and Norway Chess tournaments. I think we should add this section to the cross table as it would highlight the level a player performed in a tournament, and that it is standard practice as mentioned with the use of TPR in other classical articles. For example, this is the TPR calculated for Ian Nepomniachtchi during the Candidates Tournament 2020-2021, which calculated to be 2851. Wanted to mention in the talk page before editing. Thanks. SpyroeBM (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not a fan of performance ratings, because the sample size is so small that they are not particularly meaningful. Where they are in the article, they should always point to a reliable source (for instance, they are given without any source at Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2022), not be being calculated by WP editors. Also, preferably a source should be used which has a history of not disappearing (e.g. The Week in Chess). As an aside, I always thought TPR stood for Tournament Performance Rating, and maybe we should use the abbreviation PR. Adpete (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have this table at least until the end of the tournament, because I find it very useful for fast checking of upcoming days schedule. Maybe it can be removed after the tournaments, but in the 2016-2021 Candidates articles it's still there. --Matey1671 (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I'm going to be binging the candidates and editing the schedule and ranking all tournament so don't worry about doing it --TheMiniWeapon 9:50 UTC — Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed it because the schedule is in the "Results by round" section anyway. Adpete (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean about earlier articles, but in this article the "Results by round" is almost immediately below where the schedule was. Adpete (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we do. It makes the table too wide, and it is not done at earlier Candidates' tournament pages. Adpete (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Maybe we can find some webpage with openings info and leave link to it, but even if no, I don't think this info is needed here. --Matey1671 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

i initially put it because it had been done for the candidates in 2013 and 2016. perhaps it could benefit from a smaller typeface ? Ayyydoc (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should at least try to make typeface smaller (I tried to do so, but it didn't change anything on mobile, and for me mobile version is the main problem of openings in this table (row heights are 4x-5x bigger because of openings) --Matey1671 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly just leave it in, I don’t think that there is any reason to leave it out other than aesthetics and also this could leave Hikaru accountable towards his bet with the openings he can’t use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:727F:7100:1C4D:C422:8540:7629 (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

To me, there is something wrong with putting huge detail on the opening, like "Grünfeld Defence: Exchange, Classical, Spassky Variation, 9.O-O Nc6 10.Be3", without an obvious link to the game score. (The games are in the external links, but nowhere else). I am ok with "Grunfeld Defence", but surely: anyone who cares about the 10th move will want to play through the game. Adpete (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree with this. It's agruable if we need openings info at all, but surely we don't need so many detail. --Matey1671 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I linked chess.com which is where the opening come from with the official boards, this also shows the full opening name which is what I have been going off of — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMiniWeapon (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand where you got the info from, but what we're discussing now is that chess.com's names of openings are unnecessarily detailed as for this article, so we should try something else. I personally like Lichess's opening info format (link to their broadcast is in External links). There aren't too huge details there. Also, if you check Candidates 2014 and 2016 articles, openings info there looks exactly like on Lichess. --Matey1671 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Some anonymous user is constantly changing one of today's openings from Catalan to QID. I am sure we should have consistency over openings names (get info for every game from one source), but this user doesn't provide any source or even just comment, he just changes it. If someone doesn't agree with me, please reply. I already did 3 reverts today, so I should not revert any changes anymore today. I don't know what to to in such situation) --Matey1671 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

But there is no good source for the opening listed either! The only reference given is "sourced from Lichess" with a link to https://lichess.org/broadcast/fide-candidates-tournament-2022/round-1/LsFeKWZU , but that has two problems: (a) is Round 1 only, and (b) does not give openings as far as I can see. Give a clear an unambiguous link, or a link for every round or even every game if you really have to, and that problem will be solved. I think we should use The Week in Chess (rounds 1-3 here ) because it easy to find the openings, and it has been around for 25+ years and almost guaranteed to not disappear. Adpete (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I could argue that: (b) There is opening name (you need to open the "book" section and not to be in the late middlegame or endgame), and (a) There is menu to switch between rounds on the page linked. I probably underestimated how tricky it is to find opening name for every game (for me it wasn't harder than on chess.com, but if you never used lichess broascasts, it can be confusing), that's my bad, sorry.

But I like The Week in Chess, openings names are even better than on Lichess, and all opening names are in one place, not like on chess.com and Lichess where you need to open each game and then "openings" section. Also, I found live page of Week on Chess where we can get opening names live (before it is published in magazine so we can source the magazine instead of live page). So now I fully support switching to The Week In Chess. --Matey1671 (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, we tried using The Week in Chess for openings, and it looks like the main problem with it is that they are using uncommon names for many openings, and this leads to many edits without source. I think that using ChessGames can solve this problem. It's surely reliable source (it is used in many articles about past tournaments). It uses a bit longer opening names, but (1) not so unnesesarily long as chess.com, (2) we can use shorter forms for the longest names. --Matey1671 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. As an aside, I think we are going to have to make that results table a single column: once Round 8 goes in, it will be too wide on many screens. That is partly why I moved the "points by round" section to in front of it. Adpete (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyways, we've already seen Nepo.... seen Fabiano too.... Yet to see Alireza....

Wish Nakamura would win this just to have a smile when he sees Magnus

And ask him; "What did you say 'bout me?"

😁😁😁 Volten001 ^☎ 07:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Sports table/Chess § "Rules for classification"?. CapnZapp (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how Sonneborn–Berger score is lower for Nepo after two games? He defeated Ding (the first highest rating in the Candidates Tournament) and did a draw with Caruana, the third highest rating in the Candidates Tournament. Caruana's opponents had lower ratings in both games. It looks like someone miscalculated here.2601:1C0:CB01:2660:9C06:E51B:DB4E:A1B4 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The Sonneborn–Berger score has nothing to do with ratings of the opponents, it depends only on their results in this tournament. For Fabi it's 0.5*1.5+1*1 (his score vs Nepo multiplied by Nepo's total score + his score vs Naka multiplied by Naka's total score). For Nepo it's 0.5*1.5+1*0.5 (his score vs Fabi multiplied by Fabi's total score + his score vs Ding multiplied by Ding's total score). --Matey1671 (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Sonneborn–Berger score is calculated automatically by template, so if all results in crosstable are correct, it is probably correct too. --Matey1671 (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Everyone please stop changing the rankings for the players to them not being tied. Leave them tied during the tournament as their is insufficient information to break the ties, ex. Hikaru should be put as 3-6, not 6 as its day two and all that matters so far is points — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:727F:7100:A07C:26EB:3195:1471 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

All tie-breakers are already applied in our linked source for this table (official FIDE Candidates website), so we should also apply them. Also, this is sufficient information, especially in later rounds. Why there should be some point where it suddenly becomes sufficient enough to apply it? --Matey1671 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ya good point, Ill start using that table. Also, don’t worry about editing the tables I can get it all done within 5 mins of each match ending and when we’re both racing to edit it it just gets annoying. If your the one editing the openings also, please use the linked website with the proper names for the openings — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMiniWeapon (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like us to use a "predicted SB", which works on players' scores relative to 0 (i.e. +1 if one more win than loss, etc). That means it predicts their final SB if all remaining games in the tournament are drawn, so would be meaningful. Does this has an official name? Or am I the first person to think of it :) Adpete (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I see many people are a bit confused with this table. I renamed it to "Total scores by round", so it's not so associated with points, but I'm not sure if it's the best name for it, maybe it'll be confused with "results by round". Please share what do you think about name for it. Also, I am sure that the format of this table used in 2021, 2018, 2016, 2014 Candidates articles is very comfortable and I don't see why we should change it from "+-" to just number of points. After all, total number of points after each round is already mentioned in "Results by round" section, and also with "+-" format it's much easier to see when decisive games happened for each player. --Matey1671 (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this table doesn’t show the “total” number of points. It shows the difference between wins, losses and ignores ties. For instance, Fabi has a total of two points. He won one, no losses and tied two games. He’s shown here as +1, meaning that all his games combined, he’s one more win than he has losses. Duda tied all his games, he had 1½ points, but 0 win minus loss, so he’ll show as “0” in the table.

Typically, in chess, you show the score as 7½/14, but this doesn’t (easily) tell you the win vs loss rate. You could have won 7, tied one, and lost 6 (a +1 score), or you could’ve won 1, tied 13. It’ll always be a +1 score, you’re ahead 1 point from exact 50:50 (ie, tying everything).

Maybe a better title is warranted or a clearer description, though the first line in this section sounds quite ok. It just shouldn’t be confused with “score” or “points”. Abel (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that using "+-" format instead of the total number of points is best because it is easier to see the relevant information. I have no preferences about the section name. Joserobjr (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we (a) replace "=0" with "=" ("=0" makes no mathematical sense, and I have never seen it anywhere except Wikipedia) and (b) remove all the "TBDs" - they make the table busy, surely a blank square is better. Adpete (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It was initally "=", but then someone changed it to "0" (probably they thought something like "that's a difference between numbers, so it should be a number too"). I changed it to "=0" then. I like "=" more too. About removing TBDs - I think that's good idea. --Matey1671 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoever the idiot who is changing the page before the matches are over, stop being an idiot and wait for the game to finished TheMiniWeapon (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:801:201:AA0:80B9:2B35:39A5:8987 so if you see this, stop being an idiot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:801:201:AA0:0:0:0:4739 does the same today (maybe it's the same user). I don't know how to deal with them. Is there a way to stop this? --Matey1671 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It says in the article that tiebreaks for first place are broken by a games not statistics so we shouldn't be using the tie breaking procedures to break ties for first place and should be leaving them tied (sx. fabi and nepo are tied right now since if the tournament ended right now they would have to play a tie breaking game TheMiniWeapon (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I just changed both tables. Adpete (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fair point, I just want to add that we should probably still arrange players tied for first (especially if there are more than two) by their tie-breakers (like: we apply all tie-breakers for arranging them, but leave their positions as 1-2 or 1-3). One of reasons is that if, for example there are 3 players tied for 1st at the end, they play round robin tie-break, and if one player wins it, and two other are tied in tie-break mini-table, then their tie is broken by regular tie-breakers. --Matey1671 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If Magnus refuses to play in the Championship, are the first place tie breaking procedures played if there are two people tie for 1st / 2+ people tied for second. i.e if there are two people tied for first and Magnus says he's not going to play will they play the tiebreak or if there are 2+ people tied for second will they now play a tiebreak for a spot in the championship TheMiniWeapon (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

No, there is nothing like this in regulations. World Championship qualifying rules just say that the player who finished second is invited. In Candidates regulations there are no tie-break games for the place other than first. Also, not even knowing the regulations, Magnus can decline to play a few month later, and then I don't see tie-break games organized separately. --Matey1671 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Because of this possibility, I expanded on Carlsen's comments (taking them from the WCC 2023 page) at Candidates Tournament 2022#Organization, and marked the 2nd places in the points-by-round-table. (Two sources should be enough; I guess Peter Heine Nielsen's tweet is also telling, as a long-time Carlsen second.) TWIC already singles out the battle for 2nd place as important, so doing so seems to be justified by RS. In the last few rounds, this would mean distinguishing players that are mathematically eliminated from the top two places, from those that mathematically cannot finish first, but could finish second.

It would indeed be an interesting situation if there is a clear 1st place, a tie for 2nd place, no tiebreaks are held, and Carlsen refuses to defend his title. However I suspect there will be no shortage of RS opining on such a situation should it actually occur, so if it does happen, we will just wait and see what they say. Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think colouring second and "can't be first but could be second" in that table would make it very cluttered, so I have taken out the extra colouring. Seems reasonable to include details about second place in the "Organization" section though, and doubts over Carlsen defending his title are a factor in that. Endwise (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it does make the table look cluttered, but the race for 2nd place is something that reliable sources are taking seriously, and I feel like that makes information about who's in 2nd place somewhat important. But I suppose it is already visible from the numbers. Anyway, how important it will be will depend on what Carlsen eventually decides: if he decides to play after all, then I agree it won't merit colouring in retrospect. If he decides not to play, then maybe we can think about it again. For now, while there is uncertainty, I'm OK with leaving the colouring out. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Endwise (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the blue for second place (i.e. this version ) looked cluttered, and besides it is not hard to work out who is second at any time. But I think two different shades of red (i.e. a. darker red, e.g. #ff8888, for "cannot finish second") might look ok. Adpete (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added that now. As of the end of round 12, every player except Fijouzra has a theoretical chance of finishing 1st or 2nd. Adpete (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think H2H column should be used only for players tied by SB and wins, because it's only 4th tie-breaker. If, for example, there are three players with same number of points, but only two of them have same SB and number of wins, then H2H score as tie-breaker is needed only for this two players, and is counted only between this two players. I think we should put H2H score between 2 players, not 3 in this case, and similarly we shouldn't put H2H score at all if there are no players tied after SB and number of wins. Matey1671 (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the H2H value should be filled for players who are point-tied, even if the H2H is not being necessary for the tie break. It is one of the criteria, and it's informational to show it along SB and number of wins. My understanding is that if 3 players have the same score (say, players A, B and C have 6 tourney points each) , H2H score of each is calculated against the other 2 (A's H2H score is sum of AxB and AxC, and so on). Fbergo (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. I was sure that if, for example, there are 3 players (A, B, C) tied for 4th place with 6/14, with SB scores A:40, B:38, C:38, all players have same numbrr of wins, and H2H scores A-B:2-0, B-C:1.5-0.5, A-C:0-2, then, of course, A is 4th, and then B is 5th because of H2H score with C. But, if I understood you correctly, you think that in this case C is 5th because of his total score 2.5-1.5 against A and B, while B has 1.5-2.5 against A and C.

I can't say that I'm sure you are wrong, because the regulations are not clear enough. If your interpretation is correct, then I agree that we should write H2H scores for all players tied on points, because these numbers are really 4th tie-breaker for all these players, even if it is not needed. But if we think that my initial interpretation is correct, than I'm sure we should not write H2H scores for all players, because these scores are not real 4th tie-breaker values.

I hope more people join this discussion and share what they think about interpretation of this part of regulations. --Matey1671 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to remove it; I agree with Matey1671's reasoning. But in that case, why not just remove the column altogether? Because it is extremely unlikely to be required, and we could always add footnotes if it is required. Adpete (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this, so I removed H2H column (now it was empty extra2) and also added comment with example of footnote about h2h scores so nobody is confused about what to to if 4th tie-breaker is suddenly needed.--Matey1671 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I removed both H2H and Wins, and added Wins as the "extra1" column. In this way, the tie breaks are in the correct order. We could have H2H as an "extra2" column. Adpete (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, having wins as extra1 column instead of default "wins" has downside: it will not be updated automatically. But I agree that it's still better to have tie-breakers in the correct order. I wish we could swap default columns, but it looks like we can't, so extra1 is our best choice. --Matey1671 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I just created the argument |sb_before_w= in the Chess Module, and have now implemented this new argument here. Seems to work just fine. I guess now I need to add it to the module documentation... NHammen (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If you win once and draw once against a opponent is your SBS for that opponent 1.5x TheMiniWeapon (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. You get 1x your opponent's score for each time you beat them, plus 0.5x your opponent's score for each time you draw with them. Or 2x their score if you defeat them twice, or 1x their score if you draw with them twice.

Strangely, even the FIDE handbook does not take account of playing an opponent more than once. It says "the sum of the scores of the opponents a player has defeated and half the scores of the players with whom he has drawn". So reading the FIDE handbook literally, you only get 1x an opponent's score if you defeat them twice. Adpete (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That citation is from 13.9.1 (single round-robins). Right next to that 13.9.2. covers double round robins. -Koppapa (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Duh! Thanks. Adpete (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If he drew with Hikaru, they each get half a point. 213.163.150.146 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems a troll changed the table taking Ian from it and substituting him with a (probably fake) Irish player 2A02:1210:80FA:CE00:E5ED:2189:4E6D:68A7 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

{{ITN note}} nominating for an ITN article. i'll add it to the page in a second. Ayyydoc (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Added. --PFHLai (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Double_sharp reverted my fix to the table color description. I'm fairly certain the correct description is:

Dark red backgrounds indicate player(s) who could no longer win the tournament after each round, while light red backgrounds indicate those who could no longer finish second either.

It's most easily seen with Ding's color in the final round, as he is the only one who can't win the tourney but can win second. The table has him dark red and the lower standings light red. This is fairly unimportant, but I'm trying to avoid an edit war. DanielTheManual (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the table has him light red (#ffcccc  ) and the lower standings dark red (#ff8888  ). Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see the issue now, the rendering for Wikipedia's dark mode is incorrect and caused the confusion. Check how it looks when dark mode is turned on. Possibly change one of the 2 to a non- red green color to avoid further confusion. DanielTheManual (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This does strike me as bad design of the dark mode. I've changed the first to magenta; hopefully that works better. Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This communicates clearly in dark mode, thanks. DanielTheManual (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The table in Candidates_Tournament_2022 #Standings lists the consequence for Nepomniachtchi "Advances to title match". It should also mention the consequence for Ding Liren - that he advances to the title match, provided Carlsen does not defend his title. Admittedly the syntax of this table is too complex for me to understand how to do this - anyone agrees & is able to help, please? --KnightMove (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats not needed. It's mentioned in text anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

As it's only a potential, I agree that it is not needed. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is a potential relevant right now, and it was the reason that the fight for 2nd place got much higher priority than usual - both for the players, and in the media coverage. --KnightMove (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

But we don't know if it will mean anything or not. And there is some chance we will have information quite soon (Sutovsky said a formal deadline was not set for Carlsen, but mentioned July 20 as "about a time when we will have a decision"). This is soon enough that I feel it's not really worth changing things for a potential when within nine days we will likely have more complete information. Double sharp (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a better solution is to remove the "Qualification" column altogether, if that is possible. As it stands, it is a lot of space just to say what is already said many times in the article. I agree it is a bit odd to have the space and say nothing about Ding's potential qualification, but there just isn't room to say something like, "Qualifies for world title match if Carlsen decide to not play." Adpete (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's unnecessary: our article on the 2013 WCC doesn't have such a column. The green colour can stand IMO, since it doesn't take up space. If Carlsen does decide not to defend, then Ding's row could be coloured too. Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree, the 2nd place potentially advances and needs to be marked. It could be marked light green or yellow, with a comment of "conditional advancement".PrisonerB (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Conditional advancement" would, literally read, also include the 3rd place: per FIDE, Radjabov would advance if another replacement is necessary beyond Carlsen. Not too likely, admittedly. Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the wording "conditional advancement". I think appropriate wording would be "Reserve for title match" or "title match reserve", because Ding is just that: a reserve. I think I even prefer that to deleting the column, but I think doing nothing (i.e. text for first only) is the worst of all options. I don't think a colour for 2nd is necessary. I don't think it should depend on whether Carlsen ends up playing, because during the tournament there was an awareness that second place was important. Adpete (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ding also qualifies if Nepomniachtchi doesn't play for any reason regardless of what Carlesen does, and this kind of thing has always been true for the number 2 forever in every Candidates ever held. Speaking as someone with no dog in this fight, putting this junk in the table is just dumb. That's what the article text is for. Quale (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The 3rd place, the reserve of the reserve, really is junk. But 2nd place reserve status with real shot of competing this year should be marked.PrisonerB (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Quale: "Ding also qualifies if Nepomniachtchi doesn't play for any reason regardless of what Carlesen does, and this kind of thing has always been true for the number 2 forever in every Candidates ever held." - the significant difference is that Carlsen's possible retreat has been announced, discussed and has played a huge role for those Candidates from the very beginning. Nakamura has personally admitted the obvious - that he was ok with playing a quick draw against Nepo for not to lose his chances on 2nd place. In another situation, he may have acted differently and played for a win to fight for his very last chance on winning the tournament. --KnightMove (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't responded to this because I wasn't sure myself what the best option was, and it still seemed like we might have gotten information by 20 July. However, instead we have a chess24 article repeating Carlsen's title defense doubts, and noting that apparently the 20 July "deadline" was all a misunderstanding. So I agree with KnightMove now and have added 2nd place with Adpete's suggested wording. I coloured it the same magenta as in the points table, to make it look consistent. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the correct course of action. Regardless of what Carlsen decides in the future, this article is about the Candidates; and during the Candidates all players were aware that second place was potentially important. Adpete (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, Carlsen announced he won't defend. So I guess "title match reserve" might not be the right wording anymore... Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced it with "Advances to title match, as world champion Carlsen retreats". If someone can think of an appropriate shorter wording, feel free. --KnightMove (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I had planned to post a full-throated screed as my final words explaining in detail why it was unnecessary and premature to specially mark the #2 finisher, but my dilatory return to talk was probably fortunate. My complaint has been overrun by real world events and it is clear that it is appropriate now. Quale (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)